Embryo tracking system for high-throughput sequencing-based preimplantation genetic testing.

STUDY QUESTION: Can the embryo tracking system (ETS) increase safety, efficacy and scalability of massively parallel sequencing-based preimplantation genetic testing (PGT)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Applying ETS-PGT, the chance of sample switching is decreased, while scalability and efficacy could easily be increased substantially. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Although state-of-the-art sequencing-based PGT methods made a paradigm shift in PGT, they still require labor intensive library preparation steps that makes PGT cost prohibitive and poses risks of human errors. To increase the quality assurance, efficiency, robustness and throughput of the sequencing-based assays, barcoded DNA fragments have been used in several aspects of next-generation sequencing (NGS) approach. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We developed an ETS that substantially alleviates the complexity of the current sequencing-based PGT. With (n = 693) and without (n = 192) ETS, the downstream PGT procedure was performed on both bulk DNA samples (n = 563) and whole-genome amplified (WGAed) few-cell DNA samples (n = 322). Subsequently, we compared full genome haplotype landscapes of both WGAed and bulk DNA samples containing ETS or no ETS. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We have devised an ETS to track embryos right after whole-genome amplification (WGA) to full genome haplotype profiles. In this study, we recruited 322 WGAed DNA samples derived from IVF embryos as well as 563 bulk DNA isolated from peripheral blood of prospective parents. To determine possible interference of the ETS in the NGS-based PGT workflow, barcoded DNA fragments were added to DNA samples prior to library preparation and compared to samples without ETS. Coverages and variants were determined. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Current PGT protocols are quality sensitive and prone to sample switching. To avoid sample switching and increase throughput of PGT by sequencing-based haplotyping, six control steps should be carried out manually and checked by a second person in a clinical setting. Here, we developed an ETS approach in which one step only in the entire PGT procedure needs the four-eyes principal. We demonstrate that ETS not only precludes error-prone manual checks but also has no effect on the genomic landscape of preimplantation embryos. Importantly, our approach increases efficacy and throughput of the state-of-the-art PGT methods. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Even though the ETS simplified sequencing-based PGT by avoiding potential errors in six steps in the protocol, if the initial assignment is not performed correctly, it could lead to cross-contamination. However, this can be detected in silico following downstream ETS analysis. Although we demonstrated an approach to evaluate purity of the ETS fragment, it is recommended to perform a pre-PGT quality control assay of the ETS amplicons with non-human DNA, such that the purity of each ETS molecule can be determined prior to ETS-PGT. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The ETS-PGT approach notably increases efficacy and scalability of PGT. ETS-PGT has broad applicative value, as it can be tailored to any single- and few-cell sequencing approach where the starting specimen is scarce, as opposed to other methods that require a large number of cells as the input. Moreover, ETS-PGT could easily be adapted to any sequencing-based diagnostic method, including PGT for structural rearrangements and aneuploidies by low-pass sequencing as well as non-invasive prenatal testing. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): M.Z.E. is supported by the EVA (Erfelijkheid Voortplanting & Aanleg) specialty program (grant no. KP111513) of Maastricht University Medical Centre (MUMC+), and the Horizon 2020 innovation (ERIN) (grant no. EU952516) of the European Commission. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

In vitro fertilization does not increase the incidence of de novo copy number alterations in fetal and placental lineages.

Although chromosomal instability (CIN) is a common phenomenon in cleavage-stage embryogenesis following in vitro fertilization (IVF)1-3, its rate in naturally conceived human embryos is unknown. CIN leads to mosaic embryos that contain a combination of genetically normal and abnormal cells, and is significantly higher in in vitro-produced preimplantation embryos as compared to in vivo-conceived preimplantation embryos4. Even though embryos with CIN-derived complex aneuploidies may arrest between the cleavage and blastocyst stages of embryogenesis5,6, a high number of embryos containing abnormal cells can pass this strong selection barrier7,8. However, neither the prevalence nor extent of CIN during prenatal development and at birth, following IVF treatment, is well understood. Here we profiled the genomic landscape of fetal and placental tissues postpartum from both IVF and naturally conceived children, to investigate the prevalence and persistence of large genetic aberrations that probably arose from IVF-related CIN. We demonstrate that CIN is not preserved at later stages of prenatal development, and that de novo numerical aberrations or large structural DNA imbalances occur at similar rates in IVF and naturally conceived live-born neonates. Our findings affirm that human IVF treatment has no detrimental effect on the chromosomal constitution of fetal and placental lineages.

Multi-centre evaluation of a comprehensive preimplantation genetic test through haplotyping-by-sequencing.

STUDY QUESTION: Can reduced representation genome sequencing offer an alternative to single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) arrays as a generic and genome-wide approach for comprehensive preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic disorders (PGT-M), aneuploidy (PGT-A) and structural rearrangements (PGT-SR) in human embryo biopsy samples? SUMMARY ANSWER: Reduced representation genome sequencing, with OnePGT, offers a generic, next-generation sequencing-based approach for automated haplotyping and copy-number assessment, both combined or independently, in human single blastomere and trophectoderm samples. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Genome-wide haplotyping strategies, such as karyomapping and haplarithmisis, have paved the way for comprehensive PGT, i.e. leveraging PGT-M, PGT-A and PGT-SR in a single workflow. These methods are based upon SNP array technology. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This multi-centre verification study evaluated the concordance of PGT results for a total of 225 embryos, including 189 originally tested for a monogenic disorder and 36 tested for a translocation. Concordance for whole chromosome aneuploidies was also evaluated where whole genome copy-number reference data were available. Data analysts were kept blind to the results from the reference PGT method. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Leftover blastomere/trophectoderm whole genome amplified (WGA) material was used, or secondary trophectoderm biopsies were WGA. A reduced representation library from WGA DNA together with bulk DNA from phasing references was processed across two study sites with the Agilent OnePGT solution. Libraries were sequenced on an Illumina NextSeq500 system, and data were analysed with Agilent Alissa OnePGT software. The embedded PGT-M pipeline utilises the principles of haplarithmisis to deduce haplotype inheritance whereas both the PGT-A and PGT-SR pipelines are based upon read-count analysis in order to evaluate embryonic ploidy. Concordance analysis was performed for both analysis strategies against the reference PGT method. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: PGT-M analysis was performed on 189 samples. For nine samples, the data quality was too poor to analyse further, and for 20 samples, no result could be obtained mainly due to biological limitations of the haplotyping approach, such as co-localisation of meiotic crossover events and nullisomy for the chromosome of interest. For the remaining 160 samples, 100% concordance was obtained between OnePGT and the reference PGT-M method. Equally for PGT-SR, 100% concordance for all 36 embryos tested was demonstrated. Moreover, with embryos originally analysed for PGT-M or PGT-SR for which genome-wide copy-number reference data were available, 100% concordance was shown for whole chromosome copy-number calls (PGT-A). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Inherent to haplotyping methodologies, processing of additional family members is still required. Biological limitations caused inconclusive results in 10% of cases. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Employment of OnePGT for PGT-M, PGT-SR, PGT-A or combined as comprehensive PGT offers a scalable platform, which is inherently generic and thereby, eliminates the need for family-specific design and optimisation. It can be considered as both an improvement and complement to the current methodologies for PGT. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Agilent Technologies, the KU Leuven (C1/018 to J.R.V. and T.V.) and the Horizon 2020 WIDENLIFE (692065 to J.R.V. and T.V). H.M. is supported by the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO, 11A7119N). M.Z.E, J.R.V. and T.V. are co-inventors on patent applications: ZL910050-PCT/EP2011/060211- WO/2011/157846 'Methods for haplotyping single cells' and ZL913096-PCT/EP2014/068315 'Haplotyping and copy-number typing using polymorphic variant allelic frequencies'. T.V. and J.R.V. are co-inventors on patent application: ZL912076-PCT/EP2013/070858 'High-throughput genotyping by sequencing'. Haplarithmisis ('Haplotyping and copy-number typing using polymorphic variant allelic frequencies') has been licensed to Agilent Technologies. The following patents are pending for OnePGT: US2016275239, AU2014345516, CA2928013, CN105874081, EP3066213 and WO2015067796. OnePGT is a registered trademark. D.L., J.T. and R.L.R. report personal fees during the conduct of the study and outside the submitted work from Agilent Technologies. S.H. and K.O.F. report personal fees and other during the conduct of the study and outside the submitted work from Agilent Technologies. J.A. reports personal fees and other during the conduct of the study from Agilent Technologies and personal fees from Agilent Technologies and UZ Leuven outside the submitted work. B.D. reports grants from IWT/VLAIO, personal fees during the conduct of the study from Agilent Technologies and personal fees and other outside the submitted work from Agilent Technologies. In addition, B.D. has a patent 20160275239 - Genetic Analysis Method pending. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest.