Blastocyst euploidy and implantation rates in a young (<35 years) and old (≥35 years) presumed fertile and infertile patient population.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between blastocyst euploidy and implantation rates in a presumed fertile patient population. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTING: Private IVF clinic. PATIENT(S): IVF patients undergoing comprehensive chromosome screening (CCS). INTERVENTION(S): Embryo biopsy at the blastocyst stage with preimplantation genetic screening using CCS. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Euploidy, chemical pregnancy, and implantation rates. RESULT(S): There was no significant difference in the number of euploid blastocysts between presumed fertile (68/118, 57.6%) and infertile (75/132, 56.8%) patients<35 years old. Likewise, there was no significant difference in the number of euploid blastocysts between presumed fertile (42/86, 48.8%) and infertile (97/206, 47.1%) patients≥35 years old. When those same patients underwent a corresponding frozen embryo transfer cycle, presumed fertile patients demonstrated a significantly higher chemical pregnancy rate when compared with infertile patients, 28/33 (84.8%) and 50/81 (61.7%), respectively. Moreover, presumed fertile patients exhibited significantly higher implantation rates compared with infertile patients, 36/42 (85.7%) and 54/109 (66.7%), respectively. CONCLUSION(S): When subdivided by maternal age, no significant difference was seen in blastocyst euploidy rates between presumed fertile and infertile patients; however, chemical pregnancy and implantation rates were significantly higher in a presumed fertile patient population even when transferring only euploid blastocysts. This would indicate that infertility, as a disease, may encompass other aspects such as uterine or other unknown embryological factors that can influence outcomes.

Comparison of aneuploidy, pregnancy and live birth rates between day 5 and day 6 blastocysts.

Comprehensive chromosome screening is typically used for aneuploidy analysis of blastocysts. It is believed that either day of blastocyst development is acceptable. Euploidy rates and outcomes were examined between day 5 and day 6 blastocysts in two studies. First, euploidy rates of day 5 and day 6 blastocysts were examined on a per-embryo and per-patient basis. Second, outcomes were compared when only euploid day 5 or day 6 blastocysts were transferred in a cryopreserved embryo transfer cycle. In cycles (n = 70) that had blastocysts biopsied on both day 5 and day 6, day 5 blastocysts had a higher chance of being euploid than day 6 blastocysts (125/229 [54.6%]) and (77/180 [42.8%]), respectively (P = 0.0231). Similarly, euploid rates in blastocysts from patients (n = 193) with day 5 biopsy, day 6 biopsy, or both, were significantly higher in day 5 (235/421 [55.8%]) compared with day 6 (184/413 [44.6%]) blastocysts (P = 0.0014). In the second study, 50 women (36.1 ± 4.3 years) and 39 women (35.1 ± 3.8 years) with only euploid day 5 or euploid day 6 blastocysts transferred during a cryopreserved embryo transfer had similar cycle outcomes. Although underpowered, these data suggest that euploid day 6 blastocysts are as capable of positive outcomes as their euploid day 5 counterparts.

Outcomes of blastocysts biopsied and vitrified once versus those cryopreserved twice for euploid blastocyst transfer.

Trophectoderm biopsy with comprehensive chromosome screening (CCS) has been shown to increase implantation and pregnancy rates. Some patients desire CCS on previously cryopreserved blastocysts, resulting in blastocysts that are thawed/warmed, biopsied, vitrified and then warmed again. The effect of two cryopreservation procedures and two thawing/warming procedures on outcomes has not been effectively studied. Cycles were divided into two groups: group 1 patients underwent a cryopreserved embryo transfer with euploid blastocysts that were vitrified and warmed once; group 2 patients had a cryopreserved embryo transfer of a euploid blastocyst that was cryopreserved, thawed/warmed, biopsied, vitrified and warmed. Groups 1 and 2 included 85 and 17 women aged 35.6 ± 3.9 and 35.3 ± 4.9 years, respectively (not significantly different). Blastocyst survival in group 1 (114/116, 98.3%) and survival of second warming in group 2 (21/24, 87.5%) was significantly different (P = 0.0354). There was no difference between biochemical (68.2% and 62.5%) and clinical (61.2% and 56.3%) pregnancy rates, implantation rate (58.4% and 52.4%) and live birth/ongoing pregnancy rate (54.0% and 47.6%) between groups 1 and 2, respectively. Although it is unconventional to thaw/warm, biopsy, revitrify and rewarm blastocysts for cryopreserved embryo transfer, the results indicate that outcomes are not compromised. Trophectoderm biopsy and screening the embryos for chromosomal abnormalities has been reported to increase implantation and pregnancy rates. There is a category of patients requesting chromosomal screening on previously cryopreserved blastocysts. This scenario requires blastocysts to be thawed/warmed, biopsied, cryopreserved, and thawed/warmed again. The effect of double cryopreservation procedures and double thawing/warming procedures on pregnancy is unknown. Patients were divided into two groups, group 1 underwent a cryopreserved embryo transfer with a chromosomally normal blastocyst that was vitrified and warmed once and group 2 included patients that had a cryopreserved embryo transfer of a chromosomally normal blastocyst that was cryopreserved, thawed/warmed, biopsied, vitrified, and rewarmed. A total of 85 and 17 women aged 35.6 ± 3.9 and 35.3 ± 4.9 years were included in groups 1 and 2, respectively. The survival rate for group 1 (114 of 116, 98.3%) compared with the second warming for group 2 (21 of 24, 87.5%) was significantly higher. There was no difference between biochemical (68.2% and 62.5%), and clinical pregnancies (61.2% and 56.3%), implantation (58.4% and 52.4%), and live birth/ongoing rates (54.0% and 47.6%) between groups 1 and 2. Although it is unconventional to twice cryopreserve and twice thaw/warm a blastocyst, our results indicate that outcomes are not compromised.

The origin, mechanisms, incidence and clinical consequences of chromosomal mosaicism in humans.

BACKGROUND: Chromosomal mosaicism, the presence of two or more distinct cell lines, is prevalent throughout human pre- and post-implantation development and can lead to genetic abnormalities, miscarriages, stillbirths or live births. Due to the prevalence and significance of mosaicism in the human species, it is important to understand the origins, mechanisms and incidence of mosaicism throughout development. METHODS: Literature searches were conducted utilizing Pubmed, with emphasis on human pre- and post-implantation mosaicism. RESULTS: Mosaicism persists in two separate forms: general and confined. General mosaicism is routine during human embryonic growth as detected by preimplantation genetic screening at either the cleavage or blastocyst stage, leading to mosaicism within both the placenta and fetus proper. Confined mosaicism has been reported in the brain, gonads and placenta, amongst other places. Mosaicism is derived from a variety of mechanisms including chromosome non-disjunction, anaphase lagging or endoreplication. Anaphase lagging has been implicated as the main process by which mosaicism arises in the preimplantation embryo. Furthermore, mosaicism can be caused by any one of numerous factors from paternal, maternal or exogenous factors such as culture media or possibly controlled ovarian hyperstimulation during in vitro fertilization (IVF). Mosaicism has been reported in as high as 70 and 90% of cleavage- and blastocyst-stage embryos derived from IVF, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical consequences of mosaicism depend on which chromosome is involved, and when and where an error occurs. Mitotic rescue of a meiotic error or a very early mitotic error will typically lead to general mosaicism while a mitotic error at a specific cell lineage point typically leads to confined mosaicism. The clinical consequences of mosaicism are dependent on numerous aspects, with the consequences being unique for each event.

Globozoospermia is mainly due to DPY19L2 deletion via non-allelic homologous recombination involving two recombination hotspots.

To date, mutations in two genes, SPATA16 and DPY19L2, have been identified as responsible for a severe teratozoospermia, namely globozoospermia. The two initial descriptions of the DPY19L2 deletion lead to a very different rate of occurrence of this mutation among globospermic patients. In order to better estimate the contribution of DPY19L2 in globozoospermia, we screened a larger cohort including 64 globozoospermic patients. Twenty of the new patients were homozygous for the DPY19L2 deletion, and 7 were compound heterozygous for both this deletion and a point mutation. We also identified four additional mutated patients. The final mutation load in our cohort is 66.7% (36 out of 54). Out of 36 mutated patients, 69.4% are homozygous deleted, 19.4% heterozygous composite and 11.1% showed a homozygous point mutation. The mechanism underlying the deletion is a non-allelic homologous recombination (NAHR) between the flanking low-copy repeats. Here, we characterized a total of nine breakpoints for the DPY19L2 NAHR-driven deletion that clustered in two recombination hotspots, both containing direct repeat elements (AluSq2 in hotspot 1, THE1B in hotspot 2). Globozoospermia can be considered as a new genomic disorder. This study confirms that DPY19L2 is the major gene responsible for globozoospermia and enlarges the spectrum of possible mutations in the gene. This is a major finding and should contribute to the development of an efficient molecular diagnosis strategy for globozoospermia.