4.6 Article

Karyomapping identifies second polar body DNA persisting to the blastocyst stage: implications for embryo biopsy

期刊

REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE ONLINE
卷 31, 期 6, 页码 776-782

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2015.07.005

关键词

aneuploidy; blastocyst biopsy; Karyomapping; PGS; PGD; polar body

资金

  1. NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre
  2. BBSRC [BB/E024211/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [G19438/2, BB/E024211/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Blastocyst biopsy is now widely used for both preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). Although this approach yields good results, variable embryo quality and rates of development remain a challenge. Here, a case is reported in which a blastocyst was biopsied for PGS by array comparative genomic hybridization on day 6 after insemination, having hatched completely. In addition to a small trophectoderm sample, excluded cell fragments from the subzonal space from this embryo were also sampled. Unexpectedly, the array comparative genomic hybridization results from the fragments and trophectoderm sample were non-concordant: 47, XX,+19 and 46, XY, respectively. DNA fingerprinting by short tandem repeat and amelogenin analysis confirmed the sex chromosome difference but seemed to show that the two samples were related but nonidentical. Genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism genotyping and karyomapping identified that the origin of the DNA amplified from the fragments was that of the second polar body corresponding to the oocyte from which the biopsied embryo developed. The fact that polar body DNA can persist to the blastocyst stage provides evidence that excluded cell fragments should not be used for diagnostic purposes and should be avoided when performing embryo biopsies as there is a risk of diagnostic errors. (C) 2015 Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据