Skip to main content
Human Reproduction (Oxford, England) logoLink to Human Reproduction (Oxford, England)
. 2009 Dec 23;25(3):575–577. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dep446

What next for preimplantation genetic screening? A polar body approach!

Joep Geraedts 1,11, John Collins 2, Luca Gianaroli 3, Veerle Goossens 4, Alan Handyside 5, Joyce Harper 6, Markus Montag 7, Sjoerd Repping 8,9, Andreas Schmutzler 10
PMCID: PMC2817568  PMID: 20031957

Abstract

Screening of human preimplantation embryos for numerical chromosome abnormalities has been conducted mostly at the preimplantation stage using fluorescence in situ hybridization. However, it is clear that preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) as it is currently practiced does not improve live birth rates. Therefore the ESHRE PGS Task Force has decided to start a proof of principle study with the aim of determining whether biopsy of the first and second polar body followed by subsequent analysis of the complete chromosome complement of these polar bodies using an array based technique enables a timely identification of the chromosomal status of an oocyte. If the principle of this approach can be proven, it is obvious that a multicentre randomized controlled trial should then be started to determine the clinical value of this technique. In this way the ESHRE PGS Task Force hopes to redirect preimplantation screening from the blind alley to the main road of assisted reproduction.


One of the presumed factors causing low pregnancy rates in medically assisted reproduction is the presence of chromosomal abnormalities in preimplantation embryos. Therefore many centres have tried to improve their results by screening human preimplantation embryos for numerical chromosome abnormalities at the cleavage stage using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) (Goossens et al., 2009). Initially many low-level evidence studies (Gianaroli et al., 1999; Munne et al., 1999) suggested a favourable outcome of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) of aneuploidy on implantation and pregnancy rates, but more recent high-level evidence from randomized control trials has not confirmed these initially promising findings. There are now 10 RCTs applied to both good (Jansen et al., 2008; Mersereau et al., 2008; Staessen et al., 2008; Meyer et al., 2009) and poor prognosis patients (Staessen et al., 2004; Stevens et al., 2004; Debrock et al., 2007; Mastenbroek et al., 2007; Hardarson et al., 2008;Schoolcraft et al., 2009). These studies have all shown that PGS has not improved the delivery rate compared with a control group, and some of these studies have shown harm or had to be terminated prematurely. Meta-analysis of these trials shows a statistically significant reduction of ongoing pregnancies after PGS [ongoing pregnancy rate per cycle of 13% (92 out of 696) after PGS versus 21% (132 out of 638) in the control group; odds ratio 0.56, 95% CI 0.42–0.76; Mastenbroek et al., 2008]. Both the American Society of Reproductive Medicine and the British Fertility Society have concluded that PGS, as it is currently practiced, does not improve the live birth rates in patients with advanced maternal age, recurrent implantation failure or recurrent pregnancy loss (Anderson and Pickering, 2008; ASRM, 2008). For the observed discrepancy between the theory and the practice a number of reasons have been put forward, such as inexperience in embryo testing, the insufficient number of chromosomes tested and the harm caused by the biopsy procedure (Cohen et al., 2007; Handyside and Thornhill, 2007). However, most probably chromosomal mosaicism in cleavage-stage embryos is the major factor (Coonen et al., 1994; Harper et al., 1995; Delhanty et al., 1997; Coonen et al., 2004; Baart et al., 2006; Mastenbroek et al., 2007; Vanneste et al., 2009). Thus, in many cases, the biopsied and analysed blastomere is not representative for the rest of the embryo. As an alternative, trophectoderm biopsy has been suggested as this would reduce the damage of the biopsy and increase the possibility of an accurate result as more cells can be analysed from the same embryo. A recent trial by the Sydney group on trophoblast PGS was terminated early since an interim analysis indicated it was not possible to show an advantage for PGS (Jansen et al., 2008).

Since mosaicism is not present at the zygote stage it seems to be preferable to opt for polar body biopsy. The disadvantage of polar body biopsy is, of course, that only the maternal aneuploidies can be studied (Verlinsky et al., 1995). However, the vast majority of human aneuploidies (more than 90%) are maternal (Nicolaidis and Petersen, 1998). Moving towards the polar body biopsy has the additional advantage that more time is available to study all the chromosomes using novel molecular techniques (microarray CGH, MLPA, etc.) after whole genome amplification (Handyside et al., 2004; Spits et al., 2006). This might circumvent the problem that, by the application of FISH, the full chromosomal complement never can be studied in an efficient and reliable way.

Comprehensive chromosomal analysis of single cells from human preimplantation embryos using whole genome amplification and single cell comparative genomic hybridization was introduced about 10 years ago (Voullaire et al., 2000; Wells and Delhanty, 2000). Until very recently, the technology was time consuming, and biopsied Day 3embryos needed to be frozen pending the results of the CGH, with associated compromise in embryo quality (Wilton et al., 2001; Munne and Wells, 2003). However, microarray-based methods will yield similar results and may be sufficiently rapid to permit comprehensive screening without the need for embryo cryopreservation. The Cambridge based company BlueGnome has elaborated an array-based CGH protocol which allows for analysis of all chromosomes from biopsied polar bodies within 11–13 h. Therefore the ESHRE PGS Task Force has decided to start a proof of principle study using their methods with the aim of determining whether biopsy of the first and second polar body, followed by subsequent analysis of the complete chromosome complement of these polar bodies using an array-based technique, enables a timely identification of the chromosomal status of an oocyte.

The specific objectives of this study are:

  1. To show that the analysis of both polar bodies can be completed within a time period that allows for fresh transfer;

  2. To ensure the reliable identification of the chromosomal status of an oocyte in at least 90% of polar body biopsy attempts;

  3. To test the feasibility of a multicentre randomized trial based on the technology used in the pilot study.

The polar bodies will be biopsied by the centres in Bonn (Germany) and Bologna (Italy), since they have a documented and proven history in the clinical application of this method and the experienced and trained personnel required for a proof of principle. Both centres have obtained ethical approval. The study aims to include 500 oocytes, independent from the number of patients. Assuming that 300 oocytes will be fertilized after ICSI, 600 polar bodies will be processed for chromosomal diagnosis.

Expecting a 50% aneuploidy rate, another 150 aneuploid oocytes will be processed for array analysis to verify the data obtained from the polar bodies. In addition, undiagnosed oocytes will also be analysed but only if the resulting embryos are not transferred. There will be no limitation regarding the number of patients recruited per study site and no restriction on the maternal age of the patients which will be included. First and second polar body will be separately processed for chromosomal analysis. Chromosomal analysis of first and second polar bodies will be done at each study site using the SurePlex amplification protocol and the 24sure analysis provided by BlueGnome (see http://www.bluegnome.co.uk/). The images will be scored by two independent observers in each centre. In case of discordance between the two observers the result will be categorized as ‘unknown’. To estimate the concordance of the data from the polar bodies and the corresponding oocytes, there will be a blind analysis of those oocytes which are presumed to be aneuploid based on the result of the chromosomal analysis of their polar bodies.

All data (patient and cycle data as well as array data) from both study sites (polar bodies and oocytes) will be evaluated by an independent data analysis team at the University of Amsterdam. The concordance analysis will be made on the basis of the three categories euploid/aneuploid/unknown (the aim is to have at least 90% concordance).

The study will start in October 2009 and the acquisition of the data from the intended number of biopsied oocytes should be reached by the beginning of 2010. Hopefully the first data can be presented at the 26th Annual Meeting of ESHRE in Rome 2010. If the principle of this approach can be proven, it is obvious that a multicentre randomized controlled trial should be started along the same lines. With this approach the ESHRE PGS Task Force hopes to redirect preimplantation screening from the blind alley back to the main road of assisted reproduction.

Funding

Funded by ESHRE, the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology, Grimbergen, Belgium.

References

  1. Anderson R, Pickering S. The current status of preimplantation genetic screening: British Fertility Society Policy and Practice Guidelines. Hum Fertil (Camb) 2008;11:71–75. doi: 10.1080/14647270802041607. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. ASRM. Preimplantation genetic testing: a Practice Committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:S136–S143. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.08.062. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baart EB, Martini E, van den Berg I, Macklon NS, Galjaard RJ, Fauser BC, Van Opstal D. Preimplantation genetic screening reveals a high incidence of aneuploidy and mosaicism in embryos from young women undergoing IVF. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:223–233. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dei291. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Cohen J, Wells D, Munne S. Removal of 2 cells from cleavage stage embryos is likely to reduce the efficacy of chromosomal tests that are used to enhance implantation rates. Fertil Steril. 2007;87:496–503. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.07.1516. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Coonen E, Harper JC, Ramaekers FC, Delhanty JD, Hopman AH, Geraedts JP, Handyside AH. Presence of chromosomal mosaicism in abnormal preimplantation embryos detected by fluorescence in situ hybridisation. Hum Genet. 1994;94:609–615. doi: 10.1007/BF00206952. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Coonen E, Derhaag JG, Dumoulin JC, van Wissen LC, Bras M, Janssen M, Evers JL, Geraedts JP. Anaphase lagging mainly explains chromosomal mosaicism in human preimplantation embryos. Hum Reprod. 2004;19:316–324. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deh077. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Debrock S, Melotte C, Vermeesch J, Spiessens C, Vanneste E, D'Hooghe TM. Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) for aneuploidy in embryos after in vitro fertilization (IVF) does not improve reproductive outcome in women over 35: a prospective controlled randomized study. Fertil Steril. 2007;88:S237. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.10.072. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Delhanty JD, Harper JC, Ao A, Handyside AH, Winston RM. Multicolour FISH detects frequent chromosomal mosaicism and chaotic division in normal preimplantation embryos from fertile patients. Hum Genet. 1997;99:755–760. doi: 10.1007/s004390050443. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Gianaroli L, Magli MC, Ferraretti AP, Munne S. Preimplantation diagnosis for aneuploidies in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization with a poor prognosis: identification of the categories for which it should be proposed. Fertil Steril. 1999;72:837–844. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(99)00377-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Goossens V, Harton G, Moutou C, Traeger-Synodinos J, Van Rij M, Harper JC. ESHRE PGD Consortium data collection IX: cycles from January to December 2006 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2007. Hum Reprod. 2009 doi: 10.1093/humrep/dep059. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Handyside AH, Thornhill AR. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:1770. author reply 1770–1771. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Handyside AH, Robinson MD, Simpson RJ, Omar MB, Shaw MA, Grudzinskas JG, Rutherford A. Isothermal whole genome amplification from single and small numbers of cells: a new era for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of inherited disease. Mol Hum Reprod. 2004;10:767–772. doi: 10.1093/molehr/gah101. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Hardarson T, Hanson C, Lundin K, Hillensjo T, Nilsson L, Stevic J, Reismer E, Borg K, Wikland M, Bergh C. Preimplantation genetic screening in women of advanced maternal age caused a decrease in clinical pregnancy rate: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:2806–2812. doi: 10.1093/humrep/den217. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Harper JC, Coonen E, Handyside AH, Winston RM, Hopman AH, Delhanty JD. Mosaicism of autosomes and sex chromosomes in morphologically normal, monospermic preimplantation human embryos. Prenat Diagn. 1995;15:41–49. doi: 10.1002/pd.1970150109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Jansen RP, Bowman MC, de Boer KA, Leigh DA, Lieberman DB, McArthur SJ. What next for preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)? Experience with blastocyst biopsy and testing for aneuploidy. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:1476–1478. doi: 10.1093/humrep/den129. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van Echten-Arends J, Sikkema-Raddatz B, Korevaar JC, Verhoeve HR, Vogel NE, Arts EG, de Vries JW, Bossuyt PM, et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:9–17. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa067744. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Mastenbroek S, Scriven P, Twisk M, Viville S, Van der Veen F, Repping S. What next for preimplantation genetic screening? More randomized controlled trials needed? Hum Reprod. 2008;23:2626–2628. doi: 10.1093/humrep/den376. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Mersereau JE, Plunkett BA, Cedars MI. Preimplantation genetic screening in older women: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:592–598. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.07.1307. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Meyer LR, Klipstein S, Hazlett WD, Nasta T, Mangan P, Karande VC. A prospective randomized controlled trial of preimplantation genetic screening in the ‘good prognosis’ patient. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:1731–1738. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.02.162. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Munne S, Wells D. Questions concerning the suitability of comparative genomic hybridization for preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Fertil Steril. 2003;80:871–872. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(03)01163-4. discussion 875. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Munne S, Magli C, Cohen J, Morton P, Sadowy S, Gianaroli L, Tucker M, Marquez C, Sable D, Ferraretti AP, et al. Positive outcome after preimplantation diagnosis of aneuploidy in human embryos. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:2191–2199. doi: 10.1093/humrep/14.9.2191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Nicolaidis P, Petersen MB. Origin and mechanisms of non-disjunction in human autosomal trisomies. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:313–319. doi: 10.1093/humrep/13.2.313. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Schoolcraft WB, Katz-Jaffe MG, Stevens J, Rawlins M, Munne S. Preimplantation aneuploidy testing for infertile patients of advanced maternal age: a randomized prospective trial. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:157–162. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.05.029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Spits C, Le Caignec C, De Rycke M, Van Haute L, Van Steirteghem A, Liebaers I, Sermon K. Whole-genome multiple displacement amplification from single cells. Nat Protoc. 2006;1:1965–1970. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2006.326. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Staessen C, Platteau P, Van Assche E, Michiels A, Tournaye H, Camus M, Devroey P, Liebaers I, Van Steirteghem A. 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;19:2849–2858. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deh536. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Staessen C, Verpoest W, Donoso P, Haentjens P, Van der Elst J, Liebaers I, Devroey P. Preimplantation genetic screening does not improve delivery rate in women under the age of 36 following single-embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:2818–2825. doi: 10.1093/humrep/den367. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Stevens J, Wale P, Surrey ES, Schoolcraft WB, Gardner DK. Is aneuploidy screening for patients aged 35 or over beneficial? A prospective randomized trial. Fertil Steril. 2004;82:S249. [Google Scholar]
  28. Vanneste E, Voet T, Le Caignec C, Ampe M, Konings P, Melotte C, Debrock S, Amyere M, Vikkula M, Schuit F, et al. Chromosome instability is common in human cleavage-stage embryos. Nat Med. 2009;15:577–583. doi: 10.1038/nm.1924. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Verlinsky Y, Cieslak J, Freidine M, Ivakhnenko V, Wolf G, Kovalinskaya L, White M, Lifchez A, Kaplan B, Moise J, et al. Pregnancies following pre-conception diagnosis of common aneuploidies by fluorescent in-situ hybridization. Hum Reprod. 1995;10:1923–1927. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a136207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Voullaire L, Slater H, Williamson R, Wilton L. Chromosome analysis of blastomeres from human embryos by using comparative genomic hybridization. Hum Genet. 2000;106:210–217. doi: 10.1007/s004390051030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Wells D, Delhanty JD. Comprehensive chromosomal analysis of human preimplantation embryos using whole genome amplification and single cell comparative genomic hybridization. Mol Hum Reprod. 2000;6:1055–1062. doi: 10.1093/molehr/6.11.1055. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Wilton L, Williamson R, McBain J, Edgar D, Voullaire L. Birth of a healthy infant after preimplantation confirmation of euploidy by comparative genomic hybridization. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:1537–1541. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa011052. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Human Reproduction (Oxford, England) are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES