Cargando…

The effects of differences in trophectoderm biopsy techniques and the number of cells collected for biopsy on next‐generation sequencing results

PURPOSE: To examine how differences in trophectoderm biopsy techniques affect the frequency of mosaic embryos and sequencing results. METHODS: We examined differences in next‐generation sequencing (NGS) analysis results among operators or according to biopsy technique. Additionally, we determined th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mizobe, Yamato, Kuwatsuru, Yukari, Kuroki, Yuko, Fukumoto, Yumiko, Tokudome, Mari, Moewaki, Harue, Watanabe, Mia, Iwakawa, Tokiko, Takeuchi, Kazuhiro
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9020563/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35475147
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rmb2.12463
_version_ 1784689581452427264
author Mizobe, Yamato
Kuwatsuru, Yukari
Kuroki, Yuko
Fukumoto, Yumiko
Tokudome, Mari
Moewaki, Harue
Watanabe, Mia
Iwakawa, Tokiko
Takeuchi, Kazuhiro
author_facet Mizobe, Yamato
Kuwatsuru, Yukari
Kuroki, Yuko
Fukumoto, Yumiko
Tokudome, Mari
Moewaki, Harue
Watanabe, Mia
Iwakawa, Tokiko
Takeuchi, Kazuhiro
author_sort Mizobe, Yamato
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To examine how differences in trophectoderm biopsy techniques affect the frequency of mosaic embryos and sequencing results. METHODS: We examined differences in next‐generation sequencing (NGS) analysis results among operators or according to biopsy technique. Additionally, we determined the cut‐off for the number of collected cells to predict the occurrence of mosaicism. We collected cells according to the cut‐off value and examined whether there was a difference in the NGS analysis results between the pulling and flicking methods. RESULTS: There was no difference in the NGS analysis results among the operators. Regarding re‐biopsy, changes in the mosaic were observed in all specimens. The cut‐off value for the number of collected cells was five, and when more than five cells were collected, there was no difference in the NGS analysis results between the two methods. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that if trophectoderm biopsy techniques and NGS are stable, the cell collection location has a greater effect on NGS results than the biopsy technique.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9020563
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-90205632022-04-25 The effects of differences in trophectoderm biopsy techniques and the number of cells collected for biopsy on next‐generation sequencing results Mizobe, Yamato Kuwatsuru, Yukari Kuroki, Yuko Fukumoto, Yumiko Tokudome, Mari Moewaki, Harue Watanabe, Mia Iwakawa, Tokiko Takeuchi, Kazuhiro Reprod Med Biol Original Articles PURPOSE: To examine how differences in trophectoderm biopsy techniques affect the frequency of mosaic embryos and sequencing results. METHODS: We examined differences in next‐generation sequencing (NGS) analysis results among operators or according to biopsy technique. Additionally, we determined the cut‐off for the number of collected cells to predict the occurrence of mosaicism. We collected cells according to the cut‐off value and examined whether there was a difference in the NGS analysis results between the pulling and flicking methods. RESULTS: There was no difference in the NGS analysis results among the operators. Regarding re‐biopsy, changes in the mosaic were observed in all specimens. The cut‐off value for the number of collected cells was five, and when more than five cells were collected, there was no difference in the NGS analysis results between the two methods. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that if trophectoderm biopsy techniques and NGS are stable, the cell collection location has a greater effect on NGS results than the biopsy technique. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-04-20 /pmc/articles/PMC9020563/ /pubmed/35475147 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rmb2.12463 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Reproductive Medicine and Biology published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Japan Society for Reproductive Medicine. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Mizobe, Yamato
Kuwatsuru, Yukari
Kuroki, Yuko
Fukumoto, Yumiko
Tokudome, Mari
Moewaki, Harue
Watanabe, Mia
Iwakawa, Tokiko
Takeuchi, Kazuhiro
The effects of differences in trophectoderm biopsy techniques and the number of cells collected for biopsy on next‐generation sequencing results
title The effects of differences in trophectoderm biopsy techniques and the number of cells collected for biopsy on next‐generation sequencing results
title_full The effects of differences in trophectoderm biopsy techniques and the number of cells collected for biopsy on next‐generation sequencing results
title_fullStr The effects of differences in trophectoderm biopsy techniques and the number of cells collected for biopsy on next‐generation sequencing results
title_full_unstemmed The effects of differences in trophectoderm biopsy techniques and the number of cells collected for biopsy on next‐generation sequencing results
title_short The effects of differences in trophectoderm biopsy techniques and the number of cells collected for biopsy on next‐generation sequencing results
title_sort effects of differences in trophectoderm biopsy techniques and the number of cells collected for biopsy on next‐generation sequencing results
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9020563/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35475147
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rmb2.12463
work_keys_str_mv AT mizobeyamato theeffectsofdifferencesintrophectodermbiopsytechniquesandthenumberofcellscollectedforbiopsyonnextgenerationsequencingresults
AT kuwatsuruyukari theeffectsofdifferencesintrophectodermbiopsytechniquesandthenumberofcellscollectedforbiopsyonnextgenerationsequencingresults
AT kurokiyuko theeffectsofdifferencesintrophectodermbiopsytechniquesandthenumberofcellscollectedforbiopsyonnextgenerationsequencingresults
AT fukumotoyumiko theeffectsofdifferencesintrophectodermbiopsytechniquesandthenumberofcellscollectedforbiopsyonnextgenerationsequencingresults
AT tokudomemari theeffectsofdifferencesintrophectodermbiopsytechniquesandthenumberofcellscollectedforbiopsyonnextgenerationsequencingresults
AT moewakiharue theeffectsofdifferencesintrophectodermbiopsytechniquesandthenumberofcellscollectedforbiopsyonnextgenerationsequencingresults
AT watanabemia theeffectsofdifferencesintrophectodermbiopsytechniquesandthenumberofcellscollectedforbiopsyonnextgenerationsequencingresults
AT iwakawatokiko theeffectsofdifferencesintrophectodermbiopsytechniquesandthenumberofcellscollectedforbiopsyonnextgenerationsequencingresults
AT takeuchikazuhiro theeffectsofdifferencesintrophectodermbiopsytechniquesandthenumberofcellscollectedforbiopsyonnextgenerationsequencingresults
AT mizobeyamato effectsofdifferencesintrophectodermbiopsytechniquesandthenumberofcellscollectedforbiopsyonnextgenerationsequencingresults
AT kuwatsuruyukari effectsofdifferencesintrophectodermbiopsytechniquesandthenumberofcellscollectedforbiopsyonnextgenerationsequencingresults
AT kurokiyuko effectsofdifferencesintrophectodermbiopsytechniquesandthenumberofcellscollectedforbiopsyonnextgenerationsequencingresults
AT fukumotoyumiko effectsofdifferencesintrophectodermbiopsytechniquesandthenumberofcellscollectedforbiopsyonnextgenerationsequencingresults
AT tokudomemari effectsofdifferencesintrophectodermbiopsytechniquesandthenumberofcellscollectedforbiopsyonnextgenerationsequencingresults
AT moewakiharue effectsofdifferencesintrophectodermbiopsytechniquesandthenumberofcellscollectedforbiopsyonnextgenerationsequencingresults
AT watanabemia effectsofdifferencesintrophectodermbiopsytechniquesandthenumberofcellscollectedforbiopsyonnextgenerationsequencingresults
AT iwakawatokiko effectsofdifferencesintrophectodermbiopsytechniquesandthenumberofcellscollectedforbiopsyonnextgenerationsequencingresults
AT takeuchikazuhiro effectsofdifferencesintrophectodermbiopsytechniquesandthenumberofcellscollectedforbiopsyonnextgenerationsequencingresults