Overview of preimplantation genetic diagnosis

References

• Handyside AH, Pattinson JK, Penketh RJA, Delhanty JDA, Winston RML, Tuddenhanam EGD. Biopsy of human pre-implantation embryos and sexing by DNA amplification. Lancet1, 347–349 (1989).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grifo JA, Tang YX, Cohen J, Gilbert F, Sanyal MK, Rosenwaks Z. Ongoing pregnancy in a hemophilia carrier by embryo biopsy and simultaneous amplification of X and Y chromosome specific DNA from single blastomeres. JAMA6, 727–729 (1992).
   Google Scholar
• Munné S, Lee A, Rosenwaks Z, Grifo J, Cohen J. Diagnosis of major chromosome aneuploidies in human preimplantation embryos. Hum. Reprod.8, 2185–2191 (1993).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Handyside AH, Lesko JG, Tarin JJ, Winston RML, Hughes MR. Birth of a normal girl after in vitro fertilization and preimplantation diagnostic testing for cystic fibrosis. N. Engl. J. Med.327, 594–598 (1992).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Verlinsky Y, Ginsberg N, Lifchez A, Valle J, Moise J, Strom CM. Analysis of the first polar body: preconception genetic diagnosis. Hum. Reprod.5, 826–829 (1990).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munné S, Alikani M, Tomkin G, Grifo J, Cohen J. Embryo morphology, developmental rates and maternal age are correlated with chromosome abnormalities. Fertil. Steril.64, 382–391 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Márquez C, Sandalinas M, Bahçe M, Alikani M, Munné S. Chromosome abnormalities in 1255 cleavage-stage human embryos. Reprod. Biomed. Online1, 17–27 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Magli MC, Gianaroli L, Ferrareti AP. Chromosomal abnormalities in embryos. Mol. Cell. Endocrinol.183(Suppl. 1), S29–S34 (2001).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. Online6, 54–59 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Bielanska M, Tan SL, Ao A. Chromosomal mosaicism throughout human preimplantation development in vitro: incidence, type, and relevance to embryo outcome. Hum. Reprod.17, 413–419 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magli MC, Gianaroli L, Ferrareti AP, Lappi M, Ruberti A, Farfalli V. Embryo morphology and development are dependent on the chromosome complement. Fertil. Steril.87, 534–541 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munné S, Serena C, Colls P et al. Maternal age, morphology, development and chromosome abnormalities in over 6000 cleavage-stage embryos. Reprod. Biomed. Online14, 628–634 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munné S, Bahçe M, Sandalinas M et al. Differences in chromosome susceptibility to aneuploidy and survival to first trimester. Reprod. Biomed. Online8, 81–90 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schoolcraft WB, Fragouli E, Stevens J, Munné S, Katz-Jaffe MG, Wells D. Clinical application of comprehensive chromosomal screening at the blastocyst stage. Fertil. Steril. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.10.015 (2010) (Epub ahead of print).
   Google Scholar
• Munné S, Magli C, Cohen J et al. Positive outcome after preimplantation diagnosis of aneuploidy in human embryos. Hum. Reprod.14, 2191–2199 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gianaroli L, Magli C, 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.72, 837–844 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munné S, Sandalinas M, Escudero T et al. Improved implantation after preimplantation genetic diagnosis of aneuploidy. Reprod. Biomed. Online7, 91–97 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gianaroli L, Magli C, Ferraretti AP et al. The beneficial effects of PGD for aneuploidy support extensive clinical application. Reprod. Biomed. Online10, 633–640 (2004).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verlinsky Y, Tur-Kaspa I, Cieslak J et al. Preimplantation testing for chromosomal disorders improves reproductive outcome of poor prognosis patients. Reprod. Biomed. Online11, 219–225 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munné S, Fischer J, Warner A, Chen S, Zouves C, Cohen J. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis significantly reduces pregnancy loss in infertile couples: a multi-center study. Fertil. Steril.85, 326–332 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colls P, Escudero T, Zheng X et al. Increased efficiency of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for infertility through reanalysis of dubious signals. Fertil. Steril.88, 53–61 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Werlin L, Rodi I, DeCherney A, Marello E, Hill D, Munné S. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) as both a therapeutic and diagnostic tool in assisted reproductive technology. Fertil. Steril.80, 467–468 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schoolcraft WB, Katz-Jaffe MG, Stevens J, Rawlins M, Munné S. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy screening: a randomized prospective trial. Fertil. Steril.92, 157–162 (2008).
   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, 2849–2858 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, Van Echten-Arends J et al. Preimplantation genetic screening in women of advanced maternal age. N. Eng. 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
• Munné S, Gianaroli L, Tur-Kaspa I et al. Sub-standard application of PGD may interfere with its clinical success. Fertil. Steril.88, 781–784 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen J, Grifo J. Multicenter trial of preimplantation genetic screening reported in the New England Journal of Medicine: an in-depth look at the findings. Reprod. Biomed. Online15, 365–366 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kuliev A, Verlinsky Y. Impact of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for chromosomal disorders on reproductive outcome. Reprod. Biomed. Online16, 9–10 (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Simpson JL. The randomized clinical trial in assessing preimplantation genetic screening (PGD): necessary but not sufficient. Hum. Reprod.23, 2179–2181 (2008).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Munné S, Wells D, Cohen J. Technology requirements for preimplantation genetic diagnosis to improve ART outcome. Fertil. Steril. (2010) (In Press).
   Google Scholar
• Cohen J, Wells D, Munné S. Removal of two cells from cleavage stage embryos is likely to reduce the efficacy of chromosomal tests employed to enhance implantation rates. Fertil. Steril.87, 496–503 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.12, 2988–2996 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Velilla E, Escudero T, Munné S. Blastomere fixation techniques and risk of misdiagnosis for PGD of aneuploidy. Reprod. Biomed. Online4, 210–217 (2002).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis International Society. Guidelines for good practice in PGD: programme requirements and laboratory quality assurance. Reprod. Biomed. Online16, 134–147 (2007).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baart E, Van Opstal D, Los FJ, Fauser BC, Martini E. Fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis of two blastomeres from day-3 frozen-thawed embryos followed by analysis of the remaining embryo on day-5. Hum. Reprod.19, 685–693 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coulam CB, Jeyendram RS, Fiddler M, Pergament E. Discordance among blastomeres renders preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy ineffective. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet.24, 37–41 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munné S, Sandalinas M, Escudero T, Marquez C, Cohen J. Chromosome mosaicism in cleavage stage human embryos: evidence of a maternal age effect. Reprod. Biomed. Online4, 223–232 (2002).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jacobs PA, Hassold TJ. Chromosome abnormalities: origin and etiology in abortions and live births. In: Human Genetics. Vogal F, Sperling K (Eds). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 233–244 (1987).
   Google Scholar
• Daniely M, Aviram-Goldring A, Barkai G, Goldman B. Detection of chromosomal aberrations in fetuses arising from recurrent spontaneous abortions by comparative genome hybridization. Hum. Reprod.13, 805–809 (1998).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fritz B, Hallermann C, Olert J et al. Cytogenetic analyses of culture failures by comparative genome hybridization. Re-evaluation of chromosome aberration rates in early spontaneous abortions. Eur. J. Hum. Genet.9, 539–547 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stephenson MD, Awartani KA, Robinson WP. Cytogenetic analysis of miscarriages from couples with recurrent miscarriage: a case–control study. Hum. Reprod.17, 446–451 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munné S, Chen S, Fischer J et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis reduces pregnancy loss in women 35 and older with a history of recurrent miscarriages. Fertil. Steril.84, 331–335 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrisi GJ, Colls P, Ferry KM, Zheng X, Garrisi MG, Munné 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. Hum. Reprod.18(5), 687–693 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Munné S. Analysis of the segregation of chromosomes during preimplantation genetic diagnosis in both male and female translocation heterozygotes. Cytogenet. Genome Res.111(3–4), 305–309 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munné S, Morrison L, Fung J et al. Spontaneous abortions are reduced after pre-conception diagnosis of translocations. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet.15, 290–296 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munné S, Sandalinas M, Escudero T, Fung J, Gianaroli L, Cohen J. Outcome of preimplantation genetic diagnosis of translocations. Fertil. Steril.73, 1209–1218 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verlinsky Y, Tur-Kaspa I, Cieslak J et al. Preimplantation testing for chromosomal disorders improves reproductive outcome of poor prognosis patients. Reprod. Biomed. Online11, 219–225 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Otani T, Roche M, Mizuikea M, Colls P, Escudero T, Munné S. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis significantly improves the pregnancy outcome of translocation carriers with a history of recurrent miscarriage and failing to produce a live birth. Reprod. Biomed. Online13, 879–894 (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Fischer J, Colls P, Escudero T, Munné S. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) improves pregnancy outcome for translocation carriers with a history of recurrent losses. Fertil. Steril.94(1), 283–289 (2010).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Colls P, Goodall N, Zheng X, Munné S. Increased efficiency of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy by testing 12 chromosomes. Reprod. Biomed. Online19, 532–538 (2009).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Voullaire L, Wilton L, Slater H, Williamson R. Detection of aneuploidy in single cells using comparative genome hybridization. Prenat. Diagn.19, 846–851 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wells D, Sherlock JK, Handyside AH, Delhanty DA. Detailed chromosomal and molecular genetic analysis of single cells by whole genome amplification and comparative genome hybridization. Nucleic Acid Res.27, 1214–1218 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilton L, Williamson R, McBain J, Edgar D, Voullaire L. Birth of a healthy infant after preimplantation confirmation of euploidy by comparative genomic hybridization. N. Engl. J. Med.345, 1537–1541 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.80, 860–868 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wells D, Escudero T, Levy B, Hirschhorn K, Delhanty JDA, Munné S. First clinical application of comparative genome hybridization and polar body testing for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of aneuploidy. Fertil. Steril.78, 543–549 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stehlik E, Stehlik J, Katayama KP et al. Vitrification demonstrates significant improvement versus slow freezing of human blastocysts. Reprod. Biomed. Online11, 53–57 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stachecki JJ, Garrisi J, Sabino S, Caetano JP, Wiemer KE, Cohen J. A new safe, simple and successful vitrification method for bovine and human blastocysts. Reprod. Biomed. Online17, 360–367 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munné S, Fragouli E, Colls P, Katz M, Schoocraft W, Wells D. An improved 12-chromosome FISH test could detect 91% of aneuploid blastocysts. Reprod. Biomed. Online20(1), 92–97 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Garner FC, Aguirre M, Hudson C, Thomas S. High ongoing pregnancy rates after deferred transfer through bipronuclear oocyte cryopreservation and post-thaw extended culture. Fertil. Steril.92, 1594–1599 (2009).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Munné S, Gutierrez-Mateo C, Sanchez-Garcia JF, Ketterson K, Prates R, Keningsberg D. Validation of microarray CGH for PGD by FISH reanalysis. Fertil. Steril.92(Suppl.), S2 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Munné S, Gutierrez C, Fischer J et al. Clinical results of array CGH for PGS. Reprod. Biomed. Online (2010) (In Press).
   PubMedGoogle 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(4), 1066–1075 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Treff NR, Su J, Mavrianos J, Bergh PA, Miller KA, Scott RT. Accurate 23 chromosome aneuploidy screening in human blastomeres using single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) microarrays. Fertil. Steril.88(Suppl. 1), S1 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Treff NR, Su J, Tao X, Miller K, Levy B, Scott RT. A novel single-cell DNA fingerprinting method successfully distinguishes sibling human embryos. Fertil. Steril. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.03.067 (2010) (Epub ahead of print).
   Google Scholar
• Handyside AH, Harton GL, Mariani B et al. Karyomapping: a universal method for genome wide analysis of genetic disease based on mapping crossovers between parental haplotypes. J. Med. Genet. DOI: 10.1136/jmg.2009.069971 (2009) (Epub ahead of print).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Treff NR, Su J, Tao X, Miller K, Scott R. First IVF babies born after rapid 24 chromosome embryo aneuploidy screening and fresh embryo transfer. Fertil. Steril.92(Suppl.), S49 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Schlenker T, Stevens J, Rawlins M, McCormick S, Katz-Jaffe MG, Schoolcraft WB. Clinical success with vitrification following trophectoderm biopsy for comprehensive chromosomal screening. Fertil. Steril.92(Suppl.), S71 (2009).
   Google Scholar