A comparison of NGS and FISH technologies: comprehensive 24-chromosome screening of embryo

  • Yu. V. Gontar
  • O. Yu. Verlynskyi
  • A. Kyrpyi
  • I. E. Ylyn
  • A. M. Fedota
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7124/FEEO.v21.858

Abstract

Aim. Optimization of the algorithm of complex 24 chromosomes screening in programs of assisted reproductive technologies. Methods. Research of non-disjunction chromosomes in preimplantation embryos based on the results of trophectoderm nucleus diagnostics using FISH and NGS-based CCS. During the preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) on the nucleus by FISH were used probes for chromosomes 13, 16, 18, 21, 22, X, Y. Results. Among the demonstrated cases of embryo diagnosis there was only one embryo that showed a coincidence in the results obtained by different investigation methods. In the other sample, where was diagnosed non-mosaic 18 and 22 monosomy by FISH, the NGS-based CCS showed only monosomy 18. The other embryo had ploidy mosaicism indicated by FISH, but according to NGS results it was evaluated as euploid. Conclusions. Еmbryos obtained in ART programs must be screened for chromosomal aneuploidy in the preimplantation period to increase the effectiveness in the programs of assisted reproductive technologies, using combination of FISH and NGS methods.

Keywords: preimplantation genetic diagnosis, assisted reproductive technologies, aneuploid embryos, NGS, FISH.

References

Gardner D., Meseguer M., Rubio C., Treff N. Diagnosis of human preimplantation embryo viability. Hum. Reprod. 2015. V. 21(6). P. 727-747. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmu064

Hens K., Dondorp W., Handyside A., Harper J., Newson A., Pennings G., Rehmann-Sutter C., de Wert G. Dynamics and ethics of comprehensive preimplantation genetic testing: a review of the challenges. Hum. Reprod. 2013. V. 19(4). P. 366-375. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmt009

Treff N. Genome-wide analysis of human preimplantation aneuploidy. Semin. Reprod. Med. 2012. V. 30. P. 283-288. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1313907

Bendus B., Mayer A., Shipley J., Catherino S. Interobserver and intraobserver variation in day 3 embryo grading. Fertil. Steril. 2006. V. 86. P. 1608-1615. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.05.037

Rubio I., Galan A., Larreategui Z., Ayerdi F., Bellver J., Herrero J., Meseguer M. Clinical validation of embryo culture and selection by morphokinetic analysis: a randomized, controlled trial of the EmbryoScope. Fertil. Steril. 2014. V. 102. P. 1287-1294. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.07.738

Gutierrez-Mateo C., Colls P., Sanchez-Garcia J., Escudero T., Prates R., Ketterson K., Wells D., Munne S. Validation of microarray comparative genomic hybridization for comprehensive chromosome analysis of embryos. Fertil. Steril. 2011. V. 95. P. 953-958. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.09.010

Mir P., Rodrigo L., Mercader A., Buendia P., Mateu E., Milan-Sanchez M., Peinado V., Pellicer A., Remohi J. Cet al False positive rate of an arrayCGH platform for single-cell preimplantation genetic screening and subsequent clinical application on day-3. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2013. V. 30. P. 143-149. doi: 10.1007/s10815-012-9918-4

Harton G.L., Magli M.C., Lundin K., Montag M., Lemmen J., Harper J.C. ESHRE PGD Consortium/Embryology Special Interest Group. Best practice guidelines for polar body and embryo biopsy for preimplantation genetic diagnosis/screening (PGD/PGS). Human Reprod. 2010. V. 1. P. 1-8. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deq265

Lichter P., Ried T. Chapter 25. Molecular analysis of chromosome aberrations in situ hybridization. Methods in molecular biology / J.M. Walker (ed.). Totowa, NJ: Humana Press, 2010. V. 29: Chromosome analysis protocols / J.R. Gosden (ed.). P. 449-478. doi: 10.1385/0-89603-289-2:449

Vorsanova S.G., Iurov Iu.B., Chernyshov V.N. Meditsinskaia tsitogenetika. Moskva, 2006. P. 219-222. [in Russian]

Taylor T., Gitlin S., Patrick J., Crain J., Wilson J., Griffin D. The origin, mechanisms, incidence and clinical consequences of chromosomal mosaicism in humans. Hum. Reprod. 2014. V. 20. P. 571-581. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmu016