Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T15:10:28.462Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

66 - Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis for Single-Gene Disorders

from PART III - ASSISTED REPRODUCTION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2010

Botros R. M. B. Rizk
Affiliation:
University of South Alabama
Juan A. Garcia-Velasco
Affiliation:
Rey Juan Carlos University School of Medicine,
Hassan N. Sallam
Affiliation:
University of Alexandria School of Medicine
Antonis Makrigiannakis
Affiliation:
University of Crete
Get access

Summary

Although preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) was first reported more than thirty years ago by Robert G. Edwards and his colleagues when they managed to identify the sex of rabbit blastocysts, it was not until later in the 1980s when PGD of human embryos was extensively investigated. In 1990, Alan Handyside reported the birth of healthy females after sex selection using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to amplify a Y chromosome repeat sequence to exclude male embryos (1).

Further advancements in the arena of IVF, micromanipulation, and DNA technology led to remarkable progress in the field of PGD. It is now an established clinical option in reproductive medicine and has already helped couples all over the world to conceive healthy children. Based on the 186 responses from IVF centers in the United States to a survey by the Genetics and Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University in 2006, PGD was reported to be provided by nearly three-quarters of these IVF clinics and it is estimated that 4–6 percent of all their IVF cycles include PGD (2). Many international bodies have strived to come up with evidence-based protocols for the procedure, including the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology, and the PGD International Society. In the absence of wide, randomized controlled trials, most of the recommendations that these international bodies came up with are considered general guidelines based on clinical experience and published data (3–8).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Handyside, AH, Kontogianni, EH, Hardy, K, Winston, RML. Pregnancies from biopsied human preimplantation embryos sexed by Y-specific DNA amplification. Nature 1990;344:768–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baruch, S, Kaufman, D, Hudson, KL. Genetic testing of embryos: practices and perspectives of US in vitro fertilization clinics. Fertil Steril (published online 20 September 2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleicher, N, Weghofer, A, Barad, D. Preimplantation genetic screening: “established” and ready for prime time?Fertil Steril 2008 Apr;89(4):780–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
American Society of Reproductive Medicine and Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (2001) Practice Committee Report. Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis. Released June 2001.
American Society for Reproductive Medicine and Society for Assisted Reproduction Technology Practice Committees. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Fertil Steril 2004;82:120–2.CrossRef
ESHRE PGD Consortium `Best practice guidelines for clinical preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)'. Hum Reprod 2005;20(1):35–48.
Simpson, JL, Rebar, R, Carson, SA. Professional self-regulation for preimplantation genetic diagnosis: experience of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and other professional societies. Fertil Steril 2006;85(6):1653.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis International Society. The Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis International Society (PGDIS): Guidelines for good practice in PGD. Reprod Biomed Online 2004 Oct;9(4):430–4.
Harper, JC, Die-Smulders, C, Goossens, V, Harton, G, Moutou, C, Repping, S, Scriven, PN, SenGupta, S, Traeger-Synodinos, J, Rij, MC, Viville, S, Wilton, L, Sermon, KD. ESHRE PGD consortium data collection VII: cycles from January to December 2004 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2005. Hum Reprod. 2008Apr;23(4):741–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sermon, KD, Michiel, A, Harton, G, Moutou, C, Repping, S, Scriven, PN, SenGupta, S, Traeger-Synodino, J, Vesela, K, Viville, S, Wilton, L, Harper, JC. ESHRE PGD Consortium data collection VI: cycles from January to December 2003 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2004. Hum Reprod 2007;22(2): 323–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ESHRE PGD Consortium data collection V: cycles from January to December 2002 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2003. Hum Reprod 2006;21(1):3–21.
ESHRE PGD Consortium data collection VI: cycles from January to December 2003 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2004. Hum Reprod 2007;22(2):323–36.
Sermon, K, Goossens, V, Seneca, S et al. Preimplantation diagnosis of Huntington's disease (HD): clinical application and analysis of the HD expansion in affected embryos. Prenat Diagn 1998;18(13):1427–36.3.0.CO;2-3>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verlinsky, Y, Rechitsky, S, Schoolcraft, W, Strom, C, Kuliev, A. Preimplantation diagnosis for Fanconi anemia combined with HLA matching. JAMA 2001;285(24):3130–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verlinsky, Y, Kuliev, A. An Atlas of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis. Parthenon Publishing Group, New York, 2000.Google Scholar
Rechitsky, S, Verlinsky, O, Amet, T et al. Reliability of preimplantation diagnosis for single gene disorders. Mol Cell Endocrinol 2001;183:S65–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sermon, K. Current concepts in preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD): a molecular biologist's view. Hum Reprod Update 2002;8:11–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Renwick, P, Ogilvie, CM. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for monogenic diseases: overview and emerging issues. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2007;7(1):33–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Viville, S, Nisand, I. Legal aspects of human embryos research and preimplantation genetic diagnosis in France. Hum Reprod 1997;12(11):2341–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiddler, M, Pergament, D, Pergament, E. The role of the preimplantation geneticist in human cloning. Prenat Diagn 1999;19: 1200–5.3.0.CO;2-V>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ESHRE PGD Consortium data collection IV: May-December 2001. Hum Reprod 2005;20(1):19–34.
Vandervorst, M, Liebaers, I, Sermon, K, Staessen, C, Vos, A, Velde, H, Assche, E, Joris, H, Steirteghem, A, Devroey, P. Successful preimplantation genetic diagnosis is related to the number of available cumulus–oocyte complexes. Hum Reprod 1998;13:3169–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Platteau, P, Staessen, C, Michiels, A, Steirteghem, A, Liebaers, I, Devroey, P. Which patients with recurrent implantation failure after IVF benefit from PGD for aneuploidy screening?Reprod Biomed Online 2006;12(3):334–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rizk, B. Epidemiology of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: iatrogenic and spontaneous. In Rizk, B (ed), Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.Google Scholar
Weghofer, A, Munne, S, Brannath, W, Chen, S, Cohen, J, Gleicher, N. The quantitative and qualitative impact of gonadotropin stimulation on human preimplantation embryos: a preliminary study. Fertil Steril 2006; 86 (Suppl. 2):O- 137.Google Scholar
Weghofer, A, Munné, S, Brannath, W, Chen, S, Tomkin, G, Cekleniak, N, Garrisi, M, Barad, D, Cohen, J, Gleicher, N. The impact of LH-containing gonadotropins on diploidy rates in preimplantation embryos: long protocol stimulation. Hum Reprod 2008 Mar;23(3):499–503.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baart, EB, Martini, E, Eijkemans, MJ, Opstal, D, Beckers, NG, Verhoeff, A, Macklon, NS, Fauser, BC. Milder ovarian stimulation for in-vitro fertilization reduces aneuploidy in the human preimplantation embryo: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2007;22(4):980–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ESHRE PGD Consortium Steering Committee. ESHRE Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) Consortium: Data collection III (May 2001). Hum Reprod 2002;17:233–46.CrossRef
Gianaroli, L, Plachot, M, Kooij, R, Al-Hasani, S, Dawson, K, DeVos, A, Magli, MC, Mandelbaum, J, Selva, J, Inzen, W. ESHRE guidelines for good practice in IVF laboratories. Committee of the Special Interest Group on Embryology of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. Hum Reprod 2000;15:2241–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hardy, K, Martin, KL, Leese, HJ, Winston, RML, Handyside, AH. Human preimplantation development in vitro is not adversely affected by biopsy at the 8-cell stage. Hum Reprod 1990;5:708–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verlinsky, Y, Rechitsky, S, Cieslak, J, Ivakhnenko, V, Wolf, G, Lifchez, A, Kaplan, B, Moise, J, Walle, J, White, M et al. Preimplantation diagnosis of single gene disorders by two-step oocyte genetic analysis using first and second polar body. Biochem Mol Med 1997;62:182–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boer, KA, Catt, JW, Jansen, RPS et al. Moving to blastocyst biopsy for preimplantation genetic diagnosis and single embryo transfer at Sydney IVF. Fertil Steril 2004;82:295–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verlinsky, Y, Ginsberg, N, Lifchez, A, Valle, J, Moise, J, Strom, CM. Analysis of the first polar body: preconception genetic diagnosis. Hum Reprod 1990;5:826–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verlinsky, Y, Cieslak, J, Ivakhnenko, V, Evsikov, S, Wolf, G, White, M, Lifchez, A, Kaplan, B, Moise, J, Valle, J et al. Preimplantation diagnosis of common aneuploidies by the first- and second-polar body FISH analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet 1998;15:285–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strom, CM, Ginsberg, N, Rechitsky, S, Cieslak, J, Ivakhenko, V, Wolf, G, Lifchez, A, Moise, J, Valle, J, Kaplan, B et al. Three births after preimplantation genetic diagnosis for cystic fibrosis with sequential first and second polar body analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;178:1298–306.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harper, J, Thornhill, AR. Embryo biopsy. In Harper, J, Delhanty, JDA, Handyside, AH (eds.), Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK, 2001; pp. 141–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, JC, Doshi, A. Micromanipulation: biopsy. In Gardner, DK, Lane, M, Watson, AJ (eds.), Laboratory Guide to the Mammalian Embryo. Oxford University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
Munne´, S, Cohen, J. Unsuitability of multinucleated human blastomeres for preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Hum Reprod 1993;8:1120–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dokras, A, Sargent, IL, Ross, C, Gardner, RL, Barlow, DH. Trophectoderm biopsy in human blastocysts. Hum Reprod 1990;5:821–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pierce, KE, Michalopoulos, J, Kiessling, AA, Seibel, MM, Zilberstein, M. Preimplantation development of mouse and human embryos biopsied at cleavage stages using a modified displacement technique. Hum Reprod 1997;12:351–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boer, K, MacArthur, S, Murray, C, Jansen, R. First live birth following blastocyst biopsy and PGD analysis. Reprod Biomed Online 2002;4:35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ESHRE PGD Consortium Steering Committee. ESHRE Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) Consortium: preliminary assessment of data from January 1997 to September 1998. Hum Reprod 1999;14:3138–48.CrossRef
Dumoulin, JC, Bras, M, Coonen, E, Dreesen, J, Geraedts, JP, Evers, JL. Effect of Ca2þ/Mg2þ-free medium on the biopsy procedure for preimplantation genetic diagnosis and further development of human embryos. Hum Reprod 1998;13:2880–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velde, H, Vos, A, Sermon, K, Staessen, C, Rycke, M, Assche, E, Lissens, W, Vandervorst, M, Ranst, H, Liebaers, I et al. Embryo implantation after biopsy of one or two cells from cleavage-stage embryos with a view to preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Prenat Diagn 2000;20:1030–37.3.0.CO;2-D>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jamieson, ME, Coutts, JRT, Connor, JM. The chromosome constitution of human embryos fertilized in vitro. Hum Reprod 1994;9:709–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munne, S, Magli, C, Bahce, M et al. Preimplantation diagnosis of the aneuploidies most commonly found in spontaneous abortions and live births, XY, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22. Prenat Diagn 1998;18:1459–66.3.0.CO;2-V>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gianaroli, L, Magli, MC, Ferraretti, AP, Munne, S. 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 1999;72:837–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Staessen, C, Platteau, P, Assche, E et al. Comparison of blastocyst transfer with or without preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy screening in couples with advanced maternal age: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2004;19:2849–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hopman, AHN, Raemakers, FCS, Reap, AK, Beck, JLM, Devilee, P, Ploeg, M, Vooijis, GP. In-situ hybridisation as a tool to study numerical chromosome aberrations in solid bladder tumors. Histochemistry 1988;89:307–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, JC, Wilton, L. FISH and embryo sexing to avoid X-linked disease. In Harper, JC, Delhanty, J, Handyside, A (eds.), Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abdelhadi, I, Colls, P, Sandalinas, M, Escudero, T, Munne, S. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis of numerical abnormalities for 13 chromosomes. Reprod Biomed Online 2003;4(2):226–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
-Verlinsky, Y and Anver Kuliev, . Preimplantation diagnosis for aneuploidies. In Verlinsky, Y and Anver Kuliev, (eds.). Atlas of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis. Taylor and Francis, Abingdon, UK, 2005; pp. 49–61Google Scholar
Munne´, S, Magli, C, Cohen, J, Morton, P, Sadowy, S, Gianaroli, L, Tucker, M, Marquez, C, Sable, D, Ferraretti, A et al. Positive outcome after preimplantation diagnosis of aneuploidy in human embryos. Hum Reprod 1999;14:2191–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jobanputra, V, Sobrino, A, Kinney, A et al. Multiplex interphase FISH as screen for common aneuploidies in spontaneous abortions. Hum Reprod 2002;17:1166–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilton, L. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy screening in early human embryos: a review. Prenat Diagn 2002; 22:1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Voullaire, L, Wilton, L, McBain, J, Callaghan, T, Williamson, R. Chromosome abnormalities identified by comparative genomic hybridization in embryos from women with repeated implantation failure. Mol Hum Reprod 2002;8:1035–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gianoroli, L, Magli, MC, Ferraretti, AP et al. Possible interchromosomal effect in embryos generated by gametes from translocation carriers. Hum Reprod 2002;17:3201–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munné, S. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis of numerical and structural chromosome abnormalities. Reprod BioMed Online 2002;4:183–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Staessen, C, Assche, E, Joris, H, Bonduelle, M, Vandervorst, M, Liebaers, I, Steirteghem, A. Clinical experience of sex determination by fluorescent in-situ hybridization for preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Mol Hum Reprod 1999;5:382–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffin, DK, Handyside, AH, Penketh, RJA, Winston, RML, Delhanty, JDA. Fluorescent in situ hybridisation to interphase nuclei of human pre-implantation embryos with X and Y chromosome specific probes. Hum Reprod 1991;6:101–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, JC, Coonen, E, Ramaekers, FCS, Delhanty, JDA, Handyside, AH, Winston, RM, Hopman, AHN. Identification of the sex of human preimplantation embryos in two hours using an improved spreading technique and fluorescent in-situ hybridization (FISH) using directly labeled probes. Hum Reprod 1994;9:721–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, DK, Wilton, LJ, Handyside, AH, Winston, RML, Delhanty, JDA. Dual fluorescent in situ hybridisation for the simultaneous detection of X and Y chromosome specific probes for the sexing of human preimplantation embryonic nuclei. Hum Genet 1992;89:18–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffin, DK, Wilton, LJ, Handyside, AH, Atkinson, GHG, Winston, RML, Delhanty, JDA. Diagnosis of sex in preimplantation embryos by fluorescent in situ hybridisation. BMJ 1993;306: 1382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffin, DK, Handyside, AH, Harper, JC et al. Clinical experience with preimplantation diagnosis of sex by dual fluorescent in situ hybridisation. J Assist Reprod Genet 1994;11:132–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verlinsky, Y, Handyside, A, Grifo, J et al. Preimplantation diagnosis of genetic and chromosomal disorders. J Assist Reprod Genet 1994;11:236–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKusick, V. Mendelian Inheritance in Man, 11th edn. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, 1994.Google Scholar
ESHRE PGD Consortium Steering Committee. ESHRE Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) Consortium: Data collection II (May 2000). Hum Reprod 2000;15:2673–83.CrossRef
Delhanty, JDA, Harper, JC, Ao, A, Handyside, AH, Winston, RML. Multicolour FISH detects frequent chromosomal mosaicism and chaotic division in normal preimplantation embryos from fertile patients. Hum Genet 1997;99:755–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coonen, E, Dumoulin, JCM, Ramaekers, FCS, Hopman, AHN. Optimal preparation of preimplantation embryo interphase nuclei for analysis by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Hum Reprod 1994;9:533–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dozortsev, DI, McGinnis, KT. An improved fixation technique for fluorescence in situ hybridization for preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Fertil Steril 2001;76:186–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baart, EB, Opstal, D, Los, FJ, Fauser, BCJM, Martini, EM. Fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis of two blastomeres from day 3 frozen–thawed embryos followed by analysis of the remaining embryo on day 5. Hum Reprod 2004;19:685–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Velilla, E, Escudero, T, Munné, S. Blastomere fixation techniques and risk of misdiagnosis for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of aneuploidy. Reprod Biomed Online 2002;4(3):210–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Colls, P, Escudero, T, Cekleniak, N, Sadowy, S, Cohen, J, Munné, S. Increased efficiency of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for infertility using “no result rescue”. Fertil Steril 2007;88(1):53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magli, MC, Sandalinas, M, Escudero, T, Morrison, L, Ferraretti, AP, Gianaroli, L, Munné, S. Double locus analysis of chromosome 21 for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of aneuploidy. Prenat Diagn 2001 Dec;21(12):1080–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munné, S, Márquez, C, Magli, MC et al. Scoring criteria for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of numerical abnormalities for chromosomes XY, 13, 16, 18 and 21. Mol Hum Reprod 1998;4: 863–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magli, MC, Sandalinas, M, Escudero, T et al. Double locus analysis of chromosome 21 for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of aneuploidy. Prenat Diagn 2001;21:1080–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thornhill, AR, Snow, K. Molecular diagnostics in preimplantation genetic diagnosis. J Mol Diagn 2002;4:11–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wells, D, Sherlock, J. Diagnosis of single gene disorders. In Harper, J, Delhanty, JC, Handyside, A (eds.), Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2001.Google ScholarPubMed
Ray, PF, Ao, A, Taylor, DM, Winston, RML, Handyside, AH. Assessment of the reliability of single blastomere analysis for preimplantation diagnosis of the AF508 deletion causing cystic fibrosis in clinical practice. Prenat Diagn 1998;18(13):1402–12.3.0.CO;2-T>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cui, KH, Matthews, CD. Nuclear structural conditions and PCR amplification in human preimplantation diagnosis. Mol Hum Reprod 1996;2(1):63–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stern, HJ, Harton, GL, Sisson, ME, Jones, SL, Fallon, , Thorsell, LP, Getlinger, ME, Black, SH, Schulman, JD. Non-disclosing preimplantation genetic diagnosis for Huntington disease. Prenat Diagn 2002;22:503–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ray, PF, Handyside, AH. Increasing the denaturation temperature during the first cycles of amplification reduces allele dropout from single cells for preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Mol Hum Reprod 1996;2(3):213–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harper, JC, Wells, D. Future developments in PGD. In Harper, J, Delhanty, J, Handyside, A (eds.), Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rechitsky, S, Strom, C, Verlinsky, O, Amet, T, Ivakhnenko, V, Kukharenko, V, Kuliev, A, Verlinsky, Y. Allele dropout in polar bodies and blastomeres. J Assist Reprod Genet 1998;15:253–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hattori, M, Yoshioka, K, Sakaki, Y. High-sensitive fluorescent DNA sequencing and its application for detection and mass-screening of point mutations. Electrophoreses 1992;13(8):560–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiorentino, F, Biricik, A, Nuccitelli, A, Palma, R, Kahraman, S, Iacobelli, M, Trengia, V, Caserta, D, Bonu, MA, Borini, A, Baldi, M. Strategies and clinical outcome of 250 cycles of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis for single gene disorders. Hum Reprod 2006 Mar;21(3):670–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verlinsky, Y and Anver Kuliev, . Preimplantation diagnosis for single-gene disorders. In Verlinsky, Y and Kuliev, Anver (eds.). Atlas of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis. Taylor and Francis, Abingdon, UK, 2005; pp. 29–40Google Scholar
Sherlock, J, Cirigliano, V, Petrou, M, Tutschek, B, Adinolfi, M. Assessment of quantitative fluorescent multiplex PCR performed on single cells. Ann Hum Genet 1998;62(1):9–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eggerding, FA, Lovannisci, DM, Brinson, E, Grossman, P, Winn-Deen, ES. Fluorescence-based oligonucleotide ligation assay for analysis of cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator gene mutations. Hum Mutat 1995;5(2):153–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pertl, B, Weitgasser, U, Kopp, S, Kroisel, PM, Sherlock, J, Adinolfi, M. Rapid detection of trisomy 21 and 18 and sexing with quantitative fluorescent multiplex PCR. Hum Genet 98:55–9.CrossRef
Sermon, K, Vos, A, Velde, H et al. Fluorescent PCR and automated fragment analysis for the clinical application of preimplantation genetic diagnosis of myotonic dystrophy (Steinert's disease). Mol Hum Reprod 1998;4(8):791–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piyamongkol, W, Bermudez, MG, Harper, JC, Wells, D. Detailed investigation of factors influencing amplification efficiency and allele dropout in single cell PCR: implications for preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Mol Hum Reprod 2003;9:411–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornhill, AR, McGrath, JA, Braude, P, Eady, R, Handyside, AH. Comparison of different lysis buffers to assess allele dropout from single cells for preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Prenat Diagn 21:490–7.CrossRef
El-Hashemite, N, Delhanty, JDA. A technique for eliminating allele specific amplification failure during DNA amplification of heterozygous cells for preimplantation diagnosis. Mol Hum Reprod 2001;3:975–8.
Grifo, JA, Giatras, K, Tang, YX, Krey, LC. Successful outcome with day 4 embryo transfer after preimplantation diagnosis for genetically transmitted diseases. Hum Reprod 1998;13:1656–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardner, DK, Lane, M. Blastocyst transfer. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2003;46:231–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joris, H, Abbeel, E, Vos, AD. Reduced survival after human embryo biopsy and subsequent cryopreservation. Hum Reprod 1999;14:2833–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magli, MC, Gianaroli, L, Fortini, D et al. Impact of blastomere biopsy and cryopreservation techniques on human embryo viability. Hum Reprod 1999;14:770–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jericho, H, Wilton, L, Gook, DA et al. A modified cryopreservation method increases the survival of human biopsied cleavage stage embryos. Hum Reprod 2003;18:568–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McArthur, SJ, Leigh, D, Marshall, JT, Boer, KA, Jansen, RP. Pregnancies and live births after trophectoderm biopsy and preimplantation genetic testing of human blastocysts. Fertil Steril 2005 Dec;84(6):1628–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, M, Munné, S. Pregnancy after polar body biopsy and freezing and thawing of human embryos. Fertil Steril 2000;73(3):645–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cieslak-Janzen, J, Tur-Kaspa, I, Ilkevitch, Y, Bernal, A, Morris, R, Verlinsky, Y. Multiple micromanipulations for preimplantation genetic diagnosis do not affect embryo development to the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril 2006;85(6):1826–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magli, MC, Gianaroli, L, Ferraretti, AP, Toschi, M, Esposito, F, Fasolino, MC. The combination of polar body and embryo biopsy does not affect embryo viability. Hum Reprod 2004;19(5): 1163–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munné, S, Cohen, J. Chromosome abnormalities in human embryos. Hum Reprod Update. 1998 Nov-Dec;4(6):842–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
International Working Group on Preimplantation Genetics. Tenth anniversary of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. J Assist Reprod Genet 2001 Feb;18(2):64–70.
Munné, S, Sandalinas, M, Escudero, T, Velilla, E, Walmsley, R, Sadowy, S, Cohen, J, Sable, D. Improved implantation after preimplantation genetic diagnosis of aneuploidy. Reprod Biomed Online 2003;7(1):91–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harper, J, Sermon, K, Geraedts, J, Vesela, K, Harton, G, Thornhill, A, Pehlivan, T, Fiorentino, F, SenGupta, S, Die-Smulders, C, Magli, C, Moutou, C, Wilton, L. What next for preimplantation genetic screening?Hum Reprod. 2008 Mar;23(3):478–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mastenbroek, S, Twisk, M, Echten-Arends, J et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N Engl J Med 2007;357:9–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stevens, J, Wale, P, Surrey, ES, Schoolcraft, WB. Is aneuploidy screening for patients aged 35 or over beneficial? A prospective randomized trial. Fertil Steril 2004;82(Suppl. 2):249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munné, S, Gianaroli, L, Tur-Kaspa, I, Magli, C, Sandalinas, M, Grifo, J, Cram, D, Kahraman, S, Verlinsky, Y, Simpson, JL. Substandard application of preimplantation genetic screening may interfere with its clinical success. Fertil Steril 2007;88(4):781–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, L, Cui, X, Schmitt, K, Hubert, R, Navidi, W, Arnheim, N. Whole genome amplification form a single cell – implications for genetic-analysis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1992;89:5847–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, D, Sherlock, JK, Handyside, AH, Delhanty, JDA. Detailed chromosomal and molecular genetic analysis of single cells by whole genome amplification and comparative genomic hybridisation (CGH). Nucleic Acids Res 1999;27(4):1214–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ao, A, Wells, D, Handyside, AH, Winston, RM, Delhanty, JDA. Reimplantation genetic diagnosis of inherited cancer: familial adenomatous polyposis coli. J Assist Reprod Genet 1998;15(3):140–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruangvutilert, P, Delhanty, JDA, Rodeck, C, Harper, JC. Relative efficiency of FISH on metaphase and interphase nuclei from non-mosaic trisomic or triploid fibroblast cultures. Prenat Diagn 2000;20:159–62.3.0.CO;2-2>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evsikov, S, Verlinsky, Y. Visualization of chromosomes in single human blastomeres. J Assist Reprod Genet 1999;16(3):133–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Willadsen, S, Levron Munne, S, Schimmel, T, Marquez, C, Scott, R, Cohen, J. Rapid visualization of metaphase chromosomes in single human blastomeres after fusion with in-vitro matured bovine eggs. Hum Reprod 1999;14(2):470–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schrock, E, S du, Manoir, Veldman, T et al. Multicolor spectral karyotyping of human chromosomes. Science 1996;273:494–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Speicher, MR, Ballard, SG, Ward, DC. Karyotyping human chromosomes by combinatorial multi-fluor FISH. Nat Genet 1996;12:368–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marquez, C, Cohen, J, Munne, S. Chromosome identification in human ocytes and polar bodies by spectral karyotyping. Cytogenet Cell Genet 1998;81:254–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kallioniemi, A, Kallioniemi, OP, Sudar, D, Rutovitz, D, Gray, JW, Waldman, F, Pinkel, D. Comparative genomic hybridization for molecular cytogenetic analysis of solid tumors. Science 1992;258(5083):818–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wells, D, Delhanty, JDA. Comprehensive chromosome analysis of human pre-implantation embryos using WGA and single cell CGH. Mol Hum Reprod 2000;6:1055–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vouliare, L, Slater, H, Williamson, R, Wilton, L. Chromosome analysis of blastomeres from human embryos by using. Coll Hum Genet 2000;105:210–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinkel, D, Segraves, R, Sudar, D et al. High resolution analysis of DNA copy number variation using comparative genomic hybridization to microarrays. Nat Genet 1998;20(2):207–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Treff, NR, Su, J, Mavrianos, J, Bergh, PA, Miller, AK, Scott, RT. Accurate 23 chromosome aneuploidy screening in human blastomeres using single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) microarrays. Fertil Steril 2007;88:S1, Q1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viville, S, Pergament, D, Fiddler, M. Ethical perspectives and regulation of preimplantation genetic diagnostic practice. In Harper, JC, Delhanty, J, Handyside, A (eds.), Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis. John Wiley & Sons, 2001.Google Scholar
Nagy, A-M, Man, X, Anibal, N, Lints, FA. Scientific and ethical issues of preimplantation diagnosis. Ann Med 1998;30:1–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berkowitz, JM. Sexism and racism in preconceptive trait selection. Fertil Steril 1999;71:415–17.Google ScholarPubMed
King, DS. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and the ‘new’ eugenics. J Med Genet 1999;25:176–82.Google ScholarPubMed
Viville, S, Pergament, D. Results of a survey of the legal status and attitudes towards preimplantation genetic diagnosis and conducted in 13 different countries. Prenat Diagn 1998;180(3):1374–80.3.0.CO;2-W>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geraedts, JP, Harper, J, Braude, P, Sermon, K, Veiga, A, Gianaroli, L, Agan, N, Munne, S, Gitlin, S, Blenow, E et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), a collaborative activity of clinical genetic departments and IVF centres. Prenat Diagn 2001;21:1086–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuliev, A, Verlinsky, Y. Thirteen years experience of preimplantation diagnosis. Reprod BioMed Online 2004;8:229–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×