Skip Navigation


Hum. Reprod. Advance Access originally published online on September 9, 2005
Human Reproduction 2006 21(1):223-233; doi:10.1093/humrep/dei291
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
21/1/223    most recent
dei291v1
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Baart, E.B.
Right arrow Articles by Van Opstal, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Baart, E.B.
Right arrow Articles by Van Opstal, D.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org

Preimplantation genetic screening reveals a high incidence of aneuploidy and mosaicism in embryos from young women undergoing IVF

E.B. Baart1,4, E. Martini1, I. van den Berg1,2, N.S. Macklon1,3, R-J.H. Galjaard2, B.C.J.M. Fauser1,3 and D. Van Opstal2

1 Division of Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and 2 Department of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD Rotterdam and 3 Department of Reproductive Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands

4 To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: e.baart{at}erasmusmc.nl

BACKGROUND: In order to assess the frequency of aneuploidy and mosaicism in embryos obtained from IVF patients aged <38 years, preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) was performed after biopsy of two blastomeres. Furthermore, the reliability of this diagnosis was assessed by performing reanalysis of the embryo on day 5. METHOD: The copy numbers of 10 chromosomes (1, 7, 13, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22, X and Y) were investigated by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis. Embryos that were found to be abnormal or of insufficient morphological quality were cultured until day 5 and reanalysed. Results obtained were compared to the day 3 blastomere analysis. RESULTS: After analysis of 196 embryos (one cell in 38% and two cells in 62%), only 36% of the embryos were found to be normal on day 3. After analysis of two blastomeres, 50% showed chromosomal mosaicism. Comparison of the FISH results from day 3 blastomeres and day 5 embryos yielded an overall cytogenetic confirmation rate of 54%. CONCLUSIONS: The rates of mosaicism and aneuploidy in these embryos from young IVF patients are similar to those published for older women. We found the best confirmation rate after a diagnosis based on two cells, where both blastomeres showed the same chromosomal abnormality. In contrast, after a mosaic diagnosis the confirmation rate was low. The present study provides the first detailed reanalysis data of embryos analysed by PGS and clearly demonstrates the impact of mosaicism on the reliability of the PGS diagnosis.

Key words: aneuploidy/chromosomal mosaicism/confirmation of diagnosis/human preimplantation embryos/preimplantation genetic screening

Submitted on May 20, 2005; revised on July 27, 2005; ; accepted on July 28, 2005
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Hum Reprod UpdateHome page
P. Devroey, B.C.J.M. Fauser, K. Diedrich, and on behalf of the Evian Annual Reproduction (EVAR)
Approaches to improve the diagnosis and management of infertility
Hum. Reprod. Update, July 1, 2009; 15(4): 391 - 408.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
E. R. Hernandez
What next for preimplantation genetic screening? Beyond aneuploidy
Hum. Reprod., July 1, 2009; 24(7): 1538 - 1541.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J AndrolHome page
E. Oracova, P. Musilova, O. Kopecna, R. Rybar, M. Vozdova, K. Vesela, and J. Rubes
Sperm and Embryo Analysis in a Carrier of Supernumerary inv dup(15) Marker Chromosome
J Androl, May 1, 2009; 30(3): 233 - 239.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
C. Staessen, W. Verpoest, P. Donoso, P. Haentjens, J. Van der Elst, I. Liebaers, and P. Devroey
Preimplantation genetic screening does not improve delivery rate in women under the age of 36 following single-embryo transfer
Hum. Reprod., December 1, 2008; 23(12): 2818 - 2825.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
S. Mastenbroek, P. Scriven, M. Twisk, S. Viville, F. Van der Veen, and S. Repping
What next for preimplantation genetic screening? More randomized controlled trials needed?
Hum. Reprod., December 1, 2008; 23(12): 2626 - 2628.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
B. C.J.M. Fauser
Preimplantation genetic screening: the end of an affair?
Hum. Reprod., December 1, 2008; 23(12): 2622 - 2625.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
W. Verpoest, B.C. Fauser, E. Papanikolaou, C. Staessen, L. Van Landuyt, P. Donoso, H. Tournaye, I. Liebaers, and P. Devroey
Chromosomal aneuploidy in embryos conceived with unstimulated cycle IVF
Hum. Reprod., October 1, 2008; 23(10): 2369 - 2371.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
N. Ledee, R. Lombroso, L. Lombardelli, J. Selva, S. Dubanchet, G. Chaouat, F. Frankenne, J.M. Foidart, E. Maggi, S. Romagnani, et al.
Cytokines and chemokines in follicular fluids and potential of the corresponding embryo: the role of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor
Hum. Reprod., September 1, 2008; 23(9): 2001 - 2009.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
K. Yakin and B. Urman
What next for preimplantation genetic screening? A clinician's perspective
Hum. Reprod., August 1, 2008; 23(8): 1686 - 1690.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
B.C. Jacod, K.D. Lichtenbelt, G.H. Schuring-Blom, J.S.E. Laven, D. van Opstal, M.J.C. Eijkemans, N.S. Macklon, and on behalf of the IVF-CPM Study Group
Does confined placental mosaicism account for adverse perinatal outcomes in IVF pregnancies?
Hum. Reprod., May 1, 2008; 23(5): 1107 - 1112.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
C. M.H. Combelles
What are the trade-offs between one-cell and two-cell biopsies of preimplantation embryos?
Hum. Reprod., March 1, 2008; 23(3): 493 - 498.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum Reprod UpdateHome page
K. Diedrich, B.C.J.M. Fauser, P. Devroey, G. Griesinger, and on behalf of the Evian Annual Reproduction (EVAR)
The role of the endometrium and embryo in human implantation
Hum. Reprod. Update, July 1, 2007; 13(4): 365 - 377.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
A. Mantzouratou, A. Mania, E. Fragouli, L. Xanthopoulou, S. Tashkandi, K. Fordham, D.M. Ranieri, A. Doshi, S. Nuttall, J.C. Harper, et al.
Variable aneuploidy mechanisms in embryos from couples with poor reproductive histories undergoing preimplantation genetic screening
Hum. Reprod., July 1, 2007; 22(7): 1844 - 1853.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
A. P.A. van Montfoort, A. A.A. Fiddelers, J. A. Land, C. D. Dirksen, J. L. Severens, J. P.M. Geraedts, J. L.H. Evers, and J. C.M. Dumoulin
eSET irrespective of the availability of a good-quality embryo in the first cycle only is not effective in reducing overall twin pregnancy rates
Hum. Reprod., June 1, 2007; 22(6): 1669 - 1674.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
E. B. Baart, E. Martini, M. J. Eijkemans, D. Van Opstal, N. G.M. Beckers, A. Verhoeff, N. S. Macklon, and B. C.J.M. Fauser
Milder ovarian stimulation for in-vitro fertilization reduces aneuploidy in the human preimplantation embryo: a randomized controlled trial
Hum. Reprod., April 1, 2007; 22(4): 980 - 988.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 NEJMHome page
B. J. Van Voorhis
In Vitro Fertilization
N. Engl. J. Med., January 25, 2007; 356(4): 379 - 386.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum Reprod UpdateHome page
P. Donoso, C. Staessen, B.C.J.M. Fauser, and P. Devroey
Current value of preimplantation genetic aneuploidy screening in IVF
Hum. Reprod. Update, January 1, 2007; 13(1): 15 - 25.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
M.J. Lambers, E. Mager, J. Goutbeek, J. McDonnell, R. Homburg, R. Schats, P.G.A. Hompes, and C.B. Lambalk
Factors determining early pregnancy loss in singleton and multiple implantations
Hum. Reprod., January 1, 2007; 22(1): 275 - 279.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
P. Donoso, P. Platteau, E.G. Papanikolaou, C. Staessen, A. Van Steirteghem, and P. Devroey
Does PGD for aneuploidy screening change the selection of embryos derived from testicular sperm extraction in obstructive and non-obstructive azoospermic men?
Hum. Reprod., September 1, 2006; 21(9): 2390 - 2395.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Nucleic Acids ResHome page
C. Le Caignec, C. Spits, K. Sermon, M. De Rycke, B. Thienpont, S. Debrock, C. Staessen, Y. Moreau, J.-P. Fryns, A. Van Steirteghem, et al.
Single-cell chromosomal imbalances detection by array CGH.
Nucleic Acids Res., January 1, 2006; 34(9): e68 - e68.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.