4.4 Article

Molecular analysis of products of conception obtained by hysteroembryoscopy from infertile couples

Journal

JOURNAL OF ASSISTED REPRODUCTION AND GENETICS
Volume 32, Issue 5, Pages 839-848

Publisher

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10815-015-0460-z

Keywords

Products of conception; Hysteroembryoscopy; Assisted reproductive technology; Karyolite BoBs; Aneuploidy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To analyze the molecular cytogenetic data obtained from products of conception (POC) obtained by selective biopsy of first trimester miscarriages and to estimate the rate of chromosomal anomalies in miscarriages from pregnancies achieved by natural conception (NC) or by assisted reproductive technology (ART) interventions. We used KaryoLite (TM) BoBs (TM) (PerkinElmer LAS, Wallac, Turku, Finland) technology to analyze 189 samples from ART or NC pregnancies. All POC were successfully evaluated. A higher incidence of chromosomal abnormalities was observed in POC after ART using the patient's own oocytes than from NC pregnancies (62.7 % vs. 40.6 %; p < 0.05). The lowest incidence of chromosomal abnormalities was observed in POCs ART using donor eggs from women younger than 35 years (12.8 %). No statistical differences in the percentage of abnormal miscarriages were observed in correlation with sperm concentration: a sperm concentration less than 5 million/mL produced 75 % abnormal results and a concentration higher than 5 million/mL produced 51 %. POC analysis is essential to determine the cause of pregnancy loss. Using culture-independent molecular biology techniques to analyze POCs avoids limitations such as growth failure and reduces the time required for analysis. Selective biopsy of fetal tissue by hysteroembryoscopy avoids the risk of misdiagnosis due to maternal cell contamination. Our results show that maternal age, sperm quality, and ART-assisted pregnancies are risk factors for abnormal gestations.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available