4.4 Article

FISH analysis of 15 chromosomes in human day 4 and 5 preimplantation embryos: the added value of extended aneuploidy detection

期刊

PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS
卷 27, 期 1, 页码 55-63

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pd.1623

关键词

aneuploidy; chromosomal mosaicism; human preimplantation embryos; preimplantation genetic screening; cryopreservation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Screening for an increased number of chromosomes may improve the detection of abnormal embryos and thus contribute to the capability of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) to detect the embryo(s) for transfer in IVF with the best chance for a healthy child. Good-quality day 4 and 5 embryos were analyzed after cryopreservation for the nine chromosomes mostly recommended for screening (13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22, X and Y), next to six additional chromosomes which are less well studied in this context (1, 2, 7, 6, 10 and 17). Method The copy numbers of 15 chromosomes were investigated by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in three consecutive rounds. The proportion of aneuploid and mosaic embryos was determined and compared in retrospect to results in case only the recommended probe set had been analyzed. Results A total of 52 embryos from 29 infertile women were analyzed. Screening the embryos for six additional chromosomes increased the proportion of abnormal embryos from 67 to 81% (P = 0.03), owing to an increase in mosaic embryos. Conclusion All but one of the meiotic aneuploidies found in this study would have been detected by the probe set most frequently used in PIGS clinics. However, aneuploid cell lines originating from mitotic errors could be detected for almost all chromosomes, so screening of six additional chromosomes mainly increased the proportion of mosaic embryos. The added value of screening for six additional chromosomes in PGS for clinical practice will remain undetermined as long as the fate of mosaic embryos after transfer is unclear. Copyright (C) 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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

4.4
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