Advertisement

Interchromosomal effect in carriers of translocations and inversions assessed by preimplantation genetic testing for structural rearrangements (PGT-SR)

  • E. Mateu-BrullEmail author
  • L. Rodrigo
  • V. Peinado
  • A. Mercader
  • I. Campos-Galindo
  • F. Bronet
  • S. García-Herrero
  • M. Florensa
  • M. Milán
  • C. Rubio
Genetics

Abstract

Purpose

Balanced carriers of structural rearrangements have an increased risk of unbalanced embryos mainly due to the production of unbalanced gametes during meiosis. Aneuploidy for other chromosomes not involved in the rearrangements has also been described. The purpose of this work is to know if the incidence of unbalanced embryos, interchromosomal effect (ICE) and clinical outcomes differ in carriers of different structural rearrangements.

Methods

Cohort retrospective study including 359 preimplantation genetic testing cycles for structural rearrangements from 304 couples was performed. Comparative genomic hybridisation arrays were used for chromosomal analysis. The results were stratified and compared according to female age and carrier sex. The impact of different cytogenetic features of chromosomal rearrangements was evaluated.

Results

In carriers of translocations, we observed a higher percentage of abnormal embryos from day 3 biopsies compared with day 5/6 biopsies and for reciprocal translocations compared with other rearrangements. We observed a high percentage of embryos with aneuploidies for chromosomes not involved in the rearrangement that could be attributed to total ICE (aneuploid balanced and unbalanced embryos). No significant differences were observed in these percentages between types of rearrangements. Pure ICE (aneuploid balanced embyos) was independent of female age only for Robertsonian translocations, and significantly increased in day 3 biopsies for all types of abnormalities. Furthermore, total ICE for carriers of Robertsonian translocations and biopsy on day 3 was independent of female age too. High ongoing pregnancy rates were observed for all studied groups, with higher pregnancy rate for male carriers.

Conclusion

We observed a higher percentage of abnormal embryos for reciprocal translocations. No significant differences for total ICE was found among the different types of rearrangements, with higher pure ICE only for Robertsonian translocations. There was a sex effect for clinical outcome for carriers of translocations, with higher pregnancy rate for male carriers. The higher incidence of unbalanced and aneuploid embryos should be considered for reproductive counselling in carriers of structural rearrangements.

Keywords

Structural rearrangement PGT-SR Aneuploid unbalanced embryo Biopsy Interchromosomal effect 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

The study was approved by the institutional review and ethical board at the Instituto Valenciano de Infertilidad (1503-IGX-020-EM).

Supplementary material

10815_2019_1593_MOESM1_ESM.docx (53 kb)
ESM 1 Supplementary Table I. Categorization of embryos stratified by maternal age, Supplementary Table II.Categorization of embryos according to sex of the carrier of the rearrangement, Supplementary Table III. Clinical outcome according to maternal age and structural rearrangement, Supplementary Table IV. Clinical outcome according to sex of the carrier of the rearrangement (DOCX 53 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Jacobs PA, Melville M, Ratcliffe S, Keay AJ, Syme J. A cytogenetic survey of 11,680 newborn infants. Ann Hum Genet. 1974;37:359–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Van Dyke DL, Weiss L, Roberson JR, Babu VR. The frequency and mutation rate of balanced autosomal rearrangements in man estimated from prenatal genetic studies for advanced maternal age. Am J Hum Genet. 1983;35:301–8.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Campana M, Serra A, Neri G. Role of chromosome aberrations in recurrent abortion: a study of 269 balanced translocations. Am J Med Genet. 1986;24:341–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fryns JP, Van Buggenhout G. Structural chromosome rearrangements in couples with recurrent fetal wastage. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1998;81:171–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stern C, Pertile M, Norris H, Hale L, Baker HW. Chromosome translocations in couples with in-vitro fertilization implantation failure. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:2097–101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Neri G, Serra A, Campana M, Tedeschi B. Reproductive risks for translocation carriers: cytogenetic study and analysis of pregnancy outcome in 58 families. Am J Med Genet. 1983;16:535–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Scriven PN, Handyside AH, Ogilvie CM. Chromosome translocations: segregation modes and strategies for preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Prenat Diagn. 1998;18:1437–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Anton E, Vidal F, Blanco J. Reciprocal translocations: tracing their meiotic behavior. Genet Med. 2008;10:730–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Conn CM, Harper JC, Winston RM, Delhanty JD. Infertile couples with Robertsonian translocations: preimplantation genetic analysis of embryos reveals chaotic cleavage divisions. Hum Genet. 1998;102:117–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fischer J, Colls P, Escudero T, Munne S. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) improves pregnancy outcome for translocation carriers with a history of recurrent losses. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:283–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Munne S, Sandalinas M, Escudero T, Fung J, Gianaroli L, Cohen J. Outcome of preimplantation genetic diagnosis of translocations. Fertil Steril. 2000;73:1209–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Verlinsky Y, Tur-Kaspa I, Cieslak J, Bernal A, Morris R, Taranissi M, et al. Preimplantation testing for chromosomal disorders improves reproductive outcome of poor-prognosis patients. Reprod BioMed Online. 2005;11:219–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Munne S, Bahce M, Schimmel T, Sadowy S, Cohen J. Case report: chromatid exchange and predivision of chromatids as other sources of abnormal oocytes detected by preimplantation genetic diagnosis of translocations. Prenat Diagn. 1998;18:1450–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Munne S, Morrison L, Fung J, Marquez C, Weier U, Bahce M, et al. Spontaneous abortions are reduced after preconception diagnosis of translocations. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1998;15:290–6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Verlinsky Y, Evsikov S. Karyotyping of human oocytes by chromosomal analysis of the second polar bodies. Mol Hum Reprod. 1999;5:89–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Harper JC, Wilton L, Traeger-Synodinos J, Goossens V, Moutou C, SenGupta SB, et al. The ESHRE PGD Consortium: 10 years of data collection. Hum Reprod Update. 2012;18:234–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    DeUgarte CM, Li M, Surrey M, Danzer H, Hill D, DeCherney AH. Accuracy of FISH analysis in predicting chromosomal status in patients undergoing preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:1049–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Munne S. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis of numerical and structural chromosome abnormalities. Reprod BioMed Online. 2002;4:183–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Velilla E, Escudero T, Munne S. Blastomere fixation techniques and risk of misdiagnosis for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of aneuploidy. Reprod BioMed Online. 2002;4:210–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fiorentino F, Kokkali G, Biricik A, Stavrou D, Ismailoglu B, De Palma R, et al. Polymerase chain reaction-based detection of chromosomal imbalances on embryos: the evolution of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for chromosomal translocations. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:2001-11, 2011.e1-6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lukaszuk K, Pukszta S, Ochman K, Cybulska C, Liss J, Pastuszek E, et al. Healthy baby born to a Robertsonian translocation carrier following next-generation sequencing-based preimplantation genetic diagnosis: a case report. AJP Rep. 2015;5:e172–5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tan YQ, Tan K, Zhang SP, Gong F, Cheng DH, Xiong B, et al. Single-nucleotide polymorphism microarray-based preimplantation genetic diagnosis is likely to improve the clinical outcome for translocation carriers. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:2581–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Treff NR, Tao X, Schillings WJ, Bergh PA, Scott RT Jr, Levy B. Use of single nucleotide polymorphism microarrays to distinguish between balanced and normal chromosomes in embryos from a translocation carrier. Fertil Steril. 2011;96:e58–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    van Uum CM, Stevens SJ, Dreesen JC, Drusedau M, Smeets HJ, Hollanders-Crombach B, et al. SNP array-based copy number and genotype analyses for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of human unbalanced translocations. Eur J Hum Genet. 2012;20:938–44.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Xie Y, Xu Y, Wang J, Miao B, Zeng Y, Ding C, Gao J, Zhou C. Preliminary analysis of numerical chromosome abnormalities in reciprocal and Robertsonian translocation preimplantation genetic diagnosis cases with 24-chromosomal analysis with an aCGH/SNP microarray. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018 Jan;35(1):177–186.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Alfarawati S, Fragouli E, Colls P, Wells D. First births after preimplantation genetic diagnosis of structural chromosome abnormalities using comparative genomic hybridization and microarray analysis. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:1560–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fiorentino F, Spizzichino L, Bono S, Biricik A, Kokkali G, Rienzi L, et al. PGD for reciprocal and Robertsonian translocations using array comparative genomic hybridization. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:1925–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Li G, Jin H, Xin Z, Su Y, Brezina PR, Benner AT, et al. Increased IVF pregnancy rates after microarray preimplantation genetic diagnosis due to parental translocations. Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2014;60:119–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tobler KJ, Brezina PR, Benner AT, Du L, Xu X, Kearns WG. Two different microarray technologies for preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening, due to reciprocal translocation imbalances, demonstrate equivalent euploidy and clinical pregnancy rates. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31:843–50.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bono S, Biricik A, Spizzichino L, Nuccitelli A, Minasi MG, Greco E, et al. Validation of a semiconductor next-generation sequencing-based protocol for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of reciprocal translocations. Prenat Diagn. 2015;35:938–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wang L, Cram DS, Shen J, Wang X, Zhang J, Song Z, et al. Validation of copy number variation sequencing for detecting chromosome imbalances in human preimplantation embryos. Biol Reprod. 2014;91:37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lejeune J. Autosomal disorders. Pediatrics. 1963;32:326–37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Anton E, Vidal F, Blanco J. Interchromosomal effect analyses by sperm FISH: incidence and distribution among reorganization carriers. Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2011;57:268–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Anton E, Blanco J, Egozcue J, Vidal F. Sperm FISH studies in seven male carriers of Robertsonian translocation t(13;14)(q10;q10). Hum Reprod. 2004;19:1345–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Blanco J, Egozcue J, Clusellas N, Vidal F. FISH on sperm heads allows the analysis of chromosome segregation and interchromosomal effects in carriers of structural rearrangements: results in a translocation carrier, t(5;8)(q33;q13). Cytogenet Cell Genet. 1998;83:275–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Douet-Guilbert N, Bris MJ, Amice V, Marchetti C, Delobel B, Amice J, et al. Interchromosomal effect in sperm of males with translocations: report of 6 cases and review of the literature. Int J Androl. 2005;28:372–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Escudero T, Lee M, Carrel D, Blanco J, Munne S. Analysis of chromosome abnormalities in sperm and embryos from two 45,XY,t(13;14)(q10;q10) carriers. Prenat Diagn. 2000;20:599–602.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Godo A, Blanco J, Vidal F, Sandalinas M, Garcia-Guixe E, Anton E. Altered segregation pattern and numerical chromosome abnormalities interrelate in spermatozoa from Robertsonian translocation carriers. Reprod BioMed Online. 2015;31:79–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Alfarawati S, Fragouli E, Colls P, Wells D. Embryos of robertsonian translocation carriers exhibit a mitotic interchromosomal effect that enhances genetic instability during early development. PLoS Genet. 2012;8:e1003025.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Durban M, Benet J, Boada M, Fernandez E, Calafell JM, Lailla JM, et al. PGD in female carriers of balanced Robertsonian and reciprocal translocations by first polar body analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2001;7:591–602.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gutierrez-Mateo C, Gadea L, Benet J, Wells D, Munne S, Navarro J. Aneuploidy 12 in a Robertsonian (13;14) carrier: case report. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:1256–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gianaroli L, Magli MC, Ferraretti AP, Munne S, Balicchia B, Escudero T, et al. Possible interchromosomal effect in embryos generated by gametes from translocation carriers. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:3201–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tulay P, Gultomruk M, Findikli N, Yagmur E, Bahceci M. Is the interchromosomal effect present in embryos derived from Robertsonian and reciprocal translocation carriers particularly focusing on chromosome 10 rearrangements? Zygote. 2015;23:908–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rubio C, Mercader A, Alama P, Lizan C, Rodrigo L, Labarta E, et al. Prospective cohort study in high responder oocyte donors using two hormonal stimulation protocols: impact on embryo aneuploidy and development. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:2290–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Cobo A, Bellver J, Domingo J, Perez S, Crespo J, Pellicer A, et al. New options in assisted reproduction technology: the Cryotop method of oocyte vitrification. Reprod BioMed Online. 2008;17:68–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Beyer CE, Willats E. Natural selection between day 3 and day 5/6 PGD embryos in couples with reciprocal or Robertsonian translocations. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017 Nov;34(11):1483–1492.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Amir H, Barbash-Hazan S, Kalma Y, Frumkin T, Malcov M, Samara N, et al. Time-lapse imaging reveals delayed development of embryos carrying unbalanced chromosomal translocations. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36:315–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rodrigo L, Mateu E, Mercader A, Cobo AC, Peinado V, Milan M, et al. New tools for embryo selection: comprehensive chromosome screening by array comparative genomic hybridization. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:517125.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Otani T, Roche M, Mizuike M, Colls P, Escudero T, Munne S. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis significantly improves the pregnancy outcome of translocation carriers with a history of recurrent miscarriage and unsuccessful pregnancies. Reprod BioMed Online. 2006;13:869–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Zhang S, Lei C, Wu J, Sun H, Zhou J, Zhu S, et al. Analysis of segregation patterns of quadrivalent structures and the effect on genome stability during meiosis in reciprocal translocation carriers. Hum Reprod. 2018;33:757–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Jalbert P, Sele B, Jalbert H. Reciprocal translocations: a way to predict the mode of imbalanced segregation by pachytene-diagram drawing. Hum Genet. 1980;55:209–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Chelli MH, Ferfouri F, Boitrelle F, Albert M, Molina-Gomes D, Selva J, et al. High-magnification sperm selection does not decrease the aneuploidy rate in patients who are heterozygous for reciprocal translocations. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2013;30:525–30.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Estop AM, Cieply K, Munne S, Surti U, Wakim A, Feingold E. Is there an interchromosomal effect in reciprocal translocation carriers? Sperm FISH studies. Hum Genet. 2000;106:517–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Kirkpatrick G, Ren H, Liehr T, Chow V, Ma S. Meiotic and sperm aneuploidy studies in three carriers of Robertsonian translocations and small supernumerary marker chromosomes. Fertil Steril. 2015;103:1162-9.e7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Luciani JM, Guichaoua MR, Mattei A, Morazzani MR. Pachytene analysis of a man with a 13q;14q translocation and infertility. Behavior of the trivalent and nonrandom association with the sex vesicle. Cytogenet Cell Genet. 1984;38:14–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Navarro J, Vidal F, Benet J, Templado C, Marina S, Egozcue J. XY-trivalent association and synaptic anomalies in a male carrier of a Robertsonian t(13;14) translocation. Hum Reprod. 1991;6:376–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Rogenhofer N, Durl S, Ochsenkuhn R, Neusser M, Aichinger E, Thaler CJ, et al. Case report: elevated sperm aneuploidy levels in an infertile Robertsonian translocation t(21;21) carrier with possible interchromosomal effect. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29:343–6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Pujol A, Durban M, Benet J, Boiso I, Calafell JM, Egozcue J, et al. Multiple aneuploidies in the oocytes of balanced translocation carriers: a preimplantation genetic diagnosis study using first polar body. Reproduction. 2003;126:701–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ghevaria H, SenGupta S, Shmitova N, Serhal P, Delhanty J. The origin and significance of additional aneuploidy events in couples undergoing preimplantation genetic diagnosis for translocations by array comparative genomic hybridization. Reprod BioMed Online. 2016;32:178–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Moosani N, Pattinson HA, Carter MD, Cox DM, Rademaker AW, Martin RH. Chromosomal analysis of sperm from men with idiopathic infertility using sperm karyotyping and fluorescence in situ hybridization. Fertil Steril. 1995;64:811–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Pang MG, Hoegerman SF, Cuticchia AJ, Moon SY, Doncel GF, Acosta AA, et al. Detection of aneuploidy for chromosomes 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 21, X and Y by fluorescence in-situ hybridization in spermatozoa from nine patients with oligoasthenoteratozoospermia undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:1266–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Rubio C, Bellver J, Rodrigo L, Castillon G, Guillen A, Vidal C, et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidies in advanced maternal age: a randomized, controlled study. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:1122–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Rubio C, Gil-Salom M, Simon C, Vidal F, Rodrigo L, Minguez Y, et al. Incidence of sperm chromosomal abnormalities in a risk population: relationship with sperm quality and ICSI outcome. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:2084–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Xie Y, Xu Y, Wang J, Miao B, Zeng Y, Ding C, et al. Preliminary analysis of numerical chromosome abnormalities in reciprocal and Robertsonian translocation preimplantation genetic diagnosis cases with 24-chromosomal analysis with an aCGH/SNP microarray. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35:177–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Iews M, Tan J, Taskin O, Alfaraj S, AbdelHafez FF, Abdellah AH, et al. Does preimplantation genetic diagnosis improve reproductive outcome in couples with recurrent pregnancy loss owing to structural chromosomal rearrangement? A systematic review. Reprod BioMed Online. 2018;36:677–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Ikuma S, Sato T, Sugiura-Ogasawara M, Nagayoshi M, Tanaka A, Takeda S. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and natural conception: a comparison of live birth rates in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss associated with translocation. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0129958.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Keymolen K, Staessen C, Verpoest W, Liebaers I, Bonduelle M. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis in female and male carriers of reciprocal translocations: clinical outcome until delivery of 312 cycles. Eur J Hum Genet. 2012;20:376–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Maithripala S, Durland U, Havelock J, Kashyap S, Hitkari J, Tan J, et al. Prevalence and treatment choices for couples with recurrent pregnancy loss due to structural chromosomal anomalies. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2018;40:655–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Kato K, Aoyama N, Kawasaki N, Hayashi H, Xiaohui T, Abe T, et al. Reproductive outcomes following preimplantation genetic diagnosis using fluorescence in situ hybridization for 52 translocation carrier couples with a history of recurrent pregnancy loss. J Hum Genet. 2016;61:687–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IGENOMIXPaternaSpain
  2. 2.IVIRMAValenciaSpain
  3. 3.IVIRMAMadridSpain
  4. 4.IVIRMABarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations