Embryo quality and chromosomal abnormality in embryos from couples undergoing assisted reproductive technology using preimplantation genetic screening

Abstract

Objective: To detect common chromosomal aneuploidy variations in embryos from couples undergoing assisted reproductive technology and preimplantation genetic screening and their possible associations with embryo quality.

Methods: In this study, 359 embryos from 62 couples were screened for chromosomes 13, 21, 18, X, and Y by fluorescence insitu hybridization. For biopsy of blastomere, a laser was used to remove a significantly smaller portion of the zona pellucida. One blastomere was gently biopsied by an aspiration pipette through the hole. After biopsy, the embryo was immediately returned to the embryo scope until transfer. Embryo integrity and blastocyst formation were assessed on day 5.

Results: Totally, 282 embryos from 62 couples were evaluated. The chromosomes were normal in 199 (70.57%) embryos and abnormal in 83 (29.43%) embryos. There was no significant association between the quality of embryos and numerical chromosomal abnormality (P=0.67).

Conclusions: Embryo quality is not significantly correlated with its genetic status. Hence, the quality of embryos determined by morphological parameters is not an appropriate method for choosing embryos without these abnormalities.

Keywords

Assisted reproductive technology / Preimplantation genetic screening / Aneuploidy / Fluorescence in- situ hybridization / Chromosomal abnormalities / Embryo quality / Blastomere / Blastocyst

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Milad Fertility Clinic of Tabriz, Omid Fertility Clinic of Tabriz, Dr. Rahmani Genetic Lab, Dr. Saleh Heidarian (Drug Applied Research Center, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran), and Dr. Ahmad Yari Khosroshahi (Department of Medical Nanotechnology, Faculty of Advanced Medical Science, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran) for providing technical supports.

Funding

The study received no extramural funding.

Authors’ contributions

Mina Niusha and Dr Seyed ali Rahmani designed the study, collected all the data, and drafted the manuscript. Mina Niusha and Dr Hamid Reza Nejabati drafted the manuscript. Dr Mohammad Nouri analysed and interpreted the scientific data/results. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

References

[1] Kirillova A, Lysenkov S, Farmakovskaya M, Kiseleva Y, Martazanova B, Mishieva N, et al. Should we transfer poor quality embryos? Fertil Res Pract 2020; 6:2.

[2] Alfarawati S, Fragouli E, Colls P, Stevens J, Gutiérrez-Mateo C, Schoolcraft WB. The relationship between blastocyst morphology, chromosomal abnormality, and embryo gender. Fertil Steril 2011; 95:520-524.

[3] Stern HJ. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: Prenatal testing for embryos finally achieving its potential. J Clin Med 2014; 3(1):280-309.

[4] Vanneste E, Voet T, Le Caignec C, Ampe M, Konings P, Melotte C, et al. Chromosome instability is common in human cleavage-stage embryos. Nat Med 2009; 15:577-583.

[5] Poornima S, Daram S, Devaki KR, Qurratulain H. Chromosomal abnormalities in couples with primary and secondary infertility: Genetic counseling for assisted reproductive techniques (ART). J Reprod Infertil 2019; 21:4.

[6] Fernández FS, Toro E, Colomar A, Marisa TL, Velilla AE. 24-chromosome FISH technique in preimplantation genetic diagnosis: Validation of the method. Syst Biol Reprod Med 2015; 61(3):171-177.

[7] Montazeri F, Foroughmand MA, Kalantar MS, Aflatoonian A, Khalilli AM. Tips and tricks in fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH)-based preimplantation genetic diagnosis/screening (PGD/PGS). Int J Med Lab 2018; 5(2):84-98.

[8] Machtinger R, Racowsky C. Morphological systems of human embryo assessment and clinical evidence. Evid-Based Reprod Med 2013; 26:210-221.

[9] Stensen MH, Tanbo T, Storeng R, Byholm T, Fèdorcsak P. Routine morphological scoring systems in assisted reproduction treatment fail to reflect agerelated impairment of oocyte and embryo quality. Reprod BioMed Online 2010; 21:118-125.

[10] Fesahat F, Montazeri F, Hasan SHM, Saeedi H, Firouzabadi RD, Kalantar MS. Frequency of chromosomal aneuploidy in high quality embryos from young couples using preimplantation genetic screening. Int J Reprod BioMed 2017; 15:297-304.

[11] Rubio C, Rodrigo L, Mir P, Mateu E, Peinado V, Milán M, et al. Use of array comparative genomic hybridization (array-CGH) for embryo assessment: clinical results. Fertil Steril 2013; 99:1044-1048.

[12] Yang Z, Liu J, Collins GS, Salem SA Liu X, Lyle SS, et al. Selection of single blastocysts for fresh transfer via standard morphology assessment alone and with array CGH for good prognosis IVF patients: Results from a randomized pilot study. Mol Cytogenet 2012; 5(1):24. doi: 10.1186/1755-8166-5-24.

[13] Shi D, Xu J, Zhang M, Niu W, Shi H, Yao G, et al. Association between the quality of inner cell mass and first trimester miscarriage after single blastocyst transfer. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2020; 18(1):43. doi: 10.1186/s12958-020-00595-y.

[14] Huang J, Zhao N, Wang X, Qiao J, Liu P. Chromosomal characteristics at cleavage and blastocyst stages from the same embryos. J Assist Reprod Genet 2015; 32(5):781-787.

[15] Lee A, Kiessling AA. Early human embryos are naturally aneuploid-can that be corrected? J Assist Reprod Genet 2017; 34(1):15-21.

[16] Friedenthal J, Maxwell SM, Munne S, Kramer Y, McCulloh DH, McCaffrey C, et al. Next generation sequencing for preimplantation genetic screening improves pregnancy outcomes compared with array comparative genomic hybridization in single thawed euploid embryo transfer cycles. Fertil Steril 2018; 109(4):627-632.

[17] Demko ZP, Simon AL, McCoy RC, Petrov DA, Rabinowitz M. Effects of maternal age on euploidy rates in a large cohort of embryos analyzed with 24-chromosome single-nucleotide polymorphismbased preimplantation genetic screening. Fertil Steril 2016; 105(5):1307-1313.

[18] Bazrgar M, Gourabi H, Eftekhari-Yazdi P, Vazirinasab H, Fakhri M, Hassani F, et al. The effect of prolonged culture of chromosomally abnormal human embryos on the rate of diploid cells. Int J Fertil Steril 2016; 9(4):563-573.

[19] Majumdar G, Majumdar A, Verma IC, Upadhyaya KC. Relationship between morphology, euploidy and implantation potential of cleavage and blastocyst stage embryos. J Hum Reprod Sci 2017; 10(1):49-57.

[20] Chamayou S, Patrizio P, Storaci G, Tomaselli V, Alecci C, Ragolia C, et al. The use of morphokinetic parameters to select all embryos with full capacity to implant. J Assist Reprod Genet 2013; 30(5):703-710. doi: 10.1007/s10815-013-9992-2.

[21] Cárdenas N, Castro FM, Ortiz M, Quevedo LE, Cuzzi J, Pérez E C. Analysis of a preimplantation genetic test for aneuploidies in embryos from Colombian couples: A report of cases. J Reprod Infertil 2020; 21(1):17-33.

[22] Ziebe S, Lundin K, Loft A, Bergh C, Nyboe Andersen A, Selleskog U, et al. FISH analysis for chromosomes 13, 16, 18, 21, 22, X and Y in all blastomeres of IVF pre-embryos from 144 randomly selected donated human oocytes and impact on pre-embryo morphology. Hum Reprod 2003; 18(12):2575-2581. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deg489.

[23] Anderson S, Sethuram R, Hartlein T, Gocial B, Glassner MJ, Orris JJ. Association between embryo quality and aneuploidy after a standardized controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) protocol. J Fertnstert 2018; 110(7):599.

[24] Braga DPAF, Setti AS, Figueira RCS, Iaconelli Jr A, Borges Jr E. The importance of the cleavage stage morphology evaluation for blastocyst transfer in patients with good prognosis. J Assist Reprod Genet 2014; 31(8):1105-1110. doi: 10.1007/s10815-014-0266-4.

[25] Franasiak JM, Forman EJ, Hong KH, Werner MD, Upham KM, Treff NR. The nature of aneuploidy with increasing age of the female partner: A review of 15169 consecutive trophectoderm biopsies evaluated with comprehensive chromosomal screening. Fertil Steril 2014; 101(3):656-663.

[26] Kotdawala A, Patel D, Herrero J, Khajuria R, Mahajan N, Banker M. Aneuploidy screening by array comparative genomic hybridization improves success rates of in vitro fertilization: A multicenter Indian study. J Hum Reprod Sci 2016; 9(4):223-229.

[27] Demko ZP, Simon AL, McCoy RC, Petrov DA, Rabinowitz M. Effects of maternal age on euploidy rates in a large cohort of embryos analyzed with 24-chromosome single-nucleotide polymorphism-based preimplantation genetic screening. Fertil Steril 2016; 105(5):1307-1313.

[28] Patrizio P, Bianchi V, Lalioti M, Gerasimova T, Sakkas D. High rate of biological loss in assisted reproduction: It is in the seed, not in the soil. Reprod BioMed Online 2007; 14:92-95.

[29] Capalbo A, Rienzi L, Cimadomo D, Maggiulli R, Elliott T, Wright G, et al. Correlation between standard blastocyst morphology, euploidy and implantation: An observational study in two centers involving 956 screened blastocysts. Hum Reprod 2014; 29(6):1173-1181.

[30] Eaton JL, Hacker MR, Barrett CB, Thornton KL, Penzias AS. Influence of patient age on the association between euploidy and day-3 embryo morphology. Fertil Steril 2010; 94(1):365-367.

[31] Shadyab AH, Gass ML, Stefanick ML, Waring ME, Macera CA, Gallo LC, et al. Maternal age at childbirth and parity as predictors of longevity among women in the United States: The women's health initiative. Am J Public Health 2017; 107(1):113-119.

[32] Mazzilli R, Cimadomo D, Vaiarelli A, Capalbo A, Dovere L, Alviggi E, et al. Effect of the male factor on the clinical outcome of intracytoplasmic sperm injection combined with preimplantation aneuploidy testing: Observational longitudinal cohort study of 1 219 consecutive cycles. Fertil Steril 2017; 108(6):961-972.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.08.033.

[33] Zheng HY, Jin H, Liu L, Liu JQ, Wang WH. Application of next-generation sequencing for 24-chromosome aneuploidy screening of human preimplantation embryos. Mol Cytogenet 2015;8:38. doi: 10.1186/s13039-015-0143-6.