Mehdi Totonchi1,2, Babak Babaabasi1, Hadi Najafi1,3, Mojtaba Rezazadeh Valojerdi4, Poopak Eftekhari-Yazdi4, Lila Karimian4, Navid Almadani1, Anahita Mohseni Meybodi1, Morteza Kimiai1, Mehri Mashayekhi5, Tahereh Madani5, Hamid Gourabi6,2. 1. Department of Genetics, Reproductive Biomedicine Research Center, Royan Institute for Reproductive Biomedicine, ACECR, Tehran, Iran. 2. Department of Stem Cells and Developmental Biology, Cell Science Research Center, Royan Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Technology, ACECR, Tehran, Iran. 3. Departments of Genetics, Faculty of Biological Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran. 4. Department of Embryology, Reproductive Biomedicine Research Center, Royan Institute for Reproductive Biomedicine, ACECR, Tehran, Iran. 5. Department of Endocrinology and Female Infertility, Reproductive Biomedicine Research Center, Royan Institute for Reproductive Biomedicine, ACECR, Tehran, Iran. 6. Department of Genetics, Reproductive Biomedicine Research Center, Royan Institute for Reproductive Biomedicine, ACECR, Tehran, Iran. Electronic Address:gourabi@royaninstitute.org.
Higher pregnancy rate following application of assisted
reproduction technology (ART) is probably the main
aim of almost all in vitro fertilization (IVF) centers.
Recent surveys have estimated an average success
rate of ~30% for ART, around the world (1, 2). One
approach toward higher pregnancy rate is to recognize
factors that influence IVF procedure, although it is still
a matter of debate (3, 4). In addition to the type of IVF
settings, genetic background (such as aneuploidy) of the
transferred embryos can potentially affect pregnancy
success rate (5). In fact, chromosomal abnormalities of
embryo, as the form of either numerical or structural, may
possibly cause recurrent ART failure, meaning failure of
pregnancy from two or three times good quality embryo
transfer (6). Therefore, chromosomal abnormalities
need to be considered as an important factor which is
responsible for the fate of ART-produced embryo (7).
These abnormalities can be “inherited” from a parent (such
as translocation) or be “de novo” (new to the embryos)
(8). Unlike the inherited chromosomal abnormalities, de
novo chromosomal abnormalities may occur during IVF
procedure (9) and unexpectedly cause failure of ART
(10). Therefore, in addition to the procedures of analyzing
the parents’ genotype, introducing an optimal procedure
for detection of chromosomal abnormalities of transferred
embryos is of great importance (11).Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) could be
regarded as a risk assessment step for identification of
numerical and structural chromosomal abnormalities to
ensure genomic integrity of the embryo (2). Some studies
explained the benefit of fluorescence in situ hybridization
(FISH) (12), oligo-arrays, single nucleotide polymorphism
(SNP)-arrays (13), quantitative polymerase chain reaction
(qPCR) (12) and bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC)-
array for PGS (14). Nevertheless, they are not able to
make distinct and comprehensive analyses of the human
genome (15). Accordingly, array comparative genomic
hybridization (aCGH) was introduced as a reliable and
accessible diagnostic approach to assess 24-chromosomal
abnormalities in humans (16).We designed a retrospective case series study to
investigate the effect of PGS on IVF outcome as well
as the influence of environmental and genetic factors
responsible for pregnancy success rate.
Materials and Methods
Study design
The retrospective case series study was conducted
among the patients who referred to the Royan Institute
Infertility Clinic (Tehran, Iran) as IVF candidates from
2015 to 2018. Overall, 213 individuals were chosen based
on the history of previous ART treatment cycles and
genetic background for aCGH analysis.Ovarian stimulation and oocyte retrieval were
performed by a standard protocol (i.e. long lutealphase pituitary down-regulation). Briefly, the patients
were prescribed to start injection of 0.5 mg/day
buserelin SC (Superfact, Aventis, Germany) in the
luteal phase of menstrual cycle. After confirmation
of hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian (HPO) axis
suppression (the serum E2 levels of less than 50 pg/ml,
no ovarian cyst on transvaginal ultrasound examination
and thin endometrium) buserelin dosage was reduced
from 0.5 mg/day to 0.25 mg/day and it was sustained
until administration of human chorionic gonadotropin
(hCG) (for puncture triggering). The controlled
ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) was commenced with
administration of recombinant follicle-stimulating
hormone (FSH, Gonal F, Serono, Switzerland) or human
menopausal gonadotropin (HMG, Menogon, Ferring
Pharmaceuticals, Germany) 150 IU/day on the second
day of menstrual cycle. Serial ultrasound monitoring
and measuring serum E2 levels for evaluation of
ovarian response and adjusting gonadotropin dosage is
required. With reaching three follicles diameter to 18
mm, 10,000 IU of recombinant hCG (Pregnyl, Organon,
Netherlands) was administered. Oocyte retrieval, by
the transvaginal ultrasound guided approach, was
performed 34-36 hours after hCG injection.Oocytes were classified according to their capability for
being IVF recipient. As soon as reaching the thickness
of uterus to 8 mm with three-line pattern, the patient
was treated with progesterone and the treatment was
terminated in the case of no pregnancy. Otherwise, the
patient continued progesterone treatment during gestation
according to Gyenocologist recommendation.Afterward, all patients were followed-up after PGS
and embryo transfer. Ethical approval was obtained
from Royan institute to use patients’ data (Ethical
code: EC/1393/1082). Variables such as age, history
of previous ART failure, recurrent miscarriage (RM),
biopsy method, total number of transferred embryos,
the day of embryo transfer, embryo quality, infertility
etiologies and chromosomal abnormalities of parents
were analyzed. Total number of transferred embryos
included those for which genotype was performed
by aCGH and the others which had good post-IVF
quality but had clearly ascertained genotype. Possible
IVF confounding factors that may influence the IVF
efficiency were also assessed and accurately categorized
data were collected.
Karyotyping
Karyotype analysis for parents was performed on
trypsin-banded metaphase chromosomes according to
the modifications of Verma and Babu (17). The analysis
was performed by a standard protocol to generate a
resolution of 550 bands per haploid set, from a single
cell of the corresponding parents (18). Normally, 30
random metaphase spreads per sample were targeted.
In karyotyping, the result was reported based on the
latest International System for Human Cytogenetic
Nomenclature (ISCN) (19).
Sperm preparation
Semen collection was performed mostly by
masturbation. For the intracytoplasmic sperm injection
(ICSI) procedure, spermatozoa were prepared by the
standard swim-up assay. In final sperm suspension, 10%
Albuminar-5 (containing 5% human serum albumin,
Blood Research Center, Iran) was added to Ham’s-F10
culture medium (Sigma-Aldrich, USA). The prepared
spermatozoa were incubated at 37˚C and 6% CO2
until the usage.
Oocyte and embryo culture
The oocyte-cumulus masses were collected in a
drop of Ham’s F-10 medium, supplemented with
10% Albuminar-5. Then, the cells were washed in the
G-1™ver3 (Vitrolife, Sweden) supplemented with 10%
recombinant serum albumin (rHA, Vitrolife, Sweden).
In the next step, they were transferred into a 20 μl fresh
G-1™ver3 medium and kept under mineral oil in the
culture dish. The oocytes were then inseminated with
50,000 spermatozoa/ml and incubated at 37˚C, 6% CO2
for overnight.To proceed fertilization, we used ICSI technique. The
oocytes were immersed in the HEPES (Sigma-Aldrich,
USA) Ham’s F-10 medium, supplemented with 10%
Albuminar-5 and washed in the G-1™ver3 supplemented
with 10% rHA. Then, they were transferred into a 5 μl
fresh G-1™ver3 medium, kept under mineral oil in vitro.
The embryos were maintained in G-1™ver3 medium for
three days and they were transferred into G2 (G-2TMver 3,
Vitrolife, Sweden) from day-3 to day-5. On average, 18
hours post-insemination, the occurrence of fertilization
was confirmed. Then, the successfully fertilized oocytes
were individually kept in 50 µl drops of embryo culture
medium (G.1.2, Vitrolife, Sweden) surrounded by paraffin
oil (Sigma-Aldrich, USA) for a maximum period of six
days.
Embryo evaluation
The cleavage-stage was evaluated on day-3, as
previously described by Gardner and Balaban (20). The
quality of embryo was scored based on Veeck’s published
criteria (21).Additionally, the quality of embryos was determined
according to their appearance characteristics such as
shape, size, cell number and integrity of zona pellucida
(18). At the time of biopsy, on day-3 post-insemination,
the embryos were graded from the highest to lowest
quality, A to D, respectively. At the time of transfer, on
day-5 post-insemination, embryos were categorized in
the following groups: "excellent" (blastocyst, expand
blastocyst and hatching blastocyst), "good" (for morula,
early and mid-blastocyst) and "poor" (for the other stages).
Embryos with spurious appearance were categorized as
"not determined (N.D.)".Clinical pregnancy was confirmed when an intrauterine
fetal pole with a positive fetal heartbeat was observed.
Embryo biopsy
Cleavage-stage biopsy
Eight cells embryos with less than 30% fragmentation
at 66 ± 2 hours post-ICSI were considered suitable for
biopsy. Less than five cells embryos with more than
30% fragmentation were discarded. Zona opening was
performed by laser beam (22, 23) and single blastomere
was biopsied.
Trophectoderm biopsy
Zona of day-3 embryos was initially drilled by laser
beam. Primary criteria for the embryo selection was the
same as described for Cleavage-stage biopsy. The embryo
culture continued and those developing to the blastocyst
stage were biopsied using laser technology as previously
described (22, 24). Only well-defined inner cell mass
blastocysts with hatching trophectoderm were biopsied.
Three to eight trophectoderm cells were biopsied.After biopsy, the embryos were washed in 1X
phosphate buffered saline (PBS, Gibco, USA) and they
were transferred to digestion buffer with minimum PBS
for further genetic analysis. The lysis and Whole Genome
Amplification step was performed by SurePlex®DNA
Amplification System (Illumina, USA).
Array comparative genomic hybridization
aCGH enabled us to accurately detect copy number
variations in each individual cell removed from
blastomeres or trophoblasts. In order to perform this
cytogenetic technique, the 24sure Microarray Pack
version 3.0 (Illumina, USA) was applied according to
the manufacturer’s protocol. The array data was read
by InnoScan 900 microarray scanner (INNOPSYS,
France). The BlueFuse Multi v3.1 (Illumina, USA)
was used to analyze the 24sure experiments. We
reported the median log2
ratio for each chromosome
as the index of aneuploidy was analyzed by BlueFuse
Multi software.
Statistical analyses
Chi-square test was used for comparison of the study
groups. In all statistical analyses, a P<0.05 was considered
statistically significant. Graph plotting and data analysis
were done using GraphPad software (version 6) and
Microsoft Excel (version 2013). Pearson correlation
coefficient (R2) was performed using GraphPad Prism
software (version 6) to analyze correlations between the
studied variables.
Results
Indications for preimplantation genetic screening
Indications for PGS such as recurrent miscarriage
(RM), ART failure and parental chromosomal aberration,
might perhaps justify why PGS was applied following
IVF. In this study, patients who had a history of RM,
previous ART failures and chromosomal abnormalities
were subjected to PGS. Patients with other heterogeneous
features (such as mosaicism, advanced maternal age,
unexplained infertility, etc.) that were grouped as “others”
also underwent PGS. The frequency and percentage
of each group are presented as a pie chart. This data
shows that most of the patients (80.7%) were subjected
to PGS due to ART failure and RM, while patients with
chromosomal abnormalities and other features comprised
8.4% and 10% of the total PGS candidates, respectively
(Fig.1A).
Fig.1
Indications of PGS in IVF patients referred to Royan Institute and its
influence on the pregnancy rate. A. 213 patients were chosen to undergo
PGS by aCGH for several reasons including ART failure (41.3%), recurrent
miscarriage (RM, 39.4%) and chromosomal abnormality of parents (8.5%).
Some patients who had heterogeneous characteristics (such as advanced
age and unexplained infertility) were classified as “others” comprising 10.8%
of the population. B. Regardless of the indications of PGS, pregnancy success
rate was calculated for IVF and reported as pregnancy rate per ET and cycle.
C. Pregnancy rate (per ET and cycle) for patients with ART failure and RM.
D. Evaluating the effect of age on IVF success rate, presented as pregnancy
rate per ET and cycle for ART failure and RM groups. PGS; Preimplantation
genetic screening, IVF; In vitro fertilization, aCGH; Array comparative genomic
hybridization, ART; Assisted reproductive technology, and ET; Embryo
transfer. Patients are categorized by their ages: Ages>35 years ≤35.
For a series of 213 cycles, a total of 147 (69%)
embryo transfers (ET) were carried out, which resulted
in 34.69% and 23.94% of pregnancy rates per ETs and
cycles, respectively (Fig.1B). Pregnancy rate between
ART failure and RM groups did not show statistically
significant difference (Fig.1C).In addition, clinical pregnancy rates were increased in
younger (≤ 35 years old) women (40% versus 29.03%
for ART failure, and 40% versus 13.33% for RM groups,
Fig.1D, bright bars). Similarly, pregnancies per cycles
showed the same pattern in both ART failure and RM
groups (Fig.1D, dark bars). Nevertheless, a significant
decline was observed in pregnancy rate among the women
with >35 years old who also had RM (Fig.1D).Indications of PGS in IVF patients referred to Royan Institute and its
influence on the pregnancy rate. A. 213 patients were chosen to undergo
PGS by aCGH for several reasons including ART failure (41.3%), recurrent
miscarriage (RM, 39.4%) and chromosomal abnormality of parents (8.5%).
Some patients who had heterogeneous characteristics (such as advanced
age and unexplained infertility) were classified as “others” comprising 10.8%
of the population. B. Regardless of the indications of PGS, pregnancy success
rate was calculated for IVF and reported as pregnancy rate per ET and cycle.
C. Pregnancy rate (per ET and cycle) for patients with ART failure and RM.
D. Evaluating the effect of age on IVF success rate, presented as pregnancy
rate per ET and cycle for ART failure and RM groups. PGS; Preimplantation
genetic screening, IVF; In vitro fertilization, aCGH; Array comparative genomic
hybridization, ART; Assisted reproductive technology, and ET; Embryo
transfer. Patients are categorized by their ages: Ages>35 years ≤35.
The effects of embryo transfers number and fresh/
frozen embryos on pregnancy rate
Among 213 patients, 147 subjects had at least one healthy
embryo (as confirmed by aCGH) undergoing ET. Patients
with only one genetically normal transferred embryo (oneET group) had a pregnancy rate of 23.91% (22 out of 92
patients), while patients with two ETs showed a significantly
higher level of pregnancy rate (52.72%, 29 out of 55 patients,
Fig.2A). This increase in the pregnancy rate for two ETs was
also observed in both ART failure and RM groups (Fig.2B).
Fig.2
Effect of the number of genetically normal transferred embryos
and pregnancy success rate. A. Pregnancy rate results were achieved
under two conditions: One ET and two ETs. B. Pregnancy rate of one
ET compared to that of two ETs, separately, for ART failure and RM
groups. C. Effect of freezing on pregnancy rate was evaluated for the
both conditions (one ET and two ETs). Data showed no significant
difference in pregnancy rates between fresh and frozen embryos.
ET; Embryo transfer, ART; Assisted reproductive technology, and RM;
Recurrent miscarriage.
n.s; Not significant, *; P<0.05, **; P<0.01, and ***; P<0.001.
In order to investigate the influence of fresh or frozen
embryos on ART success, the pregnancy rates were calculated
for these groups. Results showed the same pregnancy rates
per-ET/per-cycle in fresh and frozen embryos (Fig.2C).
Figure 2 shows the number of patients (cycles) or ETs,
together with positive pregnancy.Effect of the number of genetically normal transferred embryos
and pregnancy success rate. A. Pregnancy rate results were achieved
under two conditions: One ET and two ETs. B. Pregnancy rate of one
ET compared to that of two ETs, separately, for ART failure and RM
groups. C. Effect of freezing on pregnancy rate was evaluated for the
both conditions (one ET and two ETs). Data showed no significant
difference in pregnancy rates between fresh and frozen embryos.
ET; Embryo transfer, ART; Assisted reproductive technology, and RM;
Recurrent miscarriage.n.s; Not significant, *; P<0.05, **; P<0.01, and ***; P<0.001.
Analyses of chromosomal abnormality rate in embryos
undergoing in vitro fertilization
Chromosomal aberration is an inevitable problem during
IVF procedure. Therefore, we exploited the advantages
of aCGH strategy to explore frequency and type of
chromosomal abnormalities occurring during IVF. Analysis
of aCGH results showed that the most frequent abnormalities
were found in chromosomes 1, 16 and 19 in both ART failure
and RM groups. Conversely, chromosomes 17 had the lowest
abnormality rates in the two groups (Fig.3A). As it is deduced
from Figure 3A, the abnormality rate in both ART failure
and RM groups presented a similar pattern. Consistently, a
significant positive correlation (R2=0.51, P<0.0001) was
observed between chromosomal abnormality rates with
ART failure (x-axis) and RM (y-axis) groups (Fig.3B). The
chromosomes 13, 18, 21, 22 and X (numbers surrounded by
circles) are the common ones in PGS using the conventional
FISH technique.
Fig.3
Frequency of chromosomal abnormalities in IVF procedures in addition to efficacies of aCGH and FISH for detection of such abnormalities. A. While aCGH
surveys the whole genome (24 chromosomes) to detect abnormalities, conventional FISH uses probes that are often specific to chromosomes 13, 18, 21, 22 and X
(encircled numbers). Here, aCGH data showed the highest abnormality rate for chromosomes 1, 16 and 19, while the lowest one was found for chromosomes 11
and 17. Chromosomal abnormalities in ART failure and RM groups are presented as blue and orange bars. B. Significantly positive correlation between chromosomal
abnormality rate in ART failure and RM groups. Each chromosome is shown as a point and abnormality rate of each chromosome for ART failure and RM groups are
represented as Y and X axes, respectively. C. Comparison of abnormalities, detected by aCGH versus those found by FISH method.
IVF; In vitro fertilization, aCGH; Array comparative genomic hybridization, FISH; Fluorescence in situ hybridization, ART; Assisted reproductive technology,
and RM; Recurrent miscarriage.
In order to compare capability of aCGH and FISH methods
to detect different types of such chromosomal abnormalities
(i.e. whole chromosome insertion/deletion and partial
insertion/deletion), the number of embryos containing
chromosomal abnormalities commonly testes by FISH
technique (13, 18, 21, 22 and X) were calculated. Our data
showed from 463 abnormal embryos detected by aCGH,
only 194 embryos could likely be detected by conventional
FISH technique (Fig.3C). The rate of partial or complete
chromosomal abnormality per abnormal embryos was 2.02
(938 abnormal chromosomes in 463 abnormal embryos).
The effect of embryo quality and biopsy methods on in
vitro fertilization succes
In addition to the aforementioned factors, other important
variables, such as transferred embryos’ quality, may influence
the IVF success rate. Thus, all of the tested and transferred
embryos were scored based on their quality from “A” to
“D” (for the biopsy day) and “poor, good and excellent”
(for the transferring day). These scores alongside with IVF
assessment results were recorded. The recorded data showed
that there is no relationship between the IVF outcome and
quality of embryo on the biopsy day (Fig.4A), suggesting that
probably grading at the time of biopsy cannot be regarded
as a proper measurement to predict IVF outcome. However,
assessment at the time of embryo transfer showed a positive
relationship between the embryo quality and IVF success
(Fig.4B), indicating that embryo grading at this time point
is a better determinant for IVF success than scoring on the
biopsy day.
Fig.4
Relationship between the quality of embryos and pregnancy. A. Quality of embryos determined on the biopsy days and their relation to the number
of normal embryos (red line) and pregnancies (blue line). B. Relationship between quality of embryos at the time of transfer and pregnancy frequency
(presented in number). C. Comparison between the biopsy day (3 or 5) and the rate of pregnancy per embryo transfer (ET).
In order to investigate influence of the biopsy day
(day-3 vs. day-5 of post-insemination) on IVF outcome,
pregnancy rate was assessed. The results indicated no
significant difference in pregnancy rates between day-3
(23.23%) and day-5 of biopsies (26.67%, Fig.4C).At both scoring time points, it was difficult to assign a certain
quality grade for some embryos with unnatural or unknown
phenotypes; therefore, we categorized them as “others” or
"not determined" (N.D., Fig.4A, B). However, a pregnancy
rate of <10% was observed for these groups. Taken together,
these data imply that transferring embryos with higher quality
would increase the chance of successful pregnancyFrequency of chromosomal abnormalities in IVF procedures in addition to efficacies of aCGH and FISH for detection of such abnormalities. A. While aCGH
surveys the whole genome (24 chromosomes) to detect abnormalities, conventional FISH uses probes that are often specific to chromosomes 13, 18, 21, 22 and X
(encircled numbers). Here, aCGH data showed the highest abnormality rate for chromosomes 1, 16 and 19, while the lowest one was found for chromosomes 11
and 17. Chromosomal abnormalities in ART failure and RM groups are presented as blue and orange bars. B. Significantly positive correlation between chromosomal
abnormality rate in ART failure and RM groups. Each chromosome is shown as a point and abnormality rate of each chromosome for ART failure and RM groups are
represented as Y and X axes, respectively. C. Comparison of abnormalities, detected by aCGH versus those found by FISH method.IVF; In vitro fertilization, aCGH; Array comparative genomic hybridization, FISH; Fluorescence in situ hybridization, ART; Assisted reproductive technology,
and RM; Recurrent miscarriage.Relationship between the quality of embryos and pregnancy. A. Quality of embryos determined on the biopsy days and their relation to the number
of normal embryos (red line) and pregnancies (blue line). B. Relationship between quality of embryos at the time of transfer and pregnancy frequency
(presented in number). C. Comparison between the biopsy day (3 or 5) and the rate of pregnancy per embryo transfer (ET).
Discussion
Based on the results of studied cohorts, recognition
of the factors that influence the outcome of IVF would
benefit clinicians to achieve higher pregnancy rates.
Effects of different factors that may influence IVF success
rate (mostly referred as clinical pregnancy rate) were
investigated in the previous studies (1-4, 25-28). However,
since different IVF centers use different approaches,
the influence of these factors may vary among different
IVF centers. Thus, these variables should be normalized
based on various circumstances that exist in different IVF
centers.This retrospective case series study was designed not
only to evaluate the factors affecting IVF outcomes,
but also to assess the genetic basis of this issue in our
IVF center at Royan Institute, Tehran, Iran. Between the
years 2015 and 2018, 8650 patients referred to our clinic.
Among these patients, only 213 individuals were selected
to undergo PGS using the aCGH method, according to
the recommendation of the genetic counselor of the center
and the final decision of the board of clinicians. Earlier
studies concluded that clinical pregnancy rate is generally
accepted as the main outcome of IVF (29, 30)Since PGS candidates had different criteria when referring
to PGS laboratory, we were interested in the evaluating
relationship of the aforementioned indications with
pregnancy rates. Data of this study showed no significant
difference between pregnancy rate of the patients with the
history of ART failure and RM. Noteworthy, pregnancy
rate tended to become lower in aged women, which is
consistent with the results reported by previous studies
concerning the effect of age on pregnancy rates (25,
31,32). It was also shown while the pregnancy rate is similar
among younger women (≤35 years old) in each category,
pregnancy rate differs among older women (>35 years old).
Importantly, half of the ≥35 years old women with RM
had no normal embryo and the rest showed significantly
lower pregnancy rate per transfer. This outcome would
suggest that PGS-IVF procedure for women >35 years
old who possibly have a history of RM is not as efficient
as younger patients. Previous studies indicated decreased
IVF success rates in older women through observation
of predominantly increased aneuploidy in oocytes (4,
33). Since we discarded embryos with aneuploidy, the
observed decrease in pregnancy rate for women of > 35
years old, may be due to the presence of other factors such
as lower endometrial receptivity (34).Apart from age, the number of transferred embryos
potentially affects the pregnancy rate (25). We found
that patients with two transferred embryos, had higher
pregnancy rates (2.2 folds), and the increased pregnancy
rate were observed in both ART failure and RM groups.
These results are in agreement with previous studies which
examined the influence of transferred embryo number and
pregnancy rate (35).Aside from the effect of transferred embryo quantity,
there was no significant difference in pregnancy
rate between fresh and frozen embryos; however, an
insignificant slight increase in pregnancy rate was
observed following the use of frozen ones. On the other
hand, the other studies provided evidence which is not
consistent with our findings, as they reported higher
pregnancy rate following the utilization of frozen embryos
(36). This inconsistency may be due to the adverse
effects of ovarian hyperstimulation and its effects on
endometrial receptivity (37, 38). Insignificant increases
in pregnancy rate observed for frozen embryos in this
study, would suggest that IVF outcome for frozen or fresh
embryos presumably depends on different factors, such
as freezing and thawing procedures and more importantly
the condition of patient endometrium. In addition, the
PGS candidates were selected based on having a history
of ART failure, RM and chromosomal aberration; thus,
other factors may simultaneously have an influence on the
result of frozen embryo transfer. Therefore, there would
be a controversy between our data and previous reports
regarding better pregnancy results of frozen embryo
transfer (36).Another determinant for successful IVF is the embryo
quality which can be assessed by genotype and phenotype
analyses. In this experiment, 654 embryos from all studied
patients (213 subjects) were genotyped using aCGH.
Results showed that excluding 191 embryos with a chaotic
and noisy outcome, 463 embryos had interpretable and
meaningful genotyping data. Out of 463 embryos, 195
had abnormalities in chromosomes 13, 18, 21, 22 and
X which potentially would be detected by conventional
FISH. This data definitely introduces aCGH as a powerful
method (rather than FISH) to screen embryos prior
transfer process. Our data suggest that quality assessment
of the embryos based on both phenotype and genotype can
be a good parameter helping us to select a good embryo
for IVF. However, there may be some cases in which
good morphology of embryos do not harbor favorable
genotypes, suggesting necessity of the aCGH method after
quality assessment of the embryos (4, 39). In addition,
while aCGH cannot detect polyploidies (e.g. triploidy and
tetraploidy) and balanced chromosomal rearrangements
(e.g. translocations), using complementary tests such
as karyotyping and next generation sequencing (NGS)
would be useful; nevertheless, they are expensive and
time consuming (40).Data obtained from aCGH also revealed that
chromosomes 19, 16 and 1 were frequently aberrant
during IVF treatment, while they could not be detected by
routinely applied FISH probes for PGS.Supportive evidence for similar chromosomal
abnormality rates in both ART failure and RM groups
was also shown by the existence of a significantly positive
correlation between chromosomal abnormality rate of
ART failure (X axis) and RM (Y axis).Phenotypic analyses showed that natural appearance of the embryo, at the time of transfer, is an important
determinant for successful IVF, whereas determination of
embryo status at the time of biopsy does not have such a
predictive value. This may be due to the altered quality
of embryos during their growth between biopsy and
transferring time points.
Conclusion
Comprehensive chromosomal screening of IVF
embryos in parallel with optimizing other factors (such
as controlled ovarian stimulation, embryo culture,
endometrial receptivity and etc.) not only can increase the
pregnancy success rate, but also reduces patient anxiety
regarding the abortion, stillbirth and abnormality in
offspring.
Authors: Chris M J van Uum; Servi J C Stevens; Joseph C F M Dreesen; Marion Drüsedau; Hubert J Smeets; Bertien Hollanders-Crombach; Christine E M de Die-Smulders; Joep P M Geraedts; John J M Engelen; Edith Coonen Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2012-02-29 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Ashley W Tiegs; Brooke Hodes-Wertz; David H McCulloh; Santiago Munné; James A Grifo Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2016-03-17 Impact factor: 3.357