International Journal of Infertility & Fetal Medicine

Register      Login

VOLUME 1 , ISSUE 1 ( September-December, 2010 ) > List of Articles


Role of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) in Current Infertility Practice

Helen Ghislaine Tempest, Joe Leigh Simpson

Citation Information : Tempest HG, Simpson JL. Role of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) in Current Infertility Practice. Int J Infertil Fetal Med 2010; 1 (1):1-10.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10016-1001

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-04-2013

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2010; The Author(s).


Chromosome imbalances are the leading cause of pregnancy loss in humans and play major roles in male and female infertility. Within the past two decades, the development and application of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) has played an important role in infertility practices worldwide. The purpose of this review is to discuss, how PGD may be applied in combating numerical chromosomal abnormalities and in Robertsonian and reciprocal chromosome translocations. We shall consider prevalence and risk of each aberration, interchromosomal effects and rationale behind use of PGD in each case. Numerical chromosome abnormalities (aneuploidy and polyploidy) in particular affect a very high proportion of preimplantation embryos (~ 50%). Given that a majority of preimplantation embryos are aneuploid, PGD can be used to screen embryos and transfer euploid embryos to improve pregnancy rates and reduce spontaneous abortions. The rationale of utilize PGD to transfer only euploid embryos would seem sound, but controversies exist surrounding application of PGD for aneuploidy detection. To this end, we will discuss the dichotomy between favorable descriptive reports and less favorable randomized clinical trial data. This review will discuss the trend towards differing sources of embryonic DNA (e.g. polar body vs blastomere vs blastocyst) as well as development of novel technologies for 24 chromosomes analysis.

PDF Share
  1. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis at 20 years. Prenat Diagn 2010;30:682-95.
  2. Early Pregnancy Loss. In: Kovacs G (Ed). The subfertility handbook: A Clinician's guide (2nd ed). London: Cambridge University Press, in press.
  3. Genetic analysis of sperm and implications of severe male infertility: A review. Placenta 2003;24:S62-S65.
  4. Translocations are infrequent among couples having repeated spontaneous abortions but no other abnormal pregnancies. Fertil Steril 1989;51:811-14.
  5. Prenatal genetic diagnosis. in: Gabbe SA, Niebyl JF, Simpson JL (Eds). Obstetrics: Normal and problem pregnancies (5th ed). New York: Churchill-Livingstone 2007;152-83.
  6. Risks of unbalanced progeny at amniocentesis to carriers of chromosome rearrangements: Data from United States and Canadian laboratories. Am J Med Genet 1989;33:14-53.
  7. Meiotic recombination errors, the origin of sperm aneuploidy and clinical recommendations: A review. Syst Biol Reprod Med 2010;56:1-11.
  8. Cytogenetic determinants of male fertility. Hum Reprod Update 2008;14:379-90.
  9. Infertile couples with Robertsonian translocations: Preimplantation genetic analysis of embryos reveals chaotic cleavage divisions. Hum Genet 1998;102:117-23.
  10. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for couples at high-risk of Down syndrome pregnancy owing to parental translocation or mosaicism. J Med Genet 1999;36:45-50.
  11. Possible interchromosomal effect in embryos generated by gametes from translocation carriers. Hum Reprod 2002;17:3201-07.
  12. Robertsonian translocations: Reproductive risks and indications for preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Hum Reprod 2001;16:2267-73.
  13. A negligible interchromosomal effect in embryos of Robertsonian translocation carriers. Reprod Biomed Online 2005;10:363-69.
  14. Clinical relevance of diagnosing structural chromosome abnormalities in couples with repeated miscarriage. Hum Reprod 2004;19:1013-17.
  15. Poor prognosis of recurrent aborters with either maternal or paternal reciprocal translocation. Fertil Steril 2004;81:367-73.
  16. Reproductive outcomes in recurrent pregnancy loss associated with a parental carrier of a structural chromosome rearrangement. Hum Reprod 2006;21:1076-82.
  17. Reply of the Committee: Parental translocations and need for preimplantation genetic diagnosis? Distorting effects of ascertainment bias and information need for rich families. Fertil Steril 2008;90:892-93.
  18. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis significantly improves the pregnancy outcome of translocation carriers with a history of recurrent miscarriage and unsuccessful pregnancies. Reprod Biomed Online. Reprod Biomed Online 2006;13:879-94.
  19. Spontaneous abortions are reduced after preconception diagnosis of translocations. J Assist Reprod Genet 1998;15:290-96.
  20. Outcome of preimplantation genetic diagnosis of translocation. Fertil Steril 2000;73:1209-18.
  21. Preimplantation genetic analysis of translocations case-specific probes for interphase cell analysis. Hum Genet 1998;102:663-74.
  22. A simplified and efficient method for obtaining metaphase chromosomes from individual human blastomeres. Fertil Steril 1999;72:1127-33.
  23. Nuclear transfer for full karyotyping and preimplantation diagnosis for translocations. Reprod BioMed Online 2002;5:300-05.
  24. Rapid visualization of metaphase chromosomes in single human blastomeres after fusion with invitro matured bovine eggs. Hum. Reprod 1999;14:470-74.
  25. Conversion and nonconversion approach to preimplantation diagnosis for chromosomal rearrangements in 475 cycles. Reprod Biomed Online 2010;21:93-99.
  26. Obtaining metaphase spreads from single blastomeres for PGD of chromosomal rearrangements. Reprod Biomed Online 2007;14:498-503.
  27. The application of a molecular strategy using STR for routine PGD in both reciprocal and Robertsonian translocation carriers. Ninth international conference on preimplantation genetics, Miami, Florida, April 23 to 25. Reprod Biomed Online 2009;18:S10.
  28. Tomkin G, Gripo J, Cohen J. Embryo morphology, development rates, and maternal are correlated with chromosome abnormalities. Fertil Steril 1995;64:382.
  29. Aneuploidy frequencies in semen fractions from ten oligoasthenoteratozoospermic patients donating sperm for intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril 1999;72(3):472-78.
  30. The incidence of aneuploidy in human oocytes assessed by conventional cytogenetic analysis. Hereditas 2004;141:97-105.
  31. Increased efficiency of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy by testing 12 chromosomes. Reprod Biomed Online Oct 2009;19:532-38.
  32. Improved detection of aneuploid blastocysts using a new 12 chromosomes FISH test. Reprod Biomed Online 2010;20:92-97.
  33. Does the karyotype of a spontaneous abortion predict the karyotype of a subsequent abortion? Evidence from 273 women with two karyotyped spontaneous abortions. Am J Hum Genet 1987;41:465-83.
  34. Trisomy recurrence: A reconsideration based on North American data. Am J, Hum Genet 2004;75:376-85.
  35. Chromosomal abnormalities and embryo development in recurrent miscarriage couples. Hum Reprod 2003;18:182-88.
  36. Preimplantation diagnosis for aneuploidies in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization with poor prognosis: Identification of the categories to which it should be proposed. Fertil Steril. Fertil Steril 1999;72:837-44.
  37. Positive outcome after preimplantation diagnosis of aneuploidy in human embryos. Hum Reprod 1999;14:2191-99.
  38. Preimplantation testing for chromosomal disorders improves reproductive outcome of poor-prognosis patients. Reprod Biomed Online 2005;11:219-25.
  39. PGD and its role in ART. In: Brinsden P (Ed). Textbook of IVF and assisted reproduction (3rd ed), London (UK): Parthenon publishing group 2005.
  40. A longitudinal study of pregnancy outcome following idiopathic recurrent miscarriage. Hum Reprod 1999;14:2868-71.
  41. Assisted reproductive technology in the United States: 2001 results generated from the American society for reproductive medicine/society for assisted reproductive technology registry. Fertil Steril. Fertil Steril 2007;87:1253-66.
  42. Practical preimplantation genetic diagnosis, London (UK); Springer-Verlag 2005.
  43. The beneficial effects of PGD for aneuploidy support extensive clinical application. Reprod BioMed Online 2005;10:633-40.
  44. Improved implantation after preimplantation genetic diagnosis of aneuploidy. Reprod Biomed Online 2003;7:91-97.
  45. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis as both a therapeutic and diagnostic tool in assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril 2003;80:467-68.
  46. Preimplantation genetic screening to improve in vitro fertilization pregnancy rates: A prospective randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2008;90:1287-89.
  47. 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;19:2849-58.
  48. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis does not improve delivery rate in women under the age of 36 following single-embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 2008;23:2818-25.
  49. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N Engl J Med 2007;357:9-17.
  50. Preimplantation genetic screening in women of advanced maternal age caused a decrease in clinical pregnancy rate: A randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2008;23:2617-21.
  51. Clinical application of comprehensive chromosomal screening at the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril Nov. 23, 2009 (Epub ahead of print).
  52. Preimplantation genetic screening for aneuploidy of embryos after in vitro fertilization in women aged at least 35 years: A prospective randomized trial. Fertil Steril 2010;93:364-73.
  53. Multicenter trial of preimplantation genetic screening reported in the New England Journal of Medicine: An indepth look at the findings. Reprod Biomed Online 2007;15:305-66.
  54. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N Engl J Med 2007;25: 1769-70.
  55. Substandard application of preimplantation genetic screening may interfere with its clinical success. Fertil Steril 2007;88:781-84.
  56. What next for preimplantation genetic screening? Randomized clinical trial in assessing PGS: Necessary but not sufficient. Hum Reprod 2008;23:2179-81.
  57. Impact of cleavage stage embryo biopsy in view of PGD on human blastocyst implantation: A prospective cohort of single embryo transfers. Hum Reprod 2009;24:2988-96.
  58. Guidelines for good practice in PGD: Program requirements and laboratory quality assurance. Reprod Biomed Online 2008;16:134-47.
  59. Results from the polar body proof of principle study. 26th annual meeting of the European society of human reproduction and embryology, Rome, Italy, June 27 to 30 2010. Hum Reprod 2010;25:42.
  60. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis of single gene disorders: Experience with more than 200 cycles conducted by a reference laboratory in the United States. Feril Steril 2009;92:1544-56.
  61. Atlas of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (2nd ed). Boca Raton (FL): Taylor and Francis; 2005.
  62. Pregnancies and live births following biopsy and PGD analysis of human embryos at the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril 2005;84:1628-36.
  63. Blastocyst trophectoderm biopsy and preimplantation genetic diagnosis for familial monogenic disorders and chromosomal translocations. Prenat Diagn 2008;28:434-42.
  64. Preconception diagnosis. 9th international conference on preimplantation genetics, Miami, Florida, April 23 to 25. Reprod Biomed Online 2009;18:S5.
  65. Frequency and distribution of chromosomal abnormalities in human oocytes. Cytogenet Genome Res 2005;111:193-98.
  66. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: Technological advances to improve accuracy and range. Reprod Biomed Online 2007;16:532-38.
  67. Multiple micromanipulations for preimplantation genetic diagnosis do not affect embryo development to the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril 2006;85:1826-29.
  68. Fluorescent in-situ hybridization to interphase nuclei of human preimplantation embryos with X and Y chromosome specific probes. Hum Reprod 1991;6:101-105.
  69. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. In situ hybridization as a tool for analysis. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1992;116:393-97.
  70. Pregnancy after embryo biopsy and coamplification of DNA from X and Y chromosomes. JAMA 1992;268:727-29.
  71. Diagnosis of major chromosome aneuploidies in human preimplantation embryos. Hum Reprod 1993;8:2185-92.
  72. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N Engl J Med 2007;25:1769-70.
  73. Substandard application of preimplantation genetic screening may interfere with its clinical success. Fertil Steril 2007;88:781-84.
  74. Improved detection of aneuploid blastocysts using a new 12 chromosome FISH test. Reprod Biomed Online 2010;20:92-97.
  75. Multiplex interphase FISH as a screen for common aneuploidies in spontaneous abortions. Hum Reprod 2002;17:1166-70.
  76. Aneuploidy study of human oocytes first polar body comparative genomic hybridization and metaphase II fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis. Hum Reprod 2004;19:2859-68.
  77. Reliability of comparative genomic hybridization to detect chromosome abnormalities in first polar bodies and metaphase II oocytes. Hum Reprod 2004;19:2118-25.
  78. Differences in chromosome susceptibility to aneuploidy and survival to first trimester. Reprod Biomed Online 2004;8:81-90.
  79. Comparative genomic hybridization analysis of human oocytes and polar bodies. Human Reprod 2006;21:2319-28.
  80. Aneuploidy in the miscarriage of infertile women and the potential benefit of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Fertil Steril 2007;89:353-357.
  81. Increased efficiency of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for infertility using “no result rescue”. Fertil Steril 2007;88:53–61.
  82. Oligonucleotide (ODN) fluorescence in situ hybridization (Oligo-FISH) and conventional FISH allow enumeration of 24 chromosomes in 6 successive hybridizations performed in a single day. Fertil Steril 2009;92:S50.
  83. Taylor J, et al. Novel perspectives on 24 chromosomes diagnosis in human preimplantation embryos. Chromosome Res 2009;17:554.
  84. Karyomapping: A universal method for genome wide analysis of genetic disease based on mapping crossovers between parental haplotypes. J Med Genet 2010;
  85. Konings P, Melotte C, et al. Chromosome instability is common in human cleavagestage embryos. Nat Med 2009;15:577-83.
  86. Preclinical validation of a microarray method for full molecular karyotyping of blastomeres in a 24 hours protocol. Hum Reprod 2010;25:1066-75.
  87. Four hours 24 chromosomes aneuploidy screening using high throughput PCR SNP allele ratio analysis. Fertil Steril 2009;92:S49.
  88. Chromosome analysis of blastomeres from human embryos by using comparative genomic hybridization. Hum Genet 2000;106:210-17.
  89. Comprehensive chromosomal analysis of human preimplantation embryos using whole genome amplification and single cell comparative genomic hybridization. Mol Hum Reprod 2000;6:1055-62.
  90. Birth of a healthy infant after preimplantation confirmation of euploidy by comparative genomic hybridization. N Engl J Med 2001;345:1537-41.
  91. Use of comprehensive chromosomal screening for embryo assessment microarrays and CGH. Mol Hum Reprod 2008;14:703-10.
  92. Highly significant improvement in embryo implantation and increased live birth rate achieved after comprehensive chromosomal screening: Implications for single embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2009;92:S79.
  93. Increased embryo implantation and high birth rates following comprehensive chromosomal screening of in vitro fertilized embryos. Reprod Biomed Online 2009;18:S10.
  94. Genetic analysis of human embryos by metaphase comparative genomic hybridization (mCGH) improves efficiency of IVF by increasing embryo implantation rate and reducing multiple pregnancies and spontaneous miscarriages. Fertil Steril 2009;92:1886-94.
  95. What next for preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)? A position statement from the ESHRE PGD consortium steering committee. Hum Reprod 2010;25:821-23.
  96. Jauniaux ERM. Pregnancy Loss In: Gabbe SA, Niebyl JF, Simpson JL (Eds). Obstetrics: Normal and problem pregnancies (5th ed). New York: Churchill-Livingstone 2007;628-49.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.