Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T10:56:20.336Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

35 - Polar body screening for aneuploidy in human oocytes

from Section 6 - Technology and clinical medicine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2013

Luca Gianaroli
Affiliation:
SISMeR, Reproductive Medicine Unit, Bologna, Italy
M. Cristina Magli
Affiliation:
SISMeR, Reproductive Medicine Unit, Bologna, Italy
Anna P. Ferraretti
Affiliation:
SISMeR, Reproductive Medicine Unit, Bologna, Italy
Alan Trounson
Affiliation:
California Institute for Regenerative Medicine
Roger Gosden
Affiliation:
Center for Reproductive Medicine and Infertility, Cornell University, New York
Ursula Eichenlaub-Ritter
Affiliation:
Universität Bielefeld, Germany
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Aneuploidy is the most common chromosome abnormality in humans, and is the main genetic cause of miscarriage and congenital birth defects following both natural conception and in vitro fertilization (IVF). It is now known that the majority of chromosome errors originate in maternal meiosis I (MI), maternal age is a risk factor for most human aneuploidies, and defects in recombination are strictly related to meiotic non-disjunction [1].

The possible reason for the increased predisposition to aneuploidy in oocytes when compared with sperm [2] resides in the profound dissimilarity between male and female gametogenesis. While male meiosis is a continuous process, females are born with a complete set of immature oocytes in a quiescent state, and terminate the maturation process in adulthood.

In both genders, the irst step of meiosis is DNA replication followed by two rounds of cell division that lead to the formation of haploid gametes. In prophase I, homologous chromosomes align, form chiasmata, and recombination occurs.At the end ofMI, homologs segregate, whereas sister chromatids separate in meiosis II (MII), the second meiotic division. In spermatogenesis, this process initiates after puberty and continues throughout male lifetime, whilst in the female, meiosis begins during fetal development, arrests at prophase I before birth, and resumes prior to ovulation at the luteinizing hormone (LH) surge. For some oocytes, this last phase may never happen, whereas for others it will only occur ater several years, or even decades later. It is postulated that the long time interval of oocyte quiescence, elapsing between meiotic arrest in the fetus and each ovulation cycle, could be responsible for the increased incidence of aneuploidy.

Type
Chapter
Information
Biology and Pathology of the Oocyte
Role in Fertility, Medicine and Nuclear Reprograming
, pp. 409 - 419
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Hassold, T, Hall, H, Hunt, P. The origin of human aneuploidy: where we have been, where we are going. Hum Mol Genet 2007; 16: R203–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gianaroli, L, Magli, MC, Ferraretti, AP. Sperm and blastomere aneuploidy detection in reproductive genetics and medicine. J Histochem Cytochem 2005; 53: 261–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gianaroli, L, Magli, MC, Cavallini, G, et al. Frequency of aneuploidy in spermatozoa from patients with extremely severe male factor infertility. Hum Reprod 2005; 20: 2140–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bernardini, L, Costa, M, Bottazzi, C, et al. Sperm aneuploidy and recurrent pregnancy loss. Reprod Biomed Online 2004; 9: 312–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magli, MC, Gianaroli, L, Ferraretti, AP, et al. Paternal contribution to aneuploidy in preimplantation embryos. Reprod Biomed Online 2009; 18: 536–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Volarcik, K. Sheean, L, Goldfarb, J, et al. The meiotic competence of in-vitro matured human oocytes is influenced by donor age: evidence that folliculogenesis is compromised in the reproductively aged ovary. Hum Reprod 1998; 13: 154–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuliev, A, Verlinsky, Y. Meiotic and mitotic non-disjunction: lessons from preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Hum Reprod Update 2004; 10: 401–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gianaroli, L, Magli, MC, Cavallini, G, et al. Predicting aneuploidy in human oocytes: key factors which affect the meiotic process. Hum Reprod 2010; 25: 2374–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fragouli, E, Alfarawati, S, Goodall, N, et al. The cytogenetics of polar bodies: insights into female meiosis and the diagnosis of aneuploidy. Mol Hum Reprod 2011; 17: 286–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuliev, A, Cieslak, J, Verlinsky, Y. Frequency and distribution of chromosome abnormalities in human oocytes. Cytogenet Genome Res 2005; 111: 193–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munné, S, Wells, D, Cohen, J. Technology requirements for preimplantation genetic diagnosis to improve assisted reproduction outcomes. Fertil Steril 2010; 94: 408–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schoolcraft, WB, Treff, NR, Stevens, JM, et al. Live birth outcome with trophectoderm biopsy, blastocyst vitrification, and single-nucleotide polymorphism microarray-based comprehensive chromosome screening in infertile patients. Fertil Steril 2011; 96: 638–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magli, MC, Jones, GM, Gras, L, et al. Chromosome mosaicism in day 3 aneuploid embryos that develop to morphologically normal blastocysts in vitro. Hum Reprod 2000; 15: 1781–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wells, D, Fragouli, E, Stevens, J, et al. High pregnancy rate after comprehensive chromosomal screening of blastocysts. Fertil Steril 2008; 90: S80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassold, T, Hunt, P. To err (meiotically) is human: the genesis of human aneuploidy. Nat Rev Genet 2001; 2: 280–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verlinsky, Y, Cieslak, J, Freidine, M, et al. Pregnancies following pre-conception diagnosis of common aneuploidies by fluorescent in-situ hybridization. Hum Reprod 1995; 10: 1923–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verlinsky, Y, Cieslak, J, Freidine, M, et al. Polar body diagnosis of common aneuploidies by FISH. J Assist Reprod Genet 1996; 13: 157–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zenzes, MT, Casper, RF. Cytogenetics of human oocytes, zygotes and embryos after in vitro fertilisation. Hum Genet 1992; 88: 367–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angell, RR. Predivision in human oocytes at meiosis I: a mechanism for trisomy formation in man. Hum Genet 1991; 86: 383–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jin, F, Hamada, M, Malureanu, L, et al. Cdc20 is critical for meiosis I and fertility of female mice. PLoS Genet 2010; 30(6): pii:e1001147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cozzi, J, Conn, CM, Harper, JC, et al. A trisomic germ cell line and precocious chromatid separation causes repeated trisomic conceptions. Hum Genet 1999; 104: 23–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hultén, MA, Jonasson, J, Nordgren, A, et al. Germinal and somatic trisomy 21 mosaicism: how common is it, what are the implications for individual carriers and how does it come about? Curr Genomics 2010; 11: 409–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Obradors, A, Rius, M, Cuzzi, J, et al. Errors at mitotic segregation early in oogenesis and at first meiotic division in oocytes from donor females: comparative genomic hybridization analyses in metaphase II oocytes and their first polar body. Fertil Steril 2010; 93: 675–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rubio, C, Simòn, C, Vidal, F, et al. Chromosomal abnormalities and embryo development in recurrent miscarriage couples. Hum Reprod 2003; 18: 182–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garrisi, JG, Colls, P, Ferry, KM, et al. Effect of infertility, maternal age, and number of previous miscarriages on the outcome of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for idiopathic recurrent pregnancy loss. Fertil Steril 2009; 92: 288–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fragouli, E, Katz-Jaffe, M, Alfarawati, S, et al. Comprehensive chromosome screening of polar bodies and blastocysts from couples experiencing repeated implantation failure. Fertil Steril 2010; 94: 875–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wells, D, Escudero, T, Levy, B, et al. First clinical application of comparative genomic hybridization and polar body testing for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of aneuploidy. Fertil Steril 2002; 78: 543–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuliev, A, Zlatopolsky, Z, Kirillova, I, et al. Polar body based PGD for genetic and chromosomal disorders. Reprod Biomed Online 2012; Suppl 2: S31–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magli, MC, Gianaroli, L, Crippa, A, et al. Aneuploidies of chromosomes 1, 4 and 6 are not compatible with human embryos’ implantation. Fertil Steril 2010; 94: 2012–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magli, MC, Ferraretti, AP, Crippa, A, et al. First meiosis errors in immature oocytes generated by stimulated cycles. Fertil Steril 2006; 86: 629–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gutiérrez-Mateo, C, Wells, D, Benet, J, et al. Reliability of comparative genomic hybridization to detect chromosome abnormalities in first polar bodies and metaphase II oocytes. Hum Reprod 2004; 19: 2118–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Márquez, C, Cohen, J, Munné, S. Chromosome identification in human oocytes and polar bodies by spectral karyotyping. Cytogenet Cell Genet 1998; 81: 254–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sandalinas, M, Márquez, C, Munné, S. Spectral karyotyping of fresh, non-inseminated oocytes. Mol Hum Reprod 2002; 8: 580–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mastenbroek, S, Twisk, M, van der Veen, F, et al. Preimplantation genetic screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs. Hum Reprod Update 2011; 17: 454–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munné, S, Fragouli, E, Colls, P, et al. Improved detection of aneuploid blastocysts using a new 12-chromosome FISH test. Reprod Biomed Online 2010; 20: 92–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Voullaire, L, Slater, H, Williamson, R, et al. Chromosome analysis of blastomeres from human embryos by using comparative genomic hybridization. Hum Genet 2000; 106: 210–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wells, D, Delhanty, JDA. Comprehensive chromosomal analysis of human preimplantation embryos using whole genome amplification and single cell comparative genomic hybridization. Mol Hum Reprod 2000; 6: 1055–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fragouli, E, Escalona, A, Gutiérrez-Mateo, C, et al. Comparative genomic hybridization of oocytes and first polar bodies from young donors. Reprod Biomed Online 2009; 19: 228–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geraedts, J, Montag, M, Magli, MC, et al. Polar body array CGH for prediction of the status of the corresponding oocyte. Part I: clinical results. Hum Reprod 2011; 26: 3173–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magli, MC, Montag, M, Köster, M, et al. Polar body array CGH for prediction of the status of the corresponding oocyte. Part II: technical aspects. Hum Reprod 2011; 26: 3181–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Handyside, AH, Montag, M, Magli, MC, et al. Multiple meiotic errors caused by predivision of chromatids in women of advanced maternal age undergoing in vitro fertilisation. Eur J Hum Genet 2012; 20: 742–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magli, MC, Grugnetti, C, Castelletti, E, et al. Five chromosome segregation in polar bodies and the corresponding oocyte. Reprod Biomed Online 2012; 24: 331–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, RT, Jr., Treff, NR, Stevens, J, et al. Delivery of a chromosomally normal child from an oocyte with reciprocal aneuploid polar bodies. J Assist Reprod Genet 2012; 29: 533–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forman, EJ, Treff, NR, Stevens, JM, et al. Embryos whose polar bodies contain isolated reciprocal chromosome aneuploidy are almost always euploid. Hum Reprod 2012; 28: 502–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vialard, F, Lombroso, R, Bergere, M, et al. Oocyte aneuploidy mechanisms are different in two situations of increased chromosomal risk: older patients and patients with recurrent implantation failure after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2007; 87: 1333–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×