Loading…

Evaluation of chromosomal abnormalities from preimplantation genetic testing to the reproductive outcomes: a comparison between three different structural rearrangements based on next-generation sequencing

Purpose The aim of this study was to determine factors affecting the chromosome imbalance in blastocysts and reproductive outcomes by a comparison between the reciprocal translocation (REC), inversion (INV), and Robertsonian translocation (ROB) carriers. Methods Couples with one partner carrying tra...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics 2021-03, Vol.38 (3), p.709-718
Main Authors: Yuan, Ping, Zheng, Lingyan, Ou, Songbang, Zhao, Haijing, Li, Ruiqi, Luo, HongJiao, Tan, Xin, Zhang, Qingxue, Wang, Wenjun
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-b323a238840658266ffac708322bdbc34f8aaa214cdaed81e274e50af5080e63
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-b323a238840658266ffac708322bdbc34f8aaa214cdaed81e274e50af5080e63
container_end_page 718
container_issue 3
container_start_page 709
container_title Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics
container_volume 38
creator Yuan, Ping
Zheng, Lingyan
Ou, Songbang
Zhao, Haijing
Li, Ruiqi
Luo, HongJiao
Tan, Xin
Zhang, Qingxue
Wang, Wenjun
description Purpose The aim of this study was to determine factors affecting the chromosome imbalance in blastocysts and reproductive outcomes by a comparison between the reciprocal translocation (REC), inversion (INV), and Robertsonian translocation (ROB) carriers. Methods Couples with one partner carrying translocation or inversion underwent preimplantation genetic testing for chromosomal structural rearrangement (PGT-SR) cycles, including 215 PGT-SR cycles performed in subsequent 164 frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles and 61 prenatal diagnoses of fetuses and 59 normal live birth babies. A total of 899 samples were processed by whole-genome amplification followed by next-generation sequencing (NGS). Karyotype and chromosome microarray analyses were used to confirm the PGT results from the amniotic fluid samples. Results A total of 843 blastocysts from 124 REC, 21 INV, and 35 ROB carriers were diagnosed by PGT-SR. The percentage of unbalanced blastocysts was significantly higher in REC than in INV and ROB carriers (64.31% vs. 28.05% vs. 37.02%). Stratification analysis of female carrier age and gonadotropin doses showed no significant increase in unbalanced chromosomal abnormalities in the three groups. Also, the different breakpoints in chromosomal arms did not affect the rate of unbalanced chromosomes in the embryos. Logistic regression indicated blastocyst quality as a statistically significant risk factor associated with unbalanced chromosomal abnormalities from translocation carriers ( P < 0.001). The source of abnormalities in the three groups showed significant differences such that the abnormalities in REC mostly originated from parental translocation but the abnormalities in INV were mainly de novo variations. 164 blastocysts were transferred, and there were no significant differences in the clinical pregnancy rate and miscarriage rate. A total of 59 healthy babies were born, and there were no significant differences in the gender ratio and birth height, except the birth weight of boys between INV and ROB groups ( P = 0.02). The results of amniocentesis revealed that more fetuses have normal chromosomal karyotypes than balanced carriers, particularly in the REC group. Conclusions Reciprocal translocation carriers have more risk of unbalanced rearrangement, but embryonic chromosome abnormalities of inversion carriers come mainly from de novo variations. This is the first study specifically comparing three different PGT-SRs using the NGS method and evaluatin
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s10815-020-02053-5
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7910334</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2493707298</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-b323a238840658266ffac708322bdbc34f8aaa214cdaed81e274e50af5080e63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UsuO1TAMrRCIecAPsECR2LApuEnbpCyQ0GgGkEZiM_soTd17M2qTkqQX-Ej-CV86DI8FUqJY8jn2sXOK4lkFryoA-TpVoKqmBA7H24iyeVCcVo0UpRQCHlIMjSqhbtVJcZbSLQB0iovHxYkQNXSyEafF98uDmVaTXfAsjMzuY5hDCrOZmOl9iBS47DCxkRJsiejmZTI-b4wdeszOsowpO79jObC8RxZxiWFYbXYHZGHNNsyY3jDDKFhMdImoPeYviJ7wEZENbhwxos8s5UjENZKAiCZG43c4UyKx3iQcGFE9fs3lsXXcVCT8vKK3JOBJ8Wg0U8Knd-95cXN1eXPxobz-9P7jxbvr0tayzmUvuDBcKFVD2yjetuNorAQlOO-H3op6VMYYXtV2MDioCrmssQEzNqAAW3FevN3KLms_42BJHunVS3Szid90ME7_nfFur3fhoGVXAe2eCry8KxADaU9Zzy5ZnGizGNakeS3bind0CPriH-htWKOn6QjVCQmSd4pQfEPZGFKKON6LqUAfzaI3s2gyiv5pFt0Q6fmfY9xTfrmDAGIDJErRP8Tfvf9T9gd0mtLR</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2493707298</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluation of chromosomal abnormalities from preimplantation genetic testing to the reproductive outcomes: a comparison between three different structural rearrangements based on next-generation sequencing</title><source>Open Access: PubMed Central</source><source>Springer Link</source><creator>Yuan, Ping ; Zheng, Lingyan ; Ou, Songbang ; Zhao, Haijing ; Li, Ruiqi ; Luo, HongJiao ; Tan, Xin ; Zhang, Qingxue ; Wang, Wenjun</creator><creatorcontrib>Yuan, Ping ; Zheng, Lingyan ; Ou, Songbang ; Zhao, Haijing ; Li, Ruiqi ; Luo, HongJiao ; Tan, Xin ; Zhang, Qingxue ; Wang, Wenjun</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose The aim of this study was to determine factors affecting the chromosome imbalance in blastocysts and reproductive outcomes by a comparison between the reciprocal translocation (REC), inversion (INV), and Robertsonian translocation (ROB) carriers. Methods Couples with one partner carrying translocation or inversion underwent preimplantation genetic testing for chromosomal structural rearrangement (PGT-SR) cycles, including 215 PGT-SR cycles performed in subsequent 164 frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles and 61 prenatal diagnoses of fetuses and 59 normal live birth babies. A total of 899 samples were processed by whole-genome amplification followed by next-generation sequencing (NGS). Karyotype and chromosome microarray analyses were used to confirm the PGT results from the amniotic fluid samples. Results A total of 843 blastocysts from 124 REC, 21 INV, and 35 ROB carriers were diagnosed by PGT-SR. The percentage of unbalanced blastocysts was significantly higher in REC than in INV and ROB carriers (64.31% vs. 28.05% vs. 37.02%). Stratification analysis of female carrier age and gonadotropin doses showed no significant increase in unbalanced chromosomal abnormalities in the three groups. Also, the different breakpoints in chromosomal arms did not affect the rate of unbalanced chromosomes in the embryos. Logistic regression indicated blastocyst quality as a statistically significant risk factor associated with unbalanced chromosomal abnormalities from translocation carriers ( P &lt; 0.001). The source of abnormalities in the three groups showed significant differences such that the abnormalities in REC mostly originated from parental translocation but the abnormalities in INV were mainly de novo variations. 164 blastocysts were transferred, and there were no significant differences in the clinical pregnancy rate and miscarriage rate. A total of 59 healthy babies were born, and there were no significant differences in the gender ratio and birth height, except the birth weight of boys between INV and ROB groups ( P = 0.02). The results of amniocentesis revealed that more fetuses have normal chromosomal karyotypes than balanced carriers, particularly in the REC group. Conclusions Reciprocal translocation carriers have more risk of unbalanced rearrangement, but embryonic chromosome abnormalities of inversion carriers come mainly from de novo variations. This is the first study specifically comparing three different PGT-SRs using the NGS method and evaluating their reproductive outcomes. Our findings will provide the reciprocal translocation, inversion, and Robertsonian translocation carrier couples with more accurate genetic counseling on the reproductive risk of chromosomal imbalance.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1058-0468</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-7330</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10815-020-02053-5</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33409753</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Adult ; Amniocentesis ; Amniotic fluid ; Birth weight ; Blastocysts ; Breakpoints ; Chromosome aberrations ; Chromosome Disorders - diagnosis ; Chromosome Disorders - genetics ; Chromosomes ; Chromosomes, Human - chemistry ; Chromosomes, Human - genetics ; Embryo Transfer ; Embryos ; Female ; Fertilization in Vitro - methods ; Fetuses ; Genetic counseling ; Genetic screening ; Genetic Testing - methods ; Genetics ; Genomes ; Gonadotropins ; Gynecology ; High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing - methods ; Human Genetics ; Humans ; Inversion ; Karyotypes ; Male ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Next-generation sequencing ; Pituitary (anterior) ; Pregnancy ; Pregnancy Outcome ; Pregnancy Rate ; Preimplantation Diagnosis - methods ; Reproductive Medicine ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk factors ; Robertsonian translocation ; Statistical analysis</subject><ispartof>Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2021-03, Vol.38 (3), p.709-718</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC part of Springer Nature 2021</rights><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC part of Springer Nature 2021.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-b323a238840658266ffac708322bdbc34f8aaa214cdaed81e274e50af5080e63</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-b323a238840658266ffac708322bdbc34f8aaa214cdaed81e274e50af5080e63</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-2384-6653</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7910334/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7910334/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33409753$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Yuan, Ping</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zheng, Lingyan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ou, Songbang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhao, Haijing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Ruiqi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Luo, HongJiao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tan, Xin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Qingxue</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Wenjun</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluation of chromosomal abnormalities from preimplantation genetic testing to the reproductive outcomes: a comparison between three different structural rearrangements based on next-generation sequencing</title><title>Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics</title><addtitle>J Assist Reprod Genet</addtitle><addtitle>J Assist Reprod Genet</addtitle><description>Purpose The aim of this study was to determine factors affecting the chromosome imbalance in blastocysts and reproductive outcomes by a comparison between the reciprocal translocation (REC), inversion (INV), and Robertsonian translocation (ROB) carriers. Methods Couples with one partner carrying translocation or inversion underwent preimplantation genetic testing for chromosomal structural rearrangement (PGT-SR) cycles, including 215 PGT-SR cycles performed in subsequent 164 frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles and 61 prenatal diagnoses of fetuses and 59 normal live birth babies. A total of 899 samples were processed by whole-genome amplification followed by next-generation sequencing (NGS). Karyotype and chromosome microarray analyses were used to confirm the PGT results from the amniotic fluid samples. Results A total of 843 blastocysts from 124 REC, 21 INV, and 35 ROB carriers were diagnosed by PGT-SR. The percentage of unbalanced blastocysts was significantly higher in REC than in INV and ROB carriers (64.31% vs. 28.05% vs. 37.02%). Stratification analysis of female carrier age and gonadotropin doses showed no significant increase in unbalanced chromosomal abnormalities in the three groups. Also, the different breakpoints in chromosomal arms did not affect the rate of unbalanced chromosomes in the embryos. Logistic regression indicated blastocyst quality as a statistically significant risk factor associated with unbalanced chromosomal abnormalities from translocation carriers ( P &lt; 0.001). The source of abnormalities in the three groups showed significant differences such that the abnormalities in REC mostly originated from parental translocation but the abnormalities in INV were mainly de novo variations. 164 blastocysts were transferred, and there were no significant differences in the clinical pregnancy rate and miscarriage rate. A total of 59 healthy babies were born, and there were no significant differences in the gender ratio and birth height, except the birth weight of boys between INV and ROB groups ( P = 0.02). The results of amniocentesis revealed that more fetuses have normal chromosomal karyotypes than balanced carriers, particularly in the REC group. Conclusions Reciprocal translocation carriers have more risk of unbalanced rearrangement, but embryonic chromosome abnormalities of inversion carriers come mainly from de novo variations. This is the first study specifically comparing three different PGT-SRs using the NGS method and evaluating their reproductive outcomes. Our findings will provide the reciprocal translocation, inversion, and Robertsonian translocation carrier couples with more accurate genetic counseling on the reproductive risk of chromosomal imbalance.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Amniocentesis</subject><subject>Amniotic fluid</subject><subject>Birth weight</subject><subject>Blastocysts</subject><subject>Breakpoints</subject><subject>Chromosome aberrations</subject><subject>Chromosome Disorders - diagnosis</subject><subject>Chromosome Disorders - genetics</subject><subject>Chromosomes</subject><subject>Chromosomes, Human - chemistry</subject><subject>Chromosomes, Human - genetics</subject><subject>Embryo Transfer</subject><subject>Embryos</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fertilization in Vitro - methods</subject><subject>Fetuses</subject><subject>Genetic counseling</subject><subject>Genetic screening</subject><subject>Genetic Testing - methods</subject><subject>Genetics</subject><subject>Genomes</subject><subject>Gonadotropins</subject><subject>Gynecology</subject><subject>High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing - methods</subject><subject>Human Genetics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Inversion</subject><subject>Karyotypes</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Next-generation sequencing</subject><subject>Pituitary (anterior)</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Pregnancy Outcome</subject><subject>Pregnancy Rate</subject><subject>Preimplantation Diagnosis - methods</subject><subject>Reproductive Medicine</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Risk factors</subject><subject>Robertsonian translocation</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><issn>1058-0468</issn><issn>1573-7330</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9UsuO1TAMrRCIecAPsECR2LApuEnbpCyQ0GgGkEZiM_soTd17M2qTkqQX-Ej-CV86DI8FUqJY8jn2sXOK4lkFryoA-TpVoKqmBA7H24iyeVCcVo0UpRQCHlIMjSqhbtVJcZbSLQB0iovHxYkQNXSyEafF98uDmVaTXfAsjMzuY5hDCrOZmOl9iBS47DCxkRJsiejmZTI-b4wdeszOsowpO79jObC8RxZxiWFYbXYHZGHNNsyY3jDDKFhMdImoPeYviJ7wEZENbhwxos8s5UjENZKAiCZG43c4UyKx3iQcGFE9fs3lsXXcVCT8vKK3JOBJ8Wg0U8Knd-95cXN1eXPxobz-9P7jxbvr0tayzmUvuDBcKFVD2yjetuNorAQlOO-H3op6VMYYXtV2MDioCrmssQEzNqAAW3FevN3KLms_42BJHunVS3Szid90ME7_nfFur3fhoGVXAe2eCry8KxADaU9Zzy5ZnGizGNakeS3bind0CPriH-htWKOn6QjVCQmSd4pQfEPZGFKKON6LqUAfzaI3s2gyiv5pFt0Q6fmfY9xTfrmDAGIDJErRP8Tfvf9T9gd0mtLR</recordid><startdate>20210301</startdate><enddate>20210301</enddate><creator>Yuan, Ping</creator><creator>Zheng, Lingyan</creator><creator>Ou, Songbang</creator><creator>Zhao, Haijing</creator><creator>Li, Ruiqi</creator><creator>Luo, HongJiao</creator><creator>Tan, Xin</creator><creator>Zhang, Qingxue</creator><creator>Wang, Wenjun</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2384-6653</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210301</creationdate><title>Evaluation of chromosomal abnormalities from preimplantation genetic testing to the reproductive outcomes: a comparison between three different structural rearrangements based on next-generation sequencing</title><author>Yuan, Ping ; Zheng, Lingyan ; Ou, Songbang ; Zhao, Haijing ; Li, Ruiqi ; Luo, HongJiao ; Tan, Xin ; Zhang, Qingxue ; Wang, Wenjun</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-b323a238840658266ffac708322bdbc34f8aaa214cdaed81e274e50af5080e63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Amniocentesis</topic><topic>Amniotic fluid</topic><topic>Birth weight</topic><topic>Blastocysts</topic><topic>Breakpoints</topic><topic>Chromosome aberrations</topic><topic>Chromosome Disorders - diagnosis</topic><topic>Chromosome Disorders - genetics</topic><topic>Chromosomes</topic><topic>Chromosomes, Human - chemistry</topic><topic>Chromosomes, Human - genetics</topic><topic>Embryo Transfer</topic><topic>Embryos</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fertilization in Vitro - methods</topic><topic>Fetuses</topic><topic>Genetic counseling</topic><topic>Genetic screening</topic><topic>Genetic Testing - methods</topic><topic>Genetics</topic><topic>Genomes</topic><topic>Gonadotropins</topic><topic>Gynecology</topic><topic>High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing - methods</topic><topic>Human Genetics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Inversion</topic><topic>Karyotypes</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Next-generation sequencing</topic><topic>Pituitary (anterior)</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Pregnancy Outcome</topic><topic>Pregnancy Rate</topic><topic>Preimplantation Diagnosis - methods</topic><topic>Reproductive Medicine</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Risk factors</topic><topic>Robertsonian translocation</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Yuan, Ping</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zheng, Lingyan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ou, Songbang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhao, Haijing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Ruiqi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Luo, HongJiao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tan, Xin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Qingxue</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Wenjun</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Journals</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Yuan, Ping</au><au>Zheng, Lingyan</au><au>Ou, Songbang</au><au>Zhao, Haijing</au><au>Li, Ruiqi</au><au>Luo, HongJiao</au><au>Tan, Xin</au><au>Zhang, Qingxue</au><au>Wang, Wenjun</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluation of chromosomal abnormalities from preimplantation genetic testing to the reproductive outcomes: a comparison between three different structural rearrangements based on next-generation sequencing</atitle><jtitle>Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics</jtitle><stitle>J Assist Reprod Genet</stitle><addtitle>J Assist Reprod Genet</addtitle><date>2021-03-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>38</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>709</spage><epage>718</epage><pages>709-718</pages><issn>1058-0468</issn><eissn>1573-7330</eissn><abstract>Purpose The aim of this study was to determine factors affecting the chromosome imbalance in blastocysts and reproductive outcomes by a comparison between the reciprocal translocation (REC), inversion (INV), and Robertsonian translocation (ROB) carriers. Methods Couples with one partner carrying translocation or inversion underwent preimplantation genetic testing for chromosomal structural rearrangement (PGT-SR) cycles, including 215 PGT-SR cycles performed in subsequent 164 frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles and 61 prenatal diagnoses of fetuses and 59 normal live birth babies. A total of 899 samples were processed by whole-genome amplification followed by next-generation sequencing (NGS). Karyotype and chromosome microarray analyses were used to confirm the PGT results from the amniotic fluid samples. Results A total of 843 blastocysts from 124 REC, 21 INV, and 35 ROB carriers were diagnosed by PGT-SR. The percentage of unbalanced blastocysts was significantly higher in REC than in INV and ROB carriers (64.31% vs. 28.05% vs. 37.02%). Stratification analysis of female carrier age and gonadotropin doses showed no significant increase in unbalanced chromosomal abnormalities in the three groups. Also, the different breakpoints in chromosomal arms did not affect the rate of unbalanced chromosomes in the embryos. Logistic regression indicated blastocyst quality as a statistically significant risk factor associated with unbalanced chromosomal abnormalities from translocation carriers ( P &lt; 0.001). The source of abnormalities in the three groups showed significant differences such that the abnormalities in REC mostly originated from parental translocation but the abnormalities in INV were mainly de novo variations. 164 blastocysts were transferred, and there were no significant differences in the clinical pregnancy rate and miscarriage rate. A total of 59 healthy babies were born, and there were no significant differences in the gender ratio and birth height, except the birth weight of boys between INV and ROB groups ( P = 0.02). The results of amniocentesis revealed that more fetuses have normal chromosomal karyotypes than balanced carriers, particularly in the REC group. Conclusions Reciprocal translocation carriers have more risk of unbalanced rearrangement, but embryonic chromosome abnormalities of inversion carriers come mainly from de novo variations. This is the first study specifically comparing three different PGT-SRs using the NGS method and evaluating their reproductive outcomes. Our findings will provide the reciprocal translocation, inversion, and Robertsonian translocation carrier couples with more accurate genetic counseling on the reproductive risk of chromosomal imbalance.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>33409753</pmid><doi>10.1007/s10815-020-02053-5</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2384-6653</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1058-0468
ispartof Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2021-03, Vol.38 (3), p.709-718
issn 1058-0468
1573-7330
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7910334
source Open Access: PubMed Central; Springer Link
subjects Adult
Amniocentesis
Amniotic fluid
Birth weight
Blastocysts
Breakpoints
Chromosome aberrations
Chromosome Disorders - diagnosis
Chromosome Disorders - genetics
Chromosomes
Chromosomes, Human - chemistry
Chromosomes, Human - genetics
Embryo Transfer
Embryos
Female
Fertilization in Vitro - methods
Fetuses
Genetic counseling
Genetic screening
Genetic Testing - methods
Genetics
Genomes
Gonadotropins
Gynecology
High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing - methods
Human Genetics
Humans
Inversion
Karyotypes
Male
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Next-generation sequencing
Pituitary (anterior)
Pregnancy
Pregnancy Outcome
Pregnancy Rate
Preimplantation Diagnosis - methods
Reproductive Medicine
Retrospective Studies
Risk factors
Robertsonian translocation
Statistical analysis
title Evaluation of chromosomal abnormalities from preimplantation genetic testing to the reproductive outcomes: a comparison between three different structural rearrangements based on next-generation sequencing
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T14%3A42%3A25IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluation%20of%20chromosomal%20abnormalities%20from%20preimplantation%20genetic%20testing%20to%20the%20reproductive%20outcomes:%20a%20comparison%20between%20three%20different%20structural%20rearrangements%20based%20on%20next-generation%20sequencing&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20assisted%20reproduction%20and%20genetics&rft.au=Yuan,%20Ping&rft.date=2021-03-01&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=709&rft.epage=718&rft.pages=709-718&rft.issn=1058-0468&rft.eissn=1573-7330&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10815-020-02053-5&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2493707298%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-b323a238840658266ffac708322bdbc34f8aaa214cdaed81e274e50af5080e63%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2493707298&rft_id=info:pmid/33409753&rfr_iscdi=true