4.6 Review

Novel reproductive technologies to prevent mitochondrial disease

期刊

HUMAN REPRODUCTION UPDATE
卷 23, 期 5, 页码 501-519

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmx018

关键词

nuclear transfer; fertility; mitochondria; reproductive; preimplantation; mtDNA; oocyte; spindle transfer; heteroplasmy; mutation

资金

  1. China Scholarship Council [201506160059]
  2. Special Research Fund from Ghent University (Bijzonder Onderzoeksfonds, BOF) [01SC2916]
  3. FWO-Vlaanderen (Flemish fund for scientific research) [G051017N]
  4. Wellcome Centre for Mitochondrial Research
  5. Newcastle University Centre for Ageing and Vitality (Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council)
  6. Newcastle University Centre for Ageing and Vitality (Medical Research Council (MRC))
  7. MRC Centre for Neuromuscular Disease
  8. MRC Centre for Translational Research in Neuromuscular Disease Mitochondrial Disease Patient Cohort (UK)
  9. Lily Foundation
  10. UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre in Age and Age Related Diseases award

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: The use of nuclear transfer (NT) has been proposed as a novel reproductive treatment to overcome the transmission of maternally-inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) mutations. Pathogenic mutations in mtDNA can cause a wide-spectrum of lifelimiting disorders, collectively known as mtDNA disease, for which there are currently few effective treatments and no known cures. The many unique features of mtDNA make genetic counselling challenging for women harbouring pathogenic mtDNA mutations but reproductive options that involve medical intervention are available that will minimize the risk of mtDNA disease in their offspring. This includes PGD, which is currently offered as a clinical treatment but will not be suitable for all. The potential for NT to reduce transmission of mtDNA mutations has been demonstrated in both animal and human models, and has recently been clinically applied not only to prevent mtDNA disease but also for some infertility cases. In this review, we will interrogate the different NT techniques, including a discussion on the available safety and efficacy data of these technologies for mtDNA disease prevention. In addition, we appraise the evidence for the translational use of NT technologies in infertility. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: We propose to review the current scientific evidence regarding the clinical use of NT to prevent mitochondrial disease. SEARCH METHODS: The scientific literature was investigated by searching PubMed database until Jan 2017. Relevant documents from Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority as well as reports from both the scientific and popular media were also implemented. The above searches were based on the following key words: 'itochondria', 'mitochondrial DNA'; 'mitochondrial DNA disease', `fertility'; ` preimplantation genetic diagnosis', ` nuclear transfer', ` mitochondrial replacement' and ` mitochondrial donation'. OUTCOMES: While NT techniques have been shown to effectively reduce the transmission of heteroplasmic mtDNA variants in animal models, and increasing evidence supports their use to prevent the transmission of human mtDNA disease, the need for robust, long-term evaluation is still warranted. Moreover, prenatal screening would still be strongly advocated in combination with the use of these IVF-based technologies. Scientific evidence to support the use of NT and other novel reproductive techniques for infertility is currently lacking. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: It is mandatory that any new ART treatments are first adequately assessed in both animal and human models before the cautious implementation of these new therapeutic approaches is clinically undertaken. There is growing evidence to suggest that the translation of these innovative technologies into clinical practice should be cautiously adopted only in highly selected patients. Indeed, given the limited safety and efficacy data, close monitoring of any offspring remains paramount.

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