4.6 Article

Preimplantation genetic haplotyping: 127 diagnostic cycles demonstrating a robust, efficient alternative to direct mutation testing on single cells

Journal

REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE ONLINE
Volume 20, Issue 4, Pages 470-476

Publisher

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTHCARE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2010.01.006

Keywords

haplotype analysis; monogenic disease; PGD; PGH; whole genome amplification

Funding

  1. Guy's and St. Thomas' Charity
  2. Evelina Children's Hospital
  3. Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Research Association (DebRA UK)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis using whole genome amplification and a haplotyping approach (PGH) was first described in 2006 and suggested as an efficient alternative to single-cell PCR for monogenic disorders. DNA from single cells was amplified using multiple displacement amplification; the resulting products were then tested using disease-specific PCR multiplexes applied under standard laboratory conditions to determine the haplotypes in the embryo. This study reports on a total of 127 completed biopsy cycles for 101 couples at risk of: autosomal recessive disease (71 cycles, 53 couples including one germ-line mosaic carrier), autosomal dominant disease (31 cycles, 26 couples including one germ-line mosaic carrier), X-linked recessive disease (18 cycles, 16 couples including one germ-line mosaic carrier), X-linked dominant disease (six cycles, five couples) and a double inheritance of both autosomal and X-linked recessive diseases (one cycle, one couple). Of these, 107 cycles reached embryo transfer. Overall success rates were: fetal heart beat-positive pregnancies (FHB+)/biopsy cycle = 28%; FHB+/embryo transfer = 34%; FHB+/couple = 36%; 26 babies born, 13 ongoing pregnancies. These data demonstrate that PGH provides a robust, efficient and successful alternative to single-cell PCR for monogenic diseases. (C) 2010, Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available