medigraphic.com

2013, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Med Repro 2013; 5.6 (4)

Clinical Results of the Use of Comparative Genomic Hybridization Based on DNA Microarrays (a-CGH) in in-Vitro Fertilization

Sánchez URA, Vera AMG, Batista EA, Romero TS

Language: Spanish
References: 71
Page: 159-166
PDF size: 966.12 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Most methods to assess embryo viability in IVF (in vitro fertilization) are based on the morphological characteristics of the embryo at different stages of development, indicating an inaccurate association between embryonic morphology and aneuploidy. Recently, favorable clinical results have been achieved using comparative genomic hybridization based on DNA microarrays (a-CGH), justifying this technique for embryo selection. This paper analyzes the clinical outcome of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) during IVF cycles. Clinical results after the analysis of the 24 chromosomes by a-CGH showed increased implantation and pregnancy rates, higher than the assessment of the limited number of chromosomes by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Assessment of embryo biopsy using a- CGH provides encouraging results improving implantation and pregnancy rates, providing a response to the current trend in the single-embryo transfer. Larger randomized studies to allow establish conclusions with firm statistical bases are needed.


REFERENCES

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Society for Reproductive Medicine. 2006 Assisted Reproductive Technology Success Rates: National Summary and Fertility Clinic Reports. Atlanta: Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2008.

  2. Sermon K, van Steirteghem A, Liebaers I. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Lancet 2004;363:1633-1641.

  3. Thornhill AR, deDie Smulders CE, Geraedts JP, Harper JC, et al. ESHRE PGD consortium best practice guidelines for clinical preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and preimplantation genetic screening (PGS). Hum Reprod 2005;20:35-48.

  4. Verlinsky Y, Tur-Kaspa I, Cieslak J, Bernal A, et al. Preimplantation testing for chromosomal disorders improves reproductive outcome of poor-prognosis patients. Reprod BioMed Online 2005;11:219-225.

  5. Hardarson T, Hanson C, Sjogren A, Lundin K. Human embryos with unevenly sized blastomeres have lower pregnancy and implantation rates: indications for aneuploidy and multinucleation. Hum Reprod 2001;16:313-318.

  6. Borini A, Lagalla C, Cattoli M, Sereni E, et al. Predictive factors for embryo implantation potential. Reprod BioMed Online 2005;10:653-668.

  7. Nomura M, Iwase A, Furui K, Kitagawa T, et al. Preferable correlation to blastocyst development and pregnancy rates with a new embryo grading system specific for day 3 embryos. J Assist Reprod Genet 2007;24:23-28.

  8. Munné S. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and human implantation. A review. Placenta 2003;24:S70-S76.

  9. Baltaci V, Satiroglu H, Kabukcu C, Unsal E, et al. Relationship between embryo quality and aneuploidies. Reprod BioMed Online 2006;12:77-82.

  10. Warburton D, Kline J, Stein Z. Cytogenetic abnormalities in spontaneous abortions of recognized conceptions. Perinatal genetics: diagnosis and treatment. New York: Academic Press, 1986.

  11. Munné S, Magli C, Bahce M, Fung J. Preimplantation diagnosis of the aneuploidies most commonly found in spontaneous abortions and live births: XY, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22. Prenat Diagn 1998;18:1459-1466.

  12. Sarosi C, Schwartz LB, Lublin J. Chromosomal analysis of early fetal losses in relation to transvaginal ultrasonographic detection of fetal heart motion after infertility. Fertil Steril 1998;69:274-277.

  13. Vidal F, Gimenez C, Rubio C, Simon C, et al. FISH preimplantation diagnosis of chromosome aneuploidy in recurrent pregnancy wastage. J Assist Reproduct Genet 1998;15:310-313.

  14. Pellicer A, Rubio C, Vidal F, Mınguez Y, et al. In vitro fertilization plus preimplantation genetic diagnosis in patients with recurrent miscarriage: an analysis of chromosome abnormalities in human preimplantation embryos. Fertil Steril 1999;71:1033-1039.

  15. Kuliev A, Cieslak J, Ilkevitch Y, Verlinsky Y. Chromosomal abnormalities in a series of 6733 human oocytes in preimplantation diagnosis for age-related aneuploidies. Reprod BioMed Online 2003;6:54-59.

  16. Baruch S, Kaufman D, Hudson KL. Genetic testing of embryos: practices and perspectives of US in vitro fertilization clinics. Fertil Steril 2008;89:1053-1058.

  17. van Rij MC, Goossens V. ESHRE PGD consortium data collection IX: cycles from January to December 2006 with pregnancy follow up to October 2007. Hum Reprod 2009;24:1786-1810.

  18. Handyside AH, Kontogianni EH, Hardy K, Winston RM. Pregnancies from biopsied human preimplantation eminbryos sexed by Y-specific DNA amplification. Nature 1990;344:768-770.

  19. Munné S, Lee A, Rosenwaks Z, Grifo J, Cohen J. Diagnosis of major chromosome aneuploidies in human preimplantation embryos. Hum Reprod 1993;8:2185-2191.

  20. Munné S, Dailey T, Sultan KM, Grifo J, Cohen J. The use of first polar bodies for preimplantation diagnosis of aneuploidy. Hum Reprod 1995;10:1014-1020.

  21. Verlinsky Y, Cieslak J, Ivakhnenko V, Lifchez A, et al. Birth of healthy children after preimplantation diagnosis of common aneuploidies by polar body fluorescent in situ hybridization analysis. Preimplantation Genetics Group. Fertil Steril 1996;66:126-129.

  22. Munné S, Sandalinas M, Escudero T, Velilla E, et al. Improved implantation after preimplantation genetic diagnosis of aneuploidy. Reprod Biomed Online 2003;7:91-97.

  23. Munné S, Chen S, Fischer J, Colls P, et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis reduces pregnancy loss in women aged 35 years and older with a history of recurrent miscarriages. Fertil Steril 2005;84:331-335.

  24. Gianaroli L, Magli MC, Ferraretti AP, Munné S. Preimplantation diagnosis for aneuploidies in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization with a poor prognosis: identification of the categories for which it should be proposed. Fertil Steril 1999;72:837-844.

  25. Munné S, Magli MC, Cohen J. Positive outcome after preimplantation diagnosis of aneuploidy in human embryos. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:2191-2199.

  26. Munné S, Fischer J, Chen S, Warner A, et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis significantly reduces pregnancy loss in infertile couples: a multicenter study. Fertil Steril 2006;85:326-332.

  27. Colls P, Escudero T, Cekleniak N, Sadowy S, et al. Increased efficiency of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for infertility using “no result rescue”. Fertil Steril 2007;88:53-61.

  28. McArthur SJ, Leigh D, Marshall JT, Gee AJ, et al. Pregnancies and live births after trophectoderm biopsy and preimplantation genetic testing of human blastocysts. Fertil Steril 2005;84:1628-1636.

  29. Schoolcraft WB, Fragouli L, Stevens J, Munné S, et al. Clinical application of comprehensive chromosomal screening at the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril 2009[Epub ahead of print].

  30. Adamson D, Baker V. Multiple births from assisted reproductive technologies: a challenge that must be met. Fertil Steril 2004;81:517-522.

  31. Tiitinen A, Halttunen M, Härkki P, Vuoristo P. Elective single embryo transfer: the value of cryopreservation. Hum Reprod 2001;16:1140-1144.

  32. Leese B, Denton J. Attitudes towards single embryo transfer, twin and higher order pregnancies in patients undergoing infertility treatment: a review. Hum Fertil (Camb) 2010;13:28-34.

  33. Pinborg A, Loft A, Schmidt L, Andersen A. Morbidity in a Danish national cohort of 472 IVF/ICSI twins, 1132 non-IVF/ ICSI twins and 634 IVF/ICSI singletons: health-related and social implications for the children and their families. Hum Reprod 2003;18:1234-1243.

  34. Stromberg B, Dahlquist G, Ericson A, Finnström O, et al. Neurological sequelae in children born after in vitro fertilisation: a population-based study. Lancet 2002;359:461-465.

  35. Gelbaya TA, Tsoumpou I, Nardo LG. The likelihood of live birth and multiple birth after single versus double embryo transfer a the cleavage stage: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2009;94:936-945.

  36. Munné S, Bahce M, Sandalinas M, Escudero T, et al. Differences in chromosome susceptibility to aneuploidy and survival to first trimester. Reprod Biomed Online 2004;8:81-90.

  37. Silber S, Escudeo T, Lenahan K, Abdelhadi I, et al. Chromosomal abnormalities in embryos derived from testicular sperm extraction. Fertil Steril 2003;79:30-38.

  38. Donoso P, Platteau P, Papanokolaou EG, Staessen C, et al. Does PGD for aneuploidy screening change the selection of embryos derived from testicular sperm extraction in obstructive and non-obstructive azoospermic men? Hum Reprod 2006;21:2390-2395.

  39. Munné S, Ary J, Zouves C, Escudero T, et al. Wide range of chromosome abnormalities in the embryos of young egg donors. Reprod Biomed Online 2006;12:340-346.

  40. Fragouli E, Wells D, Whalley KM, Mills JA, et al. Increased susceptibility to maternal aneuploidy demonstrated by comparative genomic hybridization analysis of human MII oocytes and first polar bodies. Cytogenet Genome Res 2006;114:30-38.

  41. Wilton L, Voullaire L, Sargeant P, Williamson R, McBain J. Preimplantation aneuploidy screening using comparative genomic hybridization or fluorescence in situ hybridization of embryos from patients with recurrent implantation failure. Fertil Steril 2003;80:860-868.

  42. Voullaire L, Collins V, Callaghan T, McBain J, et al. High incidence of complex chromosome abnormality in cleavage embryos from patients with repeated implantation failure. Fertil Steril 2007;87:1053-1058.

  43. Schoolcraft WB, Fragouli E, Stevens J, Munné S, et al. Clinical application of comprehensive chromosomal screening at the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril 2010;94:1700-1706.

  44. leCaignec C, Spits C, Sermon K, de Rycke M, et al. Singlecell chromosomal imbalances detection by array CGH. Nucleic Acids Res 2006;34:e68.

  45. Hellani A, Abu-Amero K, Azouri J, El-Akoum S. Successful pregnancies after application of array-comparative genomic hybridization in PGS-aneuploidy screening. RBM Online 2008;17:841-847.

  46. Wells D, Alfarawati S, Fragouli E. Use of comprehensive chromosomal screening for embryo assessment: microarrays and CGH. Mol Hum Reprod 2008;14:703-710.

  47. Fishel S, Gordon A, Lynch C, Dowell K, et al. Live birth after polar body array comparative genomic hybridization prediction of embryo ploidy-the future of IVF? Fertil Steril 2010;93:1006.e7-10.

  48. Mir P, Rodrigo L, Mercader A, Buendía P, et al. False positive rate of an array CGH platform for single-cell preimplantation genetic screening and subsequent clinical application on day-3. J Assist Reprod Genet 2013;30:143-149.

  49. Schoolcraft WB, Surrey E, Minjarez D, Gustofson RL, et al. Comprehensive chromosome screening (CCS) with vitrification results in improved clinical outcome in women >35 years: a randomized control trial. Fertil Steril 2012;98:S1.

  50. Johnson DS, Gemelos G, Baner J, Ryan A, et al. Preclinical validation of a microarray method for full molecular karyotyping of blastomeres in a 24-h protocol. Hum Reprod 2010;25:1066-1075.

  51. Treff NR, Tao X, Ferry KM, Su J, et al. Development and validation of an accurate quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction-based assay for human blastocyst comprehensive chromosomal aneuploidy screening. Fertil Steril 2012;97:819-824.

  52. leCaignec C, Spits C, Sermon K, de Rycke M, et al. Singlecell chromosomal imbalances detection by array CGH. Nucleic Acids Res 2006;34:e68 .

  53. Simpson JL. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis to improve pregnancy outcomes in subfertility. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2012;26:805-815.

  54. Magli MC, Montag M, Muzi L, Geraedts J, et al. Polar body array CGH for prediction of the status of the corresponding oocyte. Part II: technical aspects. Hum Reprod 2011;26:3181-3185.

  55. Geraedts J, Montag M, Magli MC, Repping S, et al. Polar body array CGH for prediction of the status of the corresponding oocyte. Part I: clinical results. Hum Reprod 2011;26:3173-3180.

  56. Scriven PN, Ogilvie CM, Khalaf Y. Embryo selection in IVF: is polar body array comparative genomic hybridization accurate enough? Hum Reprod 2012;4:951-953.

  57. Capalbo A, Bono S, Spizzichino L, Biricik A, et al. Sequential comprehensive chromosome analysis on polar bodies, blastomeres and trophoblast: insights into female meiotic errors and chromosomal segregation in the preimplantation window of embryo development. Hum Reprod 2013;28:509-518.

  58. Hellani A, Abu-Amero K, Azouri J, El-Akoum S. Successful pregnancies after application of array-comparative genomic hybridization in PGS-aneuploidy screening. RBM Online 2008;17:841-847.

  59. Rubio C, Rodrigo L, Mir P, Mateu E, et al. Use of array comparative genomic hybridization (array-CGH) for embryo assessment: clinical results. Fertil Steril 2013;99:1044-1048.

  60. Mir P, Rodrigo L, Mateu E, Peinado V, et al. Improving FISH diagnosis for preimplantation genetic aneuploidy screening. Hum Reprod 2010;25:1812-1877.

  61. Mir P, Rodrigo L, Mercader A, Buendía P, et al. False positive rate of an array CGH platform for single-cell preimplantation genetic screening and subsequent clinical application on day-3. J Assist Reprod Genet 2013;30:143-149.

  62. Wells D, Alfarawati S, Fragouli E. Use of comprehensive chromosomal screening for embryo assessment: microarrays and CGH. Mol Hum Reprod 2008;14:703-710.

  63. Yang Z, Liu J, Collins GS, Salem SA, 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;5:24-29.

  64. Capalbo A, Bono S, Spizzichino L, Biricik A, et al. Sequential comprehensive chromosome analysis on polar bodies, blastomeres and trophoblast: insights into female meiotic errors and chromosomal segregation in the preimplantation window of embryo development. Hum Reprod 2013;28:509-518.

  65. Schoolcraft WB, Surrey E, Minjarez D, Gustofson RL, et al. Comprehensive chromosome screening (CCS) with vitrification results in improved clinical outcome in women >35 years: a randomized control trial. Fertil Steril 2012;98:S1 .

  66. Yang Z, Liu J, Collins GS, Salem SA, 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;5:24-29 .

  67. Scott RT Jr, Ferry K, Su J, Tao X, et al. Comprehensive chromosome screening is highly predictive of the reproductive potential of human embryos: a prospective, blinded, nonselection study. Fertil Steril 2012;9:870-875.

  68. Yang Z, Liu J, Collins GS, Salem SA, et. 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;5:24-29 .

  69. Schoolcraft WB, Surrey E, Minjarez D, Gustofson RL, et al. Comprehensive chromosome screening (CCS) with vitrification results in improved clinical outcome in women >35 years: a randomized control trial. Fertil Steril 2012;98:S1 .

  70. Liu J, Sills ES, Yang Z, Salem SA, et al. Impact of aCGH on human embryo cryopreservation yield array comparative genomic hybridization screening in IVF significantly reduces number of embryos available for cryopreservation. Clin Exp Reprod Med 2012;39:52-57.

  71. Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, de Leon L, Garner FC, et al. Frozen-thawed embryo transfer is associated with a significantly reduced incidence of ectopic pregnancy. Fertil Steril 2012;98:1490-1494.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com