Download PDF
Semin Reprod Med 2012; 30(04): 283-288
DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1313907
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Genome-Wide Analysis of Human Preimplantation Aneuploidy

Nathan R. Treff
1   Reproductive Medicine Associates of New Jersey, Morristown, New Jersey
2   Department of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Science, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey
3   Department of Genetics, Rutgers-The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, New Jersey
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
21 June 2012 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

An exciting era in preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is emerging with the adaptation and development of new high throughput genome-wide methodologies for the evaluation of aneuploidy. In fact, many promising preclinical studies and clinical trials involving comprehensive chromosome screening (CCS) have renewed clinician interest in the use of PGD for aneuploidy screening as an embryo selection tool to improve the success of in vitro fertilization (IVF). This review will provide an overview of the basic underlying features and applications of the growing number of platforms and strategies for preimplantation genome-wide analysis of aneuploidy.

Keywords

whole genome amplification - comprehensive chromosome screening - preimplantation genetic diagnosis - aneuploidy
 

  • References

  • 1 Munné S, Alikani M, Tomkin G, Grifo J, Cohen J. Embryo morphology, developmental rates, and maternal age are correlated with chromosome abnormalities. Fertil Steril 1995; 64 (2) 382-391
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Hassold T, Hunt P. To err (meiotically) is human: the genesis of human aneuploidy. Nat Rev Genet 2001; 2 (4) 280-291
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Hassold T, Hunt P. Maternal age and chromosomally abnormal pregnancies: what we know and what we wish we knew. Curr Opin Pediatr 2009; 21 (6) 703-708
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Harper JC, Coonen E, De Rycke M , et al. ESHRE PGD Consortium data collection X: cycles from January to December 2007 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2008. Hum Reprod 2010; 25 (11) 2685-2707
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Fritz MA. Perspectives on the efficacy and indications for preimplantation genetic screening: where are we now?. Hum Reprod 2008; 23 (12) 2617-2621
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Treff NR, Levy B, Su J, Northrop LE, Tao X, Scott Jr RT. SNP microarray-based 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening is significantly more consistent than FISH. Mol Hum Reprod 2010; 16 (8) 583-589
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Northrop LE, Treff NR, Levy B, Scott Jr RT. SNP microarray-based 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening demonstrates that cleavage-stage FISH poorly predicts aneuploidy in embryos that develop to morphologically normal blastocysts. Mol Hum Reprod 2010; 16 (8) 590-600
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Treff NR, Ferry KM, Zhao T , et al. Cleavage stage embryo biopsy significantly impairs embryonic reproductive potential while blastocyst biopsy does not: a novel paired analysis of cotransferred biopsied and non-biopsied sibling embryos. Fertil Steril 2011; 96: S2
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Harper JC, Harton G. The use of arrays in preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening. Fertil Steril 2010; 94 (4) 1173-1177
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Dolezel J, Bartos J, Voglmayr H, Greilhuber J. Nuclear DNA content and genome size of trout and human. Cytometry A 2003; 51 (2) 127-128 , author reply 129
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Dean FB, Hosono S, Fang L , et al. Comprehensive human genome amplification using multiple displacement amplification. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002; 99 (8) 5261-5266
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Handyside AH, Harton GL, Mariani B , et al. Karyomapping: a universal method for genome wide analysis of genetic disease based on mapping crossovers between parental haplotypes. J Med Genet 2010; 47 (10) 651-658
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Handyside AH, Robinson MD, Simpson RJ , et al. Isothermal whole genome amplification from single and small numbers of cells: a new era for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of inherited disease. Mol Hum Reprod 2004; 10 (10) 767-772
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Sher G, Keskintepe L, Keskintepe M, Maassarani G, Tortoriello D, Brody S. Genetic analysis of human embryos by metaphase comparative genomic hybridization (mCGH) improves efficiency of IVF by increasing embryo implantation rate and reducing multiple pregnancies and spontaneous miscarriages. Fertil Steril 2009; 92 (6) 1886-1894
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Keskintepe L, Sher G, Keskintepe M. Reproductive oocyte/embryo genetic analysis: comparison between fluorescence in-situ hybridization and comparative genomic hybridization. Reprod Biomed Online 2007; 15 (3) 303-309
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Sher G, Keskintepe L, Keskintepe M , et al. Oocyte karyotyping by comparative genomic hybrydization provides a highly reliable method for selecting “competent” embryos, markedly improving in vitro fertilization outcome: a multiphase study. Fertil Steril 2007; 87 (5) 1033-1040
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Voet T, Vanneste E, Vermeesch JR. The Human Cleavage Stage Embryo Is a Cradle of Chromosomal Rearrangements. Cytogenet Genome Res 2011;
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Voet T, Vanneste E, Van der Aa N , et al. Breakage-fusion-bridge cycles leading to inv dup del occur in human cleavage stage embryos. Hum Mutat 2011; 32 (7) 783-793
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Vanneste E, Melotte C, Voet T , et al. PGD for a complex chromosomal rearrangement by array comparative genomic hybridization. Hum Reprod 2011; 26 (4) 941-949
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Vanneste E, Voet T, Le Caignec C , et al. Chromosome instability is common in human cleavage-stage embryos. Nat Med 2009; 15 (5) 577-583
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Spits C, Le Caignec C, De Rycke M , et al. Optimization and evaluation of single-cell whole-genome multiple displacement amplification. Hum Mutat 2006; 27 (5) 496-503
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Le Caignec C, Spits C, Sermon K , et al. Single-cell chromosomal imbalances detection by array CGH. Nucleic Acids Res 2006; 34 (9) e68
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Hellani A, Abu-Amero K, Azouri J, El-Akoum S. Successful pregnancies after application of array-comparative genomic hybridization in PGS-aneuploidy screening. Reprod Biomed Online 2008; 17 (6) 841-847
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Hellani A, Coskun S, Benkhalifa M , et al. Multiple displacement amplification on single cell and possible PGD applications. Mol Hum Reprod 2004; 10 (11) 847-852
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Johnson DS, Gemelos G, Baner J , et al. Preclinical validation of a microarray method for full molecular karyotyping of blastomeres in a 24-h protocol. Hum Reprod 2010; 25 (4) 1066-1075
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Brezina PR, Benner A, Rechitsky S , et al. Single-gene testing combined with single nucleotide polymorphism microarray preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy: a novel approach in optimizing pregnancy outcome. Fertil Steril 2011; 95 (5) 1786.e1785-1786.e1788
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Ling J, Zhuang G, Tazon-Vega B , et al. Evaluation of genome coverage and fidelity of multiple displacement amplification from single cells by SNP array. Mol Hum Reprod 2009; 15 (11) 739-747
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Fishel S, Craig A, Lynch C , et al. Assessment of 19,803 Paired Chromosomes and Clinical Outcome from First 150 Cycles using Array CGH of the First Polar Body for Embryo Selection and Transfer. J Fertiliz In Vitro 2011; 1 (1) 1-8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Treff NR, Northrop LE, Kasabwala K , et al. Single nucleotide polymorphism microarray-based concurrent screening of 24 chromosome aneuploidy and unbalanced translocations in preimplantation human embryos. Fertil Steril 2010; 95 (5) 1606-1612 , e1601–1602
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Fishel S, Gordon A, Lynch C , et al. Live birth after polar body array comparative genomic hybridization prediction of embryo ploidy-the future of IVF?. Fertil Steril 2010; 93 (3) 1006e1007-1006e1010
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Fiegler H, Geigl JB, Langer S , et al. High resolution array-CGH analysis of single cells. Nucleic Acids Res 2007; 35 (3) 1-10
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Gutiérrez-Mateo C, Colls P, Sánchez-García J , et al. Validation of microarray comparative genomic hybridization for comprehensive chromosome analysis of embryos. Fertil Steril 2011; 95 (3) 953-958
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Treff NR, Su J, Tao X, Levy B, Scott Jr RT. Accurate single cell 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening using whole genome amplification and single nucleotide polymorphism microarrays. Fertil Steril 2010; 94 (6) 2017-2021
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Magli MC, Montag M, Koster M , et al. Polar body array CGH for prediction of the status of the corresponding oocyte. Part II: technical aspects. Hum Reprod 2011;
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Geraedts J, Montag M, Magli MC , et al. Polar body array CGH for prediction of the status of the corresponding oocyte. Part I: clinical results. Hum Reprod 2011;
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Treff NR, Su J, Tao X, Northrop LE, Scott Jr RT. Single-cell whole-genome amplification technique impacts the accuracy of SNP microarray-based genotyping and copy number analyses. Mol Hum Reprod 2011; 17 (6) 335-343
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Malmgren H, Sahlén S, Inzunza J , et al. Single cell CGH analysis reveals a high degree of mosaicism in human embryos from patients with balanced structural chromosome aberrations. Mol Hum Reprod 2002; 8 (5) 502-510
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Rius M, Obradors A, Daina G , et al. Reliability of short comparative genomic hybridization in fibroblasts and blastomeres for a comprehensive aneuploidy screening: first clinical application. Hum Reprod 2010; 25 (7) 1824-1835
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Wells D, Escudero T, Levy B, Hirschhorn K, Delhanty JD, Munné S. First clinical application of comparative genomic hybridization and polar body testing for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of aneuploidy. Fertil Steril 2002; 78 (3) 543-549
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Voullaire L, Slater H, Williamson R, Wilton L. Chromosome analysis of blastomeres from human embryos by using comparative genomic hybridization. Hum Genet 2000; 106 (2) 210-217
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Wells D, Delhanty JD. Comprehensive chromosomal analysis of human preimplantation embryos using whole genome amplification and single cell comparative genomic hybridization. Mol Hum Reprod 2000; 6 (11) 1055-1062
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Wells D, Sherlock JK, Handyside AH, Delhanty JD. Detailed chromosomal and molecular genetic analysis of single cells by whole genome amplification and comparative genomic hybridisation. Nucleic Acids Res 1999; 27 (4) 1214-1218
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Wilton L, Williamson R, McBain J, Edgar D, Voullaire L. Birth of a healthy infant after preimplantation confirmation of euploidy by comparative genomic hybridization. N Engl J Med 2001; 345 (21) 1537-1541
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Wells D, Alfarawati S, Fragouli E. Use of comprehensive chromosomal screening for embryo assessment: microarrays and CGH. Mol Hum Reprod 2008; 14 (12) 703-710
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Hu DG, Webb G, Hussey N. Aneuploidy detection in single cells using DNA array-based comparative genomic hybridization. Mol Hum Reprod 2004; 10 (4) 283-289
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Gabriel AS, Thornhill AR, Ottolini CS , et al. Array comparative genomic hybridisation on first polar bodies suggests that non-disjunction is not the predominant mechanism leading to aneuploidy in humans. J Med Genet 2011;
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Alfarawati S, Fragouli E, Colls P, Wells D. First births after preimplantation genetic diagnosis of structural chromosome abnormalities using comparative genomic hybridization and microarray analysis. Hum Reprod 2011; 26 (6) 1560-1574
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Fiorentino F, Spizzichino L, Bono S , et al. PGD for reciprocal and Robertsonian translocations using array comparative genomic hybridization. Hum Reprod 2011; 26 (7) 1925-1935
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Glessner JT, Hakonarson H. Genome-wide association: from confounded to confident. Neuroscientist 2011; 17 (2) 174-184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Peiffer DA, Le JM, Steemers FJ , et al. High-resolution genomic profiling of chromosomal aberrations using Infinium whole-genome genotyping. Genome Res 2006; 16 (9) 1136-1148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Nannya Y, Sanada M, Nakazaki K , et al. A robust algorithm for copy number detection using high-density oligonucleotide single nucleotide polymorphism genotyping arrays. Cancer Res 2005; 65 (14) 6071-6079
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Wong KK, Tsang YT, Shen J , et al. Allelic imbalance analysis by high-density single-nucleotide polymorphic allele (SNP) array with whole genome amplified DNA. Nucleic Acids Res 2004; 32 (9) e69
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Scott Jr RT, Tao X, Taylor D, Ferry K, Treff N. A prospective randomized controlled trial demonstrating significantly increased clinical pregnancy rates following 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening: biopsy and analysis on day 5 with fresh transfer. Fertil Steril 2010; 94 (4) S2
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Treff NR, Tao X, Ferry KM , et al. Development and validation of an accurate quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction-based assay for human blastocyst comprehensive chromosomal aneuploidy screening. Fertil Steril 2012; 97 (4) 819-824
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Fragouli E, Delhanty JD, Wells D. Single cell diagnosis using comparative genomic hybridization after preliminary DNA amplification still needs more tweaking: too many miscalls. Fertil Steril 2007; 88 (1) 247-248 , author reply 248–249
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 McReynolds S, Vanderlinden L, Stevens J , et al. Lipocalin-1: a potential marker for noninvasive aneuploidy screening. Fertil Steril 2011;
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Fragouli E, Wells D. Transcriptomic analysis of follicular cells provides information on the chromosomal status and competence of unfertilized oocytes. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2012; 12 (1) 1-4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Katz-Jaffe M, McCallie BR, Treff NR , et al. A novel profile of cumulus cell transcripts is associated with oocyte aneuploidy. Fertil Steril 2008; S39
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Geraedts J, Collins J, Gianaroli L , et al. What next for preimplantation genetic screening? A polar body approach!. Hum Reprod 2010; 25 (3) 575-577
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 De Vos A, Van Steirteghem A. Aspects of biopsy procedures prior to preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Prenat Diagn 2001; 21 (9) 767-780
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Munné S, Weier HU, Grifo J, Cohen J. Chromosome mosaicism in human embryos. Biol Reprod 1994; 51 (3) 373-379
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 De Vos A, Staessen C, De Rycke M , et al. Impact of cleavage-stage embryo biopsy in view of PGD on human blastocyst implantation: a prospective cohort of single embryo transfers. Hum Reprod 2009; 24 (12) 2988-2996
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van Echten-Arends J , et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N Engl J Med 2007; 357 (1) 9-17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Schoolcraft WB, Treff NR, Stevens JM, Ferry K, Katz-Jaffe M, Scott Jr RT. Live birth outcome with trophectoderm biopsy, blastocyst vitrification, and single-nucleotide polymorphism microarray-based comprehensive chromosome screening in infertile patients. Fertil Steril 2011; 96 (3) 638-640
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Schoolcraft WB, Fragouli E, Stevens J, Munne S, Katz-Jaffe MG, Wells D. Clinical application of comprehensive chromosomal screening at the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril 2010; 94 (5) 1700-1706
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Fragouli E, Lenzi M, Ross R, Katz-Jaffe M, Schoolcraft WB, Wells D. Comprehensive molecular cytogenetic analysis of the human blastocyst stage. Hum Reprod 2008; 23 (11) 2596-2608
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Van Voorhis BJ, Dokras A. Delayed blastocyst transfer: is the window shutting?. Fertility and Sterility 2008; 189 (1) 31-32
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Harper J, Coonen E, De Rycke M , et al. What next for preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)? A position statement from the ESHRE PGD Consortium Steering Committee. Hum Reprod 2010; 25 (4) 821-823
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Munné S, Wells D, Cohen J. Technology requirements for preimplantation genetic diagnosis to improve assisted reproduction outcomes. Fertil Steril 2010; 94 (2) 408-430
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Scott Jr RT. Using the “omics” to assess the reproductive competence of individual embryos. In: Midwest Reproductive Symposium. Chicago, IL: 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 71 Harper J, Cristina Magli M, Lundin K, Barratt CL, Brison D. When and how should new technology be introduced into the IVF laboratory?. Hum Reprod 2011;
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Harton GL, De Rycke M, Fiorentino F , et al; European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) PGD Consortium. ESHRE PGD consortium best practice guidelines for amplification-based PGD. Hum Reprod 2011; 26 (1) 33-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Glentis S, SenGupta S, Thornhill A, Wang R, Craft I, Harper JC. Molecular comparison of single cell MDA products derived from different cell types. Reprod Biomed Online 2009; 19 (1) 89-98
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Grifo J, Ghadir S, Kaplan B , et al. Significant decrease in miscarriages after preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) for recurrent pregnancy loss using array comparative genome hybridization (Array CGH). Fertil Steril 2011; 96 (3) S23
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Rabinowitz M, Beltsos A, Potter D , et al. Effects of advanced maternal age are abrogated in 122 patients undergoing transfer of embryos with euploid microarray screening results at cleavage stage. Fertil Steril 2010; 94 (4) S80
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Scott Jr RT, Ferry KA, Su J , et al. Comprehensive chromosome screening is highly predictive of the reproductive potential of human embryos: a prospective blinded nonselection study. Fertil Steril 2012; 97 (4) 870-875
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Seli E, Robert C, Sirard MA. OMICS in assisted reproduction: possibilities and pitfalls. Mol Hum Reprod 2010; 16 (8) 513-530
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Treff NR, Su J, Lonczak A, Taylor D, Scott Jr RT. A subset of the cumulus cell transcriptome is predictive of euploid human oocyte reproductive potential. Fertil Steril 2010; 94: S34-S35
    PubMedGoogle Scholar