Update on preimplantation genetic diagnosis for chromosomal abnormalities

References

• Handyside AH, Kontogianni EH, Hardy K, Winston RM. Pregnancies from biopsied human preimplantation embryos sexed by Y-specific DNA amplification. Nature344, 768–770 (1990).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keymolen K, Staessen C, Verpoest W et al. A proposal for reproductive counselling in carriers of Robertsonian translocations: 10 years of experience with preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Hum. Reprod.24, 2365–2371 (2009).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lim CK, Cho JW, Song IO, Kang IS, Yoon YD, Jun JH. Estimation of chromosomal imbalances in preimplantation embryos from preimplantation genetic diagnosis cycles of reciprocal translocations with or without acrocentric chromosomes. Fertil. Steril.90, 2144–2151 (2008).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Anton E, Blanco J, Vidal F. Recombination in heterozygote inversion carriers. Hum. Reprod.22, 1192 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Staessen C, Tournaye H, Van Assche E et al. PGD in 47,XXY Klinefelter’s syndrome patients. Hum. Reprod. Update9, 319–330 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodrigo L, Peinado V, Mateu E et al. Impact of different patterns of sperm chromosomal abnormalities on the chromosomal constitution of preimplantation embryos. Fertil. Steril.94(4), 1380–1386 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harper JC, Coonen E, Handyside AH, Winston RM, Hopman AH, Delhanty JD. Mosaicism of autosomes and sex chromosomes in morphologically normal, monospermic preimplantation human embryos. Prenat. Diagn.15, 41–49 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munne S, Cohen J. Chromosome abnormalities in human embryos. Hum. Reprod. Update4, 842–855 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hassold T, Chen N, Funkhouser J et al. A cytogenetic study of 1000 spontaneous abortions. Ann. Hum. Genet.44, 151–178 (1980).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lamb NE, Freeman SB, Savage-Austin A et al. Susceptible chiasmate configurations of chromosome 21 predispose to non-disjunction in both maternal meiosis I and meiosis II. Nat. Genet.14, 400–405 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boue A, Boue J, Gropp A. Cytogenetics of pregnancy wastage. Adv. Hum. Genet.14, 1–57 (1985).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rubio C, Simon C, Vidal F, Rodrigo L et al. Chromosomal abnormalities and embryo development in recurrent miscarriage couples. Hum. Reprod.18, 182–188 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gianaroli L, Magli MC, Ferraretti AP, Munne 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.72, 837–844 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubio C, Rodrigo L, Perez-Cano I et al. FISH screening of aneuploidies in preimplantation embryos to improve IVF outcome. Reprod. Biomed. Online11, 497–506 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munne S, Magli C, Cohen J, Morton P et al. Positive outcome after preimplantation diagnosis of aneuploidy in human embryos. Hum. Reprod.14, 2191–2199 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munne S, Sandalinas M, Escudero T et al. Improved implantation after preimplantation genetic diagnosis of aneuploidy. Reprod. Biomed. Online7, 91–97 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Munne S, Chen S, Fischer J et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis reduces pregnancy loss in women aged 35 years and older with a history of recurrent miscarriages. Fertil. Steril.84, 331–335 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pellicer A, Rubio C, Vidal F 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.71, 1033–1039 (1999).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Garrisi JG, Colls P, Ferry KM, Zheng X, Garrisi MG, Munne S. Effect of infertility, maternal age, and number of previous miscarriages on the outcome of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for idiopathic recurrent pregnancy loss. Fertil. Steril.92, 288–295 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubio C, Buendía P, Rodrigo L et al. Prognostic factors for preimplantation genetic screening in repeated pregnancy loss. Reprod. Biomed. Online18, 687–693 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pehlivan T, Rubio C, Rodrigo L et al. Impact of preimplantation genetic diagnosis on IVF outcome in implantation failure patients. Reprod. Biomed. Online6, 232–237 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gianaroli L, Magli MC, Munne S, Fiorentino A, Montanaro N, Ferraretti AP. Will preimplantation genetic diagnosis assist patients with a poor prognosis to achieve pregnancy? Hum. Reprod.12, 1762–1767 (1997).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Taranissi M, El-Toukhy T, Gorgy A, Verlinsky Y. Influence of maternal age on the outcome of PGD for aneuploidy screening in patients with recurrent implantation failure. Reprod. Biomed. Online10, 628–632 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodrigo L, Rubio C, Mateu E et al. Analysis of chromosomal abnormalities in testicular and epididymal spermatozoa from azoospermic ICSI patients by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Hum. Reprod.19, 118–123 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gianaroli L, Magli MC, Ferraretti AP, Iammarrone E. Preimplantation diagnosis after assisted reproduction techniques for genetically-determined male infertility. J. Endocrinol. Invest.23, 711–716 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cinar C, Yazici C, Ergunsu S et al. Genetic diagnosis in infertile men with numerical and constitutional sperm abnormalities. Genet. Test.12, 195–202 (2008).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kahraman S, Sertyel S, Findikli N et al. Effect of PGD on implantation and ongoing pregnancy rates in cases with predominantly macrocephalic spermatozoa. Reprod. Biomed. Online9, 79–85 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mateu E, Rodrigo L, Prados N et al. High incidence of chromosomal abnormalities in large-headed and multiple-tailed spermatozoa. J. Androl.27, 6–10 (2006).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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, 2849–58 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van Echten-Arends J et al.In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N. Engl. J. Med.357, 9–17 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schoolcraft WB, Katz-Jaffe MG, Stevens J, Rawlins M, Munne S. Preimplantation aneuploidy testing for infertile patients of advanced maternal age: a randomized prospective trial. Fertil. Steril.92, 157–162 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blockeel C, Schutyser V, De Vos A et al. Prospectively randomized controlled trial of PGS in IVF/ICSI patients with poor implantation. Reprod. Biomed. Online17, 848–854 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hellani A, Abu-Amero K, Azouri J, El-Akoum S. Successful pregnancies after application of array-comparative genomic hybridization in PGS-aneuploidy screening. Reprod. Biomed. Online17, 841– 847 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson DS, Gemelos G, Baner J et al. Preclinical validation of a microarray method for full molecular karyotyping of blastomeres in a 24-h protocol. Hum. Reprod.25, 1066–1075 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geraedts J, Collins J, Gianaroli L et al. What next for preimplantation genetic screening? A polar body approach! Hum. Reprod.2, 575–577 (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Treff NR, Levy B, Su J, Northrop LE, Tao X, Scott RT Jr. SNP microarray-based 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening is significantly more consistent than FISH. Mol. Hum. Reprod.16, 583–589 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar