Journal of Fertilization: In Vitro - IVF-Worldwide, Reproductive Medicine, Genetics & Stem Cell Biol

Journal of Fertilization: In Vitro - IVF-Worldwide, Reproductive Medicine, Genetics & Stem Cell Biol
Open Access

ISSN: 2375-4508

+44 1478 350008

Editorial - (2011) Volume 1, Issue 1

Preimplantation Genetic Screening in the age of 23-chromosome evaluation Why FISH is no longer an acceptable technology?

Paul R. Brezina1 and William G. Kearns2
1Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Phipps 264, 600 N. Wolfe Street, 10751 Falls Road, Suite #280, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA, E-mail: pbrezin1@jhmi.edu
2Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, Center for Preimplantation Genetics, LabCorp. Rockville. MD 20850, USA, E-mail: pbrezin1@jhmi.edu

Abstract

Preimplantation Genetic Screening (PGS) has been used for some time with fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) technology with marginal success. Newer modalities capable of evaluating all 23 pairs of chromosomes are now available for PGS and are superior to PGS with FISH.

<

Keywords: PGS; FISH; “23 chromosome” microarrays

Capsule

Modalities using 23 chromosome evaluation are superior to 9-12 probe FISH in performing PGS.

In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) is a technology that has transformed the field of infertility medicine. Literally millions of individuals who could never have conceived naturally are now parents thanks to this technology. As the technology has matured, other applications that utilize IVF have emerged. One such technology is preimplantation genetic screening (PGS). The traditional modality for performing PGS has been through fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) of 9-12 chromosomes. Given newer technologies able to simultaneously evaluate all 23 pairs of chromosomes, however, FISH is no longer an optimal technology in the context of PGS.

Spontaneous miscarriages in human pregnancies are documented to be associated with chromosomal aneuploidy [1,2]. PGS was introduced to minimize aneuploidy in certain patient populations. PGS is a procedure in which single cells can be biopsied from cultured early embryos and tested for their chromosome complement prior to uterine transfer [3]. PGS is generally performed on polar bodies or Day-3 biopsies of 1 or 2 totipotent blastomere cells [3]. The traditional modality for evaluating the chromosomal makeup of these cells has been by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) of 9-12 chromosomes [3].

Despite initial excitement generated by the potential of PGS by FISH on Day-3 blastomeres to improve pregnancy outcome, randomized controlled trials have failed to demonstrate a significant clinical benefit [4-6]. Consequently, major professional societies have discouraged its use [4-6]. Potential reasons for the lack of predictive value from karyotyping Day-3 blastomeres using FISH could be damage caused to the developing embryo during biopsy, testing of only a subset of chromosomes, or the presence of mosaicism within the Day-3 cleaving embryo. Indeed, studies have documented mosaicism rates of between 17%-50% in Day-3 preimplantation embryos [7,8].

For several years, comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) on metaphase chromosomes, real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR), or microarray platforms using single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) or CGH have been utilized to evaluate all 23 pairs of chromosomes simultaneously [9-12]. These techniques are capable of identifying only euploid embryos for transfer. This has resulted in significant improvement in clinical pregnancy rates when compared to 9-12 chromosome FISH methods [3,12-15]. Recently, the aforementioned technologies have been employed to evaluate Day-5 blastocyst TE cells without disturbing the ICM, with promising results [3,12-15].

The superior results obtained through PGS using simultaneous evaluation of all 23 pairs of chromosomes are not surprising. Indeed, many cases of aneuploidy exist on chromosomes simply not evaluated by 9-12 probe FISH. The use of FISH PGS in the current environment should be questioned. 23 Chromosome evaluation for PGS seems, based on intuition and the evidence, to be superior to FISH and should become the new standard in PGS testing in almost all clinical cases.

References

  1. Hassold T, Chen N, Funkhouser J, Jooss T, Manuel B et al. (1980). A cytogenetic study of 1000 spontaneous abortions. Ann Hum Genet 44:151-178.
  2. Menasha J, Levy B, Hirschhorn K, Kardon NB (2005) Incidence and spectrum of chromosome abnormalities in spontaneous abortions: new insights from a 12-year study. Genet Med 7:251-263.
  3. Schoolcraft WB, Fraqouli E, Stevens J, Munne S, Wells D et al. (2010) Clinical application of comprehensive chromosomal screening at the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril 94:1700-1706.
  4. (2009) ACOG Committee Opinion No. 430: Preimplantation genetic screening for aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol 113:766-767.
  5. Practice Committee of Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology; Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine (2008). Preimplantation genetic testing: a Practice Committee opinion. Fertil Steril 90:S136-143.
  6. Harper J, Coonen E, De Rycke M, Fiorentino F, Geraedts J et al. (2010) What next for preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)? A position statement from the ESHRE PGD Consortium steering committee. Hum Reprod 25:821-823.
  7. Munné S, Weier HU, Grifo J, Cohen J (1994) Chromosome mosaicism in human embryos. Biol Reprod 51:373-379.
  8. Baart EB, Martini E, van den Berg I, Macklon NS, Galjaard RJ et al. (2006) Preimplantation genetic screening reveals a high incidence of aneuploidy and mosaicism in embryos from young women undergoing IVF. Hum Reprod 21:223-233.
  9. Treff NR, Su J, Mavrianos J, Bergh PA, Miller KA, et al.(2007) Accurate 23 chromosome aneuploidy screening in human blastomeres using single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) microarrays. Fertil Steril 88: Page S1: O-1.
  10. Kearns WG, Pen R., Benner A, Wildra E, Leach R(2007) Comprehensive genetic analyses using a modified whole genome amplification protocol and micro-arrays to identify genetic disorders and determine embryo implantation from single cells. Fertil Steril Supplement 1: Page S237, P-393.
  11. Munné, S. et al. (2010) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis using array CGH significantly increases ongoing pregnancy rates per transfer. Fertil Steril 94: Page S81, O276.
  12. Treff NR, Tai X, Taylor D, Ferry KM, Scott RT (2010). First pregnancies after blastocyst biopsy and rapid 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening allowing a fresh transfer within four hours of biopsy. Fertil Steril 94 : Page S126, P-113.
  13. Benner A, Chipko C, Pen R, Kearns WG (2010). Clinical results on single cells from 470 embryos using 23-chromosome single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) microarray preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) from 45 patients. Fertil Steril 94: Page S123, P-101.
  14. Fragouli E, Alfarawati S, Stevens J, Colls P, Goodall NN et al. (2010) Comprehensive chromosome screening of polar bodies and blastocysts from couples experiencing repeated implantation failure. Fertil Steril 94:875-887.
  15. Scott R.T, Miller KA, Olivares R, Su J, Treff NR et al. (2008) Microarray based 24 chromosome preimplantation genetic diagnosis (mPGD) is highly predictive of the reproductive potential of human embryos: a prospective blinded nonselection trial. Fertil Steril S90:22-23.
Citation: Brezina PR, Kearns WG (2011) Preimplantation Genetic Screening in the Age of 23-Chromosome Evaluation Why FISH is no Longer an Acceptable Technology? J Fertiliz In Vitro 1:e103.

Copyright: © 2011 Brezina PR, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Top add_chatinline();