Comprehensive chromosome screening (CCS) methods are being extensively used to select chromosomally normal embryos in human assisted reproduction. Some concerns related to the stage of analysis and which aneuploidy screening method to use still remain. In this study, the reliability of blastocyst-stage aneuploidy screening and the diagnostic performance of the two mostly used CCS methods (quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) and array comparative genome hybridization (aCGH)) has been assessed. aCGH aneuploid blastocysts were rebiopsied, blinded, and evaluated by qPCR. Discordant cases were subsequently rebiopsied, blinded, and evaluated by single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array-based CCS. Although 81.7% of embryos showed the same diagnosis when comparing aCGH and qPCR-based CCS, 18.3% (22/120) of embryos gave a discordant result for at least one chromosome. SNP array reanalysis showed that a discordance was reported in ten blastocysts for aCGH, mostly due to false positives, and in four cases for qPCR. The discordant aneuploidy call rate per chromosome was significantly higher for aCGH (5.7%) compared with qPCR (0.6%; P<0.01). To corroborate these findings, 39 embryos were simultaneously biopsied for aCGH and qPCR during blastocyst-stage aneuploidy screening cycles. 35 matched including all 21 euploid embryos. Blinded SNP analysis on rebiopsies of the four embryos matched qPCR. These findings demonstrate the high reliability of diagnosis performed at the blastocyst stage with the use of different CCS methods. However, the application of aCGH can be expected to result in a higher aneuploidy rate than other contemporary methods of CCS. © 2015 Macmillan Publishers Limited All rights reserved.
Comparison of array comparative genomic hybridization and quantitative real-time PCR-based aneuploidy screening of blastocyst biopsies / Capalbo, Antonio; Treff, Nathan R; Cimadomo, Danilo; Tao, Xin; Upham, Kathleen; Ubaldi, Filippo Maria; Rienzi, Laura; Scott, Richard T.. - In: EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS. - ISSN 1018-4813. - STAMPA. - 23:7(2015), pp. 901-906. [10.1038/ejhg.2014.222]
Comparison of array comparative genomic hybridization and quantitative real-time PCR-based aneuploidy screening of blastocyst biopsies
CIMADOMO, DANILO;
2015
Abstract
Comprehensive chromosome screening (CCS) methods are being extensively used to select chromosomally normal embryos in human assisted reproduction. Some concerns related to the stage of analysis and which aneuploidy screening method to use still remain. In this study, the reliability of blastocyst-stage aneuploidy screening and the diagnostic performance of the two mostly used CCS methods (quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) and array comparative genome hybridization (aCGH)) has been assessed. aCGH aneuploid blastocysts were rebiopsied, blinded, and evaluated by qPCR. Discordant cases were subsequently rebiopsied, blinded, and evaluated by single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array-based CCS. Although 81.7% of embryos showed the same diagnosis when comparing aCGH and qPCR-based CCS, 18.3% (22/120) of embryos gave a discordant result for at least one chromosome. SNP array reanalysis showed that a discordance was reported in ten blastocysts for aCGH, mostly due to false positives, and in four cases for qPCR. The discordant aneuploidy call rate per chromosome was significantly higher for aCGH (5.7%) compared with qPCR (0.6%; P<0.01). To corroborate these findings, 39 embryos were simultaneously biopsied for aCGH and qPCR during blastocyst-stage aneuploidy screening cycles. 35 matched including all 21 euploid embryos. Blinded SNP analysis on rebiopsies of the four embryos matched qPCR. These findings demonstrate the high reliability of diagnosis performed at the blastocyst stage with the use of different CCS methods. However, the application of aCGH can be expected to result in a higher aneuploidy rate than other contemporary methods of CCS. © 2015 Macmillan Publishers Limited All rights reserved.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
Capalbo_Comparison_2015.pdf
solo gestori archivio
Tipologia:
Versione editoriale (versione pubblicata con il layout dell'editore)
Licenza:
Tutti i diritti riservati (All rights reserved)
Dimensione
764.07 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
764.07 kB | Adobe PDF | Contatta l'autore |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.