Jin Huang1,2, Liying Yan1,2, Sijia Lu3, Nan Zhao1, Jie Qiao4,5. 1. Reproductive Medical Centre, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Third Hospital, 49 Huayuan North Rd, Haidian, Beijing, China. 2. Key Laboratory of Assisted Reproduction, Ministry of Education and Beijing Key Laboratory of Reproductive Endocrinology and Assisted Reproductive Technology, Beijing, 100191, China. 3. Yikon Genomics, Beijing, China. 4. Reproductive Medical Centre, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Third Hospital, 49 Huayuan North Rd, Haidian, Beijing, China. jie.qiao@263.net. 5. Key Laboratory of Assisted Reproduction, Ministry of Education and Beijing Key Laboratory of Reproductive Endocrinology and Assisted Reproductive Technology, Beijing, 100191, China. jie.qiao@263.net.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to explore which part of the trophectoderm best represents the inner cell mass after aCGH analysis. METHODS: Fifty-one preimplantation genetic diagnosis/preimplantation genetic screening of abnormal blastocysts diagnosed by array comparative genomic hybridization were included in this study. Blastocysts were thawed, incubated for 3 to 4 h, and then biopsied. Four regions were biopsied per blastocyst, including the inner cell mass (ICM), trophectoderm (TE) cells opposite the ICM, TE cells at the upper right of the ICM, and TE cells at the lower right of the ICM. The biopsied pieces were processed through multiple annealing and looping-based amplification cycle sequenced for 24-chromosome aneuploidy screening. The aneuploidy results were compared among the ICM and the different regional trophectoderm cells from the same blastocyst. RESULTS: Fifty of 51 (98.04%) ICM samples were concordant with at least one of the TE biopsies derived from the same embryos. There were 43 blastocysts in which ICM and the other three TE pieces were consistent. Discordance among the four pieces occurred in eight blastocysts. Only one blastocyst was discordant between the ICM and the other three TE pieces, while seven blastocysts were discordant between one of TE and the other three biopsied pieces. There was no special region that the mosaic TE was located. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that TE aneuploidy is an excellent predictor of ICM aneuploidy. The blastocyst mosaic cells are inclined to be located in TE. Moreover, the mosaic TE was not limited to the special region.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to explore which part of the trophectoderm best represents the inner cell mass after aCGH analysis. METHODS: Fifty-one preimplantation genetic diagnosis/preimplantation genetic screening of abnormal blastocysts diagnosed by array comparative genomic hybridization were included in this study. Blastocysts were thawed, incubated for 3 to 4 h, and then biopsied. Four regions were biopsied per blastocyst, including the inner cell mass (ICM), trophectoderm (TE) cells opposite the ICM, TE cells at the upper right of the ICM, and TE cells at the lower right of the ICM. The biopsied pieces were processed through multiple annealing and looping-based amplification cycle sequenced for 24-chromosome aneuploidy screening. The aneuploidy results were compared among the ICM and the different regional trophectoderm cells from the same blastocyst. RESULTS: Fifty of 51 (98.04%) ICM samples were concordant with at least one of the TE biopsies derived from the same embryos. There were 43 blastocysts in which ICM and the other three TE pieces were consistent. Discordance among the four pieces occurred in eight blastocysts. Only one blastocyst was discordant between the ICM and the other three TE pieces, while seven blastocysts were discordant between one of TE and the other three biopsied pieces. There was no special region that the mosaic TE was located. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that TE aneuploidy is an excellent predictor of ICM aneuploidy. The blastocyst mosaic cells are inclined to be located in TE. Moreover, the mosaic TE was not limited to the special region.
Authors: D S Johnson; C Cinnioglu; R Ross; A Filby; G Gemelos; M Hill; A Ryan; D Smotrich; M Rabinowitz; M J Murray Journal: Mol Hum Reprod Date: 2010-07-19 Impact factor: 4.025
Authors: Cara K Bradley; Teija Peura; Biljana Dumevska; Andrijana Jovasevic; Omar Chami; Uli Schmidt; Robert P S Jansen; Tomas Stojanov Journal: Reprod Biomed Online Date: 2014-02-25 Impact factor: 3.828
Authors: Zhihong Yang; Jiaen Liu; Gary S Collins; Shala A Salem; Xiaohong Liu; Sarah S Lyle; Alison C Peck; E Scott Sills; Rifaat D Salem Journal: Mol Cytogenet Date: 2012-05-02 Impact factor: 2.009
Authors: Nidhee M Sachdev; David H McCulloh; Yael Kramer; David Keefe; James A Grifo Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2020-02-28 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: Filippo Maria Ubaldi; Danilo Cimadomo; Alberto Vaiarelli; Gemma Fabozzi; Roberta Venturella; Roberta Maggiulli; Rossella Mazzilli; Susanna Ferrero; Antonio Palagiano; Laura Rienzi Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Date: 2019-02-20 Impact factor: 5.555
Authors: N Gleicher; D F Albertini; D H Barad; H Homer; D Modi; M Murtinger; P Patrizio; R Orvieto; S Takahashi; A Weghofer; S Ziebe; N Noyes Journal: Reprod Biol Endocrinol Date: 2020-05-29 Impact factor: 5.211