Olga Tšuiko1,2,3,4, Maaike Catteeuw5, Masoud Zamani Esteki6, Aspasia Destouni1, Osvaldo Bogado Pascottini5, Urban Besenfelder7, Vitezslav Havlicek7, Katrien Smits5, Ants Kurg4, Andres Salumets2,3,8,9, Thomas D'Hooghe10, Thierry Voet6,11, Ann Van Soom5, Joris Robert Vermeesch1. 1. Laboratory of Cytogenetics and Genome Research, Center of Human Genetics, KU Leuven, Leuven 3000, Belgium. 2. Institute of Bio- and Translational Medicine, University of Tartu, Tartu 50411, Estonia. 3. Competence Centre on Health Technologies, Tartu 50410, Estonia. 4. Department of Biotechnology, Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of Tartu, Tartu 51010, Estonia. 5. Department of Obstetrics, Reproduction and Herd Health, Ghent University, Merelbeke 9820, Belgium. 6. Laboratory of Reproductive Genomics, Center of Human Genetics, KU Leuven, Leuven 3000, Belgium. 7. Institute of Animal Breeding and Genetics, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna 1210, Austria. 8. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Tartu, Tartu 51014, Estonia. 9. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki 00029, Finland. 10. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Leuven University Fertility Centre, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven 3000, Belgium. 11. Sanger-EBI Single Cell Genomics Centre, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, Cambridge CB10 1SA, UK.
Abstract
STUDY QUESTION: Is the rate and nature of chromosome instability (CIN) similar between bovine in vivo-derived and in vitro-cultured cleavage-stage embryos? SUMMARY ANSWER: There is a major difference regarding chromosome stability of in vivo-derived and in vitro-cultured embryos, as CIN is significantly lower in in vivo-derived cleavage-stage embryos compared to in vitro-cultured embryos. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: CIN is common during in vitro embryogenesis and is associated with early embryonic loss in humans, but the stability of in vivo-conceived cleavage-stage embryos remains largely unknown. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Because human in vivo preimplantation embryos are not accessible, bovine (Bos taurus) embryos were used to study CIN in vivo. Five young, healthy, cycling Holstein Friesian heifers were used to analyze single blastomeres of in vivo embryos, in vitro embryos produced by ovum pick up with ovarian stimulation (OPU-IVF), and in vitro embryos produced from in vitro matured oocytes retrieved without ovarian stimulation (IVM-IVF). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Single blastomeres were isolated from embryos, whole-genome amplified and hybridized on Illumina BovineHD BeadChip arrays together with the bulk DNA from the donor cows (mothers) and the bull (father). DNA was also obtained from the parents of the bull and from the parents of the cows (paternal and maternal grandparents, respectively). Subsequently, genome-wide haplotyping and copy-number profiling was applied to investigate the genomic architecture of 171 single bovine blastomeres of 16 in vivo, 13 OPU-IVF and 13 IVM-IVF embryos. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The genomic stability of single blastomeres in both of the in vitro-cultured embryo cohorts was severely compromised (P < 0.0001), and the frequency of whole chromosome or segmental aberrations was higher in embryos produced in vitro than in embryos derived in vivo. Only 18.8% of in vivo-derived embryos contained at least one blastomere with chromosomal anomalies, compared to 69.2% of OPU-IVF embryos (P < 0.01) and 84.6% of IVM-IVF embryos (P < 0.001). LARGE SCALE DATA: Genotyping data obtained in this study has been submitted to NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO; accession number GSE95358). LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: There were two main limitations of the study. First, animal models may not always reflect the nature of human embryogenesis, although the use of an animal model to investigate CIN was unavoidable in our study. Second, a limited number of embryos were obtained, therefore more studies are warranted to corroborate the findings. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Although CIN is also present in in vivo-developed embryos, in vitro procedures exacerbate chromosomal abnormalities during early embryo development. Hence, the present study highlights that IVF treatment compromises embryo viability and should be applied with care. Additionally, our results encourage to refine and improve in vitro culture conditions and assisted reproduction technologies. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was funded by the Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology (IWT) (TBM-090878 to J.R.V. and T.V.), the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO; G.A093.11 N to T.V. and J.R.V. and G.0392.14 N to A.V.S. and J.R.V.), the European Union's FP7 Marie Curie Industry-Academia Partnerships and Pathways (IAPP, SARM, EU324509 to J.R.V., T.V., O.T, A.D., A.S. and A.K.) and Horizon 2020 innovation programme (WIDENLIFE, 692065 to J.R.V., O.T., T.V., A.K. and A.S.). M.Z.E., J.R.V. and T.V. are co-inventors on a patent application ZL913096-PCT/EP2014/068315-WO/2015/028576 ('Haplotyping and copy-number typing using polymorphic variant allelic frequencies'), licensed to Cartagenia (Agilent Technologies).
STUDY QUESTION: Is the rate and nature of chromosome instability (CIN) similar between bovine in vivo-derived and in vitro-cultured cleavage-stage embryos? SUMMARY ANSWER: There is a major difference regarding chromosome stability of in vivo-derived and in vitro-cultured embryos, as CIN is significantly lower in in vivo-derived cleavage-stage embryos compared to in vitro-cultured embryos. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: CIN is common during in vitro embryogenesis and is associated with early embryonic loss in humans, but the stability of in vivo-conceived cleavage-stage embryos remains largely unknown. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Because human in vivo preimplantation embryos are not accessible, bovine (Bos taurus) embryos were used to study CIN in vivo. Five young, healthy, cycling Holstein Friesian heifers were used to analyze single blastomeres of in vivo embryos, in vitro embryos produced by ovum pick up with ovarian stimulation (OPU-IVF), and in vitro embryos produced from in vitro matured oocytes retrieved without ovarian stimulation (IVM-IVF). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Single blastomeres were isolated from embryos, whole-genome amplified and hybridized on Illumina BovineHD BeadChip arrays together with the bulk DNA from the donorcows (mothers) and the bull (father). DNA was also obtained from the parents of the bull and from the parents of the cows (paternal and maternal grandparents, respectively). Subsequently, genome-wide haplotyping and copy-number profiling was applied to investigate the genomic architecture of 171 single bovine blastomeres of 16 in vivo, 13 OPU-IVF and 13 IVM-IVF embryos. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The genomic stability of single blastomeres in both of the in vitro-cultured embryo cohorts was severely compromised (P < 0.0001), and the frequency of whole chromosome or segmental aberrations was higher in embryos produced in vitro than in embryos derived in vivo. Only 18.8% of in vivo-derived embryos contained at least one blastomere with chromosomal anomalies, compared to 69.2% of OPU-IVF embryos (P < 0.01) and 84.6% of IVM-IVF embryos (P < 0.001). LARGE SCALE DATA: Genotyping data obtained in this study has been submitted to NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO; accession number GSE95358). LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: There were two main limitations of the study. First, animal models may not always reflect the nature of human embryogenesis, although the use of an animal model to investigate CIN was unavoidable in our study. Second, a limited number of embryos were obtained, therefore more studies are warranted to corroborate the findings. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Although CIN is also present in in vivo-developed embryos, in vitro procedures exacerbate chromosomal abnormalities during early embryo development. Hence, the present study highlights that IVF treatment compromises embryo viability and should be applied with care. Additionally, our results encourage to refine and improve in vitro culture conditions and assisted reproduction technologies. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was funded by the Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology (IWT) (TBM-090878 to J.R.V. and T.V.), the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO; G.A093.11 N to T.V. and J.R.V. and G.0392.14 N to A.V.S. and J.R.V.), the European Union's FP7 Marie Curie Industry-Academia Partnerships and Pathways (IAPP, SARM, EU324509 to J.R.V., T.V., O.T, A.D., A.S. and A.K.) and Horizon 2020 innovation programme (WIDENLIFE, 692065 to J.R.V., O.T., T.V., A.K. and A.S.). M.Z.E., J.R.V. and T.V. are co-inventors on a patent application ZL913096-PCT/EP2014/068315-WO/2015/028576 ('Haplotyping and copy-number typing using polymorphic variant allelic frequencies'), licensed to Cartagenia (Agilent Technologies).
Authors: Kelsey E Brooks; Brittany L Daughtry; Brett Davis; Melissa Y Yan; Suzanne S Fei; Selma Shepherd; Lucia Carbone; Shawn L Chavez Journal: Development Date: 2022-04-14 Impact factor: 6.862
Authors: Santiago Munné; Steven T Nakajima; Sam Najmabadi; Mark V Sauer; Marlane J Angle; José L Rivas; Laura V Mendieta; Thelma M Macaso; Sarthak Sawarkar; Alexander Nadal; Kajal Choudhary; Camran Nezhat; Sandra A Carson; John E Buster Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2020-01-01 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: N De Munck; A Bayram; I Elkhatib; A Liñán; A Arnanz; L Melado; B Lawrenz; M H Fatemi Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2021-03-19 Impact factor: 3.357
Authors: Krishna Chaitanya Pavani; Xiaoyuan Lin; Joachim Hamacher; Wim Van Den Broeck; Liesbeth Couck; Luc Peelman; An Hendrix; Ann Van Soom Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2020-04-22 Impact factor: 5.923