Mosaicism between trophectoderm and inner cell mass

Fertility and Sterility

Volumn 107, Issue 5, 2017, Pages 1098-1106

  Capalbo, Antonio ^a,b   Rienzi, Laura ^a,b  

^a Centers for Reproductive Medicine   (Italy)

^b Gruppo Salus   (Italy)

Author keywords

aneuploidies; blastocyst; Chromosomal mosaicism; inner cell mass; preimplantation genetic screening; trophectoderm

Indexed keywords

ANEUPLOIDY; BLASTOCYST; CHROMOSOME STRUCTURE; ECTODERM; EMBRYO DEVELOPMENT; HUMAN; INNER CELL MASS; MOSAICISM; PREIMPLANTATION EMBRYO; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; CHROMOSOME DISORDERS; EMBRYO TRANSFER; EMBRYOLOGY; FEMALE; GENETIC COUNSELING; GENETIC SCREENING; GENETICS; NIDATION; PREIMPLANTATION GENETIC DIAGNOSIS; PROCEDURES;

CHROMOSOME DISORDERS; EMBRYO IMPLANTATION; EMBRYO TRANSFER; FEMALE; GENETIC COUNSELING; GENETIC TESTING; HUMANS; MOSAICISM; PREIMPLANTATION DIAGNOSIS;

EID: 85017501470     PISSN: 00150282     EISSN: 15565653     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.03.023     Document Type: Review

References (61)

1. 1 Hassold, T., Hunt, P., To err (meiotically) is human: the genesis of human aneuploidy. Nat Rev Genet 2 (2001), 280–291.
2. 2 Chiang, T., Schultz, R.M., Lampson, M.A., Meiotic origins of maternal age-related aneuploidy. Biol Reprod 86 (2012), 1–7.
3. 3 Ottolini, C.S., Newnham, L.J., Capalbo, A., Natesan, S.A., Joshi, H.A., Cimadomo, D., et al. Genome-wide maps of recombination and chromosome segregation in human oocytes and embryos show selection for maternal recombination rates. Nat Genet 47 (2015), 727–735.
4. 4 Franasiak, J.M., Olcha, M., Shastri, S., Molinaro, T.A., Congdon, H., Treff, N.R., et al. Embryonic aneuploidy does not differ among genetic ancestry according to continental origin as determined by ancestry informative markers. Hum Reprod 31 (2016), 2391–2395.
5. 5 Vermeesch, J.R., Voet, T., Devriendt, K., Prenatal and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. Nat Rev Genet 17 (2016), 643–656.
6. 6 Chen, M., Wei, S., Hu, J., Quan, S., Can comprehensive chromosome screening technology improve IVF/ICSI outcomes? A meta-analysis. PLoS One, 10, 2015, e0140779.
7. 7 McCoy, R.C., Demko, Z.P., Ryan, A., Banjevic, M., Hill, M., Sigurjonsson, S., et al. Evidence of selection against complex mitotic-origin aneuploidy during preimplantation development. PLoS Genet, 11, 2015, e1005601.
8. 8 Cohen, J., Sorting out chromosome errors. Science 296 (2002), 2164–2166.
9. 9 Johnson, D.S., Cinnioglu, C., Ross, R., Filby, A., Gemelos, G., Hill, M., et al. Comprehensive analysis of karyotypic mosaicism between trophectoderm and inner cell mass. Mol Hum Reprod 16 (2010), 944–949.
10. 10 Wapner, R.J., Simpson, J.L., Golbus, M.S., Zachary, J.M., Ledbetter, D.H., Desnick, R.J., et al. Chorionic mosaicism: association with fetal loss but not with adverse perinatal outcome. Prenat Diagn 12 (1992), 347–355.
11. 11 Wilkins-Haug, L., Roberts, D.J., Morton, C.C., Confined placental mosaicism and intrauterine growth retardation: a case-control analysis of placentas at delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 172 (1995), 44–50.
12. 12 Malvestiti, F., Agrati, C., Grimi, B., Pompilii, E., Izzi, C., Martinoni, L., et al. Interpreting mosaicism in chorionic villi: results of a monocentric series of 1001 mosaics in chorionic villi with follow-up amniocentesis. Prenat Diagn 35 (2015), 1117–1127.
13. 13 Taylor, T.H., Gitlin, S.A., Patrick, J.L., Crain, J.L., Wilson, J.M., Griffin, D.K., The origin, mechanisms, incidence and clinical consequences of chromosomal mosaicism in humans. Hum Reprod Update 20 (2014), 571–581.
14. 14 Capalbo, A., Ubaldi, F.M., Rienzi, L., Scott, R., Treff, N., Detecting mosaicism in trophectoderm biopsies: current challenges and future possibilities. Hum Reprod 32 (2017), 492–498.
15. 15 Munne, S., Grifo, J., Wells, D., Mosaicism: “Survival of the fittest” versus “no embryo left behind”. Fertil Steril 105 (2016), 1146–1149.
16. 16 Scott, R.T. Jr., Galliano, D., The challenge of embryonic mosaicism in preimplantation genetic screening. Fertil Steril 105 (2016), 1150–1152.
17. 17 Mastenbroek, S., Repping, S., Preimplantation genetic screening: back to the future. Hum Reprod 29 (2014), 1846–1850.
18. 18 Braude, P., Bolton, V., Moore, S., Human gene expression first occurs between the four- and eight-cell stages of preimplantation development. Nature 332 (1988), 459–461.
19. 19 Petropoulos, S., Edsgard, D., Reinius, B., Deng, Q., Panula, S.P., Codeluppi, S., et al. Single-cell RNA-Seq reveals lineage and X chromosome dynamics in human preimplantation embryos. Cell, 167, 2016, 285.
20. 20 van Echten-Arends, J., Mastenbroek, S., Sikkema-Raddatz, B., Korevaar, J.C., Heineman, M.J., van der Veen, F., et al. Chromosomal mosaicism in human preimplantation embryos: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update 17 (2011), 620–627.
21. 21 Zamani Esteki, M., Dimitriadou, E., Mateiu, L., Melotte, C., Van der Aa, N., Kumar, P., et al. Concurrent whole-genome haplotyping and copy-number profiling of single cells. Am J Hum Genet 96 (2015), 894–912.
22. 22 Bazrgar, M., Gourabi, H., Valojerdi, M.R., Yazdi, P.E., Baharvand, H., Self-correction of chromosomal abnormalities in human preimplantation embryos and embryonic stem cells. Stem Cells Dev 22 (2013), 2449–2456.
23. 23 Mertzanidou, A., Spits, C., Nguyen, H.T., Van de Velde, H., Sermon, K., Evolution of aneuploidy up to day 4 of human preimplantation development. Hum Reprod 28 (2013), 1716–1724.
24. 24 Kort, D.H., Chia, G., Treff, N.R., Tanaka, A.J., Xing, T., Vensand, L.B., et al. Human embryos commonly form abnormal nuclei during development: a mechanism of DNA damage, embryonic aneuploidy, and developmental arrest. Hum Reprod 31 (2016), 312–323.
25. 25 Vega, M., Breborowicz, A., Moshier, E.L., McGovern, P.G., Keltz, M.D., Blastulation rates decline in a linear fashion from euploid to aneuploid embryos with single versus multiple chromosomal errors. Fertil Steril 102 (2014), 394–398.
26. 26 Bisignano, A., Wells, D., Harton, G., Munne, S., PGD and aneuploidy screening for 24 chromosomes: advantages and disadvantages of competing platforms. Reprod Biomed Online 23 (2011), 677–685.
27. 27 Handyside, A.H., PGD and aneuploidy screening for 24 chromosomes by genome-wide SNP analysis: seeing the wood and the trees. Reprod Biomed Online 23 (2011), 686–691.
28. 28 Capalbo, A., Rienzi, L., Cimadomo, D., Maggiulli, R., Elliott, T., Wright, G., et al. Correlation between standard blastocyst morphology, euploidy and implantation: an observational study in two centers involving 956 screened blastocysts. Hum Reprod 29 (2014), 1173–1181.
29. 29 Franasiak, J.M., Forman, E.J., Hong, K.H., Werner, M.D., Upham, K.M., Treff, N.R., et al. The nature of aneuploidy with increasing age of the female partner: a review of 15,169 consecutive trophectoderm biopsies evaluated with comprehensive chromosomal screening. Fertil Steril 101 (2014), 656–663.e1.
30. 30 Rienzi, L., Capalbo, A., Stoppa, M., Romano, S., Maggiulli, R., Albricci, L., et al. No evidence of association between blastocyst aneuploidy and morphokinetic assessment in a selected population of poor-prognosis patients: a longitudinal cohort study. Reprod Biomed Online 30 (2015), 57–66.
31. 31 Carbone, L., Chavez, S.L., Mammalian pre-implantation chromosomal instability: species comparison, evolutionary considerations, and pathological correlations. Syst Biol Reprod Med 61 (2015), 321–335.
32. 32 Bedzhov, I., Graham, S.J., Leung, C.Y., Zernicka-Goetz, M., Developmental plasticity, cell fate specification and morphogenesis in the early mouse embryo. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 2014, 369.
33. 33 Morris, S.A., Teo, R.T., Li, H., Robson, P., Glover, D.M., Zernicka-Goetz, M., Origin and formation of the first two distinct cell types of the inner cell mass in the mouse embryo. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107 (2010), 6364–6369.
34. 34 Fleming, T.P., A quantitative analysis of cell allocation to trophectoderm and inner cell mass in the mouse blastocyst. Dev Biol 119 (1987), 520–531.
35. 35 Zernicka-Goetz, M., Huang, S., Stochasticity versus determinism in development: a false dichotomy?. Nat Rev Genet 11 (2010), 743–744.
36. 36 Biggins, J.S., Royer, C., Watanabe, T., Srinivas, S., Towards understanding the roles of position and geometry on cell fate decisions during preimplantation development. Semin Cell Dev Biol 47–48 (2015), 74–79.
37. 37 Ajduk, A., Zernicka-Goetz, M., Polarity and cell division orientation in the cleavage embryo: from worm to human. Mol Hum Reprod 10 (2016), 691–703.
38. 38 Hirate, Y., Hirahara, S., Inoue, K., Suzuki, A., Alarcon, V.B., Akimoto, K., et al. Polarity-dependent distribution of angiomotin localizes Hippo signaling in preimplantation embryos. Curr Biol 23 (2013), 1181–1194.
39. 39 Leung, C.Y., Zernicka-Goetz, M., Angiomotin prevents pluripotent lineage differentiation in mouse embryos via Hippo pathway-dependent and -independent mechanisms. Nat Commun, 4, 2013, 2251.
40. 40 Nishioka, N., Inoue, K., Adachi, K., Kiyonari, H., Ota, M., Ralston, A., et al. The Hippo signaling pathway components Lats and Yap pattern Tead4 activity to distinguish mouse trophectoderm from inner cell mass. Dev Cell 16 (2009), 398–410.
41. 41 Morin-Kensicki, E.M., Boone, B.N., Howell, M., Stonebraker, J.R., Teed, J., Alb, J.G., et al. Defects in yolk sac vasculogenesis, chorioallantoic fusion, and embryonic axis elongation in mice with targeted disruption of Yap65. Mol Cell Biol 26 (2006), 77–87.
42. 42 Makita, R., Uchijima, Y., Nishiyama, K., Amano, T., Chen, Q., Takeuchi, T., et al. Multiple renal cysts, urinary concentration defects, and pulmonary emphysematous changes in mice lacking TAZ. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 294 (2008), F542–F553.
43. 43 Chazaud, C., Rossant, J., Disruption of early proximodistal patterning and AVE formation in Apc mutants. Development 133 (2006), 3379–3387.
44. 44 Wicklow, E., Blij, S., Frum, T., Hirate, Y., Lang, R.A., Sasaki, H., et al. HIPPO pathway members restrict SOX2 to the inner cell mass where it promotes ICM fates in the mouse blastocyst. PLoS Genet, 10, 2014, e1004618.
45. 45 Nichols, J., Zevnik, B., Anastassiadis, K., Niwa, H., Klewe-Nebenius, D., Chambers, I., et al. Formation of pluripotent stem cells in the mammalian embryo depends on the POU transcription factor Oct4. Cell 95 (1998), 379–391.
46. 46 Mitsui, K., Tokuzawa, Y., Itoh, H., Segawa, K., Murakami, M., Takahashi, K., et al. The homeoprotein Nanog is required for maintenance of pluripotency in mouse epiblast and ES cells. Cell 113 (2003), 631–642.
47. 47 Nishioka, N., Yamamoto, S., Kiyonari, H., Sato, H., Sawada, A., Ota, M., et al. Tead4 is required for specification of trophectoderm in pre-implantation mouse embryos. Mech Dev 125 (2008), 270–283.
48. 48 Kang, M., Piliszek, A., Artus, J., Hadjantonakis, A.K., FGF4 is required for lineage restriction and salt-and-pepper distribution of primitive endoderm factors but not their initial expression in the mouse. Development 140 (2013), 267–279.
49. 49 Wong, C.C., Loewke, K.E., Bossert, N.L., Behr, B., De Jonge, C.J., Baer, T.M., et al. Non-invasive imaging of human embryos before embryonic genome activation predicts development to the blastocyst stage. Nat Biotechnol 28 (2010), 1115–1121.
50. 50 Kiessling, A.A., Timing is everything in the human embryo. Nat Biotechnol 28 (2010), 1025–1026.
51. 51 Bolton, H., Graham, S.J., Van der Aa, N., Kumar, P., Theunis, K., Fernandez Gallardo, E., et al. Mouse model of chromosome mosaicism reveals lineage-specific depletion of aneuploid cells and normal developmental potential. Nat Commun, 7, 2016, 11165.
52. 52 Capalbo, A., Wright, G., Elliott, T., Ubaldi, F.M., Rienzi, L., Nagy, Z.P., 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 28 (2013), 2298–2307.
53. 53 Gueye, N.A., Devkota, B., Taylor, D., Pfundt, R., Scott, R.T. Jr., Treff, N.R., Uniparental disomy in the human blastocyst is exceedingly rare. Fertil Steril 101 (2014), 232–236.
54. 54 Van der Aa, N., Cheng, J., Mateiu, L., Zamani Esteki, M., Kumar, P., Dimitriadou, E., et al. Genome-wide copy number profiling of single cells in S-phase reveals DNA-replication domains. Nucleic Acids Res, 41, 2013, e66.
55. 55 Treff, N.R., Franasiak, J.M., Detection of segmental aneuploidy and mosaicism in the human preimplantation embryo: technical considerations and limitations. Fertil Steril 107 (2017), 27–31.
56. 56 Fragouli, E., Lenzi, M., Ross, R., Katz-Jaffe, M., Schoolcraft, W.B., Wells, D., Comprehensive molecular cytogenetic analysis of the human blastocyst stage. Hum Reprod 23 (2008), 2596–2608.
57. 57 Northrop, L.E., Treff, N.R., Levy, B., Scott, R.T. 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 (2010), 590–600.
58. 58 Huang, A., Adusumalli, J., Patel, S., Liem, J., Williams, J. 3rd, Pisarska, M.D., Prevalence of chromosomal mosaicism in pregnancies from couples with infertility. Fertil Steril 91 (2009), 2355–2360.
59. 59 Greco, E., Minasi, M.G., Fiorentino, F., Healthy babies after intrauterine transfer of mosaic aneuploid blastocysts. N Engl J Med 373 (2015), 2089–2090.
60. 60 Mamas, T., Gordon, A., Brown, A., Harper, J., Sengupta, S., Detection of aneuploidy by array comparative genomic hybridization using cell lines to mimic a mosaic trophectoderm biopsy. Fertil Steril 97 (2012), 943–947.
61. 61 Goodrich, D., Tao, X., Bohrer, C., Lonczak, A., Xing, T., Zimmerman, R., et al. A randomized and blinded comparison of qPCR and NGS-based detection of aneuploidy in a cell line mixture model of blastocyst biopsy mosaicism. J Assist Reprod Genet 33 (2016), 1473–1480.