4.2 Article

Embryonic Cell-free DNA in Spent Culture Medium: A Non-invasive Tool for Aneuploidy Screening of the Corresponding Embryos

Journal

IN VIVO
Volume 35, Issue 6, Pages 3449-3457

Publisher

INT INST ANTICANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.21873/invivo.12645

Keywords

cfDNA; culture medium; non-invasive PGT; trophectoderm biopsy

Funding

  1. project Investigation on the use of free nucleic acids in embryonic culture medium as a non-invasive tool for preimplantation genetic diagnosis [MIS 5050321]
  2. European Union (European Social Fund) by the Operation Program Human Recourses Development, Education and Lifelong Learning

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found good agreement between TE and SCM analysis, suggesting that niPGT-A could be a reliable alternative for chromosomal abnormalities assessment of in vitro cultured embryos.
Background/Aim: Preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) for chromosomal screening, based on embryo biopsy, has significant limitations. Cell-free DNA (cf-DNA) has been detected in spent culture medium (SCM), opening new horizons for the development of non-invasive PGT (ni-PGT). In this study, we evaluated the diagnostic performance of niPGT for aneuploidy (niPGT-A), comparing the results of trophectoderm biopsies (TE) and respective SCM from individually cultured embryos via Next Generation Sequencing (NGS). Materials and Methods: Forty fresh embryos were analyzed. TE and SCM from blastocysts were collected and analyzed. Results: We detected cfDNA in 100% of samples tested. The overall concordance rate between the ni-PGT-A and PGT-A was 27/33 (81.8%). The full concordance rate was 21/33 (63.6%). The aneuploidy agreement was 91.66%, and the euploidy agreement was 76.19%. Conclusion: We found a good accordance between TE and SCM analysis, suggesting that niPGT-A could be a reliable alternative for chromosomal abnormalities assessment of in vitro cultured embryos.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available