Download PDF
Semin Reprod Med 2005; 23(4): 336-347
DOI: 10.1055/s-2005-923391
Copyright © 2005 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis and Screening

W.G. Kearns1 , R. Pen1 , J. Graham2 , T. Han2 , J. Carter2 , M. Moyer2 , K.S. Richter2 , M. Tucker2 , S.F. Hoegerman3 , E. Widra1 , 2
  • 1Shady Grove Center for Preimplantation Genetics, Rockville, Maryland
  • 2Shady Grove Fertility Reproductive Science Center, Rockville, Maryland
  • 3Department of Biology, The College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
29 November 2005 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) identifies genetic abnormalities in preimplantation embryos prior to embryo transfer. PGD is an exciting technology that may improve the likelihood of a successful pregnancy and birth for five distinct patient groups: (1) those with infertility related to recurrent miscarriages or unsuccessful in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles, (2) those with unexplained infertility, (3) advanced maternal age, (4) severe male factor infertility, and (5) couples at risk for transmitting a hereditary disease to their offspring. PGD is always performed following an IVF cycle where multiple oocytes are retrieved and fertilized. Sophisticated techniques such as multiprobe, multicolor fluorescence in situ hybridization are used to test single cells for structural or numerical chromosome abnormalities, whereas the polymerase chain reaction, linkage analysis, and DNA sequencing are used to analyze single cells for disease-specific DNA mutations. PGD allows one to transfer only those embryos identified as being free of genetic abnormalities, thus potentially increasing the implantation rate and decreasing the miscarriage rate. These technologies identify embryos free of specific genetic abnormalities and may increase the likelihood of achieving the patient's goal: the birth of a healthy infant.

KEYWORDS

PGD - FISH - aneuploidy - chromosome - gene

REFERENCES

  • 1 Gaulden M E. Maternal age effect: the enigma of Down syndrome and other trisomic conditions.  Mutat Res. 1992;  296(1-2) 69-88
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Hassold T, Chiu D. Maternal age-specific rates of numerical chromosome abnormalities with special reference to trisomy.  Hum Genet. 1985;  70(1) 11-17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Pang M G, Hoegerman S F, Cuticchia A J et al.. Detection of aneuploidy for chromosomes 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 21, X and Y by fluorescence in-situ hybridization in spermatozoa from nine patients with oligoasthenoteratozoospermia undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection.  Hum Reprod. 1999;  14(5) 1266-1273
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Hoegerman S F, Pang M G, Kearns W G. Sex chromosome abnormalities after intracytoplasmic sperm injection.  Lancet. 1995;  346(8982) 1095
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Pfeffer J, Pang M G, Hoegerman S F et al.. Aneuploidy frequencies in semen fractions from ten oligoasthenoteratozoospermic patients donating sperm for intracytoplasmic sperm injection.  Fertil Steril. 1999;  72(3) 472-478
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kearns W G, Pang M G, Griffin D et al.. Molecular cytogenetic analysis of sperm from infertile males undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection.  Methods Mol Biol. 2000;  123 307-321
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Nielsen J, Wohlert M. Sex chromosome abnormalities found among 34,910 newborn children: results from a 13-year incidence study in Arhus, Denmark.  Birth Defects Orig Artic Ser. 1990;  26(4) 209-223
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Bonduelle M, Legein J, Buysse A. Prospective follow-up study of 423 children born after intracytoplasmic sperm injection.  Hum Reprod. 1996;  11(7) 1558-1564
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Bonduelle M, Camus M, De Vos A et al.. Seven years of intracytoplasmic sperm injection and follow-up of 1987 subsequent children.  Hum Reprod. 1999;  14(suppl 1) 243-264
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Bonduelle M, Liebaers I, Deketelaere V et al.. Neonatal data on a cohort of 2889 infants born after ICSI (1991-1999) and of 2995 infants born after IVF (1983-1999).  Hum Reprod. 2002;  17(3) 671-694
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kim E D, Bischoff F Z, Lipshultz L I et al.. Genetic concerns for the subfertile male in the era of ICSI.  Prenat Diagn. 1998;  18(13) 1349-1365
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Causio F, Fischetto R, Schonauer L M et al.. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection in infertile patients with structural cytogenetic abnormalities.  J Reprod Med. 1999;  44(10) 859-864
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Yoshida A, Miura K, Shirai M. Cytogenetic survey of 1,007 infertile males.  Urol Int. 1997;  58(3) 166-176
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Van Assche E, Bonduelle M, Tournaye H et al.. Cytogenetics of infertile men.  Hum Reprod. 1996;  11(Suppl 4) 1-24 discussion 25-6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Katz M G, Fitzgerald L, Bankier A et al.. Issues and concerns of couples presenting for preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD).  Prenat Diagn. 2002;  22(12) 1117-1122
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Kuliev A, Verlinsky Y. Meiotic and mitotic nondisjunction: lessons from preimplantation genetic diagnosis.  Hum Reprod Update. 2004;  10(5) 401-407
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Magli M C, Gianaroli L, Ferraretti A P et al.. The combination of polar body and embryo biopsy does not affect embryo viability.  Hum Reprod. 2004;  19(5) 1163-1169
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Sermon K. Current concepts in preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD): a molecular biologist's view.  Hum Reprod Update. 2002;  8(1) 11-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Wilton L J, Trounson A O. Biopsy of preimplantation mouse embryos: development of micromanipulated embryos and proliferation of single blastomeres in vitro.  Biol Reprod. 1989;  40(1) 145-152
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Takeuchi K, Sandow B A, Morsy M et al.. Preclinical models for human pre-embryo biopsy and genetic diagnosis. I. Efficiency and normalcy of mouse pre-embryo development after different biopsy techniques.  Fertil Steril. 1992;  57(2) 425-430
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Phophong P, Doshi A, Harper J C. Comparison of embryonic development in cleavage stage mouse embryo biopsy between acid Tyrode's solution and laser assisted techniques.  J Med Assoc Thai. 2001;  84(8) 1190-1198
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Hardy K, Martin K L, Leese H J et al.. Human preimplantation development in vitro is not adversely affected by biopsy at the 8-cell stage.  Hum Reprod. 1990;  5(6) 708-714
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Moyer M, Belloso T, Han T et al.. Embryo development from day 3 to day 5 after laser assisted blastomere biopsy for preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), relative to day 3 embryo quality.  Fertil Steril. 2004;  82(suppl 2) S243
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Carter J, Richter K S, Kearns W G. Comparison of embryo development between non-biopsy cycles and laser assisted biopsy cycles for preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) within the same patient population.  Fertil Steril. 2004;  82(suppl 2) S242
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Jones T M, Amarose A P, Lebowitz M. Testicular chromosomal mosaicism and infertility.  J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1976;  42(5) 888-893
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Kalousek D K. Pathogenesis of chromosomal mosaicism and its effect on early human development.  Am J Med Genet. 2000;  91(1) 39-45
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Dufke A, Mayrhofer H, Enders H et al.. Unusual chromosomal mosaicism as a cause of mental retardation and congenital malformations in a familial reciprocal translocation carrier, t(17;22)(q24.2;q11.23).  Cytogenet Cell Genet. 2001;  93(3-4) 168-170
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Morgan R, Bixenman H, Hecht F. Human chromosome variation with two Robertsonian translocations.  Hum Genet. 1985;  69(2) 178-180
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kuo H C, Ogilvie C M, Handyside A H. Chromosomal mosaicism in cleavage-stage human embryos and the accuracy of single-cell genetic analysis.  J Assist Reprod Genet. 1998;  15(5) 276-280
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Delhanty J D, Harper J C, Ao A et al.. Multicolour FISH detects frequent chromosomal mosaicism and chaotic division in normal preimplantation embryos from fertile patients.  Hum Genet. 1997;  99(6) 755-760
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Munne S, Weier H U, Grifo J et al.. Chromosome mosaicism in human embryos.  Biol Reprod. 1994;  51(3) 373-379
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Abruzzo M A, Hassold T J. Etiology of nondisjunction in humans.  Environ Mol Mutagen. 1995;  25(Suppl 26) 38-47
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Baker D J, Jeganathan K B, Cameron J D et al.. BubR1 insufficiency causes early onset of aging-associated phenotypes and infertility in mice.  Nat Genet. 2004;  36(7) 744-749
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Nussbaum L, McInnes R R, Willard H F. Principles of clinical cytogenetics. In: Nussbaum L Genetics in Medicine. Philadelphia, PA; WB Saunders 2001: 135-156
    Google Scholar
  • 35 Hassold T, Chen N, Funkhouser J et al.. A cytogenetic study of 1000 spontaneous abortions.  Ann Hum Genet. 1980;  44(Pt 2) 151-178
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Kalousek D K. Anatomic and chromosome anomalies in specimens of early spontaneous abortion: seven-year experience.  Birth Defects Orig Artic Ser. 1987;  23(1) 153-168
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Griffin D K, Millie E A, Redline R W et al.. Cytogenetic analysis of spontaneous abortions: comparison of techniques and assessment of the incidence of confined placental mosaicism.  Am J Med Genet. 1997;  72(3) 297-301
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Kearns W G, Gassert G, Pen R. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) on 1435 embryos by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH): how many chromosomes should be tested for couples undergoing PGD for aneuploidy?.  Fertil Steril. 2004;  82(suppl 2) S253
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Kearns W G, Gassert G, Richter K S et al.. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) for chromosomes 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, X and Y on 1435 embryos by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH): is there a significant difference between aneuploidy incidence among the tested chromosomes?.  Fertil Steril. 2004;  82(suppl 2) S252
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Austin K D, Hall J G. Nontraditional inheritance.  Pediatr Clin North Am. 1992;  39(2) 335-348
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Fridman C, Koiffmann C P. Origin of uniparental disomy 15 in patients with Prader-Willi or Angelman syndrome.  Am J Med Genet. 2000;  94(3) 249-253
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Gunay-Aygun M, Schwartz S, Heeger S et al.. The changing purpose of Prader-Willi syndrome clinical diagnostic criteria and proposed revised criteria.  Pediatrics. 2001;  108(5) E92
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Milunsky J M, Wyandt H E, Huang X L et al.. Trisomy 15 mosaicism and uniparental disomy (UPD) in a liveborn infant.  Am J Med Genet. 1996;  61(3) 269-273
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Nussbaum L, McInnes R R, Willard H F. Genetic variation in individuals: mutation and polymorphism. In: Nussbaum L Genetics in Medicine. Philadelphia, PA; WB Saunders 2001: 79-94
    Google Scholar
  • 45 Geraedts J, Handyside A, Harper J et al.. ESHRE preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) consortium: data collection II (May 2000).  Hum Reprod. 2000;  15(12) 2673-2683
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Sermon K, Moutou C, Harper J et al.. ESHRE PGD Consortium data collection IV: May-December 2001.  Hum Reprod. 2005;  20(1) 19-34
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Thornhill A R, deDie-Smulders C E, Geraedts J P et al.. ESHRE PGD Consortium ‘Best practice guidelines for clinical preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and preimplantation genetic screening (PGS).  Hum Reprod. 2005;  20(1) 35-48
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Devroey P, Van Steirteghem A. A review of ten years experience of ICSI.  Hum Reprod Update. 2004;  10(1) 19-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Shenfield F, Pennings G, Devroey P et al.. Taskforce 5: preimplantation genetic diagnosis.  Hum Reprod. 2003;  18(3) 649-651
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 ESHRE PGD Consortium Steering Committee . ESHRE Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis Consortium: data collection III (May 2001).  Hum Reprod. 2002;  17(1) 233-246
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Geraedts J P, Harper J, Braude P et al.. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), a collaborative activity of clinical genetic departments and IVF centres.  Prenat Diagn. 2001;  21(12) 1086-1092
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Thornhill A R, McGrath J A, Eady R A et al.. A comparison of different lysis buffers to assess allele dropout from single cells for preimplantation genetic diagnosis.  Prenat Diagn. 2001;  21(6) 490-497
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Geraedts J, Handyside A, Harper J et al.. ESHRE Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) Consortium: preliminary assessment of data from January 1997 to September 1998. ESHRE PGD Consortium Steering Committee.  Hum Reprod. 1999;  14(12) 3138-3148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Schenker J G. Ethical aspects of advanced reproductive technologies.  Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2003;  997 11-21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Robertson J A. View of the ASRM Ethics Committee.  Hum Reprod. 2003;  18(2) 464
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

W. G Kearns

Shady Grove Center for Preimplantation Genetics, 15001 Shady Grove Rd, Suite 400, Rockville, MD 20850

Email: William.Kearns@Integramed.com

      >