4.5 Editorial Material

The use of polygenic risk scores in pre-implantation genetic testing: an unproven, unethical practice

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS
卷 30, 期 5, 页码 493-495

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41431-021-01000-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF UK)
  2. World Cancer Research Fund International [2017/1641]
  3. European Union [H2020-SC1-2019-874739]
  4. Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Russian Federation [075-15-2021-595]
  5. Agence Nationale de la Recherche [ANR-18-IBHU-0001]
  6. European Union through the Fonds europeen de developpement regional (FEDER)
  7. Conseil Regional des Hauts-de-France (Hauts-de-France Regional Council)
  8. Metropole Europeenne de Lille (MEL, European Metropolis of Lille)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although polygenic risk score analyses on embryos (PGT-P) are being marketed to parents using in vitro fertilisation as a tool for selecting embryos with lower disease risk, the utility of PRS in this context is limited and lacks clinical research support. Patients need to be informed about the limitations of using PRSs in this way, and a societal debate about the selection of individual traits should take place before further implementation of this technique in this population.
Y Polygenic risk score analyses on embryos (PGT-P) are being marketed by some private testing companies to parents using in vitro fertilisation as being useful in selecting the embryos that carry the least risk of disease in later life. It appears that at least one child has been born after such a procedure. But the utility of a PRS in this respect is severely limited, and to date, no clinical research has been performed to assess its diagnostic effectiveness in embryos. Patients need to be properly informed on the limitations of this use of PRSs, and a societal debate, focused on what would be considered acceptable with regard to the selection of individual traits, should take place before any further implementation of the technique in this population.

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

4.5
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