Literature DB >> 32141501

Chromosomal mosaicism in human blastocysts: the ultimate diagnostic dilemma.

Mina Popovic1, Lien Dhaenens1, Annekatrien Boel1, Björn Menten2, Björn Heindryckx1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Trophectoderm (TE) biopsy and next generation sequencing (NGS) are currently the preferred techniques for preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A). Although this approach delivered important improvements over previous testing strategies, increased sensitivity has also prompted a rise in diagnoses of uncertain clinical significance. This includes reports of chromosomal mosaicism, suggesting the presence of karyotypically distinct cells within a single TE biopsy. Given that PGT-A relies on the chromosomal constitution of the biopsied cells being representative of the entire embryo, the prevalence and clinical implications of blastocyst mosaicism continue to generate considerable controversy. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: The objective of this review was to evaluate existing scientific evidence regarding the prevalence and impact of chromosomal mosaicism in human blastocysts. We discuss insights from a biological, technical and clinical perspective to examine the implications of this diagnostic dilemma for PGT-A. SEARCH
METHODS: The PubMed and Google Scholar databases were used to search peer-reviewed publications using the following terms: 'chromosomal mosaicism', 'human', 'embryo', 'blastocyst', 'implantation', 'next generation sequencing' and 'clinical management' in combination with other keywords related to the subject area. Relevant articles in the English language, published until October 2019 were critically discussed. OUTCOMES: Chromosomal mosaicism predominately results from errors in mitosis following fertilization. Although it appears to be less pervasive at later developmental stages, establishing the true prevalence of mosaicism in human blastocysts remains exceedingly challenging. In a clinical context, blastocyst mosaicism can only be reported based on a single TE biopsy and has been ascribed to 2-13% of embryos tested using NGS. Conversely, data from NGS studies disaggregating whole embryos suggests that mosaicism may be present in up to ~50% of blastocysts. However, differences in testing and reporting strategies, analysis platforms and the number of cells sampled inherently overshadow current data, while added uncertainties emanate from technical artefacts. Moreover, laboratory factors and aspects of in vitro culture generate further variability. Outcome data following the transfer of blastocysts diagnosed as mosaic remain limited. Current studies suggest that the transfer of putative mosaic embryos may lead to healthy live births, but also results in significantly reduced ongoing pregnancy rates compared to the transfer of euploid blastocysts. Observations that a subset of mosaic blastocysts has the capacity to develop normally have sparked discussions regarding the ability of embryos to self-correct. However, there is currently no direct evidence to support this assumption. Nevertheless, the exclusion of mosaic blastocysts results in fewer embryos available for transfer, which may inevitably compromise treatment outcomes. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: Chromosomal mosaicism in human blastocysts remains a perpetual diagnostic and clinical dilemma in the context of PGT-A. This review offers an important scientific resource, informing about the challenges, risks and value of diagnosing mosaicism. Elucidating these uncertainties will ultimately pave the way towards improved clinical and patient management.
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permission@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  aneuploidy; blastocyst; chromosomal mosaicism; next generation sequencing; preimplantation genetic screening; preimplantation genetic testing; preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies

Year:  2020        PMID: 32141501     DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmz050

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Reprod Update        ISSN: 1355-4786            Impact factor:   15.610


  25 in total

1.  IUI and uterine lavage of in vivo-produced blastocysts for PGT purposes: is it a technically and ethically reasonable perspective? Is it actually needed?

Authors:  Lucia De Santis; Danilo Cimadomo; Antonio Capalbo; Cinzia Di Pietro; Daniela Zuccarello; Attilio Anastasi; Emanuele Licata; Catello Scarica; Laura Sosa Fernandez; Francesca Gioia Klinger
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2020-05-26       Impact factor: 3.412

2.  Second stimulation in the same ovarian cycle: an option to fully-personalize the treatment in poor prognosis patients undergoing PGT-A.

Authors:  Alberto Vaiarelli; Danilo Cimadomo; Gianluca Gennarelli; Maurizio Guido; Carlo Alviggi; Alessandro Conforti; Claudia Livi; Alberto Revelli; Silvia Colamaria; Cindy Argento; Maddalena Giuliani; Carlo De Angelis; Maria Matteo; Stefano Canosa; Angela D'Alfonso; Valentino Cimadomo; Laura Rienzi; Filippo Maria Ubaldi
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2022-02-07       Impact factor: 3.412

3.  Haplotype-aware inference of human chromosome abnormalities.

Authors:  Daniel Ariad; Stephanie M Yan; Andrea R Victor; Frank L Barnes; Christo G Zouves; Manuel Viotti; Rajiv C McCoy
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-11-16       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Prenatal Diagnosis of Chromosomal Mosaicism in Over 18,000 Pregnancies: A Five-Year Single-Tertiary-Center Retrospective Analysis.

Authors:  Shuyuan Li; Yiru Shi; Xu Han; Yiyao Chen; Yinghua Shen; Wenjing Hu; Xinrong Zhao; Yanlin Wang
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2022-05-16       Impact factor: 4.772

5.  The effect of trophectoderm biopsy technique and sample handling on artefactual mosaicism.

Authors:  Lluc Coll; Mònica Parriego; Beatriz Carrasco; Ignacio Rodríguez; Montserrat Boada; Buenaventura Coroleu; Nikolaos P Polyzos; Francesca Vidal; Anna Veiga
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2022-03-16       Impact factor: 3.357

6.  When embryology meets genetics: the definition of developmentally incompetent preimplantation embryos (DIPE)-the consensus of two Italian scientific societies.

Authors:  Danilo Cimadomo; Antonio Capalbo; Catello Scarica; Laura Sosa Fernandez; Laura Rienzi; Rosanna Ciriminna; Maria Giulia Minasi; Antonio Novelli; Lucia De Santis; Daniela Zuccarello
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2020-11-24       Impact factor: 3.412

7.  Evidence-based clinical prioritization of embryos with mosaic results: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ali Mourad; Roland Antaki; François Bissonnette; Obey Al Baini; Boutros Saadeh; Wael Jamal
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2021-09-02       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 8.  Biological and Clinical Significance of Mosaicism in Human Preimplantation Embryos.

Authors:  Ioanna Bouba; Elissavet Hatzi; Paris Ladias; Prodromos Sakaloglou; Charilaos Kostoulas; Ioannis Georgiou
Journal:  J Dev Biol       Date:  2021-05-07

9.  Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (abnormal number of chromosomes) in in vitro fertilisation.

Authors:  Simone Cornelisse; Miriam Zagers; Elena Kostova; Kathrin Fleischer; Madelon van Wely; Sebastiaan Mastenbroek
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2020-09-08

10.  Diagnostic efficiency of blastocyst culture medium in noninvasive preimplantation genetic testing.

Authors:  Jingbo Chen; Lei Jia; Tingting Li; Yingchun Guo; Shujing He; Zhiqiang Zhang; Wenlong Su; Shihui Zhang; Cong Fang
Journal:  F S Rep       Date:  2020-09-15
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.