The origin and impact of embryonic aneuploidy
- 2.1k Downloads
Despite the clinical importance of aneuploidy, surprisingly little is known concerning its impact during the earliest stages of human development. This study aimed to shed light on the genesis, progression, and survival of different types of chromosome anomaly from the fertilized oocyte through the final stage of preimplantation development (blastocyst). 2,204 oocytes and embryos were examined using comprehensive cytogenetic methodology. A diverse array of chromosome abnormalities was detected, including many forms never recorded later in development. Advancing female age was associated with dramatic increase in aneuploidy rate and complex chromosomal abnormalities. Anaphase lag and congression failure were found to be important malsegregation causing mechanisms in oogenesis and during the first few mitotic divisions. All abnormalities appeared to be tolerated until activation of the embryonic genome, after which some forms started to decline in frequency. However, many aneuploidies continued to have little impact, with affected embryos successfully reaching the blastocyst stage. Results from the direct analyses of female meiotic divisions and early embryonic stages suggest that chromosome errors present during preimplantation development have origins that are more varied than those seen in later pregnancy, raising the intriguing possibility that the source of aneuploidy might modulate impact on embryo viability. The results of this study also narrow the window of time for selection against aneuploid embryos, indicating that most survive until the blastocyst stage and, since they are not detected in clinical pregnancies, must be lost around the time of implantation or shortly thereafter.
KeywordsMeiotic Division Blastocyst Stage Cleavage Stage Preimplantation Genetic Screening Preimplantation Development
Dagan Wells is supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre Oxford.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2013) 2010 Assisted Reproductive Technology National Summary ReportGoogle Scholar
- Christopikou D, Tsorva E, Economou K, Shelley P, Davies S, Mastrominas M, Handyside AH (2013) Polar body analysis by array comparative genomic hybridization accurately predicts aneuploidies of maternal meiotic origin in cleavage stage embryos of women of advanced maternal age. Hum Reprod. [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 23477909 [PubMed—as supplied by publisher]Google Scholar
- Fragouli E, Katz-Jaffe M, Alfarawati S, Stevens J, Colls P, Goodall NN, Tormasi S, Gutierrez-Mateo C, Prates R, Schoolcraft WB, Munne S, Wells D (2010) Comprehensive chromosome screening of polar bodies and blastocysts from couples experiencing repeated implantation failure. Fertil Steril 94:875–887PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gabriel AS, Thornhill AR, Ottolini CS, Gordon A, Brown AP, Taylor J, Bennett K, Handyside A, Griffin DK (2011) Array comparative genomic hybridisation on first polar bodies suggests that non-disjunction is not the predominant mechanism leading to aneuploidy in humans. J Med Genet 48:433–437PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Liu P, Erez A, Nagamani SCS, Dhar SU, Kołodziejska KE, Dharmadhikari AV, Cooper ML, Wiszniewska J, Zhang F, Withers MA, Bacino CA, Campos-Acevedo LD, Delgado MR, Freedenberg D, Garnica A, Grebe TA, Hernandez-Almaguer D, Immken LD, Lalani SR, McLean SD, Northrup H, Scaglia F, Strathearn L, Trapane P, Kang SHL, Patel A, Cheung SW, Hastings PJ, Stankiewicz P, Lupski JR, Bi W (2011) Chromosome catastrophes involve replication mechanisms generating complex genomic rearrangements. Cell 146:889–903PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Magli MC, Montag M, Köster M, Muzi L, Geraedts J, Collins J, Goossens V, Handyside AH, Harper J, Repping S, Schmutzler A, Vesela K, Gianaroli L (2011) Polar body array CGH for prediction of the status of the corresponding oocyte. Part II: technical aspects. Hum Reprod 26:3181–3185PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mantzouratou A, Mania A, Fragouli E, Xanthopoulou L, Tashkandi S, Fordham K, Ranieri DM, Doshi A, Nuttall S, Harper JC, Serhal P, Delhanty JD (2007) Variable aneuploidy mechanisms in embryos from couples with poor reproductive histories undergoing preimplantation genetic screening. Hum Reprod 22:1844–1853PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mertzanidou A, Spits C, Nguyen HT, Van de Velde H, Sermon K (2013) Evolution of aneuploidy up to Day 4 of human preimplantation development. Hum Reprod. [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 23526301 [PubMed—as supplied by publisher]Google Scholar
- Stephens PJ, Greenman CD, Fu B, Yang F, Bignell GR, Mudie LJ, Pleasance ED, Lau KW, Beare D, Stebbings LA, McLaren S, Lin ML, McBride DJ, Varela I, Nik-Zainal S, Leroy C, Jia M, Menzies A, Butler AP, Teague JW, Quail MA, Burton J, Swerdlow H, Carter NP, Morsberger LA, Iacobuzio-Donahue C, Follows GA, Green AR, Flanagan AM, Stratton MR, Futreal PA, Campbell PJ (2011) Massive genomic rearrangement acquired in a single catastrophic event during cancer development. Cell 144:27–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar