4.7 Article

Translocation chromosome karyotypes of the Robertsonian translocation carriers' embryos

Journal

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
Volume 93, Issue 4, Pages 1061-1065

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.11.020

Keywords

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis; Robertsonian translocation; alternate; adjacent; meiotic division

Funding

  1. Nation Basic Research Program of China [2007ZB948102]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To explore the translocation karyotypes of the Robertsonian translocation (RT) carriers' embryos in their preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) cycles. Design: Retrospective. Setting: University-affiliated IVF center. Patient(s): A total of 35 RT carrier Couples underwent 39 blastomere PGD cycles from August 2005 to June 2008. Intervention(S): The PGD analysis of embryos. Main Outcome Measure(s): Meiotic segregation patterns of the 253 embryos were analyzed in their PGD cycles. Result(s): The alternate embryos were approximately one third of all the embryos (82 of 253, 32.41%). The ratio 14 among the alternate embryos, the adjacent-1 embryos and the adjacent-2 embryos was 2:1:1. There was no significant difference between the male RT Subgroup and the female RT subgroup (31.43% vs. 37.21%) regarding the proportion of the alternate embryos and no significant difference was found between the common RT subgroup and the rare RT subgroup (33.48% vs. 25.00%). In contrast, the alternate embryo percentage in the pregnancy subgroup was much higher than that of the pregnancy failure subgroup (45.16% vs. 28.27%). Conclusion(S): The alternate embryos are dominant among the RT carriers' embryos and different gender and different translocation chromosomes have no effect on the alternate embryos rate. The ratio among the alternate embryos, the adjacent-1 embryos and the adjacent-2 embryos is 2:1:1. (Fertil Steril (R) 2010;93:1061-5. (C)2010 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.)

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