Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: what technology should you use and what are the differences?

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

Volumn 33, Issue 7, 2016, Pages 823-832

  Brezina, Paul R ^a,b,c   Anchan, Raymond ^d   Kearns, William G ^b,e  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b AdvaGenix   (United States)

^c Fertility Associates of Memphis   (United States)

^d BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^e JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Embryo; FISH, Next Generation, NGS, CGH, SNP; Genetic screening; Microarray; PGS; Preimplantation; Recurrent pregnancy loss

Indexed keywords

ANEUPLOIDY; COMPARATIVE GENOMIC HYBRIDIZATION; FLUORESCENCE IN SITU HYBRIDIZATION; GENE TECHNOLOGY; GENETIC SCREENING; HUMAN; INFERTILITY THERAPY; MICROARRAY ANALYSIS; NEXT GENERATION SEQUENCING; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REAL TIME POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; REVIEW; SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE POLYMORPHISM; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; BLASTOCYST; CYTOLOGY; DNA MICROARRAY; FEMALE; GENETICS; HIGH THROUGHPUT SEQUENCING; IN VITRO FERTILIZATION; PREIMPLANTATION GENETIC DIAGNOSIS; PROCEDURES;

ANEUPLOIDY; BLASTOCYST; FEMALE; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; GENETIC TESTING; HIGH-THROUGHPUT NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCING; HUMANS; OLIGONUCLEOTIDE ARRAY SEQUENCE ANALYSIS; POLYMORPHISM, SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE; PREGNANCY; PREIMPLANTATION DIAGNOSIS; REAL-TIME POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION;

EID: 84974777358     PISSN: 10580468     EISSN: 15737330     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10815-016-0740-2     Document Type: Review

References (54)

1. Brezina PR, Kearns WG. The evolving role of genetics in reproductive medicine. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am. 2014;41:41–55.
2. Brezina PR, Kutteh WH. Clinical applications of preimplantation genetic testing. BMJ (Clin Res Ed). 2015;350:g7611.
3. Brezina PR, Brezina DS, Kearns WG. Preimplantation genetic testing. BMJ (Clin Res Ed). 2012;345:e5908.
4. Hassold T, Chen N, Funkhouser J, et al. A cytogenetic study of 1000 spontaneous abortions. Ann Hum Genet. 1980;44:151–78.
5. Dahdouh EM, Balayla J, Audibert F, et al. Technical update: preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening. J Obstet Gynaecol Can: JOGC = Journal d’obstetrique et gynecologie du Canada: JOGC. 2015;37:451–63.
6. Kalousek DK, Pantzar T, Tsai M, Paradice B. Early spontaneous abortion: morphologic and karyotypic findings in 3,912 cases. Birth Defects Orig Artic Ser. 1993;29:53–61.
7. Handyside AH, Kontogianni EH, Hardy K, Winston RM. Pregnancies from biopsied human preimplantation embryos sexed by Y-specific DNA amplification. Nature. 1990;344:768–70.
8. Jobanputra V, Sobrino A, Kinney A, Kline J, Warburton D. Multiplex interphase FISH as a screen for common aneuploidies in spontaneous abortions. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 2002;17:1166–70.
9. Wong KM, Repping S, Mastenbroek S. Limitations of embryo selection methods. Semin Reprod Med. 2014;32:127–33.
10. Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van der Veen F, Repping S. Preimplantation genetic screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17:454–66.
11. Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van Echten-Arends J, et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:9–17.
12. Preimplantation genetic testing: a Practice Committee opinion. Fertility and sterility 2008;90:S136-43.
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 (Oxford, England). 2010;25:821–3.
14. Committee Opinion No ACOG. 430: preimplantation genetic screening for aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:766–7.
15. Schoolcraft WB, Treff NR, Stevens JM, Ferry K, Katz-Jaffe M, Scott Jr RT. Live birth outcome with trophectoderm biopsy, blastocyst vitrification, and single-nucleotide polymorphism microarray-based comprehensive chromosome screening in infertile patients. Fertil Steril. 2011;96:638–40.
16. Scott Jr RT, Ferry K, Su J, Tao X, Scott K, Treff NR. Comprehensive chromosome screening is highly predictive of the reproductive potential of human embryos: a prospective, blinded, nonselection study. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:870–5.
17. Scott Jr RT, Upham KM, Forman EJ, et al. Blastocyst biopsy with comprehensive chromosome screening and fresh embryo transfer significantly increases in vitro fertilization implantation and delivery rates: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:697–703.
18. Tobler KJ, Ross R, Benner AT, Du L, Brezina PR, Kearns WG. The use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) for preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) and diagnosis (PGD). Fertil Steril. 2014;102:e184–5.
19. Tobler KJ, Brezina PR, Benner AT, Du L, Boyd B, Kearns WG. 23-chromosome single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) microarray preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) for recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) in 687 in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles and 5871 embryos. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:S54.
20. Brezina P, Tobler K, Benner A, Du L, Boyd B, Kearns W. Evaluation of 571 in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles and 4,873 embryos using 23-chromosome single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) microarray preimplantation genetic screening (PGS). Fertil Steril. 2012;97:S23–4.
21. Technology PCotASfRMatSfAR. ASRM practice committee brief communication on pre-implantation genetic screening for aneuploidy: a committee opinion. 2016: En Press.
22. Northrop LE, Treff NR, Levy B, Scott Jr RT. 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. 2010;16:590–600.
23. Brezina PR, Tobler K, Benner AT, Du L, Xu X, Kearns WG. All 23 chromosomes have significant levels of aneuploidy in recurrent pregnancy loss couples. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:S7.
24. Johnson DS, Cinnioglu C, Ross R, et al. Comprehensive analysis of karyotypic mosaicism between trophectoderm and inner cell mass. Mol Hum Reprod. 2010;16:944–9.
25. Munne S, Weier HU, Grifo J, Cohen J. Chromosome mosaicism in human embryos. Biol Reprod. 1994;51:373–9.
26. Novik V, Moulton EB, Sisson ME, et al. The accuracy of chromosomal microarray testing for identification of embryonic mosaicism in human blastocysts. Mol Cytogenet. 2014;7:18.
27. Wang BB, Rubin CH, Williams 3rd J. Mosaicism in chorionic villus sampling: an analysis of incidence and chromosomes involved in 2612 consecutive cases. Prenat Diagn. 1993;13:179–90.
28. Brezina PR, Ross R, Kaufmann R, Anchan R, Zhao Y, Kearns WG. Genetic normalization of differentiating aneuploid cleavage stage embryos. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:S69.
29. Brezina PR, Kutteh WH, Bailey AP, Ke RW. Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) is an excellent tool, but not perfect: a guide to counseling patients considering PGS. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:49–50.
30. Capalbo A, Wright G, Elliott T, Ubaldi FM, Rienzi L, Nagy ZP. FISH reanalysis of inner cell mass and trophectoderm samples of previously array-CGH screened blastocysts shows high accuracy of diagnosis and no major diagnostic impact of mosaicism at the blastocyst stage. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 2013;28:2298–307.
31. De Vos A, Staessen C, De Rycke M, et al. Impact of cleavage-stage embryo biopsy in view of PGD on human blastocyst implantation: a prospective cohort of single embryo transfers. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 2009;24:2988–96.
32. Brezina PR, Kutteh WH. Classic and cutting-edge strategies for the management of early pregnancy loss. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am. 2014;41:1–18.
33. Dreesen J, Destouni A, Kourlaba G, et al. Evaluation of PCR-based preimplantation genetic diagnosis applied to monogenic diseases: a collaborative ESHRE PGD consortium study. Eur J Hum Gen: EJHG 2013.
34. Yang Z, Liu J, Collins GS, et al. Selection of single blastocysts for fresh transfer via standard morphology assessment alone and with array CGH for good prognosis IVF patients: results from a randomized pilot study. Mol Cytogenet. 2012;5:24.
35. Chipko C, Brezina PR, Benner AT, Du L, Christianson MS, Kearns WG. Deletions and duplications identified by 23 chromosome single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) microarray are associated with aneuploidy. Fertil Steril. 2011;96:S21.
36. Christianson MS, Brezina PR, Benner AT, Du L, Siegel A, Kearns WG. Chromosomal duplications (≥200 KILOBASES (KB)) are more common than deletions ≥200 KB in developing human embryos as identified by 23 chromosome single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) microarray. Fertil Steril. 2011;96:S21–2.
37. Ion Personal Genome Machine® (PGM™) System. (Accessed March 31, 2016, at https://www.thermofisher.com/order/catalog/product/4462921.)
38. MiSeq® System. 2016. at http://www.illumina.com/content/dam/illumina-marketing/documents/products/datasheets/datasheet_miseq.pdf.)
39. Fiegler H, Geigl JB, Langer S, et al. High resolution array-CGH analysis of single cells. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007;35:e15.
40. Wells D, Alfarawati S, Fragouli E. Use of comprehensive chromosomal screening for embryo assessment: microarrays and CGH. Mol Hum Reprod. 2008;14:703–10.
41. Du L, Brezina P, Benner A, Swelstad B, Gunn M, Kearns W. The rate of de novo and inherited aneuploidy as determined by 23-chromosome single nucleotide polymorphism microarray (SNP) in embryos generated from parents with known chromosomal translocations. Fertil Steril. 2011;96:S221.
42. Treff NR, Levy B, Su J, Northrop LE, Tao X, Scott Jr RT. SNP microarray-based 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening is significantly more consistent than FISH. Mol Hum Reprod. 2010;16:583–9.
43. Handyside AH. PGD and aneuploidy screening for 24 chromosomes by genome-wide SNP analysis: seeing the wood and the trees. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;23:686–91.
44. Siegel A, Brezina PR, Benner AT, Du L, Gunn M, Kearns WG. 23-chromosome single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) microarray detects genomic aberrations that may be missed by comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) arrays in preimplantation genetic screening (PGS). Fertil Steril. 2011;96:S224.
45. Capalbo A, Treff NR, Cimadomo D, et al. Comparison of array comparative genomic hybridization and quantitative real-time PCR-based aneuploidy screening of blastocyst biopsies. Eur J Hum Genet: EJHG. 2015;23:901–6.
46. Validation report for next generation sequencing for chromosomes (Ploidy) as compared to CGH microarrays. 2015.
47. Treff NR, Tao X, Ferry KM, Su J, Taylor D, Scott Jr RT. Development and validation of an accurate quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction-based assay for human blastocyst comprehensive chromosomal aneuploidy screening. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:819–24.
48. Treff NR, Scott Jr RT. Four-hour quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction-based comprehensive chromosome screening and accumulating evidence of accuracy, safety, predictive value, and clinical efficacy. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:1049–53.
49. Zheng H, Jin H, Liu L, Liu J, Wang WH. Application of next-generation sequencing for 24-chromosome aneuploidy screening of human preimplantation embryos. Mol Cytogenet. 2015;8:38.
50. Fiorentino F, Biricik A, Bono S, et al. Development and validation of a next-generation sequencing-based protocol for 24-chromosome aneuploidy screening of embryos. Fertil Steril. 2014;101:1375–82.
51. Fiorentino F, Bono S, Biricik A, et al. Application of next-generation sequencing technology for comprehensive aneuploidy screening of blastocysts in clinical preimplantation genetic screening cycles. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 2014;29:2802–13.
52. Treff NR, Fedick A, Tao X, Devkota B, Taylor D, Scott RT. Evaluation of targeted next-generation sequencing–based preimplantation genetic diagnosis of monogenic disease. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:1377–84. e6.
53. Damerla RR, Chatterjee B, Li Y, Francis RJ, Fatakia SN, Lo CW. Ion Torrent sequencing for conducting genome-wide scans for mutation mapping analysis. Mamm Genome. 2014;25:120–8.
54. Wherever testing can show the way forward, Good Start Genetics offers an option. 2016. at https://www.goodstartgenetics.com/clinicians/genetic-testing-services-portfolio/.)