4.7 Article

Validation of Non-Invasive Preimplantation Genetic Screening Using a Routine IVF Laboratory Workflow

Journal

BIOMEDICINES
Volume 10, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines10061386

Keywords

embryo selection; non-invasive preimplantation genetic screening; spent culture medium; cell-free DNA; time-lapse

Funding

  1. Chang Gung Memorial Hospital [CORPG8L0011, CRRPG8K0021-3]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Non-invasive preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (niPGT-A) combined with time-lapse morphokinetics can provide a better embryo-selection strategy in assisted reproduction technology.
Embryo selection is needed to optimize the chances of pregnancy in assisted reproduction technology. This study aimed to validate non-invasive preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (niPGT-A) using a routine IVF laboratory workflow. Can niPGT-A combined with time-lapse morphokinetics provide a better embryo-selection strategy? A total of 118 spent culture mediums (SCMs) from 32 couples were collected. A total of 40 SCMs and 40 corresponding trophectoderm (TE) biopsy samples (n = 29) or arrested embryos (n = 11) were assessed for concordance. All embryos were cultured to the blastocyst stage (day 5 or 6) in a single-embryo culture time-lapse incubator. The modified multiple annealing and looping-based amplification cycle (MALBAC) single-cell whole genome amplification method was used to amplify cell-free DNA (cfDNA) from the SCM, which was then sequenced on the Illumina MiSeq system. The majority of insemination methods were conventional IVF. Low cfDNA concentrations were noted in this study. The amplification niPGT-A and conventional PGT-A was 67.7%. Based on this study, performing niPGT-A without altering the daily laboratory procedures cannot provide a precise diagnosis. However, niPGT-A can be applied in clinical IVF, enabling the addition of blastocysts with a better prediction of euploidy for transfer.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available