Download PDF
Semin Reprod Med 2012; 30(04): 259-266
DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1313905
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

New Perspectives on Embryo Biopsy: Not How, But When and Why?

Kangpu Xu
1   Center for Reproductive Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York
,
Markus Montag
2   Universitäts-Frauenklinik, Abt. Gynäkol Endokrinologie & Fertilitätsstörungen, Heidelberg, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
21 June 2012 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

During the past 2 decades, biopsy for preimplantation genetic diagnosis at three stages, that is, before conception (the first polar body), after fertilization (the second polar body), and early cleavage (D3 blastomeres) or blastocyst stage (D5/D6 trophectoderm biopsy), have been optimized and performed clinically in hundreds of in vitro fertilization centers around the world. Although opening the zona pellucida by mechanical or chemical means is still effectively in use, noncontact laser has become the indispensable instrument. Overall, the invasive nature of biopsy at any given stage is recognized. It is believed that removal of the polar bodies from M-II oocytes and fertilized zygotes may have the least detrimental effects on subsequent embryonic development; hence increasing applications of polar body biopsy are anticipated. Although D3 biopsy is currently the most frequently used method, the effectiveness of D3 cleavage-stage biopsy is unsettling because of the mosaicism in early cleavage human embryos. Controversies exist in several areas; particularly, the efficacy of preimplantation genetic screening based on one cell removed from a D3 embryo remains to be confirmed. With new genetic testing technology, there may be no need to biopsy two cells because accuracy from one cell is high and the risk of misdiagnosis is very low when sufficient markers are used for chromosome copy number assessment or for mutation detection of single-gene disorders. And finally, it appears that limited harm is caused by biopsy at the blastocyst stage and mosaicism seems to be less common as compared with earlier stages. Therefore, use of the blastocyst-stage biopsy combined with cryopreservation protocol can be effectively used for several indications. Furthermore, faster genetic analytical methods that can be completed within several hours will make this strategy more practical and attractive as fresh embryo transfer is possible.

Keywords

polar body - blastomere - cleavage embryo - blastocyst - biopsy - PGD
 

  • References

  • 1 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
  • 2 Geraedts J, Montag M, Magli MC , et al. Polar body array CGH for prediction of the status of the corresponding oocyte. I. Clinical results. Hum Reprod Online 2011; 26 (11) 3173-3180
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 De Boer KA, McArthur S, Murray C, Jansen R. First live birth following blastocyst biopsy and PGD analysis. RBM Online 2002; 4: 35
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 McArthur SJ, Leigh D, Marshall JT, de Boer KA, Jansen RP. Pregnancies and live births after trophectoderm biopsy and preimplantation genetic testing of human blastocysts. Fertil Steril 2005; 84 (6) 1628-1636
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Schoolcraft WB, Treff NR, Stevens JM , et al. 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
  • 6 Harper JC, Wilton L, Traeger-Synodinos J , et al. The ESHRE PGD Consortium: 10 years of data collection. Hum Reprod Update 2012; 18 (3) 234-247
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Grifo J. Preconception and preimplantation genetic diagnosis: polar body, blastomere, and trophectoderm biopsy. In: Cohen J, Talansky BE, Malter HE, Grifo J, eds. Micromanipulation of Human Gametes and Embryos. New York, NY: Raven Press; 1992: 223-249
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Braude P, Pickering S, Flinter F, Ogilvie CM. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Nat Rev Genet 2002; 3 (12) 941-953
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 De Vos A. Cleavage-Stage Embryo Biopsy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Montag M , v. d. V. K., van der Ven H. Polar body diagnosis. In: Harper J, ed. Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis. 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2010
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Parriego M, Vidal F, Veiga A. Blastocyst Biopsy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (2nd Edition). Eds: JC Harper. 2009, Cambridge University Press
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Verlinsky Y, Ginsberg N, Lifchez A , et al. Analysis of the first polar body: preconception genetic diagnosis. Hum Reprod 1990; 5 (7) 826-829
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Fragouli E, Alfarawati S, Goodall NN , et al. The cytogenetics of polar bodies: insights into female meiosis and the diagnosis of aneuploidy. Mol Hum Reprod 2011; 17: 286-295
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Montag M, Schimming T, van der Ven H. Spindle imaging in human oocytes: the impact of the meiotic cell cycle. Reprod Biomed Online 2006; 12 (4) 442-446
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Cieslak J, Ivakhnenko V, Wolf G, Sheleg S, Verlinsky Y. Three-dimensional partial zona dissection for preimplantation genetic diagnosis and assisted hatching. Fertil Steril 1999; 71 (2) 308-313
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Montag M, van der Ven H. Laser-assisted hatching in assisted reproduction. Croat Med J 1999; 40 (3) 398-403
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Montag M, van der Ven K, Delacrétaz G, Rink K, van der Ven H. Laser-assisted microdissection of the zona pellucida facilitates polar body biopsy. Fertil Steril 1998; 69 (3) 539-542
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kuliev A, Rechitsky S. Polar body-based preimplantation genetic diagnosis for Mendelian disorders. [review]. Mol Hum Reprod 2011; 17: 275-285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Nicolaidis P, Petersen MB. Origin and mechanisms of non-disjunction in human autosomal trisomies. Hum Reprod 1998; 13 (2) 313-319
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Schippert C, Bloechle M, Marr S , et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (polar body biopsy) and trisomy 21. Hum Reprod 2010; 25 (4) 1081-1082
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Hardy K, Martin KL, Leese HJ, Winston RM, Handyside AH. Human preimplantation development in vitro is not adversely affected by biopsy at the 8-cell stage. Hum Reprod 1990; 5 (6) 708-714
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Handyside AH, Kontogianni EH, Hardy K, Winston RM. Pregnancies from biopsied human preimplantation embryos sexed by Y-specific DNA amplification. Nature 1990; 344 (6268) 768-770
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Handyside AH, Lesko JG, Tarín JJ, Winston RM, Hughes MR. Birth of a normal girl after in vitro fertilization and preimplantation diagnostic testing for cystic fibrosis. N Engl J Med 1992; 327 (13) 905-909
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Edwards RG, Beard HK. Oocyte polarity and cell determination in early mammalian embryos. Mol Hum Reprod 1997; 3 (10) 863-905
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Gardner RL. Experimental analysis of second cleavage in the mouse. Hum Reprod 2002; 17 (12) 3178-3189
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Motosugi N, Bauer T, Polanski Z, Solter D, Hiiragi T. Polarity of the mouse embryo is established at blastocyst and is not prepatterned. Genes Dev 2005; 19 (9) 1081-1092
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Hiiragi T, Alarcon VB, Fujimori T , et al. Where do we stand now? Mouse early embryo patterning meeting in Freiburg, Germany (2005). Int J Dev Biol 2006; 50 (7) 581-586, discussion 586–587
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Willadsen SM. Nuclear transplantation in sheep embryos. Nature 1986; 320 (6057) 63-65
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Johnson WH, Loskutoff NM, Plante Y, Betteridge KJ. Production of four identical calves by the separation of blastomeres from an in vitro derived four-cell embryo. Vet Rec 1995; 137 (1) 15-16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Van de Velde H, Cauffman G, Tournaye H, Devroey P, Liebaers I. The four blastomeres of a 4-cell stage human embryo are able to develop individually into blastocysts with inner cell mass and trophectoderm. Hum Reprod 2008; 23 (8) 1742-1747
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Geens M, Mateizel I, Sermon K , et al. Human embryonic stem cell lines derived from single blastomeres of two 4-cell stage embryos. Hum Reprod 2009; 24 (11) 2709-2717
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Zernicka-Goetz M, Morris SA, Bruce AW. Making a firm decision: multifaceted regulation of cell fate in the early mouse embryo. Nat Rev Genet 2009; 10 (7) 467-477
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Braude P, Bolton V, Moore S. Human gene expression first occurs between the four- and eight-cell stages of preimplantation development. Nature 1988; 332 (6163) 459-461
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Tang F, Barvacioru C, Wang Y , et al. mRNA-Seq whole-transcriptome analysis of a single cell. Nat Meth 2009; 6 (5) 377-382
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Vassena R, Boué S, González-Roca E , et al. Waves of early transcriptional activation and pluripotency program initiation during human preimplantation development. Development 2011; 138 (17) 3699-3709
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Suwińska A, Czołowska R, Ozdzeński W, Tarkowski AK. Blastomeres of the mouse embryo lose totipotency after the fifth cleavage division: expression of Cdx2 and Oct4 and developmental potential of inner and outer blastomeres of 16- and 32-cell embryos. Dev Biol 2008; 322 (1) 133-144
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Plachta N, Bollenbach T, Pease S, Fraser SE, Pantazis P. Oct4 kinetics predict cell lineage patterning in the early mammalian embryo. Nat Cell Biol 2011; 13 (2) 117-123
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Liebaers I, Desmyttere S, Verpoest W , et al. Report on a consecutive series of 581 children born after blastomere biopsy for preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Hum Reprod 2010; 25 (1) 275-282
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Chen SU, Chao KH, Wu MY, Chen CD, Ho HN, Yang YS. The simplified two-pipette technique is more efficient than the conventional three-pipette method for blastomere biopsy in human embryos. Fertil Steril 1998; 69 (3) 569-575
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Joris H, De Vos A, Janssens R, Devroey P, Liebaers I, Van Steirteghem A. Comparison of the results of human embryo biopsy and outcome of PGD after zona drilling using acid Tyrode medium or a laser. Hum Reprod 2003; 18 (9) 1896-1902
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Chatzimeletiou K, Morrison EE, Panagiotidis Y , et al. Comparison of effects of zona drilling by non-contact infrared laser or acid Tyrode's on the development of human biopsied embryos as revealed by blastomere viability, cytoskeletal analysis and molecular cytogenetics. RBM Online 2005; 11 (6) 697-710
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Takeuchi K, Sandow BA, Morsy M, Kaufmann RA, Beebe SJ, Hodgen GD. Preclinical models for human pre-embryo biopsy and genetic diagnosis. I. Efficiency and normalcy of mouse pre-embryo development after different biopsy techniques. Fertil Steril 1992; 57 (2) 425-430
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Pierce KE, Michalopoulos J, Kiessling AA, Seibel MM, Zilberstein M. Preimplantation development of mouse and human embryos biopsied at cleavage stages using a modified displacement technique. Hum Reprod 1997; 12 (2) 351-356
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Wang WH, Kaskar K, Gill J, DeSplinter T. A simplified technique for embryo biopsy for preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Fertil Steril 2008; 90 (2) 438-442
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Tarín JJ, Conaghan J, Winston RM, Handyside AH. Human embryo biopsy on the 2nd day after insemination for preimplantation diagnosis: removal of a quarter of embryo retards cleavage. Fertil Steril 1992; 58 (5) 970-976
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Nikas G, Ao A, Winston RM, Handyside AH. Compaction and surface polarity in the human embryo in vitro. Biol Reprod 1996; 55 (1) 32-37
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Dumoulin JC, Bras M, Coonen E, Dreesen J, Geraedts JP, Evers JL. Effect of Ca2 + /Mg2 + -free medium on the biopsy procedure for preimplantation genetic diagnosis and further development of human embryos. Hum Reprod 1998; 13 (1O) 2880-2883
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Goossens V, De Rycke M, De Vos A , et al. Diagnostic efficiency, embryonic development and clinical outcome after the biopsy of one or two blastomeres for preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Hum Reprod 2008; 23 (3) 481-492
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Kokkali G, Traeger-Synodinos J, Vrettou C , et al. Blastocyst biopsy versus cleavage stage biopsy and blastocyst transfer for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of beta-thalassaemia: a pilot study. Hum Reprod 2007; 22 (5) 1443-1449
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Xu KP, Shi ZM, Veeck LL, Hughes MR, Rosenwaks Z. First unaffected pregnancy using preimplantation genetic diagnosis for sickle cell anemia. JAMA 1999; 281 (18) 1701-1706
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Van de Velde H, De Vos A, Sermon K , et al. Embryo implantation after biopsy of one or two cells from cleavage-stage embryos with a view to preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Prenat Diagn 2000; 20 (13) 1030-1037
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 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
  • 54 Cohen J, Grifo JA. Multicentre trial of preimplantation genetic screening reported in the New England Journal of Medicine: an in-depth look at the findings. Reprod Biomed Online 2007; 15 (4) 365-366
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 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
  • 56 Fragouli E, Wells D. Aneuploidy screening for embryo selection. Semin Reprod Med 2012; 30 (4) 293-305
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Fiorentino F. Molecular genetic analysis of single cells. Semin Reprod Med 2012; 30 (4) 268-283
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Treff N. Genome-Wide analysis of human preimplantation aneuploidy. Semin Reprod Med 2012; 30 (4) 284-292
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 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
  • 60 Hardy K, Spanos S, Becker D, Iannelli P, Winston RM, Stark J. From cell death to embryo arrest: mathematical models of human preimplantation embryo development. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2001; 98 (4) 1655-1660
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Hardy K. Cell death in the mammalian blastocyst. Mol Hum Reprod 1997; 3 (10) 919-925
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Bloor DJ, Metcalfe AD, Rutherford A, Brison DR, Kimber SJ. Expression of cell adhesion molecules during human preimplantation embryo development. Mol Hum Reprod 2002; 8 (3) 237-245
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Berg DK, Smith CS, Pearton DJ , et al. Trophectoderm lineage determination in cattle. Dev Cell 2011; 20 (2) 244-255
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Wong CC, Loewke KE, Bossert NL , et al. Non-invasive imaging of human embryos before embryonic genome activation predicts development to the blastocyst stage. Nat Biotechnol 2010; 28 (10) 1115-1121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Richter KS, Harris DC, Daneshmand ST, Shapiro BS. Quantitative grading of a human blastocyst: optimal inner cell mass size and shape. Fertil Steril 2001; 76 (6) 1157-1167
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Dessolle L, Fréour T, Ravel C , et al. Predictive factors of healthy term birth after single blastocyst transfer. Hum Reprod 2011; 26 (5) 1220-1226
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Betteridge KJ, Hare WCD, Singh EL. Approaches to Sex Selection in Farm Animals. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1981
    Google Scholar
  • 68 Summers PM, Campbell JM, Miller MW. Normal in-vivo development of marmoset monkey embryos after trophectoderm biopsy. Hum Reprod 1988; 3 (3) 389-393
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Carson SA, Gentry WL, Smith AL, Buster JE. Trophectoderm microbiopsy in murine blastocysts: comparison of four methods. J Assist Reprod Genet 1993; 10 (6) 427-433
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB, Wagley L, Schlenker T, Stevens J, Hesla J. A prospective randomized trial of blastocyst culture and transfer in in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1998; 13 (12) 3434-3440
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Jones GM, Trounson AO, Gardner DK, Kausche A, Lolatgis N, Wood C. Evolution of a culture protocol for successful blastocyst development and pregnancy following in vitro fertilisation and embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 1998; 79: 1022-1029
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 De Boer KA, Catt JW, Jansen RP, Leigh D, McArthur S. Moving to blastocyst biopsy for preimplantation genetic diagnosis and single embryo transfer at Sydney IVF. Fertil Steril 2004; 82 (2) 295-298
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Jansen RPS, Bowman MC, de Boer KA, Leigh DA, Lieberman DB, McArthur SJ. What next for preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)? Experience with blastocyst biopsy and testing for aneuploidy. Hum Reprod 2008; 23 (7) 1476-1478
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Wilcox AJ, Baird D, Weinberg CR. Time of implantation of the conceptus and loss of pregnancy. N Engl J Med 1999; 234 (23) 1796-1799
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Strowitzki T, Germeyer A, Popovici R, von Wolff M. The human endometrium as a fertility-determining factor. Hum Reprod Update 2006; 12 (5) 617-630
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Magli MC, Gianaroli L, Fortini D, Ferraretti AP, Munné S. Impact of blastomere biopsy and cryopreservation techniques on human embryo viability. Hum Reprod 1999; 14 (3) 770-773
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Magli MC, Gianaroli L, Ferraretti AP , et al. The combination of polar body and embryo biopsy does not affect embryo viability. Hum Reprod 2004; 19 (5) 1163-1169
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Van Landuyt L, Verpoest W, Verheyen G , et al. Closed blastocyst vitrification of biopsied embryos: evaluation of 100 consecutive warming cycles. Hum Reprod 2011; 26 (2) 316-322
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Colls P, Escudero T, Cekleniak N, Sadowy S, Cohen J, Munné S. Increased efficiency of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for infertility using “no result rescue”. Fertil Steril 2007; 88 (1) 53-61
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar