Cargando…

Polar body array CGH for prediction of the status of the corresponding oocyte. Part I: clinical results

BACKGROUND: Several randomized controlled trials have not shown a benefit from preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) biopsy of cleavage-stage embryos and assessment of up to 10 chromosomes for aneuploidy. Therefore, a proof-of-principle study was planned to determine the reliability of alternative...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Geraedts, Joep, Montag, Markus, Magli, M. Cristina, Repping, Sjoerd, Handyside, Alan, Staessen, Catherine, Harper, Joyce, Schmutzler, Andreas, Collins, John, Goossens, Veerle, van der Ven, Hans, Vesela, Katerina, Gianaroli, Luca
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3196878/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21908463
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der294
_version_ 1782214246050824192
author Geraedts, Joep
Montag, Markus
Magli, M. Cristina
Repping, Sjoerd
Handyside, Alan
Staessen, Catherine
Harper, Joyce
Schmutzler, Andreas
Collins, John
Goossens, Veerle
van der Ven, Hans
Vesela, Katerina
Gianaroli, Luca
author_facet Geraedts, Joep
Montag, Markus
Magli, M. Cristina
Repping, Sjoerd
Handyside, Alan
Staessen, Catherine
Harper, Joyce
Schmutzler, Andreas
Collins, John
Goossens, Veerle
van der Ven, Hans
Vesela, Katerina
Gianaroli, Luca
author_sort Geraedts, Joep
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Several randomized controlled trials have not shown a benefit from preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) biopsy of cleavage-stage embryos and assessment of up to 10 chromosomes for aneuploidy. Therefore, a proof-of-principle study was planned to determine the reliability of alternative form of PGS, i.e. PGS by polar body (PB) biopsy, with whole genome amplification and microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization (array CGH) analysis. METHODS: In two centres, all mature metaphase II oocytes from patients who consented to the study were fertilized by ICSI. The first and second PBs (PB1and PB2) were biopsied and analysed separately for chromosome copy number by array CGH. If either or both of the PBs were found to be aneuploid, the corresponding zygote was then also processed by array CGH for concordance analysis. RESULTS: Both PBs were biopsied from a total of 226 zygotes from 42 cycles (average 5.5 per cycle; range 1–15) in 41 couples with an average maternal age of 40.0 years. Of these, the ploidy status of the zygote could be predicted in 195 (86%): 55 were euploid (28%) and 140 were aneuploid (72%). With only one exception, there was at least one predicted aneuploid zygote in each cycle and in 19 out of 42 cycles (45%), all zygotes were predicted to be aneuploid. Fresh embryos were transferred in the remaining 23 cycles (55%), and one frozen transfer was done. Eight patients had a clinical pregnancy of which seven were evolutive (ongoing pregnancy rates: 17% per cycle and 30% per transfer). The ploidy status of 156 zygotes was successfully analysed by array CGH: 38 (24%) were euploid and 118 (76%) were aneuploid. In 138 cases complete information was available on both PBs and the corresponding zygotes. In 130 (94%), the ploidy status of the zygote was concordant with the ploidy status of the PBs and in 8 (6%), the results were discordant. CONCLUSIONS: This proof-of-principle study indicates that the ploidy of the zygote can be predicted with acceptable accuracy by array CGH analysis of both PBs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3196878
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-31968782011-10-19 Polar body array CGH for prediction of the status of the corresponding oocyte. Part I: clinical results Geraedts, Joep Montag, Markus Magli, M. Cristina Repping, Sjoerd Handyside, Alan Staessen, Catherine Harper, Joyce Schmutzler, Andreas Collins, John Goossens, Veerle van der Ven, Hans Vesela, Katerina Gianaroli, Luca Hum Reprod Original Articles BACKGROUND: Several randomized controlled trials have not shown a benefit from preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) biopsy of cleavage-stage embryos and assessment of up to 10 chromosomes for aneuploidy. Therefore, a proof-of-principle study was planned to determine the reliability of alternative form of PGS, i.e. PGS by polar body (PB) biopsy, with whole genome amplification and microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization (array CGH) analysis. METHODS: In two centres, all mature metaphase II oocytes from patients who consented to the study were fertilized by ICSI. The first and second PBs (PB1and PB2) were biopsied and analysed separately for chromosome copy number by array CGH. If either or both of the PBs were found to be aneuploid, the corresponding zygote was then also processed by array CGH for concordance analysis. RESULTS: Both PBs were biopsied from a total of 226 zygotes from 42 cycles (average 5.5 per cycle; range 1–15) in 41 couples with an average maternal age of 40.0 years. Of these, the ploidy status of the zygote could be predicted in 195 (86%): 55 were euploid (28%) and 140 were aneuploid (72%). With only one exception, there was at least one predicted aneuploid zygote in each cycle and in 19 out of 42 cycles (45%), all zygotes were predicted to be aneuploid. Fresh embryos were transferred in the remaining 23 cycles (55%), and one frozen transfer was done. Eight patients had a clinical pregnancy of which seven were evolutive (ongoing pregnancy rates: 17% per cycle and 30% per transfer). The ploidy status of 156 zygotes was successfully analysed by array CGH: 38 (24%) were euploid and 118 (76%) were aneuploid. In 138 cases complete information was available on both PBs and the corresponding zygotes. In 130 (94%), the ploidy status of the zygote was concordant with the ploidy status of the PBs and in 8 (6%), the results were discordant. CONCLUSIONS: This proof-of-principle study indicates that the ploidy of the zygote can be predicted with acceptable accuracy by array CGH analysis of both PBs. Oxford University Press 2011-11 2011-09-09 /pmc/articles/PMC3196878/ /pubmed/21908463 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der294 Text en © The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited
spellingShingle Original Articles
Geraedts, Joep
Montag, Markus
Magli, M. Cristina
Repping, Sjoerd
Handyside, Alan
Staessen, Catherine
Harper, Joyce
Schmutzler, Andreas
Collins, John
Goossens, Veerle
van der Ven, Hans
Vesela, Katerina
Gianaroli, Luca
Polar body array CGH for prediction of the status of the corresponding oocyte. Part I: clinical results
title Polar body array CGH for prediction of the status of the corresponding oocyte. Part I: clinical results
title_full Polar body array CGH for prediction of the status of the corresponding oocyte. Part I: clinical results
title_fullStr Polar body array CGH for prediction of the status of the corresponding oocyte. Part I: clinical results
title_full_unstemmed Polar body array CGH for prediction of the status of the corresponding oocyte. Part I: clinical results
title_short Polar body array CGH for prediction of the status of the corresponding oocyte. Part I: clinical results
title_sort polar body array cgh for prediction of the status of the corresponding oocyte. part i: clinical results
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3196878/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21908463
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der294
work_keys_str_mv AT geraedtsjoep polarbodyarraycghforpredictionofthestatusofthecorrespondingoocyteparticlinicalresults
AT montagmarkus polarbodyarraycghforpredictionofthestatusofthecorrespondingoocyteparticlinicalresults
AT maglimcristina polarbodyarraycghforpredictionofthestatusofthecorrespondingoocyteparticlinicalresults
AT reppingsjoerd polarbodyarraycghforpredictionofthestatusofthecorrespondingoocyteparticlinicalresults
AT handysidealan polarbodyarraycghforpredictionofthestatusofthecorrespondingoocyteparticlinicalresults
AT staessencatherine polarbodyarraycghforpredictionofthestatusofthecorrespondingoocyteparticlinicalresults
AT harperjoyce polarbodyarraycghforpredictionofthestatusofthecorrespondingoocyteparticlinicalresults
AT schmutzlerandreas polarbodyarraycghforpredictionofthestatusofthecorrespondingoocyteparticlinicalresults
AT collinsjohn polarbodyarraycghforpredictionofthestatusofthecorrespondingoocyteparticlinicalresults
AT goossensveerle polarbodyarraycghforpredictionofthestatusofthecorrespondingoocyteparticlinicalresults
AT vandervenhans polarbodyarraycghforpredictionofthestatusofthecorrespondingoocyteparticlinicalresults
AT veselakaterina polarbodyarraycghforpredictionofthestatusofthecorrespondingoocyteparticlinicalresults
AT gianaroliluca polarbodyarraycghforpredictionofthestatusofthecorrespondingoocyteparticlinicalresults