Skip Navigation

Human Reproduction 2008 23(7):1476-1478; doi:10.1093/humrep/den129
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
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 Related articles in Hum. Reprod.
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 arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (5)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jansen, R. P.S.
Right arrow Articles by McArthur, S. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jansen, R. P.S.
Right arrow Articles by McArthur, S. J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. 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@oxfordjournals.org

What next for preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)? Experience with blastocyst biopsy and testing for aneuploidy

Robert P.S. Jansen1, Mark C. Bowman, Kylie A. de Boer, Don A. Leigh, Devora B. Lieberman and Steven J. McArthur

Sydney IVF, 321 Kent Street, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia

1 Correspondence address. Tel: +61-2-9229-6451; E-mail: robert.jansen{at}sydneyivf.com

Blastocysts more commonly have a normal karyotype than cleavage-stage embryos do. Moreover, blastocysts have also made a metabolic transition from catabolism and recycling of the oocyte's reserves and resources, processes that fuel the first 3 days of cleavage. Although not all blastocysts are karyotypically equal, it is still to be determined to what extent a mosaic karyotype might be a normal feature among embryos, both at the cleavage stage and the blastocyst stage—and when looking for karyotypic abnormalities by embryo biopsy might help the chance of implantation rather than harm it. It is also still impractical to look at all the chromosomes that can, through their aneuploidy, stand in the way of successful embryonic and fetal development. We report a randomized clinical trial of blastocyst biopsy followed by preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) for aneuploidy using 5-colour FISH. The trial was suspended and then terminated early when we were unable to show an advantage for PGS. If we are correct in assuming that mitotic non-disjunction is common by the stage of the blastocyst (and that it is much less ominous than meiotic non-disjunction), then further studies of effective PGS of blastocysts for aneuploidy require methods of analysis that cover all the chromosomes and can differentiate the triallelic and monoallelic states of meiotically derived aneuploidies from the biallelic state of mitotic aneuploidies.

Submitted on January 14, 2008; resubmitted on February 15, 2008; accepted on February 29, 2008.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?

Related articles in Hum. Reprod.:

Editor's Choice
André Van Steirteghem
Hum. Reprod. 2008 23: 1475. [Extract] [FREE Full Text]  



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
C. Rubio, C. Gimenez, E. Fernandez, X. Vendrell, E. Velilla, M. Parriego, L. Rodrigo, and for Spanish Interest Group in Preimplantation Gene
The importance of good practice in preimplantation genetic screening: critical viewpoints
Hum. Reprod., August 1, 2009; 24(8): 2045 - 2047.
[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
 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
M. A. Fritz
Perspectives on the efficacy and indications for preimplantation genetic screening: where are we now?
Hum. Reprod., December 1, 2008; 23(12): 2617 - 2621.
[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]


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.