Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and screening: now and the future

References

• Handyside AH, Pattinson JK, Penketh RJ, et al. Biopsy of human preimplantation embryos and sexing by DNA amplification. Lancet 1989;333:347–9
   Google Scholar
• Harper JC, Coonen E, De Rycke M, et al. ESHRE PGD consortium data collection X: cycles from January to December 2007 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2008. Hum Reprod 2010;25:2685–707
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fragouli E, Alfarawati S, Daphnis DD, et al. Cytogenetic analysis of human blastocysts with the use of FISH, CGH and aCGH: scientific data and technical evaluation. Hum Reprod 2011;26:480–90
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirkegaard K, Hindkjaer JJ, Ingerslev HJ. Human embryonic development after blastomere removal: a time-lapse analysis. Hum Reprod 2012;27:97–105
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munne S, Gianaroli L, Tur-Kaspa I, et al. Substandard application of preimplantation genetic screening may interfere with its clinical success. Fertil Steril 2007;88:781–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van der Veen F, Repping S. Preimplantation genetic screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs. Hum Reprod Update 2011;17:454–66
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gleicher N, Kushnir VA, Barad DH. Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) still in search of a clinical application: a systematic review. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2014;15:12–22
   Google Scholar
• Dahdouh EM, Balayla J, García-Velasco JA. Impact of blastocyst biopsy and comprehensive chromosome screening technology on preimplantation genetic screening: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Reprod Biomed Online 2015;30:281–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tur-Kaspa I, Jeelani R. Clinical guidelines for IVF with PGD for HLA matching. Reprod Biomed Online 2015;30:115–19
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Staessen C, Verpoest W, Donoso P, et al. Preimplantation genetic screening does not improve delivery rate in women under the age of 36 following single-embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 2008;23:2818–25
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens J, Wale P, Surrey ES, Schoolcraft WB. Is aneuploidy screening for patients aged 35 or over beneficial? A prospective randomized trial. Fertil Steril 2004;82:249
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Debrock S, Melotte C, Spiessens C, et al. Preimplantation genetic screening for aneuploidy of embryos after in vitro fertilization in women aged at least 35 years: a prospective randomized trial. Fertil Steril 2010;93:364–73
   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 2007;357:9–17
   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 Online 2008;17:848–54
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hardarson T, Hanson C, Lundin K, et al. Preimplantation genetic screening in women of advance maternal age decrease in clinical pregnancy rate: a randomized controlled trial. Human Reprod 2008;23:2806–12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jansen RP, Bowman MC, de Boer KA, et al. What next for preimplantation screening (PGS)? Experience with blastocyst biopsy and testing for aneuploidy. Hum Reprod 2008;23:1476–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mersereau JE, Pergament E, Zhang X, Milad MP. Preimplantation genetic screening to improve in vitro fertilization pregnancy rates: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2008;90:1287–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer LR, Klipstein S, Hazlett WD, et al. A prospective randomized controlled trial of preimplantation genetic screening in the ‘good prognosis’ patient. Fertil Steril 2009;91:1731–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schoolcraft WB, Katz-Jaffe MG, Stevens J, et al. Preimplantation aneuploidy testing for infertile patients of advanced maternal age: a randomized prospective trial. Fertil Steril 2009;92:157–62
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Handyside AH. 24-chromosome copy number analysis: a comparison of available technologies. Fertil Steril 2013;100:595–602
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forman EJ, Hong KH, Ferry KM, et al. In vitro fertilization with single euploid blastocyst transfer: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2013;100:100–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott RT Jr, Upham KM, Forman EJ, et al. Blastocyst biopsy with comprehensive chromosome screening and fresh embryo transfer significantly increases in vitro fertilization implantation and delivery rates: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2013;100:697–703
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang Z, Liu J, Collins GS, 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardner DK, Lane M, Stevens J, et al. Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome. Fertil Steril 2000;73:1155–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott RT Jr, Upham KM, Forman EJ, et al. Cleavage-stage biopsy significantly impairs human embryonic implantation potential while blastocyst biopsy does not: a randomized and paired clinical trial. Fertil Steril 2013;100:624–30
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glujovsky D, Blake D, Farquhar C, Bardach A. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;11:CD002118
   Google Scholar
• Cutting R, Morroll D, Roberts SA, et al. Elective single embryo transfer: guidelines for practice British Fertility Society and Association of Clinical Embryologists. Hum Fertil (Camb) 2008;11:131–46
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kuliev A, Rechitsky S, Verlinsky O, et al. Preimplantation diagnosis of thalassemias. J Assist Reprod Genet 1998;15:219–25
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ray PF, Kaeda JS, Bingham J, et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis of beta-thalassaemia major. Lancet 1996;347:1696
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kokkali G, Vrettou C, Traeger-Synodinos J. Birth of a healthy infant following trophectoderm biopsy from blastocysts for PGD of β-thalassaemia major: case report. Hum Reprod 2005;20:1855–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harton GL, Magli MC, Lundin K, et al.; European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) PGD Consortium/Embryology Special Interest Group. Best practice guidelines for polar body and embryo biopsy for preimplantation genetic diagnosis/screening (PGD/PGS). Hum Reprod 2011;26:41–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sermon KD, Michiels A, Harton G, et al. ESHRE PGD Consortium data collection VI: cycles from January to December 2003 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2004. Hum Reprod 2007;22:323–36
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harper JC, Wilton L, Traeger-Synodinos J, et al. The ESHRE PGD Consortium: 10 years of data collection. Hum Reprod Update 2012;18:234–47
   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 2009;24:2988–96
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veiga A, Sandalinas M, Benkhalifa M, et al. Laser blastocyst biopsy for preimplantation diagnosis in the human. Zygote 1997;5:351–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones GM, Cram DS, Song B, et al. Novel strategy with potential to identify developmentally competent IVF blastocysts. Hum Reprod 2008;23:1748–59
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biesecker LG, Spinner NB. A genomic view of mosaicism and human disease. Nat Rev Genet 2013;14:307–20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor TH, Gitlin SA, Patrick JL, et al. The origin, mechanisms, incidence and clinical consequences of chromosomal mosaicism in humans. Hum Reprod Update 2014;20:571–81
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colls P, Escudero T, Cekleniak N, et al. Increased efficiency of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for infertility using ‘no result rescue’. Fertil Steril 2007;88:53–61
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeUgarte CM, Li M, Surrey M, et al. Accuracy of FISH analysis in predicting chromosomal status in patients undergoing preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Fertil Steril 2008;90:1049–54
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson DS, Cinnioglu C, Ross R, et al. Comprehensive analysis of karyotypic mosaicism between trophectoderm and inner cell mass. Mol Hum Reprod 2010;16:944–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Capalbo A, Wright G, Elliott T, et al. 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 2013;28:2298–307
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wennekamp S, Mesecke S, Nédélec F, Hiiragi T. A self-organization framework for symmetry breaking in the mammalian embryo. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2013;14:452–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mamas T, Gordon A, Brown A, et al. Detection of aneuploidy by array comparative genomic hybridization using cell lines to mimic a mosaic trophectoderm biopsy. Fertil Steril 2012;97:943–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fragouli E, Lenzi M, Ross R, et al. Comprehensive molecular cytogenetic analysis of the human blastocyst stage. Hum Reprod 2008;23:2596–608
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Northrop LE, Treff NR, Levy B, Scott RT Jr. SNP microarray-based 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening demonstrated that cleavage-stage FISH poorly predicts aneuploidy in embryos that develop to morphologically normal blastocysts. Mol Hum Reprod 2010;16:590–600
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haddad G, He W, Gill J, et al. Mosaic pregnancy after transfer of a “euploid” blastocyst screened by DNA microarray. J Ovarian Res 2013;6:70
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Capalbo A, Treff NR, Cimadomo D, et al. Comparison of array comparative genomic hybridization and quantitative real-time PCR-based aneuploidy screening of blastocyst biopsies. Eur J Hum Genet 2014;23:901–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen J, Alikani M. Evidence-based medicine and its application in clinical preimplantation embryology. Reprod Biomed Online 2013;27:547–61
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shapiro B, Daneshmand S, De Leon L, et al. Frozen-thawed embryo transfer is associated with a significantly reduced incidence of ectopic pregnancy. Fertil Steril 2012;98:1490–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies MJ, Moore VM, Willson KJ, et al. Reproductive technologies and the risk of birth defects. N Engl J Med 2012;366:1803–13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maheshwari A, Pandey S, Shetty A, et al. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies resulting from the transfer of frozen thawed vs. fresh embryos generated through in vitro fertilization treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2012;98:368–77
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haouzi D, Assou S, Dechanet C, et al. Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for in vitro fertilization alters endometrial receptivity in humans: Protocol effects. Biol Reprod 2010;82:679–86
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palini S, Galluzzi L, De Stefani S, et al. Genomic DNA in human blastocoele fluid. Reprod Biomed Online 2013;26:603–10
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gianaroli L, Magli MC, Pomante A, et al. Blastocentesis: a source of DNA for preimplantation genetic testing. Results from a pilot study. Fertil Steril 2014;102:1692–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herrera C, Morikawa MI, Castex CB, et al. Blastocele fluid from in vitro- and in vivo-produced equine embryos contains nuclear DNA. Theriogenology 2015;83:415–20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herrera C, Morikawa MI, Bello MB, et al. Setting up equine embryo gender determination by preimplantation genetic diagnosis in a commercial embryo transfer program. Theriogenology 2014;81:758–63
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stigliani S, Anserini P, Venturini PL, Scaruffi P. Mitochondrial DNA content in embryo culture medium is significantly associated with human embryo fragmentation. Hum Reprod 2013;28:2652–60
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stigliani S, Persico L, Lagazio C, et al. Mitochondrial DNA in day 3 embryo culture medium is a novel, non-invasive biomarker of blastocyst potential and implantation outcome. Mol Hum Reprod 2014;20:1238–46
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu H, Ding C, Shen X, et al. Medium-based noninvasive preimplantation genetic diagnosis for human alpha-thalassemias-SEA. Medicine (Baltimore) 2015;94:e669
   Google Scholar
• Galluzzi L, Palini S, De Stefani S, et al. Extracellular embryo genomic DNA and its potential for genotyping applications. Future Sci OA 2015. [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.4155/FSO.15.62
   Google Scholar
• Handyside AH, Robinson MD, Simpson RJ, et al. Isothermal whole genome amplification from single and small numbers of cells: a new era for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of inherited disease. Mol Hum Reprod 2004;10:767–72
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brezina PR, Benner A, Rechitsky S, et al. Single-gene testing combined with singles nucleotide polymorphism microarray preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy: a novel approach in optimizing pregnancy outcome. Fertil Steril 2011;95:1786.e5–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Treff NR, Tao X, Ferry KM, 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;97:819–24
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiorentino F, Biricik A, Bono S, et al. Development and validation of a next-generation sequencing-based protocol for 24-chromosome aneuploidy screening of embryos. Fertil Steril 2014;10:1375–82
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winand R, Hens K, Dondorp W, et al. In vitro screening of embryos by whole-genome sequencing: now, in the future or never? Hum Reprod 2014;29:842–51
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xue Y, Chen Y, Ayub Q, et al. Deleterious and disease allele prevalence in healthy individuals: insights from current predictions, mutation databases, and population-scale resequencing. Am J Hum Genet 2012;91:1022–32
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacArthur DG, Tyler-Smith C. Loss-of-function variants in the genomes of healthy humans. Hum Mol Genet 2010;19:R125–30
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kol S. Individualized treatment from theory to practice: the private case of adding LH during GnRH antagonist-based stimulation protocol. Clin Med Insights Reprod Health 2014;8:59–64
   PubMedGoogle Scholar