Volume 15, Issue 5 (6-2017)
IJRM 2017, 15(5): 297-304 |
Back to browse issues page
Farzaneh Fesahat1 
, Fatemeh Montazeri2 , Mohammad Hasan Sheikhha2 , Hojjatollah Saeedi3 , Razieh Dehghani Firouzabadi2 , Seyed Mehdi Kalantar * 4
, Fatemeh Montazeri2 , Mohammad Hasan Sheikhha2 , Hojjatollah Saeedi3 , Razieh Dehghani Firouzabadi2 , Seyed Mehdi Kalantar * 4
1- Genetics Department, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran
2- Research and Clinical Center for Infertility, Yazd Reproductive Sciences Institute, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran
3- Embryology Department, Omid Fertility Clinic, Tehran, Iran
4- Genetics Department, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran , smkalantar@yahoo.com
2- Research and Clinical Center for Infertility, Yazd Reproductive Sciences Institute, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran
3- Embryology Department, Omid Fertility Clinic, Tehran, Iran
4- Genetics Department, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran , smkalantar@yahoo.com
Abstract: (3472 Views)
Background: Selection of the best embryo for transfer is very important in assistedreproductive technology (ART). Using morphological assessment for this selectiondemonstrated that the correlation between embryo morphology and implantationpotential is relatively weak. On the other hand, aneuploidy is a key genetic factorthat can influence human reproductive success in ART.
Objective: The aim of this lab trial study was to evaluate the incidence ofaneuploidies in five chromosomes in the morphologically high-quality embryosfrom young patients undergoing ART for sex selection.
Materials and Methods: A total of 97 high quality embryos from 23 women at theage of 37or younger years that had previously undergone preimplantation geneticscreening for sex selection were included in this study. After washing, the slides ofblastomeres from embryos of patients were reanalyzed by fluorescence in-situhybridization for chromosomes 13, 18 and 21.
Results: There was a significant rate of aneuploidy determination in the embryosusing preimplantation genetic screening for both sex and three evaluated autosomalchromosomes compared to preimplantation genetic screening for only sexchromosomes (62.9% vs. 24.7%, p=0.000). The most frequent detectedchromosomal aneuploidy was trisomy or monosomy of chromosome 13.
Conclusion: There is considerable numbers of chromosomal abnormalities inembryos generated in vitro which cause in vitro fertilization failure and it seems thatmorphological characterization of embryos is not a suitable method for choosing theembryos without these abnormalities.
Objective: The aim of this lab trial study was to evaluate the incidence ofaneuploidies in five chromosomes in the morphologically high-quality embryosfrom young patients undergoing ART for sex selection.
Materials and Methods: A total of 97 high quality embryos from 23 women at theage of 37or younger years that had previously undergone preimplantation geneticscreening for sex selection were included in this study. After washing, the slides ofblastomeres from embryos of patients were reanalyzed by fluorescence in-situhybridization for chromosomes 13, 18 and 21.
Results: There was a significant rate of aneuploidy determination in the embryosusing preimplantation genetic screening for both sex and three evaluated autosomalchromosomes compared to preimplantation genetic screening for only sexchromosomes (62.9% vs. 24.7%, p=0.000). The most frequent detectedchromosomal aneuploidy was trisomy or monosomy of chromosome 13.
Conclusion: There is considerable numbers of chromosomal abnormalities inembryos generated in vitro which cause in vitro fertilization failure and it seems thatmorphological characterization of embryos is not a suitable method for choosing theembryos without these abnormalities.
Type of Study: Original Article |
References
1. Wells D. Comprehensive chromosomal analysis of human preimplantation embryos using whole genome amplification and single cell comparative genomic hybridization. Mol Hum Reprod 2000; 6: 1055-1062. [DOI:10.1093/molehr/6.11.1055]
2. Fragouli E, Alfarawati S, Daphnis DD, Goodall N-N, Mania A, Griffiths T, et al. Cytogenetic analysis of human blastocysts with the use of FISH, CGH and aCGH: scientific data and technical evaluation. Hum Reprod 2011; 26: 480-490. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/deq344]
3. Scott RT, Ferry K, Su J, Tao X, Scott K, Treff NR. Comprehensive chromosome screening is highly predictive of the reproductive potential of human embryos: a prospective, blinded, nonselection study. Fertil Steril 2012; 97: 870-887. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.01.104]
4. Gianaroli L, Magli MC, Ferraretti AP, Lappi M, Borghi E, Ermini B. Oocyte euploidy, pronuclear zygote morphology and embryo chromosomal complement. Hum Reprod 2007; 22: 241-249. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/del334]
5. Munné S. Chromosome abnormalities and their relationship to morphology and development of human embryos. Reprod BioMed Online 2006; 12: 234-253. [DOI:10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60866-8]
6. Delhanty JDA. Mechanisms of aneuploidy induction in human oogenesis and early embryogenesis. Cytogen Genome Res 2005; 111: 237-244. [DOI:10.1159/000086894]
7. Munné S, Chen S, Colls P, Garrisi J, Zheng X, Cekleniak N, et al. Maternal age, morphology, development and chromosome abnormalities in over 6000 cleavage-stage embryos. Reprod BioMed Online 2007; 14: 628-634. [DOI:10.1016/S1472-6483(10)61057-7]
8. Vanneste E, Voet T, Le Caignec C, Ampe M, Konings P, Melotte C, et al. Chromosome instability is common in human cleavage-stage embryos. Nat Med 2009; 15: 577-583. [DOI:10.1038/nm.1924]
9. Munné S, Wells D, Cohen J. Technology requirements for preimplantation genetic diagnosis to improve assisted reproduction outcomes. Fertil Steril 2010; 94: 408-430. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.02.091]
10. Zhang XY, Ata B, Son W-Y, Buckett WM, Tan S-L, Ao A. Chromosome abnormality rates in human embryos obtained from in-vitro maturation and IVF treatment cycles. Reprod BioMed Online 2010; 21: 552-559. [DOI:10.1016/j.rbmo.2010.05.002]
11. Eaton JL, Hacker MR, Harris D, Thornton KL, Penzias AS. Assessment of day-3 morphology and euploidy for individual chromosomes in embryos that develop to the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril 2009; 91: 2432-2436. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.03.008]
12. Fragouli E, Katz-Jaffe M, Alfarawati S, Stevens J, Colls P, Goodall N, et al. Comprehensive chromosome screening of polar bodies and blastocysts from couples experiencing repeated implantation failure. Fertil Steril 2010; 94: 875-887. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.04.053]
13. Yang Z, Liu J, Collins GS, Salem S a, Liu X, Lyle SS, 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 Cytogen 2012; 5: 24. [DOI:10.1186/1755-8166-5-24]
14. Scott RT, Upham KM, Forman EJ, Hong KH, Scott KL, Taylor D, 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. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.04.035]
15. Van Royen E. Characterization of a top quality embryo, a step towards single-embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 1999; 14: 2345-2349. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/14.9.2345]
16. Stensen MH, Tanbo T, Storeng R, Byholm T, Fèdorcsak P. Routine morphological scoring systems in assisted reproduction treatment fail to reflect age-related impairment of oocyte and embryo quality. Reprod BioMed Online 2010; 21: 118-125. [DOI:10.1016/j.rbmo.2010.03.018]
17. Bromer JG, Seli E. Assessment of embryo viability in assisted reproductive technology: shortcomings of current approaches and the emerging role of metabolomics. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2008; 20: 234-241. [DOI:10.1097/GCO.0b013e3282fe723d]
18. Alfarawati S, Fragouli E, Colls P, Stevens J, Gutiérrez-Mateo C, Schoolcraft WB, et al. The relationship between blastocyst morphology, chromosomal abnormality, and embryo gender. Fertil Steril 2011; 95: 520-524. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.04.003]
19. Rubio C, Rodrigo L, Mir P, Mateu E, Peinado V, Milán M, et al. Use of array comparative genomic hybridization (array-CGH) for embryo assessment: clinical results. Fertil Steril 2013; 99: 1044-1048. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.01.094]
20. Magli MC, Gianaroli L, Ferraretti AP, Lappi M, Ruberti A, Farfalli V. Embryo morphology and development are dependent on the chromosomal complement. Fertil Steril 2007; 87: 534-541. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.07.1512]
21. Fallis A. No Title No Title. J Chem Inform Model 2013; 53: 1689-1699.
22. Pehlivan T, Rubio C, Rodrigo L, Romero J, Remohi J, Simón C, et al. Impact of preimplantation genetic diagnosis on IVF outcome in implantation failure patients. Reprod BioMed Online 2003; 6: 232-237. [DOI:10.1016/S1472-6483(10)61715-4]
23. Hill GA, Freeman M, Bastias MC, Rogers BJ, Herbert 3rd CM, Osteen KG WA. The influence of oocyte maturity and embryo quality on pregnancy rate in a program for in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 1989; 52: 801-806. [DOI:10.1016/S0015-0282(16)61034-8]
24. Dondorp W, De Wert G, Pennings G, Shenfield F, Devroey P, Tarlatzis B, et al. ESHRE Task Force on ethics and Law 20: sex selection for non-medical reasons. Hum Reprod 2013; 28: 1448-1454. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/det109]
25. Kilani Z, Magli M, Qaddomi E, Ferraretti A, Shaban M, Crippa A, et al. Chromosome analysis in embryos from young patients with previous parity. Reprod BioMed Online 2014; 29: 333-339. [DOI:10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.04.018]
26. Patrizio P, Bianchi V, Lalioti M, Gerasimova T, Sakkas D. High rate of biological loss in assisted reproduction: it is in the seed, not in the soil. Reprod BioMed Online 2007; 14: 92-95. [DOI:10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60769-9]
27. Chamayou S, Patrizio P, Storaci G, Tomaselli V, Alecci C, Ragolia C, et al. The use of morphokinetic parameters to select all embryos with full capacity to implant. J Assist Reprod Genet 2013; 30: 703-710. [DOI:10.1007/s10815-013-9992-2]
28. Cruz M, Garrido N, Herrero J, Pérez-Cano I, Mu-oz M, Meseguer M. Timing of cell division in human cleavage-stage embryos is linked with blastocyst formation and quality. Reprod BioMed Online 2012; 25: 371-381. [DOI:10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.06.017]
29. Meseguer M, Herrero J, Tejera A, Hilligsøe KM, Ramsing NB, Remohí J. The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of embryo implantation. Hum Reprod 2011; 26: 2658-2671. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/der256]
30. Faramarzi A, Khalili MA, Soleimani M. First successful pregnancies following embryo selection using Time-lapse technology in Iran. Iran J Reprod Med 2015; 13: 237-242.
31. Rubio I, Galán A, Larreategui Z, Ayerdi F, Bellver J, Herrero J, et al. Clinical validation of embryo culture and selection by morphokinetic analysis: a randomized, controlled trial of the EmbryoScope. Fertil Steril 2014; 102: 1287-1294. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.07.738]
32. Campbell A, Fishel S, Bowman N, Duffy S, Sedler M, Thornton S. Retrospective analysis of outcomes after IVF using an aneuploidy risk model derived from time-lapse imaging without PGS. Reprod BioMed Online 2013; 27: 140-146. [DOI:10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.04.013]
33. Campbell A, Fishel S, Bowman N, Duffy S, Sedler M, Hickman CFL. Modelling a risk classification of aneuploidy in human embryos using non-invasive morphokinetics. Reprod BioMed Online 2013; 26: 477-485. [DOI:10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.02.006]
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |