Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Familial haplotyping and embryo analysis for Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) using DNA microarrays: a proof of principle study

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

Abstract

Purpose

Development of PGD assays for molecular disorders is based on analysis of a familial mutation together with linked polymorphic STR markers; a process which is lengthy and requires the identification of multiple informative markers prior to PGD analysis. On the other hand, whole genome amplification (WGA), in conjunction with microarray platforms, allows the use of a universal assay for the analysis of a very large number of SNP markers at once. The aim of this study was to test high throughput pre-PGD familial haplotyping for in-case blastomere analysis in order to eliminate time-consuming pre-case preparations for each family.

Methods

A PGD cycle was performed for a couple with paternal Charcot Marie Tooth 1A (CMT1A) using a classic multiplex nested PCR approach. Mutant embryos from the case were blindly reanalyzed, as single or multi-cell biopsies, using a multiple displacement amplification-based WGA protocol and microarray SNP analysis. In parallel, relevant genomic DNA samples from the family were also analyzed by SNP microarray.

Results

After applying a ‘unique informative allele’ selection algorithm to the data, this array-based assay reconfirmed the initial diagnosis in all samples.

Conclusions

We describe a PGD method that is both accurate and feasible during the time-frame required for embryo transfer. This strategy greatly reduces the time for pre-case haplotype preparation.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Altarescu G, Brooks B, Kaplan Y, Eldar-Geva T, Margalioth EJ, Levy-Lahad E, et al. Single-sperm analysis for haplotype construction of de-novo paternal mutations: application to PGD for neurofibromatosis type 1. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(8):2047–51. doi:10.1093/humrep/del064.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Altarescu G, Eldar Geva T, Brooks B, Margalioth E, Levy-Lahad E, Renbaum P. PGD on a recombinant allele: crossover between the TSC2 gene and ‘linked’ markers impairs accurate diagnosis. Prenat Diagn. 2008;28(10):929–33. doi:10.1002/pd.2070.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Chowdhury R, Bois PR, Feingold E, Sherman SL, Cheung VG. Genetic analysis of variation in human meiotic recombination. PLoS Genet. 2009;5(9):e1000648. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000648.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Fragouli E, Wells D. Aneuploidy screening for embryo selection. Sem Reprod Med. 2012;30(4):289–301. doi:10.1055/s-0032-1313908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Handyside AH, Harton GL, Mariani B, Thornhill AR, Affara N, Shaw MA, et al. Karyomapping: a universal method for genome wide analysis of genetic disease based on mapping crossovers between parental haplotypes. J Med Genet. 2010;47(10):651–8. doi:10.1136/jmg.2009.069971.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Handyside AH, Kontogianni EH, Hardy K, Winston RM. Pregnancies from biopsied human preimplantation embryos sexed by Y-specific DNA amplification. Nature. 1990;344(6268):768–70. doi:10.1038/344768a0.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Iwamoto K, Bundo M, Ueda J, Nakano Y, Ukai W, Hashimoto E, et al. Detection of chromosomal structural alterations in single cells by SNP arrays: a systematic survey of amplification bias and optimized workflow. PLoS One. 2007;2(12):e1306. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001306.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Jin R, Tong X, Wu L, Luo L, Luan H, Zhou G, et al. Extended culture of vitrified-warmed embryos in day-3 embryo transfer cycles: a randomized controlled pilot study. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;26(4):384–92. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.12.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Johnson DS, Gemelos G, Baner J, Ryan A, Cinnioglu C, Banjevic M, et al. Preclinical validation of a microarray method for full molecular karyotyping of blastomeres in a 24-h protocol. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(4):1066–75. doi:10.1093/humrep/dep452.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kakourou G, Dhanjal S, Daphnis D, Doshi A, Nuttall S, Gotts S, et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for myotonic dystrophy type 1: detection of crossover between the gene and the linked marker APOC2. Prenat Diagn. 2007;27(2):111–6. doi:10.1002/pd.1611.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Konings P, Vanneste E, Jackmaert S, Ampe M, Verbeke G, Moreau Y, et al. Microarray analysis of copy number variation in single cells. Nat Protoc. 2012;7(2):281–310. doi:10.1038/nprot.2011.426.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Renwick PJ, Trussler J, Ostad-Saffari E, Fassihi H, Black C, Braude P, et al. Proof of principle and first cases using preimplantation genetic haplotyping–a paradigm shift for embryo diagnosis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;13(1):110–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Spits C, Le Caignec C, De Rycke M, Van Haute L, Van Steirteghem A, Liebaers I, et al. Optimization and evaluation of single-cell whole-genome multiple displacement amplification. Hum Mutat. 2006;27(5):496–503. doi:10.1002/humu.20324.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Treff NR, Su J, Tao X, Northrop LE, Scott Jr RT. Single-cell whole-genome amplification technique impacts the accuracy of SNP microarray-based genotyping and copy number analyses. Mol Hum Reprod. 2011;17(6):335–43. doi:10.1093/molehr/gaq103.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Vanneste E, Bittman L, Van der Aa N, Voet T, Vermeesch JR. New array approaches to explore single cells genomes. Front Genet. 2012;3:44. doi:10.3389/fgene.2012.00044.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Verlinsky O, Kuliev A. Atlas of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. 2nd ed. London: Taylor & Francis; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Verlinsky Y, Cohen J, Munne S, Gianaroli L, Simpson JL, Ferraretti AP, et al. Over a decade of experience with preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Fertil Steril. 2004;82(2):302–3. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.02.108.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Voet T, Vanneste E, Van der Aa N, Melotte C, Jackmaert S, Vandendael T, et al. Breakage-fusion-bridge cycles leading to inv dup del occur in human cleavage stage embryos. Hum Mutat. 2011;32(7):783–93. doi:10.1002/humu.21502.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Wilton L, Thornhill A, Traeger-Synodinos J, Sermon KD, Harper JC. The causes of misdiagnosis and adverse outcomes in PGD. Hum Reprod. 2009;24(5):1221–8. doi:10.1093/humrep/den488.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Zhu D, Zhang J, Cao S, Zhang J, Heng BC, Huang M, et al. Vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer cycles yield higher pregnancy and implantation rates compared with fresh blastocyst transfer cycles-time for a new embryo transfer strategy? Fertil Steril. 2011;95(5):1691–5. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.01.022.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Rabbi David and Mrs. Anita Fuld for their generous and ongoing support.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Medical Genetics Institute, ZOHAR PGD Lab and IVF Unit, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel, 91031

    G. Altarescu, D. A. Zeevi, S. Zeligson, S. Perlberg, T. Eldar-Geva, E. J. Margalioth, E. Levy-Lahad & P. Renbaum

  2. Preimplantation Genetic Unit, Medical Genetics Institute, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Bayit Str. 12, P.O.Box 3235, Jerusalem, Israel, 91031

    G. Altarescu

Authors
  1. G. Altarescu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. A. Zeevi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Zeligson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Perlberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. T. Eldar-Geva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. E. J. Margalioth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. E. Levy-Lahad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. P. Renbaum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. Altarescu.

Additional information

Capsule The classic STR-based method for PGD of monogenic disorders requires time consuming pre-case preparations. In this proof of principle investigation, we describe a SNP microarray-based methodology that accomplishes pre-PGD case preparations in a fraction of the time without compromising on diagnostic accuracy.

G. Altarescu and D. A. Zeevi are equal contributing authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Altarescu, G., Zeevi, D.A., Zeligson, S. et al. Familial haplotyping and embryo analysis for Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) using DNA microarrays: a proof of principle study. J Assist Reprod Genet 30, 1595–1603 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-013-0044-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-013-0044-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation