What next for preimplantation genetic screening? High mitotic chromosome instability rate provides the biological basis for the low success rate

Evelyne Vanneste, Thierry Voet, Cindy Melotte, Sophie Debrock, Karen Sermon, Catherine Staessen, Inge Liebaers, Jean-Pierre Fryns, Thomas D'Hooghe, Joris R Vermeesch, Evelyne Vanneste, Thierry Voet, Cindy Melotte, Sophie Debrock, Karen Sermon, Catherine Staessen, Inge Liebaers, Jean-Pierre Fryns, Thomas D'Hooghe, Joris R Vermeesch

Abstract

Preimplantation genetic screening is being scrutinized, as recent randomized clinical trials failed to observe the expected significant increase in live birth rates following fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)-based screening. Although these randomized clinical trials are criticized on their design, skills or premature stop, it is generally believed that well-designed and well-executed randomized clinical trials would resolve the debate about the potential benefit of preimplantation genetic screening. Since FISH can analyze only a limited number of chromosomal loci, some of the embryos transferred might be diagnosed as 'normal' but in fact be aneuploid for one or more chromosomes not tested. Hence, genome-wide array comparative genome hybridization screening enabling aneuploidy detection of all chromosomes was thought to be a first step toward a better design. We recently showed array screening indeed enables accurate determination of the copy number state of all chromosomes in a single cell. Surprisingly, however, this genome-wide array screening revealed a much higher frequency and complexity of chromosomal aberrations in early embryos than anticipated, with imbalances in a staggering 90% of all embryos. The mitotic error rate in cleavage stage embryos was proven to be higher than the meiotic aneuploidy rate and as a consequence, the genome of a single blastomere is not representative for the genome of the other cells of the embryo. Hence, potentially viable embryos will be discarded upon screening a single blastomere. This observation provides a biological basis for the failure of the randomized clinical trials to increase baby-take-home rates using FISH on cleavage stage embryos.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The karyogram of embryo 19 is shown. The karyogram is composed of color bars that each represent the chromosome copy number state based on the results of the BAC (bacterial artificial chromosomes) array and the SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) copy number and genotyping data in a specific blastomere. Black represents a normal region, red a hemizygous deletion, green a duplication, dark green an amplification and gray discordance between the analyses or unreliable aberrations. In this male embryo, whole chromosome imbalances of mitotic origin were detected in chromosomes 1 and 14, whereas chromosome 20 showed a monosomy in all sister blastomeres suggesting a meiotic non-disjunction. Moreover, 4q and 10q terminal deletions with a reciprocal 4q duplication and 10q amplification respectively were detected in a proportion of its sister blastomeres. Finally, a 5q terminal deletion and reciprocal 5q duplication were detected in two blastomeres, whereas the remaining part of the chromosome proximal to the 5q deletion was trisomic. Two sister blastomeres contained a monosomy for chromosome 5. In addition, a remaining sister blastomere contained three copies of chromosome 5, whereas a fifth lacked a 5q terminal part of which the size was equal to the partial deletion and duplication in its sister blastomeres.

References

    1. Debrock S, Melotte C, Spiessens C, Peeraer K, Vanneste E, Meeuwis L, Meuleman C, Frijns JP, Vermeesch JR, D'Hooghe TM. Preimplantation genetic screening for aneuploidy of embryos after in vitro fertilization in women aged at least 35 years: a prospective randomized trial. Fertil Steril. 2009 Epub ahead of print 25 February, 2009.
    1. Fauser BC. Preimplantation genetic screening: the end of an affair? Hum Reprod. 2008;23:2622–2625.
    1. Gianaroli L, Magli MC, Ferraretti AP, Munne S. Preimplantation diagnosis for aneuploidies in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization with a poor prognosis: identification of the categories for which it should be proposed. Fertil Steril. 1999;72:837–844.
    1. Goldman B. Reproductive medicine: the first cut. Nature. 2007;445:479–480.
    1. Goossens V, Harton G, Moutou C, Scriven PN, Traeger-Synodinos J, Sermon K, Harper JC. ESHRE PGD Consortium data collection VIII: cycles from January to December 2005 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2006. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:2629–2645.
    1. Hardarson T, Hanson C, Lundin K, Hillensjo T, Nilsson L, Stevic J, Reismer E, Borg K, Wikland M, Bergh C. Preimplantation genetic screening in women of advanced maternal age caused a decrease in clinical pregnancy rate: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:2806–2812.
    1. Harper J, Sermon K, Geraedts J, Vesela K, Harton G, Thornhill A, Pehlivan T, Fiorentino F, SenGupta S, de Die-Smulders C, et al. What next for preimplantation genetic screening? Hum Reprod. 2008;23:478–480.
    1. Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van Echten-Arends J, Sikkema-Raddatz B, Korevaar JC, Verhoeve HR, Vogel NE, Arts EG, de Vries JW, Bossuyt PM, et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:9–17.
    1. Mastenbroek S, Scriven P, Twisk M, Viville S, Van der Veen F, Repping S. What next for preimplantation genetic screening? More randomized controlled trials needed? Hum Reprod. 2008;23:2626–2628.
    1. Munne S, Sandalinas M, Escudero T, Velilla E, Walmsley R, Sadowy S, Cohen J, Sable D. Improved implantation after preimplantation genetic diagnosis of aneuploidy. Reprod Biomed Online. 2003;7:91–97.
    1. Schoolcraft WB, Katz-Jaffe MG, Stevens J, Rawlins M, Munne S. Preimplantation aneuploidy testing for infertile patients of advanced maternal age: a randomized prospective trial. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:157–162.
    1. Simpson JL. What next for preimplantation genetic screening? Randomized clinical trial in assessing PGS: necessary but not sufficient. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:2179–2181.
    1. Staessen C, Platteau P, Van Assche E, Michiels A, Tournaye H, Camus M, Devroey P, Liebaers I, Van Steirteghem A. Comparison of blastocyst transfer with or without preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy screening in couples with advanced maternal age: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2004;19:2849–2858.
    1. Staessen C, Verpoest W, Donoso P, Haentjens P, Van der Elst J, Liebaers I, Devroey P. Preimplantation genetic screening does not improve delivery rate in women under the age of 36 following single-embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:2818–2825.
    1. Twisk M, Mastenbroek S, van Wely M, Heineman MJ, Van der Veen F, Repping S. Preimplantation genetic screening for abnormal number of chromosomes (aneuploidies) in in vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006:CD005291.
    1. Twisk M, Mastenbroek S, Hoek A, Heineman MJ, Van der Veen F, Bossuyt PM, Repping S, Korevaar JC. No beneficial effect of preimplantation genetic screening in women of advanced maternal age with a high risk for embryonic aneuploidy. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:2813–2817.
    1. Vanneste E, Voet T, Le Caignec C, Ampe M, Konings P, Melotte C, Debrock S, Amyere M, Vikkula M, Schuit F, et al. Chromosome instability is common in human cleavage stage embryos. Nat Med. 2009;15:577–583.
    1. Verlinsky Y, Cieslak J, Freidine M, Ivakhnenko V, Wolf G, Kovalinskaya L, White M, Lifchez A, Kaplan B, Moise J, et al. Pregnancies following pre-conception diagnosis of common aneuploidies by fluorescent in-situ hybridization. Hum Reprod. 1995;10:1923–1927.
    1. Verlinsky Y, Tur-Kaspa I, Cieslak J, Bernal A, Morris R, Taranissi M, Kaplan B, Kuliev A. Preimplantation testing for chromosomal disorders improves reproductive outcome of poor-prognosis patients. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;11:219–225.
    1. Wilton L. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy screening in early human embryos: a review. Prenat Diagn. 2002;22:512–518.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonneren