Preimplantation genetic testing: method and two case studies of familial three-way complex translocations

References

• Harper JC, Wilton L, Traeger-Synodinos J, et al. The ESHRE PGD Consortium: 10 years of data collection. Hum Reprod Update. 2012;18(3):234–247.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spinella F, Fiorentino F, Biricik A, et al. Extent of chromosomal mosaicism influences the clinical outcome of in vitro fertilization treatments. Fertil Steril. 2018;109(1):77–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EURODIS. Rare Diseases: understanding this Public Health Priority: EURODIS: European Organization for Rare Diseases; November 2005. Available from: www.eurordis.org.
   Google Scholar
• Garvin SE, Chatzicharalampous C, Puscheck E. Reflections on preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy and mosaicism: how did we get here, and what does it mean clinically? Fertil Steril. 2019;111(1):45–47.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Victor AR, Griffin DK, Brake AJ, et al. Assessment of aneuploidy concordance between clinical trophectoderm biopsy and blastocyst. Hum Reprod. 2019;34(1):181–192.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedenthal J, Maxwell SM, Munne S, et al. Next generation sequencing for preimplantation genetic screening improves pregnancy outcomes compared with array comparative genomic hybridization in single thawed euploid embryo transfer cycles. Fertil Steril. 2018;109(4):627–632.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poli M, Girardi L, Fabiani M, et al. Past, present, and future strategies for enhanced assessment of embryo's genome and reproductive competence in women of advanced reproductive age. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2019;10:154.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenwaks Z, Handyside AH, Fiorentino F, et al. The pros and cons of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: clinical and laboratory perspectives. Fertil Steril. 2018;110(3):353–361.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rechistky S, Kuliev A. Preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) for borderline indications – PGT for cancer: Reproductive Biomedicine Online; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Ethics Committee ASRA. Use of preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic defects (PGT-M) for adult-onset conditions: an Ethics Committee opinion. Fertility Sterility 2018;109(6):989–992.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu L, Cheng D, Gong F, et al. Reciprocal Translocation Carrier Diagnosis in Preimplantation Human Embryos. EBioMedicine 2016;14:139–147.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardner RJ, Sutherland G, Shaffer L. Chromosome abnormalities and genetic counseling. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang L, Wei D, Zhu Y, et al. Interaction of acrocentric chromosome involved in translocation and sex of the carrier influences the proportion of alternate segregation in autosomal reciprocal translocations. Hum Reprod. 2019;34(2):380–387.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iews M, Tan J, Taskin O, et al. Does preimplantation genetic diagnosis improve reproductive outcome in couples with recurrent pregnancy loss owing to structural chromosomal rearrangement? A systematic review. Reprod Biomed Online. 2018;36(6):677–685.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Practice Committee ASRMA. Practice Committee SART. The use of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A): a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2018;09(3):429–436.
   Google Scholar
• Popovic M, Dhaenens L, Taelman J, et al. Extended in vitro culture of human embryos demonstrates the complex nature of diagnosing chromosomal mosaicism from a single trophectoderm biopsy. Hum Reprod. 2019;34(4):758–769.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pellestor F, Anahory T, Lefort G, et al. Complex chromosomal rearrangements: origin and meiotic behavior. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17(4):476–494.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Batista DA, Pai GS, Stetten G. Molecular analysis of a complex chromosomal rearrangement and a review of familial cases. Am J Med Genet. 1994;53(3):255–263.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gu W, Zhang F, Lupski JR. Mechanisms for human genomic rearrangements. Pathogenetics. 2008;1(1):4.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hemmat M, Yang X, Chan P, et al. Characterization of a complex chromosomal rearrangement using chromosome, FISH, and microarray assays in a girl with multiple congenital abnormalities and developmental delay. Mol Cytogenet. 2014;7(1):50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang Y, Dai Y, Tu Z, et al. Array-CGH detection of three cryptic submicroscopic imbalances in a complex chromosome rearrangement. J Genet. 2009;88(3):369–372.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartels I, Starke H, Argyriou L, et al. An exceptional complex chromosomal rearrangement (CCR) with eight breakpoints involving four chromosomes (1;3;9;14) in an azoospermic male with normal phenotype. Eur J Med Genet. 2007;50(2):133–138.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salahshourifar I, Shahrokhshahi N, Tavakolzadeh T, et al. Complex chromosomal rearrangement involving chromosomes 1, 4 and 22 in an infertile male: case report and literature review. J Appl Genet. 2009;50(1):69–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gruchy N, Barreau M, Kessler K, et al. A paternally transmitted complex chromosomal rearrangement (CCR) involving chromosomes 2, 6, and 18 includes eight breakpoints and five insertional translocations (ITs) through three generations. Am J Med Genet. 2010;152A(1):185–190.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aristidou C, Theodosiou A, Ketoni A, et al. Cryptic breakpoint identified by whole-genome mate-pair sequencing in a rare paternally inherited complex chromosomal rearrangement. Mol Cytogenet. 2018;11(1):34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basinko A, Perrin A, Nguyen HA, et al. Balanced transmission of a paternal complex chromosomal rearrangement involving chromosomes 2, 3, and 18. Am J Med Genet. 2010;152A(10):2646–2650.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar