Advertisement

medizinische genetik

, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 332–341 | Cite as

Präimplantationsdiagnostik – methodische Aspekte

  • Andreas Hehr
  • Bernd Paulmann
  • Lisa Eichhammer
  • Claudia Gassner
  • Bernd Seifert
  • Ute Hehr
Schwerpunktthema: PID

Zusammenfassung

Die Präimplantationsdiagnostik erfordert eine enge und vertrauensvolle interdisziplinäre Zusammenarbeit zwischen hoch qualifizierten Fachärzten und Naturwissenschaftlern aus Humangenetik und Reproduktionsmedizin. In einem sehr engen Zeitfenster müssen komplexe Laborabläufe standardisiert und qualitätsgesichert umgesetzt werden. In diesem Beitrag sollen orientierende Empfehlungen zur Umsetzung kurz vorgestellt werden. Zentral haben wir häufigere Problemsituationen thematisiert, welche bereits bei der Indikationsstellung wie auch bei den nachfolgenden Schritten in der genetischen Analyse, Datenauswertung und Befunderstellung mögliche Fehlerquellen darstellen. Ziel unserer verantwortlichen Arbeit an den PID-Zentren sollte eine hohe Geburtenrate bei hoher Diagnosesicherheit mit möglichst wenigen schonenden Behandlungszyklen sein.

Schlüsselwörter

PID Genetische Beratung Richtlinien Methoden Fehldiagnosen 

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis – methodical aspects

Abstract

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) requires close interdisciplinary cooperation between highly qualified physicians and scientists from human genetics and reproductive medicine.

In a very narrow time window, complex analytic tasks meeting high-quality standards must be completed. In this review, we recommend methodical guidelines and report on situations throughout PGD that may potentially give rise to misdiagnosis.

The central aim of our work at the PGD centers should be a high birthrate with high diagnostic accuracy, achieved with a minimal number of mild treatment cycles.

Keywords

PGD Genetic counseling Guidelines Methods Misdiagnosis 

Notes

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt

A. Hehr, B. Paulmann, L. Eichhammer, C. Gassner, B. Seifert und U. Hehr sind am PID-Zentrum Regensburg tätig und direkt in die Durchführung der Präimplantationsdiagnostik auf humangenetischem oder reproduktionsmedizinischem Gebiet eingebunden.

Alle beschriebenen Untersuchungen am Menschen wurden mit Zustimmung der zuständigen Ethik-Kommission, im Einklang mit nationalem Recht sowie gemäß der Deklaration von Helsinki von 1975 (in der aktuellen, überarbeiteten Fassung) durchgeführt. Von allen beteiligten Patienten liegt eine Einverständniserklärung vor.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    De Rycke M, Belva F, Goossens V, Moutou C, SenGupta SB, Traeger-Synodinos J, Coonen E (2015) ESHRE PGD Consortium data collection XIII: Cycles from January to December 2010 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2011. Hum Reprod 30:1763–1789CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    (1990) „Embryonenschutzgesetz vom 13. Dezember 1990 (BGBl. I S. 2746), das zuletzt durch Artikel 1 des Gesetzes vom 21. November 2011 (BGBl. I S. 2228) geändert worden ist“Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    (2013) „Präimplantationsdiagnostikverordnung vom 21. Februar 2013 (BGBl. I S. 323)“Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Harton G, Braude P, Lashwood A, Schmutzler A, Traeger-Synodinos J, Wilton L, Harper JC, European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology, P.G.D.C. (2011) ESHRE PGD consortium best practice guidelines for organization of a PGD centre for PGD/preimplantation genetic screening. Hum Reprod 26:14–24CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thornhill AR, deDie-Smulders CE, Geraedts JP, Harper JC, Harton GL, Lavery SA, Moutou C, Robinson MD, Schmutzler AG, Scriven PN et al (2005) ESHRE PGD Consortium ‘Best practice guidelines for clinical preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)’. Hum Reprod 20:35–48CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis International Society (PGDIS) (2008) Guidelines for good practice in PGD: Programme requirements and laboratory quality assurance. Reprod Biomed Online 16:134–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harton GL, Magli MC, Lundin K, Montag M, Lemmen J, Harper JC, European Society for Human Research and Embryology, P.G.D.C.E.S.I.G. (2011) ESHRE PGD Consortium/Embryology Special Interest Group – best practice guidelines for polar body and embryo biopsy for preimplantation genetic diagnosis/screening (PGD/PGS). Hum Reprod 26:41–46CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harton GL, Harper JC, Coonen E, Pehlivan T, Vesela K, Wilton L, European Society for Human Research and Embryology, P.G.D.C. (2011) ESHRE PGD consortium best practice guidelines for fluorescence in situ hybridization-based PGD. Hum Reprod 26:25–32CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harton GL, De Rycke M, Fiorentino F, Moutou C, SenGupta S, Traeger-Synodinos J, Harper JC, European Society for Human Research and Embryology, P.G.D.C. (2011) ESHRE PGD consortium best practice guidelines for amplification-based PGD. Hum Reprod 26:33–40CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Matthijs G, Souche E, Alders M, Corveleyn A, Eck S, Feenstra I, Race V, Sistermans E, Sturm M, Weiss M et al (2016) Guidelines for diagnostic next-generation sequencing. Eur J Hum Genet 24:2–5CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Altarescu G, Beeri R, Lazer-Derbeko G, Eldar-Geva T, Steinberg A, Levy-Lahad E, Renbaum P (2015) Preimplantation genetic risk reduction: A new dilemma in the era of chromosomal microarrays and exome sequencing. Reprod Biomed Online 31:706–710CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aktuna S (2016) PGD for variants of unknown significance (VUS): perform or not to perform? PGDIS annual meetingGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lupski JR (2013) Genetics. Genome mosaicism – one human, multiple genomes. Science 341:358–359CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sullivan AK, Marcus M, Epstein MP, Allen EG, Anido AE, Paquin JJ, Yadav-Shah M, Sherman SL (2005) Association of FMR1 repeat size with ovarian dysfunction. Hum Reprod 20:402–412CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Platteau P, Sermon K, Seneca S, Van Steirteghem A, Devroey P, Liebaers I (2002) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for fragile Xa syndrome: Difficult but not impossible. Hum Reprod 17:2807–2812CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Feyereisen E, Amar A, Kerbrat V, Steffann J, Munnich A, Vekemans M, Frydman R, Frydman N (2006) Myotonic dystrophy: Does it affect ovarian follicular status and responsiveness to controlled ovarian stimulation? Hum Reprod 21:175–182CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Verpoest W, Seneca S, De Rademaeker M, Sermon K, De Rycke M, De Vos M, Haentjens P, Devroey P, Liebaers I (2010) The reproductive outcome of female patients with myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) undergoing PGD is not affected by the size of the expanded CTG repeat tract. J Assist Reprod Genet 27:327–333CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Drusedau M, Dreesen JC, Derks-Smeets I, Coonen E, van Golde R, van Echten-Arends J, Kastrop PM, Blok MJ, Gomez-Garcia E, Geraedts JP et al (2013) PGD for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: The route to universal tests for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Eur J Hum Genet 21:1361–1368CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shen X, Xu Y, Zhong Y, Zhou C, Zeng Y, Zhuang G, Ding C, Li T (2011) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for alpha-and beta-double thalassemia. J Assist Reprod Genet 28:957–964CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Van de Velde H, Georgiou I, De Rycke M, Schots R, Sermon K, Lissens W, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem A, Liebaers I (2004) Novel universal approach for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of beta-thalassaemia in combination with HLA matching of embryos. Hum Reprod 19:700–708CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wang W, Yap CH, Loh SF, Tan AS, Lim MN, Prasath EB, Chan ML, Tan WC, Jiang B, Yeo GH et al (2010) Simplified PGD of common determinants of haemoglobin Bart’s hydrops fetalis syndrome using multiplex-microsatellite PCR. Reprod Biomed Online 21:642–648CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vrettou C, Tzetis M, Traeger-Synodinos J, Palmer G, Kanavakis E (2002) Multiplex sequence variation detection throughout the CFTR gene appropriate for preimplantation genetic diagnosis in populations with heterogeneity of cystic fibrosis mutations. Mol Hum Reprod 8:880–886CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhang Z, Takeshima Y, Awano H, Nishiyama A, Okizuka Y, Yagi M, Matsuo M (2008) Tandem duplications of two separate fragments of the dystrophin gene in a patient with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. J Hum Genet 53:215–219CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hu XY, Ray PN, Worton RG (1991) Mechanisms of tandem duplication in the Duchenne muscular dystrophy gene include both homologous and nonhomologous intrachromosomal recombination. EMBO J 10:2471–2477PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rechitsky S, Pomerantseva E, Pakhalchuk T, Pauling D, Verlinsky O, Kuliev A (2011) First systematic experience of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for de-novo mutations. Reprod Biomed Online 22:350–361CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Altarescu G, Eldar-Geva T, Varshower I, Brooks B, Haran EZ, Margalioth EJ, Levy-Lahad E, Renbaum P (2009) Real-time reverse linkage using polar body analysis for preimplantation genetic diagnosis in female carriers of de novo mutations. Hum Reprod 24:3225–3229CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Altarescu G, Brooks B, Kaplan Y, Eldar-Geva T, Margalioth EJ, Levy-Lahad E, Renbaum P (2006) Single-sperm analysis for haplotype construction of de-novo paternal mutations: application to PGD for neurofibromatosis type 1. Hum Reprod 21:2047–2051CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Burlet P, Gigarel N, Magen M, Drunat S, Benachi A, Hesters L, Munnich A, Bonnefont JP, Steffann J (2010) Single-sperm analysis for recurrence risk assessment of spinal muscular atrophy. Eur J Hum Genet 18:505–508CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Handyside AH (2015) Live births following karyomapping – a „key“ milestone in the development of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Reprod Biomed Online 31:307–308CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Handyside AH, Harton GL, Mariani B, Thornhill AR, Affara N, Shaw MA, Griffin DK (2010) Karyomapping: A universal method for genome wide analysis of genetic disease based on mapping crossovers between parental haplotypes. J Med Genet 47:651–658CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Natesan SA, Bladon AJ, Coskun S, Qubbaj W, Prates R, Munne S, Coonen E, Dreesen JC, Stevens SJ, Paulussen AD et al (2014) Genome-wide karyomapping accurately identifies the inheritance of single-gene defects in human preimplantation embryos in vitro. Genet Med 16:838–845CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Thornhill AR, Handyside AH, Ottolini C, Natesan SA, Taylor J, Sage K, Harton G, Cliffe K, Affara N, Konstantinidis M et al (2015) Karyomapping – a comprehensive means of simultaneous monogenic and cytogenetic PGD: Comparison with standard approaches in real time for Marfan syndrome. J Assist Reprod Genet 32:347–356CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Konstantinidis M, Prates R, Goodall NN, Fischer J, Tecson V, Lemma T, Chu B, Jordan A, Armenti E, Wells D et al (2015) Live births following karyomapping of human blastocysts: Experience from clinical application of the method. Reprod Biomed Online 31:394–403CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tan Y, Yin X, Zhang S, Jiang H, Tan K, Li J, Xiong B, Gong F, Zhang C, Pan X et al (2014) Clinical outcome of preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening using next generation sequencing. Gigascience. doi: 10.1186/2047-217x-3-30 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lukaszuk K, Pukszta S, Ochman K, Cybulska C, Liss J, Pastuszek E, Zabielska J, Woclawek-Potocka I (2015) Healthy baby born to a Robertsonian translocation carrier following next-generation sequencing-based preimplantation genetic diagnosis: A case report. AJP Rep 5:172–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zhang W, Liu Y, Wang L, Wang H, Ma M, Xu M, Xu X, Gao Z, Duan J, Cram DS et al (2016) Clinical application of next-generation sequencing in preimplantation genetic diagnosis cycles for Robertsonian and reciprocal translocations. J Assist Reprod Genet 33(7):899–906CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gianaroli L, Magli MC, Ferraretti AP, Munne S, Balicchia B, Escudero T, Crippa A (2002) Possible interchromosomal effect in embryos generated by gametes from translocation carriers. Hum Reprod 17:3201–3207CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pujol A, Durban M, Benet J, Boiso I, Calafell JM, Egozcue J, Navarro J (2003) Multiple aneuploidies in the oocytes of balanced translocation carriers: A preimplantation genetic diagnosis study using first polar body. Reproduction 126:701–711CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Harper J, Wells D, Simpson JL (2016) Current controversies in prenatal diagnosis 4: Preimplantation genetic screening should be routinely offered to all preimplantation genetic diagnosis cases. Prenat Diagn 36:25–28CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    van Echten-Arends J, Mastenbroek S, Sikkema-Raddatz B, Korevaar JC, Heineman MJ, van der Veen F, Repping S (2011) Chromosomal mosaicism in human preimplantation embryos: A systematic review. Hum Reprod Update 17:620–627CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bolton H, Graham SJ, Van der Aa N, Kumar P, Theunis K, Fernandez Gallardo E, Voet T, Zernicka-Goetz M (2016) Mouse model of chromosome mosaicism reveals lineage-specific depletion of aneuploid cells and normal developmental potential. Nat Commun 7:11165. doi: 10.1038/ncomms11165 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Greco E, Minasi MG, Fiorentino F (2015) Healthy babies after intrauterine transfer of mosaic aneuploid blastocysts. N Engl J Med 373:2089–2090CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Fragouli E, Alfwarawati S, Spath K, Tarozzi N, Borini A, Wells D (2016) The developmental potential of mosaic embryos. PGDIS anuual meeting, BolognaGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sermon K, Capalbo A, Cohen J, Coonen E, De Rycke M, De Vos A, Delhanty J, Fiorentino F, Gleicher N, Griesinger G et al (2016) The why, the how and the when of PGS 2.0: Current practices and expert opinions of fertility specialists, molecular biologists, and embryologists. Mol Hum Reprod. doi: 10.1093/molehr/gaw034 Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Geraedts J, Sermon K (2016) Preimplantation genetic screening 2.0: The theory. Mol Hum Reprod. doi: 10.1093/molehr/gaw033 Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Brezina PR, Anchan R, Kearns WG (2016) Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: What technology should you use and what are the differences? J Assist Reprod Genet 33(7):823–832CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Treff NR, Fedick A, Tao X, Devkota B, Taylor D, Scott RT Jr. (2013) Evaluation of targeted next-generation sequencing-based preimplantation genetic diagnosis of monogenic disease. Fertil Steril 99:1377–1384 e1376CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wilton L, Thornhill A, Traeger-Synodinos J, Sermon KD, Harper JC (2009) The causes of misdiagnosis and adverse outcomes in PGD. Hum Reprod 24:1221–1228CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Hehr
    • 1
  • Bernd Paulmann
    • 2
  • Lisa Eichhammer
    • 1
  • Claudia Gassner
    • 2
  • Bernd Seifert
    • 2
  • Ute Hehr
    • 1
  1. 1.PID-Labor des Zentrums für Humangenetik RegensburgRegensburgDeutschland
  2. 2.KITZ, KinderwunschTherapie im ZentrumRegensburgDeutschland

Personalised recommendations