Objective: To determine whether blastocoel fluid (BF) or spent blastocyst medium (SBM) is a suitable template for genotype and/or karyotype assessment of in vitro fertilization-generated embryos. Design: Prospective blinded study. Setting: Genetic laboratory. Patient(s): From 26 patients undergoing preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) treatments, 103 trophectoderms (TE), 92 BF samples, and 72 SBM samples. Intervention(s): The BF and SBM were retrieved at the time of TE biopsy. Two DNA extraction strategies were evaluated on independent BF and SBM samples. Further enrolled samples were processed using next-generation sequencing and quantitative polymerase chain reaction for assessment of monogenic disorders (PGT-M) or aneuploidy (PGT-A). Main Outcome Measure(s): DNA amplification and concordance rates across BF, SBM, and TE to assess diagnostic efficiency. Result(s): No differences were detected among the DNA extraction methods tested. In PGT-M tests, for BF and SBM, 2.9% and 20.8% of all samples, respectively, produced a diagnosis concordant with the corresponding TE (n ¼ 2 of 69 and 15 of 72, respectively). The SBM samples were associated with higher discordance rates and higher artifacts/contamination detection compared with BF. In multiple occasions, the maternal mutated variant was detected in the SBM of homozygous wild-type embryos, showing evidence of maternal DNA persistence in culture medium. In PGT-A tests, BF analysis showed high amplification failure rates (65.2%) and an overall concordance rate of 37.5% among amplified samples. Conclusion(s): Based on current methodologies, BF and SBM genetic analyses do not provide sufficiently reliable results to be employed clinically. Until the risk of maternal contamination can be properly prevented, SBM should not be used for PGT-M purposes. (Fertil Steril Ò 2018;110:870-9. Ó2018 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.) El resumen está disponible en Español al final del artículo.
For an IVF clinic that wishes to implement preimplantation genetic diagnosis for monogenic diseases (PGD) and for aneuploidy testing (PGD-A), a global improvement is required through all the steps of an IVF treatment and patient care. At present, CCS (Comprehensive Chromosome Screening)-based trophectoderm (TE) biopsy has been demonstrated as a safe, accurate and reproducible approach to conduct PGD-A and possibly also PGD from the same biopsy. Key challenges in PGD/PGD-A implementation cover genetic and reproductive counselling, selection of the most efficient approach for blastocyst biopsy as well as of the best performing molecular technique to conduct CCS and monogenic disease analysis. Three different approaches for TE biopsy can be compared. However, among them, the application of TE biopsy approaches, entailing the zona opening when the expanded blastocyst stage is reached, represent the only biopsy methods suited with a totally undisturbed embryo culture strategy (time lapse-based incubation in a single media). Moreover, contemporary CCS technologies show a different spectrum of capabilities and limits that potentially impact the clinical outcomes, the management and the applicability of the PGD-A itself. In general, CCS approaches that avoid the use of whole genome amplification (WGA) can provide higher reliability of results with lower costs and turnaround time of analysis. The future perspectives are focused on the scrupulous and rigorous clinical validations of novel CCS methods based on targeted approaches that avoid the use of WGA, such as targeted next-generation sequencing technology, to further improve the throughput of analysis and the overall cost-effectiveness of PGD/PGD-A.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.