Qiuwen Shi1, Ying Qiu2, Changlong Xu3, Hua Yang1, Chunyuan Li1, Nina Li1, Yumei Gao4, Caiyun Yu4. 1. Reproductive Medical Center of Nanning Second People's Hospital, Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, People's Republic of China. 2. Reproductive Medical Center of Nanning Second People's Hospital, Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, People's Republic of China. nnqying@sina.com. 3. Reproductive Medical Center of Nanning Second People's Hospital, Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, People's Republic of China. xuchanglong2011@hotmail.com. 4. Yikon Genomics Co. Ltd, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore the whole-chromosome status, origins, and mechanisms of chromosomal abnormalities in good-quality cleavage embryos using multiple annealing and looping-based amplification cycle (MALBAC) sequencing. METHODS: The embryos studied came from7 patients (maternal aged 26-35) who had healthy birth from the same IVF cycles. These 21 frozen day 3 good-quality embryos were thawed and disaggregated into individual blastomere. Each blastomere was collected and analyzed by MALBAC sequencing. RESULTS: Conclusive results were obtained from a high percentage of blastomeres (95.3%). A total of 46.6% of blastomeres were diploid, 53.4% were abnormal, and 28.0% had complex aneuploidy. Out of 21 embryos, 3 (14.3%) were normal and 18 (85.7%) were mosaics, showing the occurrence of mitotic errors; aneuploidy was confirmed in all cells of 4 of the 18 embryos, which showed the coexistence of meiotic errors. Conclusive results were obtained from all blastomeres of 15 embryos (71.4%, 15/21), which enabled us to reconstruct the cell lineage on the basis of the chromosomal content of the blastomeres in each division. There were 9 mitotic errors (8.7%, 9/103): nondisjunction accounted for 88.9% (8/9), and endoreplication accounted for 11.1% (1/9). CONCLUSIONS: In good-quality embryos, there was a high rate and diverse array of chromosomal abnormalities. Morphological evaluation does not appear to assist in the reduction in meiotic errors from parental origins. Mitotic errors were common, and nondisjunction was found to be the main mechanism causing malsegregation during the cleavage divisions.
PURPOSE: To explore the whole-chromosome status, origins, and mechanisms of chromosomal abnormalities in good-quality cleavage embryos using multiple annealing and looping-based amplification cycle (MALBAC) sequencing. METHODS: The embryos studied came from7 patients (maternal aged 26-35) who had healthy birth from the same IVF cycles. These 21 frozen day 3 good-quality embryos were thawed and disaggregated into individual blastomere. Each blastomere was collected and analyzed by MALBAC sequencing. RESULTS: Conclusive results were obtained from a high percentage of blastomeres (95.3%). A total of 46.6% of blastomeres were diploid, 53.4% were abnormal, and 28.0% had complex aneuploidy. Out of 21 embryos, 3 (14.3%) were normal and 18 (85.7%) were mosaics, showing the occurrence of mitotic errors; aneuploidy was confirmed in all cells of 4 of the 18 embryos, which showed the coexistence of meiotic errors. Conclusive results were obtained from all blastomeres of 15 embryos (71.4%, 15/21), which enabled us to reconstruct the cell lineage on the basis of the chromosomal content of the blastomeres in each division. There were 9 mitotic errors (8.7%, 9/103): nondisjunction accounted for 88.9% (8/9), and endoreplication accounted for 11.1% (1/9). CONCLUSIONS: In good-quality embryos, there was a high rate and diverse array of chromosomal abnormalities. Morphological evaluation does not appear to assist in the reduction in meiotic errors from parental origins. Mitotic errors were common, and nondisjunction was found to be the main mechanism causing malsegregation during the cleavage divisions.
Authors: E B Baart; E Martini; I van den Berg; N S Macklon; R-J H Galjaard; B C J M Fauser; D Van Opstal Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2005-09-09 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: D S Johnson; G Gemelos; J Baner; A Ryan; C Cinnioglu; M Banjevic; R Ross; M Alper; B Barrett; J Frederick; D Potter; B Behr; M Rabinowitz Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2010-01-24 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