Skip to main content

First Successful Pregnancy After Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis by FISH for an Inversion Together with a Cryptic Translocation in India

Abstract

The technique of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in cases of repeated miscarriages due to parental balanced inversions and translocations is relatively new in India. In a couple with a history of recurrent miscarriages and implantation failures, karyotyping done in three laboratories showed that the husband had an insertion or inversion of chromosome 12. Hence, they were referred to us for PGD. The anomaly turned out to be more complex. A pre-PGD workup using a series of FISH probes on metaphases accompanied by reflex FISH was required to characterize the anomaly. For subsequent PGD, single blastomeres were biopsied from seven embryos obtained by intracytoplasmic sperm injection. FISH analysis had to be carried out using ten probes in four rounds. On pre-PGD workup for inversion 12 by FISH, an additional anomaly of a cryptic translocation between 9qter and 12qter was detected in the husband. His complex karyotype according to the detailed ISCN nomenclature was therefore 46,XY,t(9;12)(9pter→9q34.1::12q24.2→12qter),der(12)inv(12)(12pter→12p11.2::12q24.2→12p11.2::9q34.1→9qter). After PGD, the normal and balanced embryos transferred, resulted in the birth of healthy twins conceived in the first cycle itself. Therefore, a pre-PGD workup is important and needs reflex FISH in the event of an unexpected cytogenetic anomaly. PGD will need the analysis of additional chromosomes on the same cell by FISH in such cases. An experienced in vitro fertilization and Genetics team is essential for success. This is the first report of PGD by FISH for an inversion coupled with a cryptic translocation from India.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Munne S, Fragouli E, Colls P, Katz M, Schoolcraft W, Wells D. Improved detection of aneuploid blastocysts using a new 12 chromosome FISH test. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;20:92–7.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Munne S. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis of numerical and structural chromosome abnormalities. Reprod Biomed Online. 2002;4:183–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Munne S. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy and translocations using array comparative genomic hybridization. Curr Genomics. 2012;13:463–70.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Schoolcraft WB, Fragouli E, Stevens J, Munne S, Katz-Jaffe MG, Wells D. Clinical application of comprehensive screening at the blastocyst stage. FertilSteril. 2010;94:1700–6.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Wu MY, Chao KH, Chen CJ, Chang LJ, Chen SU, Yang YS. Current status of comprehensive chromosome screening for elective single-embryo transfer. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2014;. doi:10.1155/2014/581783.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Fragouli E, Alfarawati S, Daphnis DD, GoodallNN MariaA, Griffiths T, et al. Cytogenetic analysis of human blastocysts with the use of FISH, CGH and aCGH, scientific data and technical evaluation. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:480–90.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Alfarwati S, Fragouli E, Colls P, Wells D. First births after preimplantation genetic diagnosis of structural chromosomal abnormalities using comparative genomic hybridization and microarray analysis. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:1560–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Parikh FR, Madon PF, Athalye AS, Naik NJ, Gada SD, Ganla KN, et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis of chromosome abnormalities by multicolour fluorescence in situ hybridization. J Indian Med Assoc. 2001;99:441–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Madon PF, Athalye AS, Naik NJ, Parikh FR. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. In: Telang M, editor. Atlas of human assisted reproductive technologies. Delhi: Jaypee; 2007. p. 167–74.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Parikh F, Naik N, Gada S, Bhartiya A, Athalye A, Madon P. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for the better management of couples during assisted reproduction. Int J Hum Genet. 2001;1:117–21.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Athalye AS, Madon PF, Parikh FR. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: Indian experience. Int J Hum Genet. 2006;6(Suppl 2):38.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Madon PF. Conventional and molecular cytogenetics in India. In: Kumar D, editor. Genomics and health in the developing world. Oxford (medical monographs); 2012. p. 1096–111.

  13. Sharma S, Sharma R. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. In: Talwar P, editor. Manual of assisted reproductive technologies and clinical embryology. Jaypee Brothers, 2012:327–33.

  14. GadaSaxena S, Desai K, Shewale L, Ranjan P. Pre-implantation genetic screening using fluorescence in situ hybridization in couples of Indian ethnicity: Is there a scope? J Hum Reprod Sci. 2014;7:25–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Madon P. Challenges in prenatal and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis studies. Mol Cytogenet. 2014;7(Suppl 1):150. doi:10.1186/1755-8166-7-S1-I50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Madon P, Athalye A, Sanap R, Naik D, Naik N, Parikh R. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis by FISH in India: the Jaslok Hospital experience. Prepr Cytogenet Genome Res. 2014;142:226. doi:10.1159/000360710.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Madon PF, Athalye AS, Naik NJ, Naik DJ, Parikh FR. PGD for a Robertsonian translocation by FISH: first successful pregnancy from India. J Prenat Diagn Ther. 2010;1:20–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Naik DJ, Madon PF, Naik NJ, Athalye AS, Parikh FR. PGD by FISH for a reciprocal translocation: first baby from India. J Fetal Med. 2014;1:41–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Harper JC, Delhanty JD, Handyside AH, editors. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. New York: Wiley; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Escudero T, Lee M, Stevens J, Sandalinas M, Munne S. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis of pericentric inversions. Prenat Diagn. 2001;21:760–6.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Iwarson E, Ahrlund-Richter L, Inzunza J, Rosenlund B, Fridstrom M, Hillensjo T, et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis of a large pericentric inversion of chromosome 5. Mol Hum Reprod. 1998;4:719–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Wiland E, Hobel CJ, Hill D, Kurpisz M. Successful pregnancy after preimplantation genetic diagnosis for carrier of t(2;7)(p11.2,q22) with high rates of unbalanced sperm and embryos: a case report. Prenat Diagn. 2008;28:36–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Van Assche E, Staessen C, Vegetti W, Bonduelle M, Vandervorst M, Van Steirteghem A, et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and sperm analysis by fluorescence in situ hybridization for the most common reciprocal translocation t(11;22). Mol Hum Reprod. 1999;5:682–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Harton GL, Harper JC, Coonen E, Pehlivan T, Vesela K, Wilton L. ESHRE PGD consortium best practice guidelines for fluorescence in situ hybridization-based PGD. Hum Reprod. 2010;00:1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Moutou C, Goossens V, Coonen E, De Rycke E, Kokkali G, Renwick P, et al. ESHRE PGD consortium data collection XII: cycles from January to December 2009 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2010. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:880–903.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. De Rycke M, Belva F, Goossens V, Moutou C, SenGupta S, Traeger-Synodinos J, Coonen E. ESHRE PGD consortium data collection XIII: cycles from January to December 2010 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2011. Hum Reprod. 2015;2015(30):1763–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Goossens V, Traeger-Synodinos J, Coonen E, De Rycke M, Moutou C, Pehlivan T, et al. ESHRE PGD consortium data collection XI: cycles from January to December 2008 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2009. Hum Reprod. 2012;27:1887–911.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. RavnanJB TepperbergJH, Papenhausen P, Lamb AN, Hedrick J, Eash D, et al. Subtelomere FISH analysis of 11688 cases: an evaluation of the frequency and pattern of subtelomere rearrangements in individuals with developmental disabilities. J Med Genet. 2006;43:478–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Le Caignec C, Boceno M, Saugier-Veber P, Jacquemont S, Joubert M, David A, et al. Detection of genomic imbalances by array based comparative genome hybridization in fetuses with multiple malformations. J Med Genet. 2005;42:121–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Goumy C, Gouas L, Pebrel-Richard C, Veronese L, Eymard-Pierre E, Debost-Legrand A, et al. Prenatal detection of cryptic rearrangements by multiplex ligation probe amplification in fetuses with ultrasound abnormalities. Genet Med. 2010;12:376–80.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Geraedts J. Reproductive genetics at the crossroads of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology and the European Society of Human Genetics: an update. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:1601–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Harper J, Geraedts J, Borry P, Cornel MC, DondorpWJ GianaroliL, et al. Current issues in medically assisted reproduction and genetics in Europe: research, clinical practice, ethics, legal issues and policy. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:1603–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the entire staff of the Department of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics for their team work, and the management of Jaslok Hospital and Research Centre for supporting PGD initially through research grants RP 293 and RP 318.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Prochi F. Madon.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from the couple.

Ethical Standard

All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sanap, R.R., Athalye, A.S., Madon, P.F. et al. First Successful Pregnancy After Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis by FISH for an Inversion Together with a Cryptic Translocation in India. J. Fetal Med. 3, 25–30 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40556-016-0078-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40556-016-0078-y

Keywords

  • Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis
  • FISH
  • Inversion
  • Cryptic translocation
  • Pre-PGD workup
  • Reflex FISH
  • India