Chromosomal Characteristics of Human Preimplantation Embryos Assess by Comparative Genomic Hybridization

Chromosomal Characteristics of Human Preimplantation Embryos Assess by Comparative Genomic Hybridization

Matchuporn Sukprasert

Contact

Sukprasert M

Contact

Satirapod C

Contact

Jaranasaksakul W

Contact

Lupthalug W

Contact

Theetumpinit C

Contact

Choktanasiri W

Contact

Mahidol University

Chromosomal Characteristics of Human Preimplantation Embryos Assess by Comparative Genomic Hybridization

Article Fingerprint

ReserarchID

C7NR5

Chromosomal Characteristics of Human Preimplantation Embryos Assess by Comparative Genomic Hybridization Banner

AI TAKEAWAY

Connecting with the Eternal Ground

Abstract

Introduction-In recent years, more women are getting married and starting a family at an older age. Advanced maternal age (AMA) is defined as age 35 years or more for the mother. This group has been observed to have a high risk of chromosomal abnormalities in their embryos during pregnancy because the quality of oocytes correlate with maternal age and corresponding reproductive clinical outcomes (1). In 2013, Harton et al. reported that higher maternal age appears to be associated with increased risk of aneuploidy in embryos :42 yrs (92.6%) from 451 blastomeres and 42 yrs (84.8%) from 462 blastocysts (2). Moreover, Menken et al. reported on the effects of maternal age on fertility with a decrease in birth rates when maternal age is >/= 35 yrs (3). For this reason, assisted reproductive technology (ART) and preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) can be help to infertile couples and patients at high risk of there being chromosome abnormalities in the embryo. PGS is the technology used for screening chromosome abnormalities to selectively transfer euploid embryos in IVF. Patients using PGS have a higher implantation rate and pregnancy rate compared to those using morphological assessment of embryos alone (4-10).

References

45 Cites in Article

Reference Format

William Schoolcraft,Elpida Fragouli,John Stevens,Santiago Munne,Mandy Katz-Jaffe,Dagan Wells (2010). Clinical application of comprehensive chromosomal screening at the blastocyst stage.
E Forman,X Tao,K Ferry,D Taylor,N Treff,R Scott (2012). Single embryo transfer with comprehensive chromosome screening results in improved ongoing pregnancy rates and decreased miscarriage rates.
M Keltz,M Vega,I Sirota,M Lederman,E Moshier,E Gonzales (2013). Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) with Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) following day 3 single cell blastomere biopsy markedly improves IVF outcomes while lowering multiple pregnancies and miscarriages.
C Moutou,V Goossens,E Coonen,M De Rycke,G Kokkali,P Renwick,S Sengupta,K Vesela,J Traeger-Synodinos (2014). ESHRE PGD Consortium data collection XII: cycles from January to December 2009 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2010.
A Hellani,K Abu-Amero,J Azouri,S El-Akoum (2008). Successful pregnancies after application of arraycomparative genomic hybridization in PGSaneuploidy screening.
Shiri Barbash-Hazan,Tsvia Frumkin,Mira Malcov,Yuval Yaron,Tania Cohen,Foad Azem,Ami Amit,Dalit Ben-Yosef (2009). Preimplantation aneuploid embryos undergo self-correction in correlation with their developmental potential.
E Baart (2004). Fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis of two blastomeres from day 3 frozen-thawed embryos followed by analysis of the remaining embryo on day 5.
De Vos,A Staessen,C De Rycke,M Verpoest,W Haentjens,P Devroey,P (2009). Impact of cleavagestage embryo biopsy in view of PGD on human blastocyst implantation: a prospective cohort of single embryo transfers.
V Goossens,M De Rycke,De Vos,A Staessen,C Michiels,A Verpoest,W (2008). Diagnostic efficiency, embryonic development and clinical outcome after the biopsy of one or two blastomeres for preimplantation genetic diagnosis.
G Harton,M Magli,K Lundin,M Montag,J Lemmen,J Harper (2011). ESHRE PGD Consortium/Embryology Special Interest Group--best practice guidelines for polar body and embryo biopsy for preimplantation genetic diagnosis/screening (PGD/PGS).
Joyce Harper,Gary Harton (2010). The use of arrays in preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening.
E Fragouli,M Lenzi,R Ross,M Katz-Jaffe,W Schoolcraft,D Wells (2008). Comprehensive molecular cytogenetic analysis of the human blastocyst stage.
Rps Jansen,M Bowman,De Boer,K Leigh,D Lieberman,D Mcarthur,S (2008). What next for preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)? Experience with blastocyst biopsy and testing for aneuploidy.
J Harper,S Sengupta (2012). Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: State of the ART 2011.
E Fragouli,S Alfarawati,D Daphnis,N-N Goodall,A Mania,T Griffiths,A Gordon,D Wells (2011). Cytogenetic analysis of human blastocysts with the use of FISH, CGH and aCGH: scientific data and technical evaluation.
L Northrop,N Treff,B Levy,R Scott (2010). SNP microarray-based 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening demonstrates that cleavage-stage FISH poorly predicts aneuploidy in embryos that develop to morphologically normal blastocysts.
D Johnson,C Cinnioglu,R Ross,A Filby,G Gemelos,M Hill (2010). Comprehensive analysis of karyotypic mosaicism between trophectoderm and inner cell mass.
A Capalbo,G Wright,L Themaat,T Elliott,L Rienzi,Z Nagy (2011). Fish reanalysis of inner cell mass and trophectoderm samples of previously array-CGH screened blastocysts reveals high accuracy of diagnosis and no sign of mosaicism or preferential allocation.
C Shen,D Shu,X Zhao,Y Gao (2014). Comparison of clinical outcomes between fresh embryo transfers and frozen-thawed embryo transfers.
A Thornhill,H Tempest,M Grigorova,N Affara,D Griffin,A Handyside (2009). A comparison of microarray methods to detect chromosomal aneuploidy in human preimplantation embryos.
G Harton,J Harper,E Coonen,T Pehlivan,K Vesela,L Wilton (2011). ESHRE PGD consortium best practice guidelines for fluorescence in situ hybridization-based PGD.
(2004). Shared-risk or refund programs in assisted reproduction.
S Mastenbroek,M Twisk,J Van Echten-Arends,B Sikkema-Raddatz,J Korevaar,H Verhoeve (2007). In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening.
C Staessen,W Verpoest,P Donoso,P Haentjens,J Van Der Elst,I Liebaers (2008). Preimplantation genetic screening does not improve delivery rate in women under the age of 36 following single-embryo transfer.
T Hardarson,C Hanson,K Lundin,T Hillensjö,L Nilsson,J Stevic (2008). Preimplantation genetic screening in women of advanced maternal age caused a decrease in clinical pregnancy rate: a randomized controlled trial.
Jennifer Mersereau,Eugene Pergament,Xingqi Zhang,Magdy Milad (2008). Preimplantation genetic screening to improve in vitro fertilization pregnancy rates: a prospective randomized controlled trial.
Christophe Blockeel,Valerie Schutyser,Anick De Vos,Willem Verpoest,Michel De Vos,Catherine Staessen,Patrick Haentjens,Josiane Van Der Elst,Paul Devroey (2008). Prospectively randomized controlled trial of PGS in IVF/ICSI patients with poor implantation.
L Meyer,S Klipstein,W Hazlett,T Nasta,P Mangan,V Karande (2009). A prospective randomized controlled trial of preimplantation genetic screening in the "good prognosis" patient.
William Schoolcraft,Mandy Katz-Jaffe,John Stevens,Mary Rawlins,Santiago Munne (2009). Preimplantation aneuploidy testing for infertile patients of advanced maternal age: a randomized prospective trial.
S Debrock,C Melotte,C Spiessens,K Peeraer,E Vanneste,L Meeuwis (2010). Preimplantation genetic screening for aneuploidy of embryos after in vitro fertilization in women aged at least 35 years: a prospective randomized trial.
Elpida Fragouli,Dagan Wells (2012). Aneuploidy Screening for Embryo Selection.
N Treff,B Levy,J Su,L Northrop,X Tao,R Scott (2010). SNP microarray-based 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening is significantly more consistent than FISH.
Cristina Gutiérrez-Mateo,Pere Colls,Jorge Sánchez-García,Tomas Escudero,Renata Prates,Kelly Ketterson,Dagan Wells,Santiago Munné (2011). Validation of microarray comparative genomic hybridization for comprehensive chromosome analysis of embryos.
P Mir,L Rodrigo,A Mercader,P Buendía,E Mateu,M Milán-Sánchez (2013). False positive rate of an arrayCGH platform for single-cell preimplantation genetic screening and subsequent clinical application on day-3.
M Sukprasert,S Rattanasiri,K Xu (2013). The comparison of DNA quantity between full and half volume single cell whole genome amplification by linker-adapter PCR technique.
G Harton,M De Rycke,F Fiorentino,C Moutou,S Sengupta,J Traeger-Synodinos (2011). ESHRE PGD consortium best practice guidelines for amplification-based PGD.
S-T Qi,L-F Liang,Y-X Xian,J-Q Liu,Wang (2014). Arrested human embryos are more likely to have abnormal chromosomes than developing embryos from women of advanced maternal age.
S Munné,S Chen,P Colls,J Garrisi,X Zheng,N Cekleniak,M Lenzi,P Hughes,J Fischer,M Garrisi,J Cohen,G Tomkin (2007). Maternal age, morphology, development and chromosome abnormalities in over 6000 cleavage-stage embryos.
Carmen Márquez,Mireia Sandalinas,Muhterem Bahçe,Mina Al Ikani,Santiago Munné (2000). Chromosome abnormalities in 1255 cleavage-stage human embryos.
S Munné,M Alikani,G Tomkin,J Grifo,J Cohen (1995). Embryo morphology, developmental rates, and maternal age are correlated with chromosome abnormalities.
C Staessen,P Platteau,E Van Assche,A Michiels,H Tournaye,M Camus (2004). Comparison of blastocyst transfer with or without preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy screening in couples with advanced maternal age: a prospective randomized controlled trial.
L Voullaire,L Wilton,J Mcbain,T Callaghan,R Williamson (2002). Chromosome abnormalities identified by comparative genomic hybridization in embryos from women with repeated implantation failure.
S Alfarawati,E Fragouli,P Colls,J Stevens,C Gutiérrez-Mateo,W Schoolcraft (2011). The relationship between blastocyst morphology, chromosomal abnormality, and embryo gender.
Michal Dekel-Naftali,Ayala Aviram-Goldring,Talia Litmanovitch,Jana Shamash,Hagith Yonath,Ariel Hourvitz,Yuval Yung,Masha Brengauz,Eyal Schiff,Shlomit Rienstein (2013). Chromosomal integrity of human preimplantation embryos at different days post fertilization.
Masood Bazrgar,Hamid Gourabi,Mojtaba Valojerdi,Poopak Yazdi,Hossein Baharvand (2013). Self-Correction of Chromosomal Abnormalities in Human Preimplantation Embryos and Embryonic Stem Cells.

Download References

Funding

No external funding was declared for this work.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

No ethics committee approval was required for this article type.

Data Availability

Not applicable for this article.

How to Cite This Article

Matchuporn Sukprasert. 2015. \u201cChromosomal Characteristics of Human Preimplantation Embryos Assess by Comparative Genomic Hybridization\u201d. Global Journal of Medical Research - E: Gynecology & Obstetrics GJMR-E Volume 15 (GJMR Volume 15 Issue E3): .

More Citation Formats

Select Citation Style:

Download Citation

Download Article

GJMR Volume 15 Issue E3
Pg. 9- 14

Explore Journals Explore Volume Read This Issue

Journal Specifications

Crossref Journal DOI 10.17406/gjmra

Print ISSN 0975-5888

e-ISSN 2249-4618

Keywords

Not Found

Classification

GJMR-E Classification: NLMC Code-QS 677

Submission ReceivedDecember 13, 2014
Peer Review Double Blind
Handling Editor
Accepted January 3, 2015
Published January 15, 2015

Version of record

v1.2

Issue date

November 25, 2015

Language

Experiance in AR

Explore published articles in an immersive Augmented Reality environment. Our platform converts research papers into interactive 3D books, allowing readers to view and interact with content using AR and VR compatible devices.

View in VR

Read in 3D

Your published article is automatically converted into a realistic 3D book. Flip through pages and read research papers in a more engaging and interactive format.

View in 3D

Article Matrices

Total Score: 86

Country: Thailand

Subject: Global Journal of Medical Research - E: Gynecology & Obstetrics

Authors: Sukprasert M, Satirapod C, Jaranasaksakul W, Lupthalug W, Theetumpinit C, Choktanasiri W, (PhD/Dr. count: 0)

View Count (all-time): 161

Total Views (Real + Logic): 4034

Total Downloads (simulated): 2027

Publish Date: 2015 11, Wed

Monthly Totals (Real + Logic):

Month 1: 26 views
Month 2: 47 views
Month 3: 54 views
Month 4: 33 views
Month 5: 59 views
Month 6: 43 views
Month 7: 24 views
Month 8: 35 views
Month 9: 30 views
Month 10: 57 views
Month 11: 31 views
Month 12: 19 views
Month 13: 44 views
Month 14: 26 views
Month 15: 14 views
Month 16: 22 views
Month 17: 29 views
Month 18: 32 views
Month 19: 29 views
Month 20: 24 views
Month 21: 32 views
Month 22: 32 views
Month 23: 35 views
Month 24: 40 views
Month 25: 21 views
Month 26: 40 views
Month 27: 17 views
Month 28: 41 views
Month 29: 35 views
Month 30: 49 views
Month 31: 36 views
Month 32: 41 views
Month 33: 46 views
Month 34: 21 views
Month 35: 12 views
Month 36: 33 views
Month 37: 43 views
Month 38: 19 views
Month 39: 42 views
Month 40: 18 views
Month 41: 44 views
Month 42: 35 views
Month 43: 36 views
Month 44: 33 views
Month 45: 11 views
Month 46: 30 views
Month 47: 25 views
Month 48: 26 views
Month 49: 42 views
Month 50: 25 views
Month 51: 33 views
Month 52: 26 views
Month 53: 27 views
Month 54: 30 views
Month 55: 42 views
Month 56: 41 views
Month 57: 28 views
Month 58: 27 views
Month 59: 37 views
Month 60: 24 views
Month 61: 43 views
Month 62: 25 views
Month 63: 30 views
Month 64: 17 views
Month 65: 12 views
Month 66: 37 views
Month 67: 25 views
Month 68: 46 views
Month 69: 34 views
Month 70: 27 views
Month 71: 42 views
Month 72: 27 views
Month 73: 31 views
Month 74: 22 views
Month 75: 37 views
Month 76: 22 views
Month 77: 30 views
Month 78: 15 views
Month 79: 33 views
Month 80: 24 views
Month 81: 30 views
Month 82: 20 views
Month 83: 35 views
Month 84: 32 views
Month 85: 30 views
Month 86: 23 views
Month 87: 36 views
Month 88: 21 views
Month 89: 20 views
Month 90: 47 views
Month 91: 30 views
Month 92: 27 views
Month 93: 40 views
Month 94: 32 views
Month 95: 43 views
Month 96: 33 views
Month 97: 24 views
Month 98: 25 views
Month 99: 48 views
Month 100: 36 views
Month 101: 32 views
Month 102: 28 views
Month 103: 44 views
Month 104: 44 views
Month 105: 25 views
Month 106: 29 views
Month 107: 19 views
Month 108: 23 views
Month 109: 20 views
Month 110: 28 views
Month 111: 38 views
Month 112: 39 views
Month 113: 32 views
Month 114: 28 views
Month 115: 25 views
Month 116: 27 views
Month 117: 24 views
Month 118: 30 views
Month 119: 16 views
Month 120: 21 views
Month 121: 30 views
Month 122: 23 views
Month 123: 53 views
Month 124: 32 views
Month 125: 38 views

Total Views: 4034

Total Downloads: 2027

2026 Trends

Published Article

Our website is actively being updated, and changes may occur frequently. Please clear your browser cache if needed. For feedback or error reporting, please email [email protected]