Skip to main content
Log in

Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Präimplantationsdiagnostik

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Gynäkologische Endokrinologie Aims and scope

Zusammenfassung

Die technischen Möglichkeiten der Präimplantationsdiagnostik sind in den letzten Jahren deutlich verbessert worden. Vor allem modifizierte PCR-Methoden wie „nested PCR“, Multiplex- und Fluoreszenz-PCR und der Transfer des Nukleus mit anschließender FISH haben die Sicherheit der Diagnostik erhöht. Die PGD befasst sich weltweit mit einer Ausweitung des Indikationsspektrums zu Aneuploidiescreening, Prädispositionsdiagnostik von malignen Erkrankungen und Geschlechtswahl nicht nur aus medizinischen Gründen. Die Diskussion zur PGD ist in Deutschland argumentativ erschöpfend geführt, aber nicht abgeschlossen. Es bleibt offen, ob die Methode eingeführt wird und ob Indikationen, die über die Diagnostik schwerwiegender Erbkrankheiten hinausgehen, Berücksichtigung finden werden.

Abstract

Molecular genetic techniques and their use in preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) have been widely expanded in recent years worldwide. The reliability and accuracy of PGD have been improved by including newer PCR modifications such as nested PCR, multiplex and fluorescence PCR, or FISH techniques after nuclear transfer. International discussion on PGD concentrates on expanding indications for PGD, for example, diagnosis of inherited predisposition for cancer and sexing for several reasons. In Germany, an extensive discussion on the basic introduction of PGD has been conducted in recent years, but not yet concluded. It is still open to question whether PGD will be allowed at all or introduced with some limitations concerning the spectrum of indications.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Literatur

  1. Abdelhadi I, Colls P, Sandalinas M et al. (2003) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis of numerical abnormalities for 13 chromosomes. Reprod Biomed Online 6:226–231

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bielanska M, Tan SL, Ao A (2003) Chromosomal information derived from single blastomeres isolated from cleavage-stage embryos and cultured in vitro. Fertil Steril 79:1304–1311

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Braude P, Pickering S, Flinter F, Ogilvie CM (2002) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Nat Rev Genet 3:941–953

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ciotti PM, Lagalla C, Ricco AS et al. (2000) Micromanipulation of cryopreserved embryos and cryopreservation of micromanipulated embryos in PGD. Mol Cell Endocrinol 169:63–67

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dahl E (2003) Ethical issues in new uses of preimplantation genetic diagnosis: should parents be allowed to use preimplantation genetic diagnosis to choose the sexual orientation of their children? Hum Reprod 18:1368–1369

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. De Boer K, McArthur S, Murray C, Jansen R (2002) First live birth following blastocyst biopsy and PGD analysis. Reprod BioMed Online 4:35

    Google Scholar 

  7. De Vos A, Sermon K, De Rijcke M et al. (2003) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease type 1A. Mol Hum Reprod 9:429–435

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dokras A, Sargent IL, Ross C et al. (1990) Trophectoderm biopsy in human blastocysts. Hum Reprod 5:821–825

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. ESHRE PGD Consortium Steering Committee (2002) ESHRE Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis Consortium: data collection III (May 2001). Hum Reprod 17:233–246

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Findlay I, Ray P, Quirke P et al. (1995) Allelic drop-out and preferential amplification in single cells and human blastomeres: implications for preimplantation diagnosis of sex and cystic fibrosis. Hum Reprod 10:1609–1618

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Findlay I, Quirke P, Hall J, Rutherford A (1996) Fluorescent PCR: a new technique for PGD of sex and single-gene defects. J Assist Reprod Genet 13:96–103

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gianaroli L, Magli MC, Ferraretti AP, Munne S (1999) Preimplantation diagnosis for aneuploidies in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization with a poor prognosis: identification of the categories for which it should be proposed. Fertil Steril 72:837–844

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gianaroli L, Magli MC, Ferraretti AP (2001) The in vivo and in vitro efficiency and efficacy of PGD for aneuploidy. Mol Cell Endocrinol 183 [Suppl 1]:S13–18

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gibbons WE, Gitlin SA, Lanzendorf SE et al. (1995) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for Tay-Sachs disease: successful pregnancy after pre-embryo biopsy and gene amplification by polymerase chain reaction. Fertil Steril 63:723–728

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Girardet A, Hamamah S, Anahory T et al. (2003) First preimplantation genetic diagnosis of hereditary retinoblastoma using informative microsatellite markers. Mol Hum Reprod 9:111–116

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Goossens V, Sermon K, Lissens W et al. (2003) Improving clinical preimplantation genetic diagnosis for cystic fibrosis by duplex PCR using two polymorphic markers or one polymorphic marker in combination with the detection of the DeltaF508 mutation. Mol Hum Reprod 9:559–567

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Griffin DK, Handyside AH, Penketh RJ et al. (1991) Fluorescent in-situ hybridization to interphase nuclei of human preimplantation embryos with X and Y chromosome specific probes. Hum Reprod 6:101–105

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Handyside AH, Kontogianni EH, Hardy K, Winston RM (1990) Pregnancies from biopsied human preimplantation embryos sexed by Y-specific DNA amplification. Nature 344:768–770

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hepp H et al. (2000) Diskussionsentwurf zu einer Richtlinie für die Präimplantationsdiagnostik. Dtsch Ärztebl 97:461–464

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hepp H (2003) Reproduktionsmedizin im Spannungsfeld von Wissenschaft, Recht und Ethik. Frauenarzt 44:364–378

    Google Scholar 

  21. International Working Group on Preimplantation genetics 2001 (2001) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis—experience of 3000 clinical cycles. Report of the 11th Annual Meeting of International Working Group on Preimplantation Genetics, in association with 10th International Congress on Human Genetics, Vienna, may 5, 2001. Reprod Biomed Online 3:49–53

    Google Scholar 

  22. Jericho H, Wilton L, Gook DA, Edgar DH (2003) A modified cryopreservation method increases the survival of human biopsied cleavage stage embryos. Hum Reprod 18:568–571

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Joris H, Van den Abbeel E, Vos AD, Van Steirteghem A (1999) Reduced survival after human embryo biopsy and subsequent cryopreservation. Hum Reprod 14:2833–2837

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kuliev A, Verlinsky Y (2002) Current features of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Reprod Biomed Online 5:294–299

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Malpani A, Modi D (2002) Preimplantation sex selection for family balancing in India. Hum Reprod 17:11–12

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Moutou C, Rongieres C, Bettahar-Lebugle K et al. (2003) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for achondroplasia: genetics and gynaecological limits and difficulties. Hum Reprod 18:509–514

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ozen S, Rechitsky S, Verlinsky Y (2002) Optimization of high-resolution single cell comparative genomic hybridization to fit in PGD framework. Reprod Biomed Online 4 [Suppl. 2]:24, abstract

  28. Pehlivan T, Rubio C, Rodrigo L et al. (2003) Impact of preimplantation genetic diagnosis on IVF outcome in implantation failure patients. Reprod Biomed Online 6:232–237

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Pickering SJ, McConnell JM, Johnson MH, Braude PR (1994) Use of a polymorphic dinucleotide repeat sequence to detect non-blastomeric contamination of the polymerase chain reaction in biopsy samples for preimplantation diagnosis. Hum Reprod 9:1539–1545

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Piyamongkol W, Harper JC, Delhanty JD, Wells D (2001) PGD protocols using multiplex fluorescent PCR. Reprod Biomed Online 2:212–214

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Rechitsky S, Verlinsky O, Amet T et al. (2001) Reliability of preimplantation diagnosis for single gene disorders. Mol Cell Endocrinol 22 [Suppl 1]:S65–68

    Google Scholar 

  32. Rechitsky S, Verlinsky O, Chistokhina A et al. (2002) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for cancer predisposition. Reprod Biomed Online 5:148–155

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Rechitsky S, Verlinsky O, Kuliev A et al. (2003) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for familial dysautonomia. Reprod Biomed Online 6:488–493

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Robertson JA (2003) Extending preimplantation genetic diagnosis: the ethical debate: ethical issues in new uses of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Hum Reprod 18:465–471

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Robertson J (2003) PGD: new ethical challenges. Nat Rev Genet 4:6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Robertson JA (2003) Sex selection by preimkplantation genetic diagnosis: should it be carried out for social purposes? View of the ASRM Ethics Committee. Hum Reprod 18:464

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Schreiber HL (2003) The legal situation regarding assisted reproduction in Germany. Reprod Biomed Online 6:8–12

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Schwinger E (2000) Indikationen zur Präimplantationsdiagnostik. Gynäkologe 11:795–799

    Google Scholar 

  39. Staessen C, Van Assche E, Joris H et al. (1999) Clinical experience of sex determination by fluorescent in-situ hybridization for preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Mol Hum Reprod 5:382–389

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Traeger-Synodinos J, Vrettou C, Palmer G et al. (2003) An evaluation of PGD in clinical genetic services through 3 years application for prevention of beta-thalassaemia major and sickle cell thalassaemia. Mol Hum Reprod 9:301–307

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Verlinsky Y, Kuliev A (2000) An atlas of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Parthenon Publishing Group, New York London

  42. Verlinsky Y, Rechitsky S, Verlinsky O et al. (2001) Preimplantation diagnosis for p53 tumour suppressor gene mutations. Reprod Biomed Online 2:102–105

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Verlinsky Y, Rechitsky S, Schoolcraft W et al. (2001) Preimplantation diagnosis of Fanconi anemia combined with HLA matching. JAMA 285:3130–3133

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Verlinsky Y, Cieslak J, Kuliev A (2002) Preimplantation FISH diagnosis of aneuploidies. Methods Mol Biol 204:259–273

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Verlinsky Y, Cieslak J, Evsikov S et al. (2002) Nuclear transfer for full karyotyping and preimplantation diagnosis for translocations. Reprod Biomed Online 5:300–305

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Verlinsky Y, Rechitsky S, Verlinsky O et al. (2002) Preimplantation diagnosis for neurofibromatosis. Reprod Biomed Online 4:218–222

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Verlinsky Y, Rechitsky S, Verlinsky O et al. (2002) Preimplantation diagnosis for early onset Alzheimer disease caused by V717L mutation. JAMA 287:1018–1021

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Wells D, Delhanty JD (2000) Comprehensive chromosomal analysis of human preimplantation embryos using whole genome amplification and single cell comparative genomic hybridization. Mol Hum Reprod 6:1055–1062

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Wells D, Levy B (2003) Cytogenetics in reproductive medicine: the contribution of comparative genomic hybridization (CGH). Bioessays 25:289–300

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Wilton L, Williamson R, McBain J et al. (2001) Birth of a healthy infant after preimplantation confirmation of euploidy by comparative genomic hybridization. N Engl J Med 345:1537–1541

    Google Scholar 

  51. Wilton L, Williamson R, McBain J et al. (2002) Preimplantation diagnosis of aneuploidy using comparative genomic hybridization. Reprod Biomed Online 4 [Suppl 2]:13–14, abstract

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. Strowitzki.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Strowitzki, T. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Präimplantationsdiagnostik. Gynäkologische Endokrinologie 1, 164–169 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10304-003-0043-4

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10304-003-0043-4

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation