Abstract
Despite an ongoing debate over its efficacy, preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) is increasingly being used to detect numerical chromosomal abnormalities in embryos to improve implantation rates after IVF. The main indications for the use of PGS in IVF treatments include advanced maternal age, repeated implantation failure, and recurrent pregnancy loss. The success of PGS is highly dependent on technical competence, embryo culture quality, and the presence of mosaicism in preimplantation embryos. Today, cleavage stage biopsy is the most commonly used method for screening preimplantation embryos for aneuploidy. However, blastocyst biopsy is rapidly becoming the more preferred method due to a decreased likelihood of mosaicism and an increase in the amount of DNA available for testing. Instead of using 9 to 12 chromosome FISH, a 24 chromosome detection by aCGH or SNP microarray will be used. Thus, it is advised that before attempting to perform PGS and expecting any benefit, extended embryo culture towards day 5/6 should be established and proven and the clinical staff should demonstrate competence with routine competency assessments. A properly designed randomized control trial is needed to test the potential benefits of these new developments.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Handyside AH et al. Pregnancies from biopsied human preimplantation embryos sexed by Y-specific DNA amplification. Nature. 1990;344(6268):768–70.
Verlinsky Y et al. Analysis of the first polar body: preconception genetic diagnosis. Hum Reprod. 1990;5(7):826–9.
Grifo JA et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. In situ hybridization as a tool for analysis. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1992;116(4):393–7.
Xu K et al. First unaffected pregnancy using preimplantation genetic diagnosis for sickle cell anemia. JAMA. 1999;281(18):1701–6.
Munne S et al. Assessment of numeric abnormalities of X, Y, 18, and 16 chromosomes in preimplantation human embryos before transfer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;172(4 Pt 1):1191–9. discussion 1199–201.
Munne S et al. Improved implantation after preimplantation genetic diagnosis of aneuploidy. Reprod Biomed Online. 2003;7(1):91–7.
Verlinsky Y, Kuliev A. Preimplantation diagnosis for diseases with genetic predisposition and nondisease testing. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2002;2(5):509–13.
Verlinsky Y et al. Preimplantation diagnosis for Fanconi anemia combined with HLA matching. JAMA. 2001;285(24):3130–3.
Griffin DK. The incidence, origin, and etiology of aneuploidy. Int Rev Cytol. 1996;167:263–96.
Munne S et al. Maternal age, morphology, development and chromosome abnormalities in over 6000 cleavage-stage embryos. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007;14(5):628–34.
Sandalinas M et al. Developmental ability of chromosomally abnormal human embryos to develop to the blastocyst stage. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(9):1954–8.
Alfarawati S et al. The relationship between blastocyst morphology, chromosomal abnormality, and embryo gender. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(2):520–4.
Li M et al. Fluorescence in situ hybridization reanalysis of day-6 human blastocysts diagnosed with aneuploidy on day 3. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(5):1395–400.
Munne S. Chromosome abnormalities and their relationship to morphology and development of human embryos. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;12(2):234–53.
Baruch S, Kaufman D, Hudson KL. Genetic testing of embryos: practices and perspectives of US in vitro fertilization clinics. Fertil Steril. 2008;89(5):1053–8.
Goossens V et al. ESHRE PGD consortium data collection IX: cycles from January to December 2006 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2007. Hum Reprod. 2009;24(8):1786–810.
Munne S et al. Diagnosis of major chromosome aneuploidies in human preimplantation embryos. Hum Reprod. 1993;8(12):2185–91.
Munne S et al. The use of first polar bodies for preimplantation diagnosis of aneuploidy. Hum Reprod. 1995;10(4):1014–20.
Verlinsky Y et al. Birth of healthy children after preimplantation diagnosis of common aneuploidies by polar body fluorescent in situ hybridization analysis. Preimplantation Genetics Group. Fertil Steril. 1996;66(1):126–9.
Munne S et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis significantly reduces pregnancy loss in infertile couples: a multicenter study. Fertil Steril. 2006;85(2):326–32.
Munne S et al. Positive outcome after preimplantation diagnosis of aneuploidy in human embryos. Hum Reprod. 1999;14(9):2191–9.
Gianaroli L et al. Preimplantation diagnosis for aneuploidies in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization with a poor prognosis: identification of the categories for which it should be proposed. Fertil Steril. 1999;72(5):837–44.
Munne S et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis reduces pregnancy loss in women aged 35 years and older with a history of recurrent miscarriages. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(2):331–5.
Colls P et al. Increased efficiency of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for infertility using “no result rescue”. Fertil Steril. 2007;88(1):53–61.
McArthur SJ et al. Pregnancies and live births after trophectoderm biopsy and preimplantation genetic testing of human blastocysts. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(6):1628–36.
Schoolcraft WB, et al. Clinical application of comprehensive chromosomal screening at the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril. 2009
Adamson D, Baker V. Multiple births from assisted reproductive technologies: a challenge that must be met. Fertil Steril. 2004;81(3):517–22. discussion 526.
Tiitinen A et al. Elective single embryo transfer: the value of cryopreservation. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(6):1140–4.
Dhont M. Single-embryo transfer. Semin Reprod Med. 2001;19(3):251–8.
Varghese AC, Nagy ZP, Agarwal A. Current trends, biological foundations and future prospects of oocyte and embryo cryopreservation. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;19(1):126–40.
Stillman RJ et al. Elective single embryo transfer: a 6-year progressive implementation of 784 single blastocyst transfers and the influence of payment method on patient choice. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(6):1895–906.
Leese B, Denton J. Attitudes towards single embryo transfer, twin and higher order pregnancies in patients undergoing infertility treatment: a review. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2010;13(1):28–34.
Pinborg A et al. Morbidity in a Danish national cohort of 472 IVF/ICSI twins, 1132 non-IVF/ICSI twins and 634 IVF/ICSI singletons: health-related and social implications for the children and their families. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(6):1234–43.
Stromberg B et al. Neurological sequelae in children born after in-vitro fertilisation: a population-based study. Lancet. 2002;359(9305):461–5.
Gelbaya TA, Tsoumpou I, Nardo LG. The likelihood of live birth and multiple birth after single versus double embryo transfer at the cleavage stage: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2009
Munne S et al. Differences in chromosome susceptibility to aneuploidy and survival to first trimester. Reprod Biomed Online. 2004;8(1):81–90.
Silber S et al. Chromosomal abnormalities in embryos derived from testicular sperm extraction. Fertil Steril. 2003;79(1):30–8.
Platteau P et al. Comparison of the aneuploidy frequency in embryos derived from testicular sperm extraction in obstructive and non-obstructive azoospermic men. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(7):1570–4.
Donoso P et al. Does PGD for aneuploidy screening change the selection of embryos derived from testicular sperm extraction in obstructive and non-obstructive azoospermic men? Hum Reprod. 2006;21(9):2390–5.
Munne S et al. Wide range of chromosome abnormalities in the embryos of young egg donors. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;12(3):340–6.
Jones KT. Meiosis in oocytes: predisposition to aneuploidy and its increased incidence with age. Hum Reprod Update. 2008;14(2):143–58.
Oliver TR et al. New insights into human nondisjunction of chromosome 21 in oocytes. PLoS Genet. 2008;4(3):e1000033.
Kuliev A, Verlinsky Y. Current features of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2002;5(3):294–9.
Angell R. First-meiotic-division nondisjunction in human oocytes. Am J Hum Genet. 1997;61(1):23–32.
Hunt PA, Hassold TJ. Sex matters in meiosis. Science. 2002;296(5576):2181–3.
Angell RR. Predivision in human oocytes at meiosis I: a mechanism for trisomy formation in man. Hum Genet. 1991;86(4):383–7.
Vialard F et al. Evidence of a high proportion of premature unbalanced separation of sister chromatids in the first polar bodies of women of advanced age. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(5):1172–8.
Rosenbusch BE, Schneider M. Cytogenetic analysis of human oocytes remaining unfertilized after intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril. 2006;85(2):302–7.
Fragouli E et al. Comparative genomic hybridization analysis of human oocytes and polar bodies. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(9):2319–28.
Dailey T et al. Association between nondisjunction and maternal age in meiosis-II human oocytes. Am J Hum Genet. 1996;59(1):176–84.
Delhanty JD. Mechanisms of aneuploidy induction in human oogenesis and early embryogenesis. Cytogenet Genome Res. 2005;111(3–4):237–44.
Nagy ZP. Sperm centriole disfunction and sperm immotility. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2000;166(1):59–62.
Sathananthan AH et al. Centrioles in the beginning of human development. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1991;88(11):4806–10.
Obasaju M et al. Sperm quality may adversely affect the chromosome constitution of embryos that result from intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril. 1999;72(6):1113–5.
Leduc F, Nkoma GB, Boissonneault G. Spermiogenesis and DNA repair: a possible etiology of human infertility and genetic disorders. Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2008;54(1):3–10.
Munne S et al. Embryo morphology, developmental rates, and maternal age are correlated with chromosome abnormalities. Fertil Steril. 1995;64(2):382–91.
Marquez C et al. Chromosome abnormalities in 1255 cleavage-stage human embryos. Reprod Biomed Online. 2000;1(1):17–26.
Munne S et al. Chromosome mosaicism in human embryos. Biol Reprod. 1994;51(3):373–9.
Wells D et al. First clinical application of comparative genomic hybridization and polar body testing for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of aneuploidy. Fertil Steril. 2002;78(3):543–9.
Voullaire L et al. Chromosome analysis of blastomeres from human embryos by using comparative genomic hybridization. Hum Genet. 2000;106(2):210–7.
Munne S et al. Self-correction of chromosomally abnormal embryos in culture and implications for stem cell production. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(5):1328–34.
Powis Z, Erickson RP. Uniparental disomy and the phenotype of mosaic trisomy 20: a new case and review of the literature. J Appl Genet. 2009;50(3):293–6.
Rieubland C et al. Two cases of trisomy 16 mosaicism ascertained postnatally. Am J Med Genet A. 2009;149A(7):1523–8.
Lightfoot DA et al. The fate of mosaic aneuploid embryos during mouse development. Dev Biol. 2006;289(2):384–94.
Kanka J et al. Identification of differentially expressed mRNAs in bovine preimplantation embryos. Zygote. 2003;11(1):43–52.
Lucifero D, Chaillet JR, Trasler JM. Potential significance of genomic imprinting defects for reproduction and assisted reproductive technology. Hum Reprod Update. 2004;10(1):3–18.
Ledbetter DH, Engel E. Uniparental disomy in humans: development of an imprinting map and its implications for prenatal diagnosis. Hum Mol Genet. 1995;4 Spec No:1757–64.
Coonen E et al. Anaphase lagging mainly explains chromosomal mosaicism in human preimplantation embryos. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(2):316–24.
Spence JE et al. Uniparental disomy as a mechanism for human genetic disease. Am J Hum Genet. 1988;42(2):217–26.
Barbash-Hazan S, et al. Preimplantation aneuploid embryos undergo self-correction in correlation with their developmental potential. Fertil Steril. 2008
Northrop LE et al. SNP microarray-based 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening demonstrates that cleavage-stage FISH poorly predicts aneuploidy in embryos that develop to morphologically normal blastocysts. Mol Hum Reprod. 2010;16(8):590–600.
Fragouli E et al. Comprehensive molecular cytogenetic analysis of the human blastocyst stage. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(11):2596–608.
Weghofer A et al. Lack of association between polycystic ovary syndrome and embryonic aneuploidy. Fertil Steril. 2007;88(4):900–5.
Gogusev J et al. Detection of DNA copy number changes in human endometriosis by comparative genomic hybridization. Hum Genet. 1999;105(5):444–51.
Massie JA et al. Ovarian stimulation and the risk of aneuploid conceptions. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(3):970–2.
Terada Y, et al. Different embryonic development after blastomere biopsy for preimplantation genetic diagnosis, observed by time-lapse imaging. Fertil Steril. 2009
Baart EB et al. Milder ovarian stimulation for in-vitro fertilization reduces aneuploidy in the human preimplantation embryo: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(4):980–8.
Weghofer A, et al. The impact of LH-containing gonadotropin stimulation on euploidy rates in preimplantation embryos: antagonist cycles. Fertil Steril. 2008
Weghofer A et al. The impact of LH-containing gonadotropins on diploidy rates in preimplantation embryos: long protocol stimulation. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(3):499–503.
Chappel SC, Howles C. Reevaluation of the roles of luteinizing hormone and follicle-stimulating hormone in the ovulatory process. Hum Reprod. 1991;6(9):1206–12.
Fleming R et al. Effects of profound suppression of luteinizing hormone during ovarian stimulation on follicular activity, oocyte and embryo function in cycles stimulated with purified follicle stimulating hormone. Hum Reprod. 1998;13(7):1788–92.
Andersen AN, Devroey P, Arce JC. Clinical outcome following stimulation with highly purified hMG or recombinant FSH in patients undergoing IVF: a randomized assessor-blind controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(12):3217–27.
Balasch J et al. Suppression of LH during ovarian stimulation: analysing threshold values and effects on ovarian response and the outcome of assisted reproduction in down-regulated women stimulated with recombinant FSH. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(8):1636–43.
Barrenetxea G et al. Ovarian response and pregnancy outcome in poor-responder women: a randomized controlled trial on the effect of luteinizing hormone supplementation on in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril. 2008;89(3):546–53.
Emery BR et al. In vitro oocyte maturation and subsequent delayed fertilization is associated with increased embryo aneuploidy. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(4):1027–9.
Bielanska M, Tan SL, Ao A. Different probe combinations for assessment of postzygotic chromosomal imbalances in human embryos. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2002;19(4):177–82.
Velilla E, Escudero T, Munne S. Blastomere fixation techniques and risk of misdiagnosis for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of aneuploidy. Reprod Biomed Online. 2002;4(3):210–7.
Joris H et al. Comparison of the results of human embryo biopsy and outcome of PGD after zona drilling using acid Tyrode medium or a laser. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(9):1896–902.
Chatzimeletiou K et al. Comparison of effects of zona drilling by non-contact infrared laser or acid Tyrode’s on the development of human biopsied embryos as revealed by blastomere viability, cytoskeletal analysis and molecular cytogenetics. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;11(6):697–710.
Jones AE et al. Comparison of laser-assisted hatching and acidified Tyrode’s hatching by evaluation of blastocyst development rates in sibling embryos: a prospective randomized trial. Fertil Steril. 2006;85(2):487–91.
Dawson A, Griesinger G, Diedrich K. Screening oocytes by polar body biopsy. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;13(1):104–9.
Hansis C et al. Assessment of beta-HCG, beta-LH mRNA and ploidy in individual human blastomeres. Reprod Biomed Online. 2002;5(2):156–61.
Gardner RL. Experimental analysis of second cleavage in the mouse. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(12):3178–89.
Gardner RL, Davies TJ. The basis and significance of pre-patterning in mammals. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2003;358(1436):1331–8. discussion 1338–9.
Gardner RL, Davies TJ. Is the plane of first cleavage related to the point of sperm entry in the mouse? Reprod Biomed Online. 2003;6(2):157–60.
Goossens V et al. ESHRE PGD consortium data collection VIII: cycles from January to December 2005 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2006. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(12):2629–45.
Harper JC et al. ESHRE PGD consortium data collection X: cycles from January to December 2007 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2008. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(11):2685–707.
Harton GL et al. ESHRE PGD consortium/embryology special interest group–best practice guidelines for polar body and embryo biopsy for preimplantation genetic diagnosis/screening (PGD/PGS). Hum Reprod. 2011;26(1):41–6.
Donoso P, Devroey P. PGD for aneuploidy screening: an expensive hoax? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;21(1):157–68.
Twisk M et al. Preimplantation genetic screening for abnormal number of chromosomes (aneuploidies) in in vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(1):CD005291
Twisk M et al. No beneficial effect of preimplantation genetic screening in women of advanced maternal age with a high risk for embryonic aneuploidy. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(12):2813–7.
Wells D. Embryo aneuploidy and the role of morphological and genetic screening. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;21(3):274–7.
Debrock S, et al. Preimplantation genetic screening for aneuploidy of embryos after in vitro fertilization in women aged at least 35 years: a prospective randomized trial. Fertil Steril. 2009
Checa MA et al. IVF/ICSI with or without preimplantation genetic screening for aneuploidy in couples without genetic disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009;26(5):273–83.
Fritz MA. Perspectives on the efficacy and indications for preimplantation genetic screening: where are we now? Hum Reprod. 2008;23(12):2617–21.
Cohen J, Wells D, Munne S. Removal of 2 cells from cleavage stage embryos is likely to reduce the efficacy of chromosomal tests that are used to enhance implantation rates. Fertil Steril. 2007;87(3):496–503.
Michiels A et al. The analysis of one or two blastomeres for PGD using fluorescence in-situ hybridization. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(9):2396–402.
Goossens V et al. Diagnostic efficiency, embryonic development and clinical outcome after the biopsy of one or two blastomeres for preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(3):481–92.
Harton GL et al. ESHRE PGD consortium best practice guidelines for amplification-based PGD. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(1):33–40.
Harton GL et al. ESHRE PGD consortium best practice guidelines for fluorescence in situ hybridization-based PGD. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(1):25–32.
Kokkali G et al. Blastocyst biopsy versus cleavage stage biopsy and blastocyst transfer for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of beta-thalassaemia: a pilot study. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(5):1443–9.
Schoolcraft WB et al. Clinical application of comprehensive chromosomal screening at the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(5):1700–6.
Magli MC et al. The combination of polar body and embryo biopsy does not affect embryo viability. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(5):1163–9.
DeUgarte CM et al. Accuracy of FISH analysis in predicting chromosomal status in patients undergoing preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(4):1049–54.
Agerholm IE et al. Sequential FISH analysis using competitive displacement of labelled peptide nucleic acid probes for eight chromosomes in human blastomeres. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(4):1072–7.
Gutierrez-Mateo C et al. Karyotyping of human oocytes by cenM-FISH, a new 24-colour centromere-specific technique. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(12):3395–401.
Pellestor F et al. Fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis of human oocytes: advantages of a double-labeling procedure. Fertil Steril. 2004;82(4):919–22.
Yan LY, et al. Application of three-dimensional fluorescence in situ hybridization to human preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Fertil Steril. 2008
Wells D, Alfarawati S, Fragouli E. Use of comprehensive chromosomal screening for embryo assessment: microarrays and CGH. Mol Hum Reprod. 2008;14(12):703–10.
Fragouli E, et al. Comprehensive chromosome screening of polar bodies and blastocysts from couples experiencing repeated implantation failure. Fertil Steril. 2009
Pellestor F et al. Mechanisms of non-disjunction in human female meiosis: the co-existence of two modes of malsegregation evidenced by the karyotyping of 1397 in-vitro unfertilized oocytes. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(8):2134–45.
Sandalinas M, Marquez C, Munne S. Spectral karyotyping of fresh, non-inseminated oocytes. Mol Hum Reprod. 2002;8(6):580–5.
Gutierrez-Mateo C et al. Aneuploidy study of human oocytes first polar body comparative genomic hybridization and metaphase II fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(12):2859–68.
Gutierrez-Mateo C et al. Reliability of comparative genomic hybridization to detect chromosome abnormalities in first polar bodies and metaphase II oocytes. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(9):2118–25.
Wilton L et al. Preimplantation aneuploidy screening using comparative genomic hybridization or fluorescence in situ hybridization of embryos from patients with recurrent implantation failure. Fertil Steril. 2003;80(4):860–8.
Keskintepe L, Sher G, Keskintepe M. Reproductive oocyte/embryo genetic analysis: comparison between fluorescence in-situ hybridization and comparative genomic hybridization. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007;15(3):303–9.
Hellani A et al. Successful pregnancies after application of array-comparative genomic hybridization in PGS-aneuploidy screening. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;17(6):841–7.
Rius M et al. Reliability of short comparative genomic hybridization in fibroblasts and blastomeres for a comprehensive aneuploidy screening: first clinical application. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(7):1824–35.
Gutierrez-Mateo C, et al. Validation of microarray comparative genomic hybridization for comprehensive chromosome analysis of embryos. Fertil Steril. 2010
Handyside AH et al. Karyomapping: a universal method for genome wide analysis of genetic disease based on mapping crossovers between parental haplotypes. J Med Genet. 2010;47(10):651–8.
Treff NR et al. Accurate single cell 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening using whole genome amplification and single nucleotide polymorphism microarrays. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(6):2017–21.
Johnson DS et al. Preclinical validation of a microarray method for full molecular karyotyping of blastomeres in a 24-h protocol. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(4):1066–75.
Bonduelle M et al. Prenatal testing in ICSI pregnancies: incidence of chromosomal anomalies in 1586 karyotypes and relation to sperm parameters. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(10):2600–14.
Sanchez-Castro M et al. Prognostic value of sperm fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis over PGD. Hum Reprod. 2009;24(6):1516–21.
Kuznyetsov V et al. Duplication of the sperm genome by human androgenetic embryo production: towards testing the paternal genome prior to fertilization. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007;14(4):504–14.
Lewis-Jones I et al. Sperm chromosomal abnormalities are linked to sperm morphologic deformities. Fertil Steril. 2003;79(1):212–5.
Dubey A et al. The influence of sperm morphology on preimplantation genetic diagnosis cycles outcome. Fertil Steril. 2008;89(6):1665–9.
Maille L et al. Pronuclear morphology differs between women more than 38 and women less than 30 years of age. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;18(3):367–73.
Gianaroli L et al. Oocyte euploidy, pronuclear zygote morphology and embryo chromosomal complement. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(1):241–9.
Noyes N et al. Embryo biopsy: the fate of abnormal pronuclear embryos. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;17(6):782–8.
Rosenbusch B et al. Cytogenetic analysis of giant oocytes and zygotes to assess their relevance for the development of digynic triploidy. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(9):2388–93.
Edwards RG, Beard HK. Oocyte polarity and cell determination in early mammalian embryos. Mol Hum Reprod. 1997;3(10):863–905.
Balaban B et al. Pronuclear morphology predicts embryo development and chromosome constitution. Reprod Biomed Online. 2004;8(6):695–700.
Munne S, Tomkin G, Cohen J. Selection of embryos by morphology is less effective than by a combination of aneuploidy testing and morphology observations. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(3):943–5.
Holte J et al. Construction of an evidence-based integrated morphology cleavage embryo score for implantation potential of embryos scored and transferred on day 2 after oocyte retrieval. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(2):548–57.
Magli MC et al. Embryo morphology and development are dependent on the chromosomal complement. Fertil Steril. 2007;87(3):534–41.
Moayeri SE et al. Day-3 embryo morphology predicts euploidy among older subjects. Fertil Steril. 2008;89(1):118–23.
McKenzie LJ et al. Nuclear chromosomal localization in human preimplantation embryos: correlation with aneuploidy and embryo morphology. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(10):2231–7.
Harper JC et al. ESHRE PGD consortium data collection V: cycles from January to December 2002 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2003. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(1):3–21.
Harton G et al. ESHRE PGD consortium best practice guidelines for organization of a PGD centre for PGD/preimplantation genetic screening. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(1):14–24.
Basille C et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: state of the art. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009;145(1):9–13.
Thornhill AR, Snow K. Molecular diagnostics in preimplantation genetic diagnosis. J Mol Diagn. 2002;4(1):11–29.
Thornhill AR et al. ESHRE PGD consortium ‘best practice guidelines for clinical preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)’. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(1):35–48.
Guidelines for good practice in PGD: programme requirements and laboratory quality assurance. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;16(1):134–47
Staessen C et al. Preimplantation genetic screening does not improve delivery rate in women under the age of 36 following single-embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(12):2818–25.
Hardarson T et al. Preimplantation genetic screening in women of advanced maternal age caused a decrease in clinical pregnancy rate: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(12):2806–12.
Rubio C et al. The importance of good practice in preimplantation genetic screening: critical viewpoints. Hum Reprod. 2009;24(8):2045–7.
Knoppers BM, Bordet S, Isasi RM. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: an overview of socio-ethical and legal considerations. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2006;7:201–21.
Fasouliotis SJ, Schenker JG. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis principles and ethics. Hum Reprod. 1998;13(8):2238–45.
Collins JA et al. An estimate of the cost of in vitro fertilization services in the United States in 1995. Fertil Steril. 1995;64(3):538–45.
Collins J. Cost-effectiveness of in vitro fertilization. Semin Reprod Med. 2001;19(3):279–89.
Mersereau JE, Plunkett BA, Cedars MI. Preimplantation genetic screening in older women: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(3):592–8.
ACOG Committee Opinion No. 430: preimplantation genetic screening for aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113(3):766–7
Harper J et al. What next for preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)? a position statement from the ESHRE PGD consortium steering committee. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(4):821–3.
Staessen C et al. Comparison of blastocyst transfer with or without preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy screening in couples with advanced maternal age: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(12):2849–58.
Jansen RP et al. What next for preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)? experience with blastocyst biopsy and testing for aneuploidy. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(7):1476–8.
Mastenbroek S et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(1):9–17.
Munne S, Wells D, Cohen J. Technology requirements for preimplantation genetic diagnosis to improve assisted reproduction outcomes. Fertil Steril. 2009
Scott RT, et al. A prospective randomized controlled trial demonstrating significantly increased clinical pregnancy rates following 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening: biopsy and analysis on day 5 with fresh transfer. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(S2)
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by funds from the Cleveland Clinic’s Center for Reproductive Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio. United States.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This work was conducted at the Cleveland Clinic’s Center for Reproductive Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, United States.
Capsule Using PGS to improve live birth rates in IVF treatments may be hindered by factors such as a(n) unqualified technical staff, less than optimal culture media, use of 2-cell biopsy of cleavage-stage embryos, or misdiagnosis (due to mosaicism), and thus hinder IVF treatments.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ly, K.D., Agarwal, A. & Nagy, Z.P. Preimplantation genetic screening: does it help or hinder IVF treatment and what is the role of the embryo?. J Assist Reprod Genet 28, 833–849 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-011-9608-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-011-9608-7