Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Human embryo mosaicism: did we drop the ball on chromosomal testing?

  • Opinion
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There are newly recognized challenges presented by the occurrence of mosaicism in the context of trophectoderm (TE) biopsy for pre-implantation genetic screening (PGS) in in vitro fertilization (IVF) embryos. Chromosomal mosaicism, known to be significantly higher in IVF embryos than in later prenatal samples, may contribute to errors in diagnosis. In particular, PGS may result in discarding embryos diagnosed as aneuploid but in which the inner cell mass may be completely or mainly euploid, thus representing a false positive diagnosis. Although less likely, some embryos diagnosed as euploid could be mosaic and contain some aneuploid cells, possibly impacting their implantation potential. The ability of current diagnostic techniques to detect mosaicism is limited by the number and location of TE cells in the biopsy and by the methodology used for chromosomal assessment. The clinical consequences of mosaicism are dependent on the chromosome(s) involved, the developmental stage at which the mosaicism evolved, and whether TE biopsy accurately reflects the status of the inner cell mass that forms the fetus. Consequently, in patients with no euploid embryos identified on PGS, it may be appropriate to consider the transfer of diagnosed aneuploid embryos if the TE biopsy result is a non-viable chromosomal monosomy or triploidy that could not result in a birth. It should be acknowledged in consent forms that mosaicism has the potential to impact test results and that its detection may be below the resolution of the genetic tests being used. This concept represents a major shift in current IVF practice and ought to be considered given the data, or lack thereof, of the impact of mosaicism on IVF/PGS outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Revel A. Defective endometrial receptivity. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:1028–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Dahdouh EM, Balayla J, García-Velasco JA. Impact of blastocyst biopsy and comprehensive chromosome screening technology on preimplantation genetic screening: a systematic review of randomized controlled rrials. Reprod BioMed Online. 2015;30(3):281–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Dahdouh EM, Balayla J, Audibert F, Genetics Committee, Wilson ED, Audibert F, et al. Technical update: preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2015;37:451–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Brezina PR, Kutteh WH. Clinical applications of preimplantation genetic testing. BMJ. 2015;350:g7611.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Scott Jr RT, Upham KM, Forman EJ, Zhao T, Treff NR. Cleavage-stage biopsy significantly impairs human embryonic implantation potential while blastocyst biopsy does not: a randomized and paired clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:624–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sermon K, Viville S. Chromosomes in early human embryo development: incidence of chromosomal abnormalities, underlying mechanisms and consequences for development. Textbook Hum Reprod Genet. 2014;52–67.

  7. Ginsburg ES, Racowsky C. Preimplanatation genetic testing: available and emerging technologies. In vitro Fertilization: Compr Guid. 2012;115–144.

  8. Johnson DS, Cinnioglu C, Ross R, Filby A, Gemelos G, Hill M, Ryan A, Smotrich D

  9. Novik V, Moulton EB, Sisson M, Shrestha SL, Tran K, Stern H, et al. The accuracy of chromosomal microarray testing for identification of embryonic mosaicism in human blastocysts. Mol Cytogenet. 2014;7(1):18.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Van Echten-Arends J, Mastenbroek S, Sikkema-Raddatz B, Korevaar JC, Heineman MJ, van der Veen F, et al. Chromosomal mosaicism in human preimplantation embryos: a systemic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17:620–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Barbash-Hazan S, Frumkin T, Malcov M, Yaron Y, Cohen T, Azem F, et al. Preimplantation aneuploid embryos undergo self-correction in correlation with their developmental potential. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:890–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Barzrgar M, Gourabi H, Valojerdi MR, Yazdi PE, Beharvand H. Self-correction of chromosomal abnormalities in human preimplantation embryos and embryonic stem cells. Stem Cells Dev. 2013;22:2449–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bolton H, Graham SJL, Niels Van Der A, Kumar P, Theunis K, Fernandez Gallardo E, et al. Mouse model of chromosome mosaicism reveals lineage-specific depletion of aneuploid cells and normal developmental potential. Nat Comms. 2016;7:11165.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Goldberg JD, Wohlferd MM. Incidence and outcome of chromosomal mosaicism found at the time of chorionic villus sampling. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;176:1349–453.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Haddad G, He W, Gill J, Witz C, Wang C, Kaskar K, et al. Mosaic pregnancy after transfer of a “euploid” blastocyst screened by DNA microarray. J Ovarian Res. 2013;6(1):70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Kalousek DK, Dill FJ. Chromosomal mosaicism confined to the placenta in human conception. Science. 1983;221:665–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Phillips OP, Tharapel AT, Lerner JL, Park VM, Wachtel SS, Shulman LP. Risk of fetal mosaicism when placental mosaicism is diagnosed by chorionic villus sampling. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;174:850–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Li M, DeUgarte CM, Surrey M, Danzer H, DeCherney H, DeCherney A, et al. Fluorescence in situ hybridization reanalysis of day-6 human blastocysts diagnosed with aneuploidy on day 3. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(5):1395–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Liu J, Wang W, Sun X, Liu L, Jin H, Li M, et al. DNA microarray reveals that high proportions of human blastocysts from women of advanced maternal age are aneuploid and mosaic. Biol Reprod. 2012;87:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Taylor TH, Gitlin SA, Patrick JL, Crain JL, Wilson JM, Griffin DK. The origin, mechanisms, incidence and clinical consequences of chromosomal mosaicism in humans. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20(4):571–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Fragouli E, Alfarawati S, Spath K, Wells D. Morphological and cytogenetic assessment of cleavage and blastocyst stage embryos. Mol Hum Reprod. 2014;20:117–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Northrop LE, Treff NR, Levy B, Scott Jr RT. SNP microarray-based 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening demonstrates that cleavage-stage FISH poorly predicts aneuploidy in embryos that develop to morphologically normal blastocysts. Mol Hum Reprod. 2010;16:590–600.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Evsikov S, Verlinsky Y. Mosaicism in the inner cell mass of human blastocysts. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:3151–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Delhanty JDA, Handyside AH. The origin of genetic defects in the human and their detection in the preimplantation embryo. Hum Redprod Update. 1995;1:201–15.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Grifo J, Colls P, Ribustello L, Escudero T, Liu E, Munné S. Why do array-CGH (aCGH) euploid embryos miscarry? Reanalysis by NGS reveals undetected abnormalities which would have prevented 56% of the miscarriages. Fertil Steril. 2015;104 Suppl 3:e14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Munné S, Grifo J, Wells D. Mosaicism: “survival of the fittest” versus “no embryo left behind. Fertil Steril. 2016;Online: 1–4

  27. Mamas T, Gordon A, Brown A, Harper J, Sen Gupta S. Detection of aneuploidy by array comparative genomic hybridization using cell lines to mimic a mosaic trophectoderm biopsy. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:943–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Scott Jr RT, Galiano D. The challenge of embryonic mosaicism in preimplantation genetic screening. Fertil Steril. 2016;32:337–8.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Esfandiari N, Bentov Y, Casper RF. Trophectoderm biopsy for aneuploidy screening using different platforms and conflicting test results. ESHRE O-034, Munich, Germany, June 29-July 2, 2014

  30. Orvieto R, Shuly Y, Brengauz M, Feldman B. Should pre-implantation genetic screening be implemented to routine clinical practice? Gynecol Endocrinol. 2016;Online: 1–3.

  31. Shelly KE, Johnson DS, Morrison LS, Carney SM, Boylan CF, Feinberg RF. Exploring the incidence of trophectoderm mosaicism in a population of previously diagnosed embryos. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(3):S139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Capalbo A, Treff NR, Cimadomo D, Tao X, Upham K, Ubaldi FM, et al. Comparison of array comparative genomic hybridization and quantitative real time PCR-based aneuploidy screening of blastocyst biopsies. Eur J Hum Genet. 2015;23(7):901–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Wells D, Kaur K, Grifo J, Glassner M, Taylor JC, Fragouli E, et al. Clinical utilisation of a rapid Low-pass whole genome sequencing technique for the diagnosis of aneuploidy in human embryos prior to implantation. J Med Genet. 2014;51(8):553–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Greco E, Minasi MG, Fiorentino F. Healthy babies after intrauterine transfer of mosaic aneuploid blastocysts. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(21):2089–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Gleicher N, Vidali A, Braverman J, Kushnir VA, Albertini DF, Barad DH. Further evidence against use of PGS in poor prognosis patients: report of normal births after transfer of embryos reported as aneuploid. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(3):e59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Ledbetter DH, Zachary JM, Simpson JL, Golbus MS, Pergament E, Jackson L, et al. Cytogenetic results from the US collaborative study on CVS. Prenat Diagn. 1992;12:317–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Fragouli E, Alfarawati S, Spath K, Tarozzi N, Borini A, Wells D. The developmental potential of mosaic embryos. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(3 Suppl):e96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of OB-GYN, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Geisel School of Medicine, Lebanon, NH, USA

    Navid Esfandiari & Megan E. Bunnell

  2. Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility., Department of OB-GYN, School of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

    Robert F. Casper

Authors
  1. Navid Esfandiari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Megan E. Bunnell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert F. Casper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Navid Esfandiari.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Capsule

There are newly recognized challenges presented by the occurrence of mosaicism in the context of trophectoderm (TE) biopsy for pre-implantation genetic screening (PGS) in in vitro fertilization (IVF) embryos.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Esfandiari, N., Bunnell, M.E. & Casper, R.F. Human embryo mosaicism: did we drop the ball on chromosomal testing?. J Assist Reprod Genet 33, 1439–1444 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-016-0797-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-016-0797-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation