Skip Navigation


Hum. Reprod. Advance Access originally published online on May 16, 2006
Human Reproduction 2006 21(9):2319-2328; doi:10.1093/humrep/del157
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
21/9/2319    most recent
del157v1
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 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 (23)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fragouli, E.
Right arrow Articles by Delhanty, J.D.A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Fragouli, E.
Right arrow Articles by Delhanty, J.D.A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. 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

Comparative genomic hybridization analysis of human oocytes and polar bodies

E. Fragouli1,6, D. Wells2, A. Thornhill3, P. Serhal4, M.J.W. Faed5, J.C. Harper1 and J.D.A. Delhanty1

1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, UCL Centre for Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis, University College London, London, UK 2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA 3 The London Fertility Centre 4 The Assisted Conception Unit, University College London Hospitals, Eastman Dental Hospital, London and 5 Department of Molecular and Cellular Pathology, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland, UK

6 To whom correspondence should be addressed at: Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, UCL Centre for Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis, 86–96 Chenies Mews, University College London, London, WC1E 6HX, UK. E-mail: efragouli{at}hotmail.com

BACKGROUND: Classical cytogenetic methods and fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) have been employed for the analysis of chromosomal abnormalities in human oocytes. However, these methods are limited by the need to spread the sample on a microscope slide, a process that risks artefactual chromosome loss. Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) is a DNA-based method that enables the investigation of the entire chromosome complement. We optimized and evaluated a CGH protocol for the chromosomal analysis of first polar bodies (PBs) and oocytes. The protocol was then employed to obtain a detailed picture of meiosis I errors in human oogenesis. METHODS: 107 MII oocyte–PB complexes were examined using whole genome amplification (WGA) and CGH. RESULTS: Data was obtained for 100 complexes, donated from 46 patients of average age 32.5 (range 18–42). 22 complexes from 15 patients were abnormal, giving an aneuploidy rate of 22%. CONCLUSIONS: The results presented in this study more than double the quantity of CGH data from female gametes currently available. Abnormalities caused by whole chromosome non-disjunction, unbalanced chromatid predivision and chromosome breakage were reliably identified using the CGH protocol. Analysis of the data revealed a preferential participation of chromosome X and the smaller autosomes in aneuploidy and provided further evidence for the existence of age-independent factors in female aneuploidy.

Key words: aneuploidy/chromosome abnormalities/comparative genomic hybridization/oocyte/polar body


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
 Mol Hum ReprodHome page
D. Wells, S. Alfarawati, and E. Fragouli
Use of comprehensive chromosomal screening for embryo assessment: microarrays and CGH
Mol. Hum. Reprod., December 1, 2008; 14(12): 703 - 710.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
E. Fragouli, M. Lenzi, R. Ross, M. Katz-Jaffe, W.B. Schoolcraft, and D. Wells
Comprehensive molecular cytogenetic analysis of the human blastocyst stage
Hum. Reprod., November 1, 2008; 23(11): 2596 - 2608.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
A. Obradors, E. Fernandez, M. Oliver-Bonet, M. Rius, A. de la Fuente, D. Wells, J. Benet, and J. Navarro
Birth of a healthy boy after a double factor PGD in a couple carrying a genetic disease and at risk for aneuploidy: Case Report
Hum. Reprod., August 1, 2008; 23(8): 1949 - 1956.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ReproductionHome page
T. Hamatani, M. Yamada, H. Akutsu, N. Kuji, Y. Mochimaru, M. Takano, M. Toyoda, K. Miyado, A. Umezawa, and Y. Yoshimura
What can we learn from gene expression profiling of mouse oocytes?
Reproduction, May 1, 2008; 135(5): 581 - 592.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J AndrolHome page
D. T. Carrell
The Clinical Implementation of Sperm Chromosome Aneuploidy Testing: Pitfalls and Promises
J Androl, March 1, 2008; 29(2): 124 - 133.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol Hum ReprodHome page
D.D. Daphnis, E. Fragouli, K. Economou, S. Jerkovic, I.L. Craft, J.D.A. Delhanty, and J.C. Harper
Analysis of the evolution of chromosome abnormalities in human embryos from Day 3 to 5 using CGH and FISH
Mol. Hum. Reprod., February 1, 2008; 14(2): 117 - 125.
[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]


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.