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-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T22:22:28.567Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Section VII - Genetics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 November 2021

Edited by
Roy Homburg ,
Adam H. Balen  and
Robert F. Casper
Roy Homburg
Affiliation:
Homerton University Hospital, London
Adam H. Balen
Affiliation:
Leeds Centre for Reproductive Medicine
Robert F. Casper
Affiliation:
Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto
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
50 Big Debates in Reproductive Medicine , pp. 194 - 209
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

Ranisch, R. Germline genome editing versus preimplantation genetic diagnosis: is there a case in favour of germline interventions? Bioethics. 2020;34(1):60–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, K, Ryu, J, Uh, K, et al. Frequency of off-targeting in genome edited pigs produced via direct injection of the CRISPR/Cas9 system into developing embryos. BMC Biotechnol. 2019;19:24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doman, J, Raguram, A, Newby, GA, Liu, DR. Evaluation and minimization of Cas9-independent off-target DNA editing by cytosine base editors. Nature Biotechnol. 2020;38(5):620–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davies, B. The technical risks of human gene editing. Hum Reprod. 2019;34(11):2104–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, K. Time to start intervening in the human germline? A utilitarian perspective. Bioethics. 2020 34(1):90–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

References

Davies, B. The technical risks of human gene editing. Hum Reprod. 2019;34(11):2104–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ormond, KE, Bombard, Y, Bonham, VL, et al. The clinical application of gene editing: ethical and social issues. Per Med. 2019;16(4):337–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ledford, H. CRISPR gene editing in human embryos wreaks chromosomal mayhem. Nature. 2020;583(7814):17–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mintz, RL, Loike, JD, Fischbach, RL. Will CRISPR germline engineering close the door to an open future? Sci Engin Ethics. 2019;25(5):1409–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, CE, Fullerton, SM, Dookeran, KA, et al. Using genetic technologies to reduce, rather than widen, health disparities. Health Aff (Millwood). 2016;35(8):1367–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

References

Sato, T, Sugiura-Ogasawara, M, Ozawa, F, et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: a comparison of live birth rates in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss due to embryonic aneuploidy or recurrent implantation failure. Hum Reprod. 2019;34(12):2340–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pirtea, P, De Ziegler, D, Marin, D, et al. The rate of true recurrent implantation failure (RIF) is low: results of three successive frozen euploid single embryo transfers (SET). Fertil Steril. 2019;112(3, Supplement):e438–9.CrossRefGoogle 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(2):103741.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patrizio, P, Shoham, G, Shoham, Z, Leong, M, Barad, DH, Gleicher, N. Worldwide live births following the transfer of chromosomally ‘Abnormal’ embryos after PGT/A: results of a worldwide web-based survey. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36(8):1599–607.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munné, S, Nakajima, ST, Najmabadi, S, et al. First PGT-A using human in vivo blastocysts recovered by uterine lavage: comparison with matched IVF embryo controls. Hum Reprod. 2020;35(1):70–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

Scott, RT Jr, Ferry, K, Su, J, Tao, X, Scott, K, Treff, NR. Comprehensive chromosome screening is highly predictive of the reproductive potential of human embryos: a prospective, blinded, nonselection study. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:870–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patrizio, P, Shoham, G, Shoham, Z, Leong, M, Barad, DH, Gleicher, N. Worldwide live births following the transfer of chromosomally ‘Abnormal’ embryos after PGT/A: results of a worldwide web-based survey. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36:1599–607.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spinella, F, Fiorentino, F, Biricik, A, et al. Extent of chromosomal mosaicism influences the clinical outcome of in vitro fertilization treatments. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:77–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verpoest, W, Staessen, C, Bossuyt, PM, et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy by microarray analysis of polar bodies in advanced maternal age: a randomized clinical trial. Hum Reprod. 2018;33:1767–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munné, S, Kaplan, B, Frattarelli, JL, et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy versus morphology as selection criteria for single frozen-thawed embryo transfer in good-prognosis patients: a multicenter randomized clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2019;112:1071–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

References

Verpoest, W, Staessen, C, Bossuyt, PM, et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy by microarray analysis of polar bodies in advanced maternal age: a randomized clinical trial. Hum Reprod. 2018;33(9):1767–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, RT, Upham, KM, Forman, EJ, Zhao, T, Treff, NR. Cleavage-stage biopsy significantly impairs human embryonic implantation potential while blastocyst biopsy does not: a randomized and paired clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(3):624–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahdouh, EM, Balayla, J, García-Velasco, JA. Comprehensive chromosome screening improves embryo selection: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(6):1503–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maxwell, SM, Grifo, JA. Should every embryo undergo preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy? A review of the modern approach to in vitro fertilization. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;53:38–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sacchi, L, Albani, E, Cesana, A, et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy improves clinical, gestational, and neonatal outcomes in advanced maternal age patients without compromising cumulative live-birth rate. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36(12):2493–504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

References

Scott, R, Upham, K, Forman, E, Zhao, T, Treff, N. Cleavage-stage biopsy significantly impairs human embryonic implantation potential while blastocyst biopsy does not: a randomized and paired clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(3):24–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, R, Ferry, K, Su, J, et al. Comprehensive chromosome screening is highly predictive of the reproductive potential of human embryos: a prospective, blinded, nonselection study. Fertil Steril. 2012;97(4):870–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dadouh, E, Balayla, J, Garcia-Velasco, A. Comprehensive chromosome screening improves embryo selection: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(6):1504–12.Google Scholar
Munne, A, Kaplan, B, Frattarelli, J, et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy versus morphology as selection criteria for single frozen-thawed embryos transfer in good prognosis patients: a multicenter randomized clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2019;112(6):1072–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munne, S, Wells, D. Detection of mosaicism at blastocyst stage with use of high- resolution next-generation sequencing. Fertil Steril. 2017;107(5):1085–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

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
×