Nephrogenic diabetes insipidus (DIR) is an X-linked disorder characterized by insensitivity of the distal nephron for the pituitary hormone, vasopressin. The genetic map location of the DIR gene on chromosome Xq28 coincides with the physical map location of the functional vasopressin renal V2-type receptor. Recently, the human and rat cDNAs for the vasopressin V2 receptor (AVPR2) have been identified. We show here that the structural AVPR2 gene is localized between DXS52 and G6PD, which is within the genetic map location of DIR. We also tested eight X-linked DIR probands and their families for mutations in one of the most conserved extracellular regions of AVPR2: in three of them, we have identified point mutations resulting in non-conservative amino acid substitutions which cosegregated with DIR in all families.

on behalf of the BruMaStra PGD working groupThis study provides an overview of 13 years of experience of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) for Huntington's disease (HD) at three European PGD centres in Brussels, Maastricht and Strasbourg. Information on all 331 PGD intakes for HD, couples' reproductive history, PGD approach, treatment cycles and outcomes between 1995 and 2008 were collected prospectively. Of 331 couples for intake, 68% requested direct testing and 32% exclusion testing (with a preponderance of French couples). At the time of PGD intake, 39% of women had experienced one or more pregnancies. A history of pregnancy termination after prenatal diagnosis was observed more frequently in the direct testing group (25%) than in the exclusion group (10%; P¼0.0027). PGD workup was based on two approaches: (1) direct testing of the CAG-triplet repeat and (2) linkage analysis using intragenic or flanking microsatellite markers of the HTT gene. In total, 257 couples had started workup and 174 couples (70% direct testing, 30% exclusion testing) completed at least one PGD cycle. In total, 389 cycles continued to oocyte retrieval (OR). The delivery rates per OR were 19.8%, and per embryo transfer 24.8%, resulting in 77 deliveries and the birth of 90 children. We conclude that PGD is a valuable and safe reproductive option for HD carriers and couples at risk of transmitting HD.

The field of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) is evolving fast and best practice advice is essential for regulation and standardisation of diagnostic testing. The previous ESHRE guidelines on best practice for PGD, published in 2005 and 2011, are considered outdated, and the development of new papers outlining recommendations for good practice in PGT was necessary. The current paper provides recommendations on the technical aspects of PGT for monogenic/single-gene defects (PGT-M) and covers recommendations on basic methods for PGT-M and testing strategies. Furthermore, some specific recommendations are formulated for special cases, including de novo pathogenic variants, consanguineous couples, HLA typing, exclusion testing and disorders caused by pathogenic variants in the mitochondrial DNA. This paper is one of a series of four papers on good practice recommendations on PGT. The other papers cover the organisation of a PGT centre, embryo biopsy and tubing and the technical aspects of PGT for chromosomal structural rearrangements/aneuploidies. Together, these papers should assist scientists interested in PGT in developing the best laboratory and clinical practice possible.

STUDY QUESTION Can reduced representation genome sequencing offer an alternative to single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) arrays as a generic and genome-wide approach for comprehensive preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic disorders (PGT-M), aneuploidy (PGT-A) and structural rearrangements (PGT-SR) in human embryo biopsy samples? SUMMARY ANSWER Reduced representation genome sequencing, with OnePGT, offers a generic, next-generation sequencing-based approach for automated haplotyping and copy-number assessment, both combined or independently, in human single blastomere and trophectoderm samples. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Genome-wide haplotyping strategies, such as karyomapping and haplarithmisis, have paved the way for comprehensive PGT, i.e. leveraging PGT-M, PGT-A and PGT-SR in a single workflow. These methods are based upon SNP array technology. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This multi-centre verification study evaluated the concordance of PGT results for a total of 225 embryos, including 189 originally tested for a monogenic disorder and 36 tested for a translocation. Concordance for whole chromosome aneuploidies was also evaluated where whole genome copy-number reference data were available. Data analysts were kept blind to the results from the reference PGT method. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Leftover blastomere/trophectoderm whole genome amplified (WGA) material was used, or secondary trophectoderm biopsies were WGA. A reduced representation library from WGA DNA together with bulk DNA from phasing references was processed across two study sites with the Agilent OnePGT solution. Libraries were sequenced on an Illumina NextSeq500 system, and data were analysed with Agilent Alissa OnePGT software. The embedded PGT-M pipeline utilises the principles of haplarithmisis to deduce haplotype inheritance whereas both the PGT-A and PGT-SR pipelines are based upon read-count analysis in order to evaluate embryonic ploidy. Concordance analysis was performed for both analysis strategies against the reference PGT method. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE PGT-M analysis was performed on 189 samples. For nine samples, the data quality was too poor to analyse further, and for 20 samples, no result could be obtained mainly due to biological limitations of the haplotyping approach, such as co-localisation of meiotic crossover events and nullisomy for the chromosome of interest. For the remaining 160 samples, 100% concordance was obtained between OnePGT and the reference PGT-M method. Equally for PGT-SR, 100% concordance for all 36 embryos tested was demonstrated. Moreover, with embryos originally analysed for PGT-M or PGT-SR for which genome-wide copy-number reference data were available, 100% concordance was shown for whole chromosome copy-number calls (PGT-A). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Inherent to haplotyping methodologies, processing of additional family members is still required. Biological limitations caused inconclusive results in 10% of cases. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Employment of OnePGT for PGT-M, PGT-SR, PGT-A or combined as comprehensive PGT offers a scalable platform, which is inherently generic and thereby, eliminates the need for family-specific design and optimisation. It can be considered as both an improvement and complement to the current methodologies for PGT. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) Agilent Technologies, the KU Leuven (C1/018 to J.R.V. and T.V.) and the Horizon 2020 WIDENLIFE (692065 to J.R.V. and T.V). H.M. is supported by the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO, 11A7119N). M.Z.E, J.R.V. and T.V. are co-inventors on patent applications: ZL910050-PCT/EP2011/060211- WO/2011/157846 ‘Methods for haplotyping single cells’ and ZL913096-PCT/EP2014/068315 ‘Haplotyping and copy-number typing using polymorphic variant allelic frequencies’. T.V. and J.R.V. are co-inventors on patent application: ZL912076-PCT/EP2013/070858 ‘High-throughput genotyping by sequencing’. Haplarithmisis (‘Haplotyping and copy-number typing using polymorphic variant allelic frequencies’) has been licensed to Agilent Technologies. The following patents are pending for OnePGT: US2016275239, AU2014345516, CA2928013, CN105874081, EP3066213 and WO2015067796. OnePGT is a registered trademark. D.L., J.T. and R.L.R. report personal fees during the conduct of the study and outside the submitted work from Agilent Technologies. S.H. and K.O.F. report personal fees and other during the conduct of the study and outside the submitted work from Agilent Technologies. J.A. reports personal fees and other during the conduct of the study from Agilent Technologies and personal fees from Agilent Technologies and UZ Leuven outside the submitted work. B.D. reports grants from IWT/VLAIO, personal fees during the conduct of the study from Agilent Technologies and personal fees and other outside the submitted work from Agilent Technologies. In addition, B.D. has a patent 20160275239 - Genetic Analysis Method pending. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest.