Claire E Beyer1, E Willats2. 1. Monash IVF, Suite 1, 252 Clayton Rd, Clayton, VIC, 3168, Australia. clillee@monashivf.com. 2. Monash IVF, Suite 1, 252 Clayton Rd, Clayton, VIC, 3168, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: For translocation carriers, preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) provides the opportunity to distinguish between normal/balanced and unbalanced embryos prior to implantation and, as such, increases the likelihood of a successful ongoing pregnancy. The data presented here compares autosomal reciprocal and Robertsonian translocation segregation patterns in day 3 versus day 5/6 IVF-PGD embryos to determine if there is a difference in the chromosome segregation patterns observed at these developmental time points. METHODS: A retrospective analysis on PGD translocation carriers at Monash IVF was performed. Segregation patterns were compared between day 3 and day 5/6 embryos to ascertain whether selection against malsegregants exists. RESULTS: For reciprocal translocations, 1649 day 3 embryos (139 translocations) from 144 couples and 128 day 5/6 embryos (59 translocations) from 60 couples were analysed. Day 3 segregation analysis showed that 22.3% of embryos were normal/balanced (consistent with 2:2 alternate segregation) and 77.7% were unbalanced (malsegregation). Day 5/6 segregation analysis showed that 53.1% of embryos were normal/balanced and 46.9% were unbalanced. For Robertsonian translocations, 847 day 3 embryos (8 translocations) from 54 couples and 193 day 5/6 embryos (6 translocations) from 31 couples were analysed. Day 3 segregation analysis showed that 38.7% of embryos were normal/balanced (consistent with 2:1 alternate segregation) and 61.3% were unbalanced. Day 5/6 segregation analysis showed that 74.1% of embryos were normal/balanced and 25.9% were unbalanced. CONCLUSIONS: This data demonstrates an increase in the proportion of genetically normal/balanced embryos at day 5/6 of development. This suggests a strong natural selection process between day 3 and day 5/6 in favour of normal/balanced embryos. These findings support performing PGD testing on day 5/6 of embryo development.
PURPOSE: For translocation carriers, preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) provides the opportunity to distinguish between normal/balanced and unbalanced embryos prior to implantation and, as such, increases the likelihood of a successful ongoing pregnancy. The data presented here compares autosomal reciprocal and Robertsonian translocation segregation patterns in day 3 versus day 5/6 IVF-PGD embryos to determine if there is a difference in the chromosome segregation patterns observed at these developmental time points. METHODS: A retrospective analysis on PGD translocation carriers at Monash IVF was performed. Segregation patterns were compared between day 3 and day 5/6 embryos to ascertain whether selection against malsegregants exists. RESULTS: For reciprocal translocations, 1649 day 3 embryos (139 translocations) from 144 couples and 128 day 5/6 embryos (59 translocations) from 60 couples were analysed. Day 3 segregation analysis showed that 22.3% of embryos were normal/balanced (consistent with 2:2 alternate segregation) and 77.7% were unbalanced (malsegregation). Day 5/6 segregation analysis showed that 53.1% of embryos were normal/balanced and 46.9% were unbalanced. For Robertsonian translocations, 847 day 3 embryos (8 translocations) from 54 couples and 193 day 5/6 embryos (6 translocations) from 31 couples were analysed. Day 3 segregation analysis showed that 38.7% of embryos were normal/balanced (consistent with 2:1 alternate segregation) and 61.3% were unbalanced. Day 5/6 segregation analysis showed that 74.1% of embryos were normal/balanced and 25.9% were unbalanced. CONCLUSIONS: This data demonstrates an increase in the proportion of genetically normal/balanced embryos at day 5/6 of development. This suggests a strong natural selection process between day 3 and day 5/6 in favour of normal/balanced embryos. These findings support performing PGD testing on day 5/6 of embryo development.
Authors: Pere Colls; Tomas Escudero; Jill Fischer; Natalie A Cekleniak; Snunit Ben-Ozer; Bill Meyer; Miguel Damien; Jamie A Grifo; Avner Hershlag; Santiago Munné Journal: Reprod Biomed Online Date: 2012-02-22 Impact factor: 3.828
Authors: M Benkhalifa; S Kasakyan; P Clement; M Baldi; G Tachdjian; A Demirol; T Gurgan; F Fiorentino; M Mohammed; M B Qumsiyeh Journal: Prenat Diagn Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 3.050
Authors: E Mateu-Brull; L Rodrigo; V Peinado; A Mercader; I Campos-Galindo; F Bronet; S García-Herrero; M Florensa; M Milán; C Rubio Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2019-11-06 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: Dalia Mostafa Nayel; Hanan Salah El Din Mahrous; Emad El Din Khalifa; Soha Kholeif; Ghada Mohamed Elhady Journal: Appl Clin Genet Date: 2021-03-11
Authors: Chantal B Bartels; Reeva Makhijani; Prachi Godiwala; Alison Bartolucci; John C Nulsen; Daniel R Grow; Lawrence Engmann; Claudio A Benadiva Journal: F S Rep Date: 2020-09-25