Griffin, Darren K., Ogur, Cagri (2018) Chromosomal analysis in IVF: just how useful is it? Reproduction, 156 (1). F29-F50. ISSN 1470-1626. E-ISSN 1741-7899. (doi:10.1530/REP-17-0683) (Access to this publication is currently restricted. You may be able to access a copy if URLs are provided) (KAR id:68569)
PDF
Publisher pdf
Language: English Restricted to Repository staff only |
|
Contact us about this Publication
|
![]() |
Official URL: https://doi.org/10.1530/REP-17-0683 |
Abstract
Designed to minimize chances of transferring genetically abnormal embryos, preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) involves
in vitro fertilization (IVF), embryo biopsy, diagnosis and selective embryo transfer. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy
(PGT-A) aims to avoid miscarriage and live born trisomic offspring and to improve IVF success. Diagnostic approaches include
fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and more contemporary comprehensive chromosome screening (CCS) including array
comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH), quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR), next-generation sequencing (NGS) and
karyomapping. NGS has an improved dynamic range, and karyomapping can detect chromosomal and monogenic disorders
simultaneously. Mosaicism (commonplace in human embryos) can arise by several mechanisms; those arising initially meiotically (but
with a subsequent post-zygotic ‘trisomy rescue’ event) usually lead to adverse outcomes, whereas the extent to which mosaics that
are initially chromosomally normal (but then arise purely post-zygotically) can lead to unaffected live births is uncertain. Polar body
(PB) biopsy is the least common sampling method, having drawbacks including cost and inability to detect any paternal contribution.
Historically, cleavage-stage (blastomere) biopsy has been the most popular; however, higher abnormality levels, mosaicism and
potential for embryo damage have led to it being superseded by blastocyst (trophectoderm – TE) biopsy, which provides more cells for
analysis. Improved biopsy, diagnosis and freeze-all strategies collectively have the potential to revolutionize PGT-A, and there is
increasing evidence of their combined efficacy. Nonetheless, PGT-A continues to attract criticism, prompting questions of when we
consider the evidence base sufficient to justify routine PGT-A? Basic biological research is essential to address unanswered questions
concerning the chromosome complement of human embryos, and we thus entreat companies, governments and charities to fund
more. This will benefit both IVF patients and prospective parents at risk of aneuploid offspring following natural conception. The aim
of this review is to appraise the ‘state of the art’ in terms of PGT-A, including the controversial areas, and to suggest a practical ‘way
forward’ in terms of future diagnosis and applied research.
Item Type: | Article |
---|---|
DOI/Identification number: | 10.1530/REP-17-0683 |
Subjects: |
Q Science Q Science > QR Microbiology |
Divisions: | Divisions > Division of Natural Sciences > Biosciences |
Depositing User: | Darren Griffin |
Date Deposited: | 15 Aug 2018 08:24 UTC |
Last Modified: | 04 Mar 2024 17:08 UTC |
Resource URI: | https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/68569 (The current URI for this page, for reference purposes) |
- Export to:
- RefWorks
- EPrints3 XML
- BibTeX
- CSV
- Depositors only (login required):