Does additional hybridization also improve preimplantation genetic screening results?

Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics

Volumn 10, Issue 8, 2010, Pages 981-985

  Geraedts, Joep Pm ^a  

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

FISH accuracy; preimplantation genetic screening; rehybridization; subtelomeric probes

Indexed keywords

CHROMOSOME ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; EMBRYO; EMBRYO TRANSFER; FLUORESCENCE IN SITU HYBRIDIZATION; GENETIC SCREENING; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MICROARRAY ANALYSIS; NOTE; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS;

EID: 78649295227     PISSN: 14737159     EISSN: 17448352     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1586/erm.10.94     Document Type: Note

References (36)

1. Jansen RP, Bowman MC, de Boer KA et al. What next for preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)? Experience with blastocyst biopsy and testing for aneuploidy. Hum. Reprod. 23, 1476-1478 (2008).
2. Mersereau JE, Pergament E, Zhang X et al. Preimplantation genetic screening to improve in vitro fertilization pregnancy rates: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Fertil. Steril. 90, 1287-1289 (2008).
3. Staessen, C, Verpoest W, Donoso P et al. Preimplantation genetic screening does not improve delivery rate in women under the age of 36 following single-embryo transfer. Hum. Reprod. 23(12), 2818-2825 (2008).
4. Meyer LR, Klipstein S, Hazlett WD et al. A prospective randomized controlled trial of preimplantation genetic screening in the 'good prognosis' patient. Fertil. Steril. 91(5), 1731-1738 (2009).
5. Staessen C, Platteau P, Van Assche E et al. Comparison of blastocyst transfer with or without preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy screening in couples with advanced maternal age: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Hum. Reprod. 19, 2849-2858 (2004).
6. Stevens, J, Wale P, Surrey ES et al. Is aneuploidy screening for patients aged 35 or over beneficial? A prospective randomized trial. Fertil. Steril. 82, S249 (2004).
7. Debrock S, Melotte C, Spiessens C et al. Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) for aneuploidy in embryos after in vitro fertilization (IVF) does not improve reproductive outcome in women over 35: a prospective controlled randomized study. Fertil. Steril. 90, 1-10 (2009).
8. Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van Echten-Arends J et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N. Engl. J. Med. 357(1), 9-17 (2007).
9. Hardarson T, Hanson C, Lundin K et al. Preimplantation genetic screening in women of advanced maternal age caused a decrease in clinical pregnancy rate: a randomized controlled trial. Hum. Reprod. 23, 2806-2812 (2008).
10. Schoolcraft WB, Katz-Jaffe MG, Stevens J et al. Preimplantation aneuploidy testing for infertile patients of advanced maternal age: a randomized prospective trial. Fertil. Steril. 92, 157-162 (2009).
11. Anderson R, Pickering S. The current status of preimplantation genetic screening: British Fertility Society Policy and Practice Guidelines. Hum. Fertil. 11(2), 71-75 (2008).
12. ASRM. Preimplantation genetic testing: a Practice Committee opinion. Fertil. Steril. 90 (5 Suppl.), S136-S143 (2008).
13. Harper J, Coonen E, De Rycke M et al. What next for preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)? A position statement from the ESHRE PGD Consortium Steering Committee. Hum. Reprod. 25(4), 821-823 (2010).
14. Colls P, Escudero T, Cekleniak N et al. Increased efficiency efficiency of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for infertility using "no result rescue". Fertil. Steril. 88(1), 53-61 (2007).
15. Uher P, Baborova P, Kralickova M et al. Non-informative results and monosomies in PGD: the importance of a third round of re-hybridisation. Reprod. Biomed. Online 19, 539-546 (2009).
16. Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis International Society (PGDIS). Guidelines for good practice in PGD: programme requirements and laboratory quality assurance. Reprod. Biomed. Online 16, 134-147 (2008).
17. Mir P, Rodrigo L, Mateu E et al. Improving FISH diagnosis for preimplantation genetic aneuploidy screening. Hum. Reprod. 25(7), 1812-1817 (2010).
18. Magli MC, Sandalinas M, Escudero T et al. Double locus analysis of chromosome 21 for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of aneuploidy. Prenat. Diagn. 21(12), 1080-1085 (2001).
19. Colls P, Sandalinas M, Pagidas K et al. PGD analysis for aneuploidy in a patient heterozygous for a polymorphism of chromosome 16 (16qh-). Prenat. Diagn. 24, 741-744 (2004).
20. Rodrigo L, Mateu E, Mercader A et al. Rescue of false monosomies in a PGD program using subtelomeric probes. 32. 12th International Conference on Prenatal Diagnose and Therapy. Budapest, Hungary. Final program and abstracts book (2004).
21. Hopman AH, Ramaekers FC, Raap AK et al. In situ hybridization as a tool to study numerical chromosome aberrations in solid bladder tumors. Histochemistry 89(4), 307-316 (1988).
22. Wilton L, Thornhill A, Traeger-Synodinos J et al. The causes of misdiagnosis and adverse outcomes in PGD. Hum. Reprod. 24(5), 1221-1228 (2009).
23. Scriven PN, Bossuyt PM. Diagnostic accuracy: theoretical models for preimplantation genetic testing of a single nucleus using the fluorescence in situ hybridization technique. Hum. Reprod. 25(10), 2622-2628 (2010).
24. Cohen J, Wells D, Munné S. Removal of 2 cells from cleavage stage embryos is likely to reduce the efficacy of chromosomal tests that are used to enhance implantation rates. Fertil. Steril. 87(3), 496-503 (2007).
25. Beyer CE, Osianlis T, Boekel K et al. Preimplantation genetic screening outcomes are associated with culture conditions. Hum. Reprod. 24, 1212-1220 (2009).
26. Mercader A, Rubio C, Buendía P et al. Improvement of a preimplantation genetic screening program with the co-culture of embryos with a monolayer of endometrialepithelial cells. Hum. Reprod. 24 (Suppl. 1), i209 (2009).
27. Vanneste, E, Voet T, Le Caignec C et al. Chromosome instability is common in human cleavage-stage embryos. Nat. Med. 15(5), 577-583 (2009).
28. Nicolaidis P, Petersen MB. Origin and mechanisms of non-disjunction in human autosomal trisomies. Hum. Reprod. 13(2), 313-319 (1998).
29. Voullaire, L, Slater H, Williamson R et al. Chromosome analysis of blastomeres from human embryos by using comparative genomic hybridization. Hum. Genet. 106(2), 210-217 (2000).
30. Wells D, Delhanty JD. Comprehensive chromosomal analysis of human preimplantation embryos using whole genome amplification and single cell comparative genomic hybridization. Mol. Hum. Reprod. 6(11), 1055-1062 (2000).
31. Seli E, Robert C, Sirard MA. OMICS in assisted reproduction: possibilities and pitfalls. Mol. Hum. Reprod. 16(8), 513-530 (2010).
32. Fishel S, Gordon A, Lynch C et al. Live birth after polar body array comparative genomic hybridization prediction of embryo ploidy - the future of IVF? Fertil. Steril. 93(3), 1006.e7-1006.e10 (2010).
33. Treff NR, Levy B, Su J et al. SNP microarray based 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening is significantly more consistent than FISH. Mol. Hum. Reprod. 16(8), 583-589 (2010).
34. Northrop LE, Treff NR, Levy B, Scott RT Jr. SNP microarray based 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening demonstrates that cleavage stage FISH poorly predicts aneuploidy in embryos that develop to morphologically normal blastocysts. Mol. Hum. Reprod. 16(8), 590-600 (2010).
35. Handyside AH, Harton GL, Mariani B et al. Karyomapping: a universal method for genome wide analysis of genetic disease based on mapping crossovers between parental haplotypes. J. Med. Genet. 47, 651-658 (2010).
36. Johnson DS, Cinnioglu C, Ross R et al. Comprehensive analysis of karyotypic mosaicism between trophectoderm and inner cell mass. Mol. Hum. Reprod. DOI: 10.1093/molehr/gaq062 (2010) (Epub ahead of print).