1932

Abstract

Genetic testing of preimplantation embryos promises to prevent monogenic disease in children born to at-risk couples, the transfer of unbalanced embryos to patients carrying a balanced translocation, and the use of aneuploid embryos created during in vitro fertilization. Technologies have evolved from fluorescence in situ hybridization to next-generation-sequencing-based aneuploidy screening and allow for simultaneous testing of multiple genetic abnormalities in a single biopsy. The field has also shifted away from polar body or blastomere biopsy and toward trophectoderm biopsy as the new standard. This review describes the multitude of available platforms and methodologies used in contemporary preimplantation genetic testing.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-genom-091416-035508
2017-08-31
2024-06-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/genom/18/1/annurev-genom-091416-035508.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-genom-091416-035508&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Adler A, Lee HL, McCulloh DH, Ampeloquio E, Clarke-Williams M. 1.  et al. 2014. Blastocyst culture selects for euploid embryos: comparison of blastomere and trophectoderm biopsies. Reprod. BioMed. Online 28485–91 [Google Scholar]
  2. Alfarawati S, Fragouli E, Colls P, Wells D. 2.  2011. First births after preimplantation genetic diagnosis of structural chromosome abnormalities using comparative genomic hybridization and microarray analysis. Hum. Reprod. 26:1560–74 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bono S, Biricik A, Spizzichino L, Nuccitelli A, Minasi MG. 3.  et al. 2015. Validation of a semiconductor next-generation sequencing-based protocol for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of reciprocal translocations. Prenat. Diagn. 35:938–44 [Google Scholar]
  4. Capalbo A, Treff NR, Cimadomo D, Tao X, Upham K. 4.  et al. 2015. Comparison of array comparative genomic hybridization and quantitative real-time PCR-based aneuploidy screening of blastocyst biopsies. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 23:901–6 [Google Scholar]
  5. Capalbo A, Ubaldi FM, Rienzi L, Scott RT Jr., Treff NR. 5.  2017. Detecting mosaicism in trophectoderm biopsies: current challenges and future possibilities. Hum. Reprod. 32:492–98 [Google Scholar]
  6. Capalbo A, Wright G, Elliott T, Ubaldi FM, Rienzi L, Nagy ZP. 6.  2013. FISH reanalysis of inner cell mass and trophectoderm samples of previously array-CGH screened blastocysts shows high accuracy of diagnosis and no major diagnostic impact of mosaicism at the blastocyst stage. Hum. Reprod. 28:2298–307 [Google Scholar]
  7. Capalbo A, Wright G, Themaat L, Elliott T, Rienzi L, Nagy ZP. 7.  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. Fertil. Steril. 96:S22 [Google Scholar]
  8. Chow JF, Yeung WS, Lau EY, Lee VC, Ng EH, Ho PC. 8.  2014. Array comparative genomic hybridization analyses of all blastomeres of a cohort of embryos from young IVF patients revealed significant contribution of mitotic errors to embryo mosaicism at the cleavage stage. Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol. 12:105 [Google Scholar]
  9. Dahdouh EM, Balayla J, Garcia-Velasco JA. 9.  2015. Comprehensive chromosome screening improves embryo selection: a meta-analysis. Fertil. Steril. 104:1503–12 [Google Scholar]
  10. Dahdouh EM, Balayla J, Garcia-Velasco JA. 10.  2015. Impact of blastocyst biopsy and comprehensive chromosome screening technology on preimplantation genetic screening: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Reprod. BioMed. Online 30281–89 [Google Scholar]
  11. De Rycke M, Belva F, Goossens V, Moutou C, SenGupta SB. 11.  et al. 2015. ESHRE PGD Consortium data collection XIII: cycles from January to December 2010 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2011. Hum. Reprod. 30:1763–89 [Google Scholar]
  12. Fan J, Wang L, Wang H, Ma M, Wang S. 12.  et al. 2015. The clinical utility of next-generation sequencing for identifying chromosome disease syndromes in human embryos. Reprod. BioMed. Online 3162–70 [Google Scholar]
  13. Fiorentino F, Biricik A, Bono S, Spizzichino L, Cotroneo E. 13.  et al. 2014. Development and validation of a next-generation sequencing-based protocol for 24-chromosome aneuploidy screening of embryos. Fertil. Steril. 101:1375–82.e2 [Google Scholar]
  14. Fiorentino F, Bono S, Biricik A, Nuccitelli A, Cotroneo E. 14.  et al. 2014. Application of next-generation sequencing technology for comprehensive aneuploidy screening of blastocysts in clinical preimplantation genetic screening cycles. Hum. Reprod. 29:2802–13 [Google Scholar]
  15. Fiorentino F, Spizzichino L, Bono S, Biricik A, Kokkali G. 15.  et al. 2011. PGD for reciprocal and Robertsonian translocations using array comparative genomic hybridization. Hum. Reprod. 26:1925–35 [Google Scholar]
  16. Fishel S, Gordon A, Lynch C, Dowell K, Ndukwe G. 16.  et al. 2010. Live birth after polar body array comparative genomic hybridization prediction of embryo ploidy—the future of IVF?. Fertil. Steril. 93:1006.e7–10 [Google Scholar]
  17. Forman EJ, Hong KH, Ferry KM, Tao X, Taylor D. 17.  et al. 2013. In vitro fertilization with single euploid blastocyst transfer: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil. Steril. 100:100–7.e1 [Google Scholar]
  18. Fragouli E, Alfarawati S, Daphnis DD, Goodall NN, Mania A. 18.  et al. 2011. Cytogenetic analysis of human blastocysts with the use of FISH, CGH and aCGH: scientific data and technical evaluation. Hum. Reprod. 26:480–90 [Google Scholar]
  19. Franasiak JM, Forman EJ, Hong KH, Werner MD, Upham KM. 19.  et al. 2014. Aneuploidy across individual chromosomes at the embryonic level in trophectoderm biopsies: changes with patient age and chromosome structure. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 31:1501–9 [Google Scholar]
  20. Franasiak JM, Forman EJ, Hong KH, Werner MD, Upham KM. 20.  et al. 2014. The nature of aneuploidy with increasing age of the female partner: a review of 15,169 consecutive trophectoderm biopsies evaluated with comprehensive chromosomal screening. Fertil. Steril. 101:656–63.e1 [Google Scholar]
  21. Giménez C, Sarasa J, Arjona C, Vilamajó E, Martínez-Pasarell O. 21.  et al. 2015. Karyomapping allows preimplantation genetic diagnosis of a de-novo deletion undetectable using conventional PGD technology. Reprod. BioMed. Online 31770–75 [Google Scholar]
  22. Goodrich D, Tao X, Bohrer C, Lonczak A, Xing T. 22.  et al. 2016. A randomized and blinded comparison of qPCR and NGS-based detection of aneuploidy in a cell line mixture model of blastocyst biopsy mosaicism. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 33:1473–80 [Google Scholar]
  23. Greco E, Bono S, Ruberti A, Lobascio AM, Greco P. 23.  et al. 2014. Comparative genomic hybridization selection of blastocysts for repeated implantation failure treatment: a pilot study. BioMed. Res. Int. 2014:457913 [Google Scholar]
  24. Greco E, Minasi MG, Fiorentino F. 24.  2015. Healthy babies after intrauterine transfer of mosaic aneuploid blastocysts. N. Engl. J. Med. 373:2089–90 [Google Scholar]
  25. Grifo J, Ghadir S, Kaplan B, Laskin CA, Glassner M, Munné S. 25.  2011. Significant decrease in miscarriages after preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) for recurrent pregnancy loss using array comparative genome hybridization (array CGH). Fertil. Steril. 96:S23 [Google Scholar]
  26. Gueye NA, Devkota B, Taylor D, Pfundt R, Scott RT Jr, Treff NR. 26.  2014. Uniparental disomy in the human blastocyst is exceedingly rare. Fertil. Steril. 101:232–36 [Google Scholar]
  27. Gueye NA, Jalas C, Tao X, Taylor D, Scott RT Jr., Treff NR. 27.  2014. Improved sensitivity to detect recombination using qPCR for dyskeratosis congenita PGD. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 31:1227–30 [Google Scholar]
  28. Handyside AH, Grifo J, Prates R, Tormasi S, Fisher JM, Munne S. 28.  2010. Validation and first clinical application of karyomapping for preimplantation diagnosis (PGD) of Gaucher disease combined with 24 chromosome screening. Fertil. Steril. 94:S79–80 [Google Scholar]
  29. Handyside AH, Harton GL, Mariani B, Thornhill AR, Affara NA. 29.  et al. 2010. Karyomapping: a universal method for genome wide analysis of genetic disease based on mapping crossovers between parental haplotypes. J. Med. Genet 47651–58 [Google Scholar]
  30. Handyside AH, Lesko JG, Tarin JJ, Winston RM, Hughes MR. 30.  1992. Birth of a normal girl after in vitro fertilization and preimplantation diagnostic testing for cystic fibrosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 327:905–9 [Google Scholar]
  31. Handyside AH, Pattinson JK, Penketh RJ, Delhanty JD, Winston RM, Tuddenham EG. 31.  1989. Biopsy of human preimplantation embryos and sexing by DNA amplification. Lancet 333:347–49 [Google Scholar]
  32. Hassold T, Hall H, Hunt P. 32.  2007. The origin of human aneuploidy: where we have been, where we are going. Hum. Mol. Genet. 16:R203–8 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hellani A, Abu-Amero K, Azouri J, El-Akoum S. 33.  2008. Successful pregnancies after application of array-comparative genomic hybridization in PGS-aneuploidy screening. Reprod. BioMed. Online 17841–47 [Google Scholar]
  34. Huang J, Yan L, Lu S, Zhao N, Xie SX, Qiao J. 34.  2016. Validation of a next-generation sequencing–based protocol for 24-chromosome aneuploidy screening of blastocysts. Fertil. Steril. 105:1532–36 [Google Scholar]
  35. Johnson DS, Cinnioglu C, Ross R, Filby A, Gemelos G. 35.  et al. 2010. Comprehensive analysis of karyotypic mosaicism between trophectoderm and inner cell mass. Mol. Hum. Reprod. 16:944–49 [Google Scholar]
  36. Juneau CR, Franasiak J, Treff NR. 36.  2016. Challenges facing contemporary preimplantation genetic screening. Curr. Opin. Obstet. Gynecol. 28:151–57 [Google Scholar]
  37. Juneau CR, Scott K, Neal S, Morin SJ, Zhan Y. 37.  et al. 2016. Reliable detection of segmental aneuploidy identified by next generation sequencing (NGS). Fertil. Steril. 106:e377 [Google Scholar]
  38. Konstantinidis M, Prates R, Goodall NN, Fischer J, Tecson V. 38.  et al. 2015. Live births following karyomapping of human blastocysts: experience from clinical application of the method. Reprod. BioMed. Online 31394–403 [Google Scholar]
  39. Kort DH, Chia G, Treff NR, Tanaka AJ, Xing T. 39.  et al. 2016. Human embryos commonly form abnormal nuclei during development: a mechanism of DNA damage, embryonic aneuploidy, and developmental arrest. Hum. Reprod. 31:312–23 [Google Scholar]
  40. Kung A, Munné S, Bankowski B, Coates A, Wells D. 40.  2015. Validation of next-generation sequencing for comprehensive chromosome screening of embryos. Reprod. BioMed. Online 31760–67 [Google Scholar]
  41. Li N, Wang L, Wang H, Ma M, Wang X. 41.  et al. 2015. The performance of whole genome amplification methods and next-generation sequencing for pre-implantation genetic diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities. J. Genet. Genom. 42:151–59 [Google Scholar]
  42. Mamas T, Gordon A, Brown A, Harper J, SenGupta SB. 42.  2012. Detection of aneuploidy by array comparative genomic hybridization using cell lines to mimic a mosaic trophectoderm biopsy. Fertil. Steril. 97:943–47 [Google Scholar]
  43. Mertzanidou A, Wilton L, Cheng J, Spits C, Vanneste E. 43.  et al. 2013. Microarray analysis reveals abnormal chromosomal complements in over 70% of 14 normally developing human embryos. Hum. Reprod. 28:256–64 [Google Scholar]
  44. Mir P, Mateu E, Mercader A, Herrer R, Rodrigo L. 44.  et al. 2016. Confirmation rates of array-CGH in day-3 embryo and blastocyst biopsies for preimplantation genetic screening. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 33:59–66 [Google Scholar]
  45. Mir P, Rodrigo L, Mateu E, Cervero A, Martín J, Rubio C. 45.  2011. Comparison of day-3 and day-5 array-CGH diagnosis for 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening in terms of accuracy. Fertil. Steril. 96:S22–S3 [Google Scholar]
  46. Moutou C, Goossens V, Coonen E, De Rycke M, Kokkali G. 46.  et al. 2014. ESHRE PGD Consortium data collection XII: cycles from January to December 2009 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2010. Hum. Reprod. 29:880–903 [Google Scholar]
  47. Natesan SA, Bladon AJ, Coskun S, Qubbaj W, Prates R. 47.  et al. 2014. Genome-wide karyomapping accurately identifies the inheritance of single-gene defects in human preimplantation embryos in vitro. Genet. Med. 16:838–45 [Google Scholar]
  48. Northrop LE, Treff NR, Levy B, Scott RT Jr. 48.  2010. 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. 16:590–600 [Google Scholar]
  49. Ottolini CS, Capalbo A, Newnham L, Cimadomo D, Natesan SA. 49.  et al. 2016. Generation of meiomaps of genome-wide recombination and chromosome segregation in human oocytes. Nat. Protoc. 11:1229–43 [Google Scholar]
  50. Rabinowitz M, Ryan A, Gemelos G, Hill M, Baner J. 50.  et al. 2012. Origins and rates of aneuploidy in human blastomeres. Fertil. Steril. 97:395–401 [Google Scholar]
  51. Rechitsky S, Pakhalchuk T, San Ramos G, Goodman A, Zlatopolsky Z, Kuliev A. 51.  2015. First systematic experience of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for single-gene disorders, and/or preimplantation human leukocyte antigen typing, combined with 24-chromosome aneuploidy testing. Fertil. Steril. 103:503–12 [Google Scholar]
  52. Rius M, Obradors A, Daina G, Ramos L, Pujol A. 52.  et al. 2011. Detection of unbalanced chromosome segregations in preimplantation genetic diagnosis of translocations by short comparative genomic hybridization. Fertil. Steril. 96:134–42 [Google Scholar]
  53. Rodrigo L, Mateu E, Mercader A, Cobo AC, Peinado V. 53.  et al. 2014. New tools for embryo selection: comprehensive chromosome screening by array comparative genomic hybridization. BioMed. Res. Int. 2014:517125 [Google Scholar]
  54. Rubio C. 54.  2014. Next-generation sequencing: challenges in reproductive genetics. Fertil. Steril. 101:1252–53 [Google Scholar]
  55. Rubio C, Castillón G, Rodrigo L, Bellver J, Guillen A. 55.  et al. 2014. Improvement of clinical outcome in severe male factor infertility with embryo selection based on array-CGH: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil. Steril. 102:e24–25 [Google Scholar]
  56. Rubio C, Rodrigo L, Mir P, Mateu E, Peinado V. 56.  et al. 2013. Use of array comparative genomic hybridization (array-CGH) for embryo assessment: clinical results. Fertil. Steril. 99:1044–48 [Google Scholar]
  57. Sallevelt SC, Dreesen JC, Drusedau M, Spierts S, Coonen E. 57.  et al. 2013. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis in mitochondrial DNA disorders: challenge and success. J. Med. Genet 50125–32 [Google Scholar]
  58. Salvaggio CN, Forman EJ, Garnsey HM, Treff NR, Scott RT Jr. 58.  2014. Polar body based aneuploidy screening is poorly predictive of embryo ploidy and reproductive potential. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 31:1221–26 [Google Scholar]
  59. Scott RT Jr., Ferry K, Su J, Tao X, Scott K, Treff NR. 59.  2012. Comprehensive chromosome screening is highly predictive of the reproductive potential of human embryos: a prospective, blinded, nonselection study. Fertil. Steril. 97:870–75 [Google Scholar]
  60. Scott RT Jr., Treff NR. 60.  2010. Assessing the reproductive competence of individual embryos: a proposal for the validation of new “-omics” technologies. Fertil. Steril. 94:791–94 [Google Scholar]
  61. Scott RT Jr., Upham KM, Forman EJ, Hong KH, Scott KL. 61.  et al. 2013. Blastocyst biopsy with comprehensive chromosome screening and fresh embryo transfer significantly increases in vitro fertilization implantation and delivery rates: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil. Steril. 100:697–703 [Google Scholar]
  62. Scott RT Jr., Upham KM, Forman EJ, Zhao T, Treff NR. 62.  2013. Cleavage-stage biopsy significantly impairs human embryonic implantation potential while blastocyst biopsy does not: a randomized and paired clinical trial. Fertil. Steril. 100:624–30 [Google Scholar]
  63. Shamash J, Rienstein S, Wolf-Reznik H, Pras E, Dekel M. 63.  et al. 2011. Preimplantation genetic haplotyping a new application for diagnosis of translocation carrier's embryos—preliminary observations of two Robertsonian translocation carrier families. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 28:77–83 [Google Scholar]
  64. Simpson JL, Rechitsky S, Kuliev A. 64.  2013. Next generation sequencing for preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Fertil. Steril. 99:1203–4 [Google Scholar]
  65. Tan YQ, Tan K, Zhang SP, Gong F, Cheng DH. 65.  et al. 2013. Single-nucleotide polymorphism microarray-based preimplantation genetic diagnosis is likely to improve the clinical outcome for translocation carriers. Hum. Reprod. 28:2581–92 [Google Scholar]
  66. Tan YQ, Yin X, Zhang S, Jiang H, Tan K. 66.  et al. 2014. Clinical outcome of preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening using next generation sequencing. GigaScience 3:30 [Google Scholar]
  67. Tao X, Su J, Nahum O, Levy B, Scott RT Jr., Treff NR. 67.  2008. Fetal DNA fingerprinting of DNA isolated from the peripheral maternal circulation at 9 gestational weeks allows precise identification of which embryos implanted following multiple embryo transfer. Fertil. Steril. 90:S81 [Google Scholar]
  68. Tiegs AW, Hodes-Wertz B, McCulloh DH, Munne S, Grifo JA. 68.  2016. Discrepant diagnosis rate of array comparative genomic hybridization in thawed euploid blastocysts. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 33:893–97 [Google Scholar]
  69. Tortoriello DV, Dayal M, Beyhan Z, Yakut T, Keskintepe L. 69.  2016. Reanalysis of human blastocysts with different molecular genetic screening platforms reveals significant discordance in ploidy status. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 33:1467–71 [Google Scholar]
  70. Treff NR. 70.  2012. Four hour 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening. Reprod. BioMed. Online 24S37 [Google Scholar]
  71. Treff NR. 71.  2013. qPCR-based CCS. Reprod. BioMed. Online 26S5 [Google Scholar]
  72. Treff NR, Fedick A, Tao X, Devkota B, Taylor D, Scott RT Jr. 72.  2013. Evaluation of targeted next-generation sequencing-based preimplantation genetic diagnosis of monogenic disease. Fertil. Steril. 99:1377–84 [Google Scholar]
  73. Treff NR, Forman EJ, Katz-Jaffe MG, Schoolcraft WB, Levy B, Scott RT Jr. 73.  2013. Incidental identification of balanced translocation carrier patients through comprehensive chromosome screening of IVF-derived blastocysts. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 30:787–91 [Google Scholar]
  74. Treff NR, Forman EJ, Scott RT Jr. 74.  2013. Next-generation sequencing for preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Fertil. Steril. 99:e17–18 [Google Scholar]
  75. Treff NR, Krisher RL, Tao X, Garnsey H, Bohrer C. 75.  et al. 2016. Next generation sequencing-based comprehensive chromosome screening in mouse polar bodies, oocytes, and embryos. Biol. Reprod. 94:76 [Google Scholar]
  76. Treff NR, Northrop LE, Kasabwala K, Su J, Levy B, Scott RT Jr. 76.  2010. Single nucleotide polymorphism microarray–based concurrent screening of 24 chromosome aneuploidy and unbalanced translocations in preimplantation human embryos. Fertil. Steril. 95:1606–12.e2 [Google Scholar]
  77. Treff NR, Scott RT Jr. 77.  2013. Four-hour quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction-based comprehensive chromosome screening and accumulating evidence of accuracy, safety, predictive value, and clinical efficacy. Fertil. Steril. 99:1049–53 [Google Scholar]
  78. Treff NR, Su J, Kasabwala N, Tao X, Miller KA, Scott RT Jr. 78.  2010. Robust embryo identification using first polar body single nucleotide polymorphism microarray-based DNA fingerprinting. Fertil. Steril. 93:2453–55 [Google Scholar]
  79. Treff NR, Su J, Tao X, Levy B, Scott RT Jr. 79.  2010. Accurate single cell 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening using whole genome amplification and single nucleotide polymorphism microarrays. Fertil. Steril. 94:2017–21 [Google Scholar]
  80. Treff NR, Su J, Tao X, Mavrianos J, Scott J. 80.  2007. Single cell whole genome amplification technique significantly impacts the accuracy and precision of microarray based 23 chromosome aneuploidy screening. Fertil. Steril. 88:S231 [Google Scholar]
  81. Treff NR, Su J, Tao X, Miller KA, Levy B, Scott RT Jr. 81.  2010. A novel single-cell DNA fingerprinting method successfully distinguishes sibling human embryos. Fertil. Steril. 94:477–84 [Google Scholar]
  82. Treff NR, Tao X, Ferry KM, Su J, Taylor D, Scott RT Jr. 82.  2012. Development and validation of an accurate quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction-based assay for human blastocyst comprehensive chromosomal aneuploidy screening. Fertil. Steril. 97:819–24.e2 [Google Scholar]
  83. Treff NR, Tao X, Schillings WJ, Bergh PA, Scott RT Jr., Levy B. 83.  2011. Use of single nucleotide polymorphism microarrays to distinguish between balanced and normal chromosomes in embryos from a translocation carrier. Fertil. Steril. 96:e58–65 [Google Scholar]
  84. Treff NR, Tao X, Taylor D, Hong KH, Forman EJ, Scott RT Jr. 84.  2013. Development and validation of a next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based 24-chromosome aneuploidy screening system. Fertil. Steril. 100:S82 [Google Scholar]
  85. Treff NR, Thompson K, Rafizadeh M, Chow M, Morrison L. 85.  et al. 2016. SNP array-based analyses of unbalanced embryos as a reference to distinguish between balanced translocation carrier and normal blastocysts. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 33:1115–19 [Google Scholar]
  86. Van der Aa N, Cheng J, Mateiu L, Esteki MZ, Kumar P. 86.  et al. 2013. Genome-wide copy number profiling of single cells in S-phase reveals DNA-replication domains. Nucleic Res 41:e66 [Google Scholar]
  87. Van Dyke D, Weiss L, Roberson J, Babu V. 87.  1983. The frequency and mutation rate of balanced autosomal rearrangements in man estimated from prenatal genetic studies for advanced maternal age. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 35:301–8 [Google Scholar]
  88. van Uum CM, Stevens SJ, Dreesen JC, Drusedau M, Smeets HJ. 88.  et al. 2012. SNP array-based copy number and genotype analyses for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of human unbalanced translocations. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 20:938–44 [Google Scholar]
  89. Vanneste E, Melotte C, Voet T, Robberecht C, Debrock S. 89.  et al. 2011. PGD for a complex chromosomal rearrangement by array comparative genomic hybridization. Hum. Reprod. 26:941–49 [Google Scholar]
  90. Vera-Rodríguez M, Michel CE, Mercader A, Bladon AJ, Rodrigo L. 90.  et al. 2016. Distribution patterns of segmental aneuploidies in human blastocysts identified by next-generation sequencing. Fertil. Steril. 105:1047–55.e2 [Google Scholar]
  91. Wang L, Cram DS, Shen J, Wang X, Zhang J. 91.  et al. 2014. Validation of copy number variation sequencing for detecting chromosome imbalances in human preimplantation embryos. Biol. Reprod. 91:37 [Google Scholar]
  92. Wapner RJ, Martin CL, Levy B, Ballif BC, Eng CM. 92.  et al. 2012. Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 367:2175–84 [Google Scholar]
  93. Wells D, Kaur K, Grifo J, Glassner M, Taylor JC. 93.  et al. 2014. Clinical utilisation of a rapid low-pass whole genome sequencing technique for the diagnosis of aneuploidy in human embryos prior to implantation. J. Med. Genet 51553–62 [Google Scholar]
  94. Werner MD, Franasiak JM, Hong KH, Juneau CR, Tao X. 94.  et al. 2015. A prospective, blinded, non-selection study to determine the predictive value of ploidy results using a novel method of targeted amplification based next generation sequencing (NGS) for comprehensive chromosome screening (CCS). Fertil. Steril. 104:e12–13 [Google Scholar]
  95. Yang Z, Liu J, Collins GS, Salem SA, Liu X. 95.  et al. 2012. Selection of single blastocysts for fresh transfer via standard morphology assessment alone and with array CGH for good prognosis IVF patients: results from a randomized pilot study. Mol. Cytogenet. 5:24 [Google Scholar]
  96. Zhang W, Liu Y, Wang L, Wang H, Ma M. 96.  et al. 2016. Clinical application of next-generation sequencing in preimplantation genetic diagnosis cycles for Robertsonian and reciprocal translocations. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 33:899–906 [Google Scholar]
  97. Zimmerman RS, Jalas C, Tao X, Fedick AM, Kim JG. 97.  et al. 2016. Development and validation of concurrent preimplantation genetic diagnosis for single gene disorders and comprehensive chromosomal aneuploidy screening without whole genome amplification. Fertil. Steril. 105:286–94 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-genom-091416-035508
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-genom-091416-035508
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error