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...
Saved in:
Published in: | Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics 2021-03, Vol.38 (3), p.709-718 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
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
< 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 & 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
< 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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & 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
< 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 |