Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conventional IVF is feasible in preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy

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

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the feasibility of the application of conventional in vitro fertilization (cIVF) for couples undergoing preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A) with non-male factor infertility.

Methods

To evaluate the efficiency of sperm whole-genome amplification (WGA), spermatozoa were subjected to three WGA protocols: Picoplex, ChromInst, and multiple displacement amplification (MDA). In the clinical studies, 641 couples who underwent PGT-A treatment for frozen embryos between January 2016 and December 2021 were included to retrospectively compare the chromosomal and clinical outcomes of cIVF and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Twenty-six couples were prospectively recruited for cIVF and PGT-A treatment between April 2021 and April 2022; parental contamination was analyzed in biopsied samples; and 12 aneuploid embryos were donated to validate the PGT-A results.

Results

Sperm DNA failed to amplify under Picoplex and ChromInst conditions but could be amplified using MDA. In frozen PGT-A cycles, no significant differences in the average rates of euploid, mosaic, and aneuploid embryos per cycle between the cIVF-PGT-A and ICSI-PGT-A groups were observed. The results of the prospective study that recruited couples for cIVF-PGT-A treatment showed no paternal contamination and one case of maternal contamination in 150 biopsied trophectoderm samples. Among the 12 donated embryos with whole-chromosome aneuploidy, 11 (91.7%) presented uniform chromosomal aberrations, which were in agreement with the original biopsy results.

Conclusions

Under the Picoplex and ChromInst WGA protocols, the risk of parental contamination in the cIVF-PGT-A cycles was low. Therefore, applying cIVF to couples with non-male factor infertility who are undergoing PGT-A is feasible.

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
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data used and/or analyzed in this manuscript are available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Handyside AH, Pattinson JK, Penketh RJ, Delhanty JD, Winston RM, Tuddenham EG. Biopsy of human preimplantation embryos and sexing by DNA amplification. Lancet. 1989;1:347–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Palermo G, Joris H, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem AC. Pregnancies after intracytoplasmic injection of single spermatozoon into an oocyte. Lancet. 1992;340:17–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) for non-male factor infertility: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:1395–9.

  4. ESHRE PGT Consortium and SIG-Embryology Biopsy Working Group, Kokkali G, Coticchio G, Bronet F, Celebi C, Cimadomo D, et al. ESHRE PGT Consortium and SIG Embryology good practice recommendations for polar body and embryo biopsy for PGT. Hum Reprod Open. 2020;2020:hoaa020.

  5. Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis International Society (PGDIS). Guidelines for good practice in PGD: programme requirements and laboratory quality assurance. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;16:134–47.

  6. Esteves SC, Roque M, Bedoschi G, Haahr T, Humaidan P. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection for male infertility and consequences for offspring. Nat Rev Urol. 2018;15:535–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Geng T, Cheng L, Ge C, Zhang Y. The effect of ICSI in infertility couples with non-male factor: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020;37:2929–45.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Abbas AM, Hussein RS, Elsenity MA, Samaha II, El Etriby KA, Abd El-Ghany MF, et al. Higher clinical pregnancy rate with in-vitro fertilization versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection in treatment of non-male factor infertility: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2020;49: 101706.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dang VQ, Vuong LN, Luu TM, Pham TD, Ho TM, Ha AN, et al. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection versus conventional in-vitro fertilisation in couples with infertility in whom the male partner has normal total sperm count and motility: an open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2021;397:1554–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Huang JX, Gao YQ, Chen XT, Han YQ, Song JY, Sun ZG. Impact of intracytoplasmic sperm injection in women with non-male factor infertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Reprod Health. 2022;4:1029381.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Ola B, Afnan M, Sharif K, Papaioannou S, Hammadieh N, Barratt CL. Should ICSI be the treatment of choice for all cases of in-vitro conception? Considerations of fertilization and embryo development, cost effectiveness and safety. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:2485–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) for non-male factor indications: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2020;114:239–45.

  13. Feldman B, Aizer A, Brengauz M, Dotan K, Levron J, Schiff E, et al. Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis-should we use ICSI for all? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017;34:1179–83.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. De Munck N, El Khatib I, Abdala A, El-Damen A, Bayram A, Arnanz A, et al. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection is not superior to conventional IVF in couples with non-male factor infertility and preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A). Hum Reprod. 2020;35:317–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Deng J, Kuyoro O, Zhao Q, Behr B, Lathi RB. Comparison of aneuploidy rates between conventional in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection in in vitro fertilization-intracytoplasmic sperm injection split insemination cycles. F S Rep. 2020;1:277–81.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Palmerola KL, Vitez SF, Amrane S, Fischer CP, Forman EJ. Minimizing mosaicism: assessing the impact of fertilization method on rate of mosaicism after next-generation sequencing (NGS) preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A). J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36:153–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Patel K, Vaughan DA, Rodday AM, Penzias A, Sakkas D. Compared with conventional insemination, intracytoplasmic sperm injection provides no benefit in cases of nonmale factor infertility as evidenced by comparable euploidy rate. Fertil Steril. 2023;120:277–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. World Health Organization, Department of Reproductive Health and Research. WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen, 5th edn. Geneve: WHO Press; 2010.

  19. 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. 2013;28:2298–307.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Xie P, Liu P, Zhang S, Cheng D, Chen D, Tan YQ, et al. Segmental aneuploidies with 1 Mb resolution in human preimplantation blastocysts. Genet Med. 2022;24:2285–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB. In-vitro culture of human blastocysts. In: Jansen R, Mortimer D, editors. Towards reproductive certainty: fertility and genetics beyond 1999. Carnforth: Parthenon Press; 1999. p. 378–88.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Zhang S, Luo K, Cheng D, Tan Y, Lu C, He H, et al. Number of biopsied trophectoderm cells is likely to affect the implantation potential of blastocysts with poor trophectoderm quality. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:1222-7.e4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Zhou S, Xie P, Zhang S, Hu L, Luo K, Gong F, et al. Complex mosaic blastocysts after preimplantation genetic testing: prevalence and outcomes after re-biopsy and re-vitrification. Reprod Biomed Online. 2021;43:215–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Dong Y, Liu D, Zou Y, Wan C, Chen C, Dong M, et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for human blastocysts with potential parental contamination using a quantitative parental contamination test (qPCT): an evidence-based study. Reprod Biomed Online. 2023;46:69–79.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lynch C, Cater E, Charitou M, Forbes H, Griffin D, Gordon T. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection is not necessary as a preventive measure against paternal cell contamination in preimplantation genetic testing. Reprod Biomed Online. 2019;39(S1):e24–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Li H, Cui X, Arnheim N. Direct electrophoretic detection of the allelic state of single DNA molecules in human sperm by using the polymerase chain reaction. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1990;87:4580–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Jiang Z, Zhang X, Deka R, Jin L. Genome amplification of single sperm using multiple displacement amplification. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005;33: e91.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Tran QT, Jatsenko T, Poolamets O, Tšuiko O, Lubenets D, Reimand T, et al. Chromosomal scan of single sperm cells by combining fluorescence-activated cell sorting and next-generation sequencing. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36:91–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Berntsen S, Laivuori H, la Cour Freiesleben N, Loft A, Söderström-Anttila V, B Oldereid N, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the association between ICSI and chromosome abnormalities. Hum Reprod Update. 2021;27:801–47.

  30. Tannus S, Son WY, Gilman A, Younes G, Shavit T, Dahan MH. The role of intracytoplasmic sperm injection in non-male factor infertility in advanced maternal age. Hum Reprod. 2017;32:119–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Liu H, Zhao H, Yu G, Li M, Ma S, Zhang H, et al. Conventional in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI): which is preferred for advanced age patients with five or fewer oocytes retrieved? Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2018;297:1301–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Sunderam S, Boulet SL, Kawwass JF, Kissin DM. Comparing fertilization rates from intracytoplasmic sperm injection to conventional in vitro fertilization among women of advanced age with non-male factor infertility: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2020;113:354-63.e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Haas J, Miller TE, Nahum R, Aizer A, Kirshenbaum M, Zilberberg E, et al. The role of ICSI vs. conventional IVF for patients with advanced maternal age-a randomized controlled trial. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021;38:95–100.

  34. Li G, Yu Y, Fan Y, Li C, Xu X, Duan J, et al. Genome-wide abnormal DNA methylome of the human blastocyst in assisted reproductive technology. J Genet Genomics. 2017;44:475–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Chen Y, Gao Y, Jia J, Chang L, Liu P, Qiao J, et al. DNA methylome reveals the cellular origin of cell-free DNA in the spent medium of human preimplantation embryos. J Clin Invest. 2021;131: e146051.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. 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;34:181–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Navratil R, Horak J, Hornak M, Kubicek D, Balcova M, Tauwinklova G, et al. Concordance of various chromosomal errors among different parts of the embryo and the value of re-biopsy in embryos with segmental aneuploidies. Mol Hum Reprod. 2020;26:269–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank all the patients who participated in this study. We are grateful to Lu Tan and other staff members of the PGT and IVF groups at CITIC-Xiangya for their assistance.

Funding

This study was supported by the Hunan Provincial Grant for Innovative Province Construction (2019SK4012).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Shuoping Zhang and Pingyuan Xie contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinical Research Center for Reproduction and Genetics in Hunan Province, Reproductive and Genetic Hospital of CITIC-Xiangya, No. 567, Tongzipo West Road, Yuelu District, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China

    Shuoping Zhang, Shujuan Ma, Liang Hu, Yueqiu Tan, Fei Gong & Ge Lin

  2. Hospital of Hunan Guangxiu, Hunan Normal University School of Medicine, Changsha, China

    Pingyuan Xie & Fang Lan

  3. National Engineering and Research Center of Human Stem Cells, Changsha, China

    Pingyuan Xie, Liang Hu, Yueqiu Tan, Bo Jiang, Fei Gong & Ge Lin

  4. Department of Clinical Research, Yikon Genomics Company, Ltd., 218 Xinghu Street, Unit 301, Building A3, BioBay, Suzhou Industrial Park, Suzhou, 215000, Jiangsu, China

    Yaxin Yao, Anqi Wan, Dunmei Zhao & Sijia Lu

  5. NHC Key Laboratory of Human Stem Cell and Reproductive Engineering, Institute of Reproductive and Stem Cell Engineering, School of Basic Medical Science, Central South University, Changsha, China

    Liang Hu, Yueqiu Tan, Fei Gong & Ge Lin

Authors
  1. Shuoping Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pingyuan Xie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fang Lan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yaxin Yao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shujuan Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Liang Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yueqiu Tan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Bo Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Anqi Wan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Dunmei Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Fei Gong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Sijia Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Ge Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Sijia Lu or Ge Lin.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

YY, AW, DZ, and SL were employed by Yikon Genomics Company, Ltd. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

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)

Supplementary file2 (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

Zhang, S., Xie, P., Lan, F. et al. Conventional IVF is feasible in preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy. J Assist Reprod Genet 40, 2333–2342 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-023-02916-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-023-02916-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation