Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T12:41:22.983Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Section 3 - Genetics and Preimplantation Genetic Testing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2021

Edited by
Eliezer Girsh
Eliezer Girsh
Affiliation:
Barzilai Medical Center, Ashkelon
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
A Textbook of Clinical Embryology , pp. 194 - 224
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Mau-Holzmann, UA. Somatic chromosomal abnormalities in infertile men and women. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2005; 111:317–336.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Therman, E, Susman, B, Denniston, C. The nonrandom participation of human acrocentric chromosomes in Robertsonian translocations. Ann. Hum. Genet. 1989; 53:49–65.Google Scholar
Kuroda-Kawaguchi, T, Skaletsky, H, Brown, LG, et al. The AZFc region of the Y chromosome features massive palindromes and uniform recurrent deletions in infertile men. Nat. Genet. 2001; 29:279–286.Google Scholar
Sasagawa, I, Ishigooka, M, Kubota, Y, et al. Pericentric inversion of chromosome 9 in infertile men. Int. Urol. Nephrol. 1998; 30:203–207.Google Scholar
Royo, H, Polikiewicz, G, Mahadevaiah, SK, et al. Evidence that meiotic sex chromosome inactivation is essential for male fertility. Curr. Biol. 2010; 20:2117–2123.Google Scholar
Homolka, D, Jansa, P, Forejt, J. Genetically enhanced asynapsis of autosomal chromatin promotes transcriptional dysregulation and meiotic failure. Chromosoma 2011; 121:91–104.Google Scholar
Neto, FTL, Bach, PV, Najari, BB, Li, PS, Goldstein, M. Genetics of male infertility. Curr. Urol. Rep. 2016;17:70–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-016–0627-x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lissitsina, J, Mikelsaar, R, Punab, M. Cytogenetic analyses in infertile men. Arch. Androl. 2006; 52:91–95.Google Scholar
Balkan, M, Tekes, S, Gedik, A. Cytogenetic and Y chromosome microdeletion screening studies in infertile males with oligozoospermia and azoospermia in Southeast Turkey. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2008; 25:559–565.Google Scholar
Rives, N, Joly, G, Machy, A, et al. Assessment of sex chromosome aneuploidy in sperm nuclei from 47,XXY and 46,XY/47,XXY males: comparison with fertile and infertile males with normal karyotype. Mol. Hum. Reprod. 2000; 6:107–112.Google Scholar
Mallepaly, R, Butler, PR, Herati, AS, Lamb, DJ. Genetic basis of male and female infertility. Monogr. Hum. Genet. 2017; 21:1–16.Google Scholar
Grynberg, M, Bidet, M, Benard, J, et al. Fertility preservation in Turner syndrome. Fertil. Steril. 2016; 105:13–19.Google Scholar
Huang, H-L, Lv, C, Zhao, Y-C, et al. Mutant ZP1 in familial infertility. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014; 370:1220–1226.Google Scholar
Hassold, T, Hunt, P. To err (meiotically) is human: the genesis of human aneuploidy. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2001; 2:280–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, SA, Edwards, RG. Chiasma frequency and maternal age in mammals. Nature 1968; 218:22–28.Google Scholar
Angell, RR. Predivision in human oocytes at meiosis I: a mechanism for trisomy formation in man. Hum. Genet. 1991; 86:383–387.Google Scholar
Angell, RR, Xian, J, Keith, J, Ledger, W, Baird, DT. First meiotic division abnormalities in human oocytes: mechanism of trisomy formation. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 1994; 65:194–202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pellestor, F, Andreo, B, Arnal, F, Humeau, C, Demaille, J. Maternal aging and chromosomal abnormalities: new data drawn from in vitro unfertilized human oocytes. Hum. Genet. 2003; 112:195–203.Google Scholar
Revenkova, E, Herrmann, K, Adelfalk, C, Jessberger, R. Oocyte cohesin expression restricted to predict stages provides full fertility and prevents aneuploidy. Curr. Biol. 2010; 20:1529–1533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reis, A, Madgwick, S, Chang, HY, et al. Prometaphase APC cdh1 activity prevents non-disjunction in mammalian oocytes. Nat. Cell Biol. 2007; 9:1192–1198.Google Scholar
Lim, AS, Fong, Y, Yu, SL. Estimates of sperm sex chromosome disomy and diploidy rates in a 47,XXY/46,XY mosaic Klinefelter patient. Hum. Genet. 1999; 104:405–409.Google Scholar
Thomas, NS, Hassold, TJ. Aberrant recombination and the origin of Klinefelter syndrome. Hum. Reprod. Update 2003; 9:309–317.Google Scholar
Lenz, P, Luetjens, CM, Kamischke, A, et al. Mosaic status in lymphocytes of infertile men with or without Klinefelter syndrome. Hum. Reprod. 2005; 20:1248–1255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schiff, JD, Palermo, GD, Veeck, LL, et al. Success of testicular sperm extraction and intracytoplasmic sperm injection in men with Klinefelter syndrome. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2005; 90:6263–6267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aksglaede, L. Natural history of seminiferous tubule degeneration in Klinefelter syndrome. Hum. Reprod. Update 2005; 12:39–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ichioka, K, Utsunomiya, N, Kohei, N, et al. Adult onset of declining spermatogenesis in a man with nonmosaic Klinefelter’s syndrome. Fertil. Steril. 2006; 85:1511.e1–1511.e2.Google Scholar
Plotton, I, Giscard d’Estaing, S, Cuzin, B, et al. Preliminary results of a prospective study of testicular sperm extraction in young versus adult patients with nonmosaic 47,XXY Klinefelter syndrome. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2015; 100:961–967.Google Scholar
Van Saen, D, Vloeberghs, V, Gies, I, et al. When does germ cell loss and fibrosis occur in patients with Klinefelter syndrome? Hum. Reprod. 2018; 33:1009–1022.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Saen, D, Pino Sánchez, J, Ferster, A, et al. Is the protein expression window during testicular development affected in patients at risk for stem cell loss? Hum. Reprod. 2015; 30:2859–2870.Google Scholar
Corona, G, Pizzocaro, A, Lanfranco, F, et al. Sperm recovery and ICSI outcomes in Klinefelter syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum. Reprod. Update 2017; 23:265–275.Google Scholar
Ron-El, R, Raziel, A, Strassburger, D, et al. Birth of healthy male twins after intracytoplasmic sperm injection of frozen-thawed testicular spermatozoa from a patient with nonmosaic Klinefelter syndrome. Fertil. Steril. 2000; 74:832–833.Google Scholar
Friedler, S, Raziel, A, Strassburger, D, et al. Outcome of ICSI using fresh and cryopreserved-thawed testicular spermatozoa in patients with non-mosaic Klinefelter’s syndrome. Hum. Reprod. 2001; 16:2616–2620.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Estop, AM, Munne, S, Cieply, KM, et al. Meiotic products of a Klinefelter 47,XXY male as determined by sperm fluorescence in-situ hybridization analysis. Hum. Reprod. 1998; 13:124–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maduro, MR, Lamb, DJ. Understanding new genetics of male infertility. J. Urol. 2002; 168:2197–2205.Google Scholar
Quinn, A, Koopman, P. The molecular genetics of sex determination and sex reversal in mammals. Semin. Reprod. Med. 2012; 30:351–363.Google Scholar
Oates, RD. The genetic basis of male reproductive failure. Urol. Clin. North Am. 2008; 35:257–270, ix.Google Scholar
Davis, JL, Kurek, JA, Morgan, JC, Sethi, KD. Tremor and dystonia in Jacob’s syndrome (47,XYY). Mov. Disord. Clin. Pract. 2019; 7:107–108.Google Scholar
Otter, M, Schrander-Stumpel, CT, Curfs, LM. Triple X syndrome: a review of the literature. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2010; 18:265–271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kosteria, I, Kanaka-Gantenbein, C. Turner syndrome: transition from childhood to adolescence. Metabolism 2018; 86:145–153.Google Scholar
Chandley, AC, Seuanez, H, Fletcher, JM. Meiotic behavior of five human reciprocal translocations. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 1976; 17:98–111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elliott, DJ, Cooke, HJ. The molecular genetics of male infertility. Bioessays 1997; 19:801–809.Google Scholar
Estop, AM, Van Kirk, V, Cieply, K. Segregation analysis of four translocations, t(2;18), t(3;15), t(5;7), and t(10;12), by sperm chromosome studies and a review of the literature. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 1995; 70:80–87.Google Scholar
Cifuentes, P, Navarro, J, Blanco, J, et al. Cytogenetic analysis of sperm chromosomes and sperm nuclei in a male heterozygous for a reciprocal translocation t(5;7)(q21;q32) by in situ hybridisation. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 1999; 7:231–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alves, C, Carvalho, F, Cremades, N, Sousa, M, Barros, A. Unique (Y;13) translocation in a male with oligozoospermia: cytogenetic and molecular studies. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2002; 10:467–474.Google Scholar
Ferguson, KA, Chow, V, Ma, S. Silencing of unpaired meiotic chromosomes and altered recombination patterns in an azoospermic carrier of a t(8;13) reciprocal translocation. Hum. Reprod. 2008; 23:988–995.Google Scholar
Guo, JH, Zhu, PY, Huang, YF, Yu, L. Autosomal aberrations associated with testicular dysgenesis or spermatogenic arrest in Chinese patients. Asian J. Androl. 2002; 4:3–7.Google Scholar
Gunel, M, Cavkaytar, S, Ceylaner, G, Batioglu, S. Azoospermia and cryptorchidism in a male with a de novo reciprocal t(Y;16) translocation. Genet. Couns. 2008; 19:277–280.Google Scholar
Pabst, B, Glaubitz, R, Schalk, T, et al. Reciprocal translocation between Y chromosome long arm euchromatin and the short arm of chromosome 1. Ann. Genet. 2002; 45:5–8.Google Scholar
Mohandas, TK, Speed, RM, Passage, MB, et al. Role of the pseudo-autosomal region in sex chromosome pairing during male meiosis: meiotic studies in a man with a deletion of distal Xp. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 1992; 51:526–533.Google Scholar
Ellison, JW, Wardak, Z, Young, MF, et al. PHOG, a candidate gene for involvement in the short stature of Turner syndrome. Hum. Mol. Genet. 1997; 6:1341–1347.Google Scholar
Rao, E, Weiss, B, Fukami, M, et al. Pseudoautosomal deletions encompassing a novel homeobox gene cause growth failure in idiopathic short stature and Turner syndrome. Nat. Genet. 1997; 16:54–63.Google Scholar
Poongothai, J, Gopenath, TS, Manonayaki, S. Genetics of human male infertility. Singapore Med. J. 2009; 50:336–347.Google Scholar
Kamp, C, Huellen, K, Fernandes, S, et al. High deletion frequency of the complete AZFa sequence in men with Sertoli-cell-only syndrome. Mol. Hum. Reprod. 2001; 7:987–994.Google Scholar
Krausz, C, Forti, G, McElreavey, K. The Y chromosome and male fertility and infertility. Int. J. Androl. 2003; 26:70–75.Google Scholar
Dada, R, Gupta, NP, Kucheria, K. Yq microdeletions--azoospermia factor candidate genes and spermatogenic arrest. J. Biomol. Tech. 2004; 15:176–183.Google Scholar
Walsh, TJ, Pera, RR, Turek, PJ. The genetics of male infertility. Semin. Reprod. Med. 2009; 27:124–136.Google Scholar
Krausz, C, Quintana-Murci, L, McElreavey, K. Prognostic value of Y deletion analysis: what is the clinical prognostic value of Y chromosome microdeletion analysis? Hum. Reprod. 2000; 15:1431–1434.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lekovich, J, Man, L, Xu, K, et al. CGG repeat length and AGG interruptions as indicators of fragile X-associated diminished ovarian reserve. Genet. Med. 2017; 20:957–964.Google Scholar
Karimov, CB, Moragianni, VA, Cronister, A, et al. Increased frequency of occult fragile X-associated primary ovarian insufficiency in infertile women with evidence of impaired ovarian function. Hum. Reprod. 2011; 26:2077–2083.Google Scholar
Crawford, DC, Acuña, JM, Sherman, SL. FMR1 and the fragile X syndrome: human genome epidemiology review. Genet. Med. 2001; 3:359–371.Google Scholar
Elizur, SE, Lebovitz, O, Derech-Haim, S, et al. Elevated levels of FMR1 mRNA in granulosa cells are associated with low ovarian reserve in FMR1 premutation carriers. PLoS One 2014; 9:e105121.Google Scholar
Gustin, SE, Hogg, K, Stringer, JM, et al. WNT/β-catenin and p27/FOXL2 differentially regulate supporting cell proliferation in the developing ovary. Dev. Biol. 2016; 412:250–260.Google Scholar
Carrell, DT, De Jonge, C, Lamb, DJ. The genetics of male infertility: a field of study whose time is now. Arch. Androl. 2006; 52: 269–274.Google Scholar
Radpour, R, Gourabi, H, Gilani, MA, Dizaj, AV. Molecular study of (TG)m(T)n polymorphisms in Iranian males with congenital bilateral absence of the vas deferens. J. Androl. 2007; 28:541–547.Google Scholar
Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine in collaboration with Society for Male Reproduction and Urology. Evaluation of the azoospermic male. Fertil. Steril. 2008; 90:S74–S77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnedo, N, Nogues, C, Bosch, M, Templado, C. Mitotic and meiotic behaviour of a naturally transmitted ring Y chromosome: reproductive risk evaluation. Hum. Reprod. 2005; 20:462–468.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stouffs, K, Tournaye, H, Liebaers, I, Lissens, W. Male infertility and the involvement of the X chromosome. Hum. Reprod. Update 2009; 15:623–637.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galani, A, Kitsiou-Tzeli, S, Sofokleous, C, Kanavakis, E, Kalpini-Mavrou, A. Androgen insensitivity syndrome: clinical features and molecular defects. Hormones (Athens) 2008; 7:217–229.Google Scholar
Hiort, O, Holterhus, PM, Horter, T, et al. Significance of mutations in the androgen receptor gene in males with idiopathic infertility. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2000; 85:2810–2815.Google Scholar
Mifsud, A, Sim, CK, Boettger-Tong, H, et al. Trinucleotide (CAG) repeat polymorphisms in the androgen receptor gene: molecular markers of risk for male infertility. Fertil. Steril. 2001; 75:275–281.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sharma, V, Singh, R, Thangaraj, K, Jyothy, A. A novel Arg615Ser mutation of androgen receptor DNA-binding domain in three 46,XY sisters with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome and bilateral inguinal hernia. Fertil. Steril. 2011; 95:804.e19–804.e21.Google Scholar
Yuan, S, Meng, L, Zhang, Y, et al. Genotype-phenotype correlation and identification of two novel SRD5A2 mutations in 33 Chinese patients with hypospadias. Steroids 2017; 125:61–66.Google Scholar
Li, SP, Li, LW, Sun, MX, et al. Identification of a novel mutation in the SRD5A2 gene of one patient with 46,XY disorder of sex development. Asian J. Androl. 2018; 20:518–519.Google Scholar
La Vignera, S, Calogero, AE, Condorelli, R, et al. Cryptorchidism and its long-term complications. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2009; 13:351–356.Google Scholar
Caroppo, E, Niederberger, C, Elhanbly, S, et al. Effect of cryptorchidism and retractile testes on male factor infertility: a multicenter, retrospective, chart review. Fertil. Steril. 2005; 83:1581–1584.Google Scholar
Ferlin, A, Zuccarello, D, Garolla, A, Selice, R, Foresta, C. Hormonal and genetic control of testicular descent. RBM Online 2007; 15:659–665.Google Scholar
Kerr, CL, Cheng, L. The dazzle in germ cell differentiation. J. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2010; 2:26–29.Google Scholar
Albuisson, J, Pecheux, C, Carel, JC, et al. Kallmann syndrome: 14 novel mutations in KAL1 and FGFR1 (KAL2). Hum. Mutat. 2005; 25:98–99.Google Scholar
Trarbach, EB, Baptista, MT, Garmes, HM, Hackel, C. Molecular analysis of KAL-1, GnRH-R, NELF and EBF2 genes in a series of Kallmann syndrome and normosmic hypogonadotropic hypogonadism patients. J. Endocrinol. 2005; 187:361–368.Google Scholar
Dodé, C, Teixeira, L, Levilliers, J, et al. Kallmann syndrome: mutations in the genes encoding prokineticin-2 and prokineticin receptor-2. PLoS Genet. 2006; 2(10):e175. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.0020175.Google Scholar

References

Gardner, RL, Edwards, RG. Control of the sex ratio at full term in the rabbit by transferring sexed blastocyst. Nature 1968; 218:346–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Handyside, AH, Kontogianni, EH, Hardy, K, Winston, RM. Pregnancies from biopsied human preimplantation embryos sexed by Y-specific DNA amplification. Nature 1990; 344:768–770.Google Scholar
International Working Group on Preimplantation Genetics. 10th anniversary of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2001; 18:66–72.Google Scholar
Hasson, J, Limoni, D, Malcov, M, et al. Obstetric and neonatal outcomes of pregnancies conceived after preimplantation genetic diagnosis: cohort study and meta-analysis. RBM Online 2017; 35:208–218.Google Scholar
Heijligers, M, Verheijden, LMM, Jonkman, LM, et al. The cognitive and socio-emotional development of 5-year-old children born after PGD. Hum. Reprod. 2018; 33:2150–2157.Google Scholar
Sermon, K, Van Steirteghem, A, Liebaers, I. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Lancet 2004; 363:1633–1641.Google Scholar
Dreesen, JC, Jacobs, LJ, Bras, M, et al. Multiplex PCR of polymorphic markers flanking the CFTR gene; a general approach for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of cystic fibrosis. Mol. Hum. Reprod. 2000; 6:391–396.Google Scholar
Harper, JC, Harton, G. The use of arrays in preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening. Fertil. Steril. 2010; 94:1173–1177.Google Scholar
Sermon, K, Capalbo, A, Cohen, J, et al. The why, the how and the when of PGS 2.0: current practices and expert opinions of fertility specialists, molecular biologists, and embryologists. Mol. Hum. Reprod. 2016; 22:845–857.Google Scholar
Frumkin, T, Peleg, S, Gold, V, et al. Complex chromosomal rearrangement—a lesson learned from PGS. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2017; 34:1095–1100.Google Scholar
Munné, S. Status of preimplantation genetic testing and embryo selection. RBM Online 2018; 37:393–396.Google Scholar
Malcov, M, Schwartz, T, Mei-Raz, N, et al. Multiplex nested PCR for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of spinal muscular atrophy. Fetal. Diagn. Ther. 2004; 19:199–206.Google Scholar
Tadir, Y, Wright, WH, Vafa, O, et al. Review: micromanipulation of gametes using laser microbeams. Hum. Reprod. 1991; 6:1011–1016.Google Scholar
Rink, K, Delacrétaz, G, Salathé, RP, et al. Non-contact microdrilling of mouse zona pellucida with an objective-delivered 1.48-μm diode laser. Lasers Surg. Med. 1996; 18:52–62.Google Scholar
Kalma, Y, Bar-El, L, Asaf-Tisser, S, et al. Optimal timing for blastomere biopsy of 8-cell embryos for preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Hum. Reprod. 2018; 33:32–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harton, GL, Magli, MC, Lundin, K, et al. ESHRE PGD Consortium/Embryology Special Interest Group--best practice guidelines for polar body and embryo biopsy for preimplantation genetic diagnosis/screening (PGD/PGS). Hum. Reprod. 2011; 26:41–46.Google Scholar
Verlinsky, Y, Kuliev, A. An Atlas of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis. London: The Parthenon Publishing Group. 2000.Google Scholar
De Vos, A, Van Steirteghem, A. Aspects of biopsy procedures prior to preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Prenat. Diagn. 2001; 21:767–780.Google Scholar
Feichtinger, W, Strohmer, H, Fuhrberg, P, et al. Photoablation of oocyte zona pellucida by erbium-YAG laser for in-vitro fertilisation in severe male infertility. Lancet 1992; 339:811.Google Scholar
Neev, J, Schiewe, M, Sung, V, et al. Assisted hatching in mouse embryos using a noncontact Ho:YSGG laser system. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 1995; 12:288–293.Google Scholar
MacLennan, M, Crichton, JH, Playfoot, CJ, Adams, IR. Oocyte development, meiosis and aneuploidy. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 2015; 45:68–76.Google Scholar
Capalbo, A, Hoffmann, ER, Cimadomo, D, Ubaldi, FM, Rienzi, L. Human female meiosis revised: new insights into the mechanisms of chromosome segregation and aneuploidies from advanced genomics and time-lapse imaging. Hum. Reprod. Update 2017; 23:706–722.Google Scholar
Montag, M, van der Ven, K, Rösing, B, van der Ven, H. Polar body biopsy: a viable alternative to preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening. RBM Online 2009; 18(Suppl. 1):6–11.Google Scholar
Verlinsky, Y, Kuliev, A. Preimplantation polar body diagnosis. Biochem. Mol. Med. 1996; 58:13–17.Google Scholar
Levin, I, Almog, B, Shwartz, T, et al. Effects of laser polar-body biopsy on embryo quality. Fertil. Steril. 2012; 97:1085–1088.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dumoulin, JC, Bras, M, Coonen, E, et al. Effect of Ca2+/Mg2+-free medium on the biopsy procedure for preimplantation genetic diagnosis and further development of human embryos. Hum. Reprod. 1998; 13:2880–2883.Google Scholar
McCoy, RC, Demko, ZP, Ryan, A, et al. Evidence of selection against complex mitotic-origin aneuploidy during preimplantation development. PLoS Genet. 2015; 11:e1005601.Google Scholar
Adler, A, Lee, HL, McCulloh, DH, et al. Blastocyst culture selects for euploid embryos: comparison of blastomere and trophectoderm biopsies. RBM Online 2014; 28:485–491.Google ScholarPubMed
Weissman, A, Shoham, G, Shoham, Z, et al. Chromosomal mosaicism detected during preimplantation genetic screening: results of a worldwide web-based survey. Fertil. Steril. 2017; 107:1092–1097.Google Scholar
Liñán, A, Lawrenz, B, El Khatib, I, et al. Clinical reassessment of human embryo ploidy status between cleavage and blastocyst stage by next generation sequencing. PLoS One 2018; 13:e0201652.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Del Rey, J, Vidal, F, Ramírez, L, et al. Novel double factor PGT strategy analyzing blastocyst stage embryos in a single NGS procedure. PLoS One 2018; 13:e0205692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fragouli, E, Alfarawati, S, Daphnis, DD, et al. Cytogenetic analysis of human blastocysts with the use of FISH, CGH and aCGH: scientific data and technical evaluation. Hum. Reprod. 2011; 26:480–490.Google Scholar
Ventura-Juncá, P, Irarrázaval, I, Rolle, AJ, et al. In vitro fertilization (IVF) in mammals: epigenetic and developmental alterations. Scientific and bioethical implications for IVF in humans. Biol. Res. 2015; 48:68.Google Scholar
Laskowski, D, Humblot, P, Sirard, MA, et al. DNA methylation pattern of bovine blastocysts associated with hyperinsulinemia in vitro. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 2018; 85:599–611.Google Scholar
De Rycke, M, Goossens, V, Kokkali, G, et al. ESHRE PGD Consortium data collection XIV-XV: cycles from January 2011 to December 2012 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2013. Hum. Reprod. 2017; 32:1974–1994.Google Scholar
Yaron, Y, Schwartz, T, Mey-Raz, N, et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis of Canavan disease. Fetal Diagn. Ther. 2005; 20:465–468.Google Scholar
Rechitsky, S, Pakhalchuk, T, San Ramos, G, et al. First systematic experience of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for single-gene disorder, and/or preimplantation human leukocyte antigen typing, combined with 24-chromosome aneuploidy testing. Fertil. Steril. 2015; 103:503–512.Google Scholar
Harper, JC, Wells, D. Recent advances and future developments in PGD. Prenat. Diagn. 1999; 19:1193–1199.Google Scholar
Malcov, M, Naiman, T, Yosef, DB, et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for fragile X syndrome using multiplex nested PCR. RBM Online 2007; 14:515–521.Google Scholar
Zhao, M, Lian, M, Cheah, FSH, et al. Identification of novel microsatellite markers flanking the SMN1 and SMN2 duplicated region and inclusion into a single-tube tridecaplex panel for haplotype-based preimplantation genetic testing of spinal muscular atrophy. Front. Genet. 2019; 10:1105.Google Scholar
Ray, PF, Handyside, AH. Increasing the denaturation temperature during the first cycles of amplification reduces allele dropout from single cells for preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Mol. Hum. Reprod. 1996; 2:213–218.Google Scholar
Rechitsky, S, Verlinsky, O, Amet, T, et al. Reliability of preimplantation diagnosis for single gene disorder. Mol. Cell Endocrinol. 2001; 183 (Suppl. 1):S65–S68.Google Scholar
Jovanovich, S, Bogdan, G, Belcinski, R, et al. Developmental validation of a fully integrated sample-to-profile rapid human identification system for processing single-source reference buccal samples. Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2015; 16:181–194.Google Scholar
He, G, Zou, X, Wang, M, et al. Population genetics, diversity, forensic characteristics of four Chinese populations inferred from X-chromosomal short tandem repeats. Leg. Med. (Tokyo) 2020; 43:101677.Google Scholar
Liu, Y, Sun, Y, Wu, J, et al. Polymorphisms in IL-1A are associated with endometrial cancer susceptibility among Chinese Han population: a case-control study. Int. J. Immunogenet. 2020; 47:169–174. doi:10.1111/iji.12463.Google Scholar
Malcov, M, Ben-Yosef, D, Schwartz, T, et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) by triplex-nested PCR. Prenat. Diagn. 2005; 25:1200–1205.Google Scholar
Sciorio, R, Tramontano, L, Catt, J. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A): status and future challenges. Gynecol. Endocrinol. 2020; 36:6–11.Google Scholar
Frumkin, T, Malcov, M, Yaron, Y, Ben-Yosef, D. Elucidating the origin of chromosomal aberrations in IVF embryos by preimplantation genetic analysis. Mol. Cell Endocrinol. 2008; 282:112–119.Google Scholar
Coonen, E, Dumoulin, JC, Ramaekers, FC, Hopman, AH. Optimal preparation of preimplantation embryo interphase nuclei for analysis by fluorescence in-situ hybridization. Hum. Reprod. 1994; 9:533–537.Google Scholar
Barbash-Hazan, S, Frumkin, T, Malcov, M, et al. Preimplantation aneuploid embryos undergo self-correction in correlation with their developmental potential. Fertil. Steril. 2009; 92:890–896.Google Scholar
Harton, GL, Harper, JC, Coonen, E, et al. ESHRE PGD consortium best practice guidelines for fluorescence in situ hybridization-based PGD. Hum. Reprod. 2011; 26:25–32.Google Scholar
Borgstrom, E, Paterlini, M, Mold, JE, Frisen, J, Lundeberg, J. Comparison of whole genome amplification techniques for human single cell exome sequencing. PloS One 2017; 12:e0171566.Google Scholar
Deleye, L, Gansemans, Y, De Coninck, D, Van Nieuwerburgh, F, Deforce, D. Massively parallel sequencing of micro-manipulated cells targeting a comprehensive panel of disease-causing genes: $ comparative evaluation of upstream whole-genome amplification methods. PLoS One 2018; 13:e0196334.Google Scholar
França, LT, Carrilho, E, Kist, TB. A review of DNA sequencing techniques. Q. Rev. Biophys. 2002; 35:169–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, MW, Schrijver, I. Next generation DNA sequencing and the future of genomic medicine. Genes 2010; 1:38–69.Google Scholar
Muzzey, D, Kash, S, Johnson, JI, et al. Software-assisted manual review of clinical next-generation sequencing data: an alternative to routine Sanger sequencing confirmation with equivalent results in >15,000 germline DNA screens. J. Mol. Diagn. 2019; 21:296–306.Google Scholar
Fiorentino, F, Biricik, A, Bono, S, et al. Development and validation of a next-generation sequencing-based protocol for 24-chromosome aneuploidy screening of embryos. Fertil. Steril. 2014; 101:1375–1382.Google Scholar
Friedenthal, J, Maxwell, SM, Munné, S, et al. Next generation sequencing for preimplantation genetic screening improves pregnancy outcomes compared with array comparative genomic hybridization in single thawed euploid embryo transfer cycles. Fertil. Steril. 2018; 109:627–632.Google Scholar
Popovic, M, Dhaenens, L, Taelman, J, et al. Extended in vitro culture of human embryos demonstrates the complex nature of diagnosing chromosomal mosaicism from a single trophectoderm biopsy. Hum. Reprod. 2019; 34:758–769.Google Scholar
Victor, AR, Tyndall, JC, Brake, AJ, et al. One hundred mosaic embryos transferred prospectively in a single clinic: exploring when and why they result in healthy pregnancies. Fertil. Steril. 2019; 111:280–293.Google Scholar
Munné, S, Spinella, F, Grifo, J, et al. Clinical outcomes after the transfer of blastocysts characterized as mosaic by high resolution next generation sequencing – further insights. Eur. J. Med. Genet. 2020; 63:103741.Google Scholar
Orvieto, R, Gleicher, N. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A)-finally revealed. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2020; 37:669–672. doi:10.1007/s10815-020-01705-w.Google Scholar
Magli, MC, Jones, GM, Gras, L, et al. Chromosome mosaicism in day 3 aneuploid embryos that develop to morphologically normal blastocysts in vitro. Hum. Reprod. 2000; 15:1781–1786.Google Scholar
Orvieto, R, Gleicher, N. Should preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) be implemented to routine IVF practice? J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2016; 33:1445–1448.Google Scholar
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Blastocyst culture and transfer in clinically assisted reproduction: a committee opinion. Fertil. Steril. 2018; 110:1246–1252.Google Scholar
Lawrenz, B, El Khatib, I, Liñán, A, et al. The clinicians’ dilemma with mosaicism-an insight from inner cell mass biopsies. Hum. Reprod. 2019; 34:998–1010.Google Scholar
Escribà, MJ, Vendrell, X, Peinado, V. Segmental aneuploidy in human blastocysts: a qualitative and quantitative overview. Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol. 2019; 17:76.Google Scholar
Banker, JM, Arora, P, Khajuria, R, Banker, M. India’s first child using PGT-M, PGT-A and HLA matching for helping a sibling having β-thalassemia major. J. Hum. Reprod. Sci. 2019; 12:341–344.Google Scholar
Backenroth, D, Zahdeh, F, Kling, Y, et al. Haploseek: a 24-hour all-in-one method for preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) of monogenic disease and aneuploidy. Genet. Med. 2019; 21:1390–1399.Google Scholar
Natesan, SA, Bladon, AJ, Coskun, S, et al. Genome-wide karyomapping accurately identifies the inheritance of single-gene defects in human preimplantation embryos in vitro. Genet. Med. 2014; 16:838–845.Google Scholar
Prates, R, Konstantinidis, M, Goodall, NN, et al. Clinical experience with karyomapping for preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) of single gene disorders. Fertil. Steril. 2014; 102:e25–e26.Google Scholar
Treff, NR, Zimmerman, R, Bechor, E, et al. Validation of concurrent preimplantation genetic testing for polygenic and monogenic disorders, structural rearrangements, and whole and segmental chromosome aneuploidy with a single universal platform. Eur. J. Med. Genet. 2019; 62:103647.Google Scholar
Van Rij, MC, De Rademaeker, M, Moutou, C, et al. BruMaStra PGD working group preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) for Huntington’s disease: the experience of three European centers. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2012; 20:368–375.Google Scholar
Rechitsky, S, Pomerantseva, E, Pakhalchuk, T, et al. First systematic experience of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for de-novo mutations. RBM Online 2011; 22:350–361.Google Scholar
Altarescu, G, Brooks, B, Kaplan, Y, et al. Single-sperm analysis for haplotype construction of de-novo paternal mutations: application to PGD for neurofibromatosis type 1. Hum. Reprod. 2006; 21:2047–2051.Google Scholar
Hellebrekers, DM, Wolfe, R, Hendrickx, AT, et al. PGD and heteroplasmic mitochondrial DNA point mutations: a systematic review estimating the chance of healthy offspring. Hum. Reprod. Update 2012; 18:341–349.Google Scholar
Johnston, IG, Burgstaller, JP, Havlicek, V, et al. Stochastic modelling, bayesian inference, and new in vivo measurements elucidate the debated mtDNA bottleneck mechanism. eLife 2015; 4:e07464.Google Scholar
Sallevelt, SC, Dreesen, JC, Coonen, E, et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for mitochondrial DNA mutations: analysis of one blastomere suffices. J. Med. Genet. 2017; 54:693–697.Google Scholar
Sallevelt, SC, Dreesen, JC, Drüsedau, M, et al. PGD for the m.14487 T>C mitochondrial DNA mutation resulted in the birth of a healthy boy. Hum. Reprod. 2017; 32:698–703.Google Scholar
Treff, NR, Campos, J, Tao, X, et al. Blastocyst preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) of a mitochondrial DNA disorder. Fertil. Steril. 2012; 98:1236–1240.Google Scholar
Wolf, DP, Mitalipov, N, Mitalipov, S. Mitochondrial replacement therapy in reproductive medicine. Trends Mol. Med. 2015; 21:68–76.Google Scholar
Tang, M, Guggilla, RR, Gansemans, Y, et al. Comparative analysis of different nuclear transfer techniques to prevent the transmission of mitochondrial DNA variants. Mol. Hum. Reprod. 2019; 25:797–810.Google ScholarPubMed
Scott, KL, Hong, KH, Scott, RT. Selecting the optimal time to perform biopsy for preimplantation genetic testing. Fertil. Steril. 2013; 100:608–614.Google Scholar
Leaver, M, Wells, D. Non-invasive preimplantation genetic testing (niPGT): the next revolution in reproductive genetics? Hum. Reprod. Update 2020; 26:16–42.Google Scholar
Heijligers, M, van Montfoort, A, Meijer-Hoogeveen, M, et al. Perinatal follow-up of children born after preimplantation genetic diagnosis between 1995 and 2014. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2018; 35:1995–2002.Google Scholar
Heijligers, M, Verheijden, LMM, Jonkman, LM, et al. The cognitive and socio-emotional development of 5-year-old children born after PGD. Hum. Reprod. 2018; 33:2150–2157.Google Scholar
Kuiper, D, Bennema, A, Bastide-van Gemert, S, et al. Developmental outcome of 9-year-old children born after PGS: follow-up of a randomized trial. Hum. Reprod. 2018; 33:147–155.Google Scholar
Thornhill, AR, deDie-Smulders, CE, Geraedts, JP, et al. ESHRE PGD Consortium. ‘Best practice guidelines for clinical preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)’. Hum. Reprod. 2005; 20:35–48.Google Scholar
Harton, GL, De Rycke, M, Fiorentino, F, et al. ESHRE PGD consortium best practice guidelines for amplification-based PGD. Hum. Reprod. 2011; 26:33–40.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×