Skip Navigation


Hum. Reprod. Advance Access originally published online on April 4, 2009
Human Reproduction 2009 24(7):1538-1541; doi:10.1093/humrep/dep078
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF )
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
24/7/1538    most recent
dep078v1
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 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 Hernández, E. R.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hernández, E. R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. 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

DEBATE CONTINUED

What next for preimplantation genetic screening? Beyond aneuploidy

Eleuterio R. Hernández1

Clínica de Ginecología y Medicina de la Reproducción "FivMadrid", Madrid, Spain

1 Correspondence address. E-mail: ehernandezm{at}fivmadrid.es

Many published papers suggest a favourable impact of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) on implantation and pregnancy rates, but more recent randomized studies have not confirmed, or could not conclude, that PGS actually improved implantation rates. Team inexperience in embryo screening has been mentioned as the origin of the discrepancies; thus some clinicians allege a need for more powerful, well-designed, randomized studies performed by specialized teams. However, what if all the contradictory results about the benefits of PGS and implantation were not due to technical problems or team specialization but were biological in origin? The developmental programme of an eight-cell embryo relies on signals of maternal origin retrieved from the cytoplasm to initiate a new transcriptional network that will eventually serve as a filter (checkpoints and apoptosis) for aneuploidy. Thus, the use of PGS with the objective of improving the likelihood of a successful pregnancy based only on nuclear abnormalities (aneuploidies) in an early cleavage stage embryo could be invalid since the information (diagnosis) obtained at the moment of biopsy could be overturned by the transcriptional machinery of the new zygote genome.

Key words: preimplantation genetic screening/embryo screening/aneuploidies/checkpoints and apoptosis

Submitted on January 31, 2009; resubmitted on March 6, 2009; accepted on March 11, 2009.


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. 2009 24: 1531. [Extract] [Full Text]  





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.