Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The reproducibility of trophectoderm biopsies in euploid, aneuploid, and mosaic embryos using independently verified next-generation sequencing (NGS): a pilot study

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

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the accuracy and reliability of comprehensive chromosome screening by next-generation sequencing (NGS) of human trophectoderm (TE) biopsy specimens.

Methods

The reliability and accuracy of diagnoses made by preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) from TE biopsy were tested. Repeat biopsies of TE and inner cell mass (ICM) samples were obtained from thawed blastocysts previously tested by NGS. To test for the reliability of the NGS assay, biopsy samples were compared with the original PGT-A results. Prior NGS testing classified the TE samples as euploid, aneuploid, or aneuploid-mosaic. The resulting re-biopsied samples underwent SurePlex whole genome amplification followed by NGS via the MiSeq platform, with copy number value (CNV) determined using BlueFuse Multi Software. The primary outcome measure was reliability, defined as concordance between initial TE result and the repeat biopsies. Accuracy was determined by concordance between the TE and ICM samples, and compared between three chromosome types (disomic, aneuploid, and mosaic).

Results

Re-biopsies were performed on 32 embryos with prior PGT-A showing euploidy (10 embryos), aneuploidy of one or two chromosomes (4 embryos), or aneuploid-mosaic with one aneuploid chromosome and one mosaic chromosome (18 embryos). One hundred twenty-nine biopsy samples completed NGS (90 TE and 39 ICM biopsies) and 105 biopsy results were included in the analysis. TE biopsies provide a highly accurate test of the future fetus, with the ICM disomic concordance rate of 97.6%. Clinical concordance rates indicate that TE biopsies provide a reliable test when the result is euploid (99.5%) or aneuploid (97.3%), but less reliable when the result is mosaic (35.2%).

Conclusion

TE biopsies predict euploidy or aneuploidy in the ICM with a high degree of accuracy. PGT-A with NGS of TE biopsies is shown to be highly reliable, with clinically relevant concordance rates for aneuploidy and euploidy over 95%. TE biopsies indicating mosaicism were less reliable (35.2%), presumably because mitotic non-disjunction events are not uniformly distributed throughout the blastocyst. However, classification of TE biopsy of PGT-A with NGS results as either aneuploid or euploid provides a highly reliable test.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hassold TaH P. To err (meiotically) is human: the genesis of human aneuploidy. Nat Rev Genet. 2001;2:280–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Munné S, Weier H, Grifo J, Cohen J. Chromosome mosaicism in human embryos. Biol Reprod. 1994;51(3):373–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Munne S, Lee A, Rosenwaks Z, Grifo J, Cohen J. Diagnosis of major chromosome aneuploidies in human preimplantation embryos. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 1993;8(12):2185–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Schoolcraft WB, Fragouli E, Stevens J, Munne S, Katz-Jaffe MG, Wells D. Clinical application of comprehensive chromosomal screening at the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(5):1700–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.10.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Malvestiti F, Agrati C, Grimi B, Pompilii E, Izzi C, Martinoni L, et al. Interpreting mosaicism in chorionic villi: results of a monocentric series of 1001 mosaics in chorionic villi with follow-up amniocentesis. Prenat Diagn. 2015;35(11):1117–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.4656.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Maxwell SMGJ. Should every embryo undergo preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy? A review of the modern approach to in vitro fertilization. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;53(Nov):38–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cram DS, Leigh D, Handyside A, Rechitsky L, Xu K, Harton G, et al. PGDIS Position Statement on the Transfer of Mosaic Embryos 2019. Reprod BioMed Online. 2019;39(Supplement 1):e1–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sachdev NMMS, Besser AG, Grifo JA. Diagnosis and clinical management of embryonic mosaicism. Fertil Steril. 2017;107(1):6–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Mantikou E, Wong KM, Repping S, Mastenbroek S. Molecular origin of mitotic aneuploidies in preimplantation embryos. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2012;1822(12):1921–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbadis.2012.06.013.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kung A, Munne S, Bankowski B, Coates A, Wells D. Validation of next-generation sequencing for comprehensive chromosome screening of embryos. Reprod BioMed Online. 2015;31(6):760–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2015.09.002.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Friedenthal JMS, Munné S, Kramer Y, McCulloh DH, McCaffrey C, Grifo JA. 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(Apr):627–32.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Greco E, Minasi MG, Fiorentino F. Healthy babies after intrauterine transfer of mosaic aneuploid blastocysts. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(21):2089–90. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc1500421.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Munne SBJ, Large M, Martinez-Ortiz PA, Nisson H, Liu E, Tarozzi N, et al. Detailed investigation into the cytogenetic constitution and pregnancy outcome of replacing mosaic blastocysts detected with the use of high-resolution next-generation sequencing. Fertil Steril. 2017;108(1):62–71.

  14. Helen Bolton SJLG, Van der AA N, Kumar P, Theunis K, Gallardo EF, Voet T, et al. Mouse model of chromosome mosaicism reveals lineage-specific depletion of aneuploid cells and normal developmental potential. Nat Commun. 2016;7(7):1165.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Vera-Rodriguez M, Rubio C. Assessing the true incidence of mosaicism in preimplantation embryos. Fertil Steril. 2017;107(15):1107–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Capalbo A, Wright G, Elliott T, Ubaldi FM, Rienzi L, Nagy ZP. FISH reanalysis of inner cell mass and trophectoderm samples of previously array-CGH screened blastocysts shows high accuracy of diagnosis and no major diagnostic impact of mosaicism at the blastocyst stage. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 2013;28(8):2298–307. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/det245.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Illumina. Veriseq PGS-MiSeq QC Assessment Guide. 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Grati FRGG, Branca L, Maggi F, Simoni G, Yaron Y. An evidence-based scoring system for prioritizing mosaic aneuploid embryos following preimplantation genetic screening. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2018;2018(36):442–9.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Munné SWD. Detection of mosaicism at blastocyst stage with the use of high-resolution next-generation sequencing. Fertil Steril. 2017;107(5):1085–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Munné SSF, Grifo J, Zhang J, Beltran MP, Fragouli E, Fiorentino F. Clinical outcomes after the transfer of blastocysts characterized as mosaic by high resolution next generation sequencing- further insights. Eur J Med Genet. 2020;63(2):103741.

  21. Gleicher N, Metzger J, Croft G, Kushnir VA, Albertini DF, Barad DH. A single trophectoderm biopsy at blastocyst stage is mathematically unable to determine embryo ploidy accurately enough for clinical use. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2017;15(1):33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-017-0251-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Scott RT, Ferry K, Su J, Tao X, Scott K, Treff NR. Comprehensive chromosome screening is highly predictive of the reproductive potential of human embryos: a prospective, blinded, nonselection study. Fertil Steril. 2012;97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.01.104.

  23. Goodrich D, Tao X, Bohrer C, Lonczak A, Xing T, Zimmerman R, et al. A randomized and blinded comparison of qPCR and NGS-based detection of aneuploidy in a cell line mixture model of blastocyst biopsy mosaicism. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;33(11):1473–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-016-0784-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Huang J, Yan L, Lu S, Zhao N, Qiao J. Re-analysis of aneuploidy blastocysts with an inner cell mass and different regional trophectoderm cells. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017;34(4):487–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-017-0875-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Victor ARTJ, Brake AJ, Lepkowsky LT, Murphy AE, Griffin DK, McCoy RC, et al. One hundred mosaic embryos transferred prospectively in a single clinic: exploring when and why they result in healthy pregnancies. Fertil Steril. 2019;2019(111):280–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Victor AR, Griffin DK, Brake AJ, Tyndall JC, Murphy AE, Lepkowsky LT, et al. Assessment of aneuploidy concordance between clinical trophectoderm biopsy and blastocyst. Hum Reprod. 2019;34(1):181–92.

  27. Lawrenz B, El Khatib I, Liñán A, Bayram A, Arnanz A, Chopra R, et al. The clinicians’ dilemma with mosaicism—an insight from inner cell mass biopsies. Hum Reprod. 2019;34(6):998–1010.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. NYU Langone Medical Center, 550 First Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, USA

    Nidhee M. Sachdev, David H. McCulloh, Yael Kramer, David Keefe & James A. Grifo

  2. OC Fertility, 1401 Avocado Ave Ste 403, Newport Beach, CA, 92660-8725, USA

    Nidhee M. Sachdev

Authors
  1. Nidhee M. Sachdev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David H. McCulloh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yael Kramer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David Keefe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. James A. Grifo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sachdev, N.M., McCulloh, D.H., Kramer, Y. et al. The reproducibility of trophectoderm biopsies in euploid, aneuploid, and mosaic embryos using independently verified next-generation sequencing (NGS): a pilot study. J Assist Reprod Genet 37, 559–571 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-020-01720-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-020-01720-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation