Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Do chromosomal inversion carriers really need preimplantation genetic testing?

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

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate the rates of euploidy, aneuploidy, and mosaicism in preimplantation genetic testing for structural rearrangements (PGT-SR) cycles from chromosomal inversion carriers. In addition, this work also focused on assessing the impact of some contributors on the incidence of parental originating aneuploidy and mosaicism.

Methods

This retrospective review enrolled chromosomal inversion carrier couples of whom the females were under 38 years old undergoing PGT-SR at a single academic reproductive center. Subgroups were divided according to the gender of carriers, the inversion type, and the semen parameters of male carriers (male factor infertility (MF) or non-MF). Patient demographics, cycle characteristics, and PGT-SR outcomes were compared among subgroups.

Results

A total of 71 PGT-SR cycles from 57 inversion carrier couples were included for analysis. Among the 283 blastocysts, 48.4% were identified as euploidy, 27.9% as aneuploidy, and the remaining 23.7% as mosaicism. Only 32.9% of aneuploid embryos and 1.5% of mosaic embryos involved the parental inversion chromosomes. Notably, the female inversion carriers seemed to produce more parental originating aneuploid embryos than male inversion carriers (45.5% vs 23.9%, p = 0.044).

Conclusions

The type of inversion and sperm parameters of male chromosomal inversion carriers did not affect the ploidy status of embryos. The incidence of parental originating aneuploidy in inversion carrier couples is lower than expected. For male chromosomal inversion carriers with normal sperm condition whose female partners are under 38 years old, natural conception combined with prenatal diagnosis could be provided as an option during fertility counseling.

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. Anton E, Vidal F, Egozcue J, Blanco J. Genetic reproductive risk in inversion carriers. Fertil Steril. 2006;85(3):661–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Anton E, Blanco J, Egozcue J, Vidal F. Sperm studies in heterozygote inversion carriers: a review. Cytogenet Genome Res. 2005;111(3–4):297–304.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Morel F, Laudier B, Guérif F, Couet ML, Royère D, Roux C, et al. Meiotic segregation analysis in spermatozoa of pericentric inversion carriers using fluorescence in-situ hybridization. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(1):136–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Nussbaum R, McInnes R, Willard H. Thompson & Thompson genetics in medicine. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Madan K. Paracentric inversions: a review. Hum Genet. 1995;96(5):503–15.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Shao Y, Li J, Lu J, Li H, Zhu Y, Jiang W, et al. Clinical outcomes of Preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) application in couples with chromosomal inversion, a study in the Chinese Han population. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2020;18(1):79.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Gardner DK, Lane M, Stevens J, Schlenker T, Schoolcraft WB. Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: towards a single blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril. 2000;73(6):1155–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lejeune J. AUSTOSOMAL DISORDERS. Pediatrics. 1963;32:326–37.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kirkpatrik M. How and why chromosome inversions evolve. PLoS Biol. 2010;8(9):e1000501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Puig M, Casillas S, Villatoro S, Cáceres M. Human inversions and their functional consequences. Brief Funct Genomics. 2015;14(5):369–79.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hou W, Xu Y, Li R, Song J, Wang J, Zeng Y, et al. Role of aneuploidy screening in preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic diseases in young women. Fertil Steril. 2019;111(5):928–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Young D, Klepcka D, McGarvey M, Schoolcraft WB, Katz-Jaffe MG. Infertility patients with chromosome inversions are not susceptible to an inter-chromosomal effect. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36(3):509–16.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Xie P, Hu L, Tan Y, Gong F, Zhang S, Xiong B, et al. Retrospective analysis of meiotic segregation pattern and interchromosomal effects in blastocysts from inversion preimplantation genetic testing cycles. Fertil Steril. 2019;112(2):336-42 e3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mateu-Brull E, Rodrigo L, Peinado V, Mercader A, Campos-Galindo I, Bronet F, et al. Interchromosomal effect in carriers of translocations and inversions assessed by preimplantation genetic testing for structural rearrangements (PGT-SR). J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36(12):2547–55.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Zhang S, Lei C, Wu J, Sun H, Zhou J, Zhu S, et al. Analysis of segregation patterns of quadrivalent structures and the effect on genome stability during meiosis in reciprocal translocation carriers. Hum Reprod. 2018;33(4):757–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. JD K, RC M, Z D, RB L (2018) Are blastocyst aneuploidy rates different between fertile and infertile populations? J Assist Reprod Genet. 35(3):403–8.

  17. Li X, Hao Y, Elshewy N, Zhu X, Zhang Z, Zhou P. The mechanisms and clinical application of mosaicism in preimplantation embryos. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020;37(3):497–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Leigh D, Cram DS, Rechitsky S, Handyside A, Wells D, Munne S, et al. PGDIS position statement on the transfer of mosaic embryos 2021. Reprod Biomed Online. 2022.

  19. Tong J, Niu Y, Wan A, Zhang T. Effect of parental origin and predictors for obtaining a euploid embryo in balanced translocation carriers. Reprod Biomed Online. 2022;44(1):72–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Tong J, Niu Y, Wan A, Zhang T. Comparison of day 5 blastocyst with day 6 blastocyst: Evidence from NGS-based PGT-A results. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2022;39(2):369–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. S M, J B, M L, PA M-O, H N, E L, 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.e8.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Reproductive Medicine, Ren Ji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200135, China

    Jing Tong, Yichao Niu & Ting Zhang

  2. Shanghai Key Laboratory for Assisted Reproduction and Reproductive Genetics, Shanghai, 200135, China

    Jing Tong, Yichao Niu & Ting Zhang

  3. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Ren Ji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200135, China

    Jianwei Jiang

Authors
  1. Jing Tong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jianwei Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yichao Niu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ting Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ting Zhang.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval and consent to participate

The present study was consistent with the Declaration of Helsinki and received approval from the Ethics Committee of Hospital. All patients provided written informed consent.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

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

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (XLSX 15 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tong, J., Jiang, J., Niu, Y. et al. Do chromosomal inversion carriers really need preimplantation genetic testing?. J Assist Reprod Genet 39, 2573–2579 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-022-02654-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-022-02654-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation