Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mosaicism: throwing the baby out with the bath water?

  • Commentary
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Munne S, Grifo J, Wells D. Mosaicism: “survival of the fittest” versus “no embryo left behind”. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(5):1146–9. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.01.016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wells DAS, Taylor S, Kubikova N, Spath K, Turner K, Hickman C, et al. Evidence that differences between embryology laboratories can influence the rate of mitotic errors, leading to increased chromosomal mosaicism, with significant implications for IVF success rates. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(Supplement 1):i25–6.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Fragouli E, Alfarawati S, Spath K, Wells D. Morphological and cytogenetic assessment of cleavage and blastocyst stage embryos. Mol Hum Reprod. 2014;20(2):117–26. doi:10.1093/molehr/gat073.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Northrop LE, Treff NR, Levy B, Scott Jr RT. SNP microarray-based 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening demonstrates that cleavage-stage FISH poorly predicts aneuploidy in embryos that develop to morphologically normal blastocysts. Mol Hum Reprod. 2010;16(8):590–600. doi:10.1093/molehr/gaq037.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Kushnir VA, Darmon SK, Albertini DF, Barad DH, Gleicher N. Effectiveness of in vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening: a reanalysis of United States assisted reproductive technology data 2011–2012. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(1):75–9. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.02.026.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Munne S, Magli C, Adler A, Wright G, de Boer K, Mortimer D, et al. Treatment-related chromosome abnormalities in human embryos. Hum Reprod. 1997;12(4):780–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Munne S, Chen S, Colls P, Garrisi J, Zheng X, Cekleniak N, et al. Maternal age, morphology, development and chromosome abnormalities in over 6000 cleavage-stage embryos. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007;14(5):628–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Vega M, Breborowicz A, Moshier EL, McGovern PG, Keltz MD. Blastulation rates decline in a linear fashion from euploid to aneuploid embryos with single versus multiple chromosomal errors. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(2):394–8. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.04.026.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Nastri CO, Nobrega BN, Teixeira DM, Amorim J, Diniz LM, Barbosa MW, et al. Low versus atmospheric oxygen tension for embryo culture in assisted reproduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(1):95–104. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.02.037. e117.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Swain JE. Is there an optimal pH for culture media used in clinical IVF? Hum Reprod Update. 2012;18(3):333–9. doi:10.1093/humupd/dmr053.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Swain JE. Optimal human embryo culture. Semin Reprod Med. 2015;33(2):103–17. doi:10.1055/s-0035-1546423.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hentemann M, Mousavi K, Bertheussen K. Differential pH in embryo culture. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(4):1291–4. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.10.018.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hong KH, Lee H, Forman EJ, Upham KM, Scott Jr RT. Examining the temperature of embryo culture in in vitro fertilization: a randomized controlled trial comparing traditional core temperature (37 degrees C) to a more physiologic, cooler temperature (36 degrees C). Fertil Steril. 2014;102(3):767–73. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.06.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Esfandiari N, Bunnell ME, Casper RF. Human embryo mosaicism: did we drop the ball on chromosomal testing? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016. doi:10.1007/s10815-016-0797-y.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Capalbo A, Ubaldi FM, Cimadomo D, Maggiulli R, Patassini C, Dusi L, et al. Consistent and reproducible outcomes of blastocyst biopsy and aneuploidy screening across different biopsy practitioners: a multicentre study involving 2586 embryo biopsies. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(1):199–208. doi:10.1093/humrep/dev294.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Taylor TH, Gitlin SA, Patrick JL, Crain JL, Wilson JM, Griffin DK. The origin, mechanisms, incidence and clinical consequences of chromosomal mosaicism in humans. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20(4):571–81. doi:10.1093/humupd/dmu016.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gleicher NVA, Braverman J, Kushnir VA, Albertini DF, Barad DH. Further evidence against use of PGS in poor prognosis patients: report of normal births after transfer of embryos reported as aneuploid. Fertil Steril. 2015;104 Suppl 3:e9.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Tortoriello DV, Dayal M, Beyhan Z, Yakut T, Keskintepe L. Reanalysis of human blastocysts with different molecular genetic screening platforms reveals significant discordance in ploidy status. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016. doi:10.1007/s10815-016-0766-5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gleicher N, Vidali A, Braverman J, Kushnir VA, Barad DH, Hudson C, et al. Accuracy of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) is compromised by degree of mosaicism of human embryos. Reprod Biol Endocrinol : RB&E. 2016;14(1):54. doi:10.1186/s12958-016-0193-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Pandian Z, Gibreel A, Bhattacharya S. In vitro fertilisation for unexplained subfertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;11:CD003357. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003357.pub4.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Brezina PR, Anchan R, Kearns WG. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: what technology should you use and what are the differences? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;33(7):823–32. doi:10.1007/s10815-016-0740-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. PGDIS (2016) PGDIS position statement on chromosome mosaicisim and preimplantation aneuploidy testing at the blastocyst stage. http://www.pgdis.org/.

  23. Sermon K, Capalbo A, Cohen J, Coonen E, De Rycke M, De Vos A, et al. The why, the how and the when of PGS 2.0: current practices and expert opinions of fertility specialists, molecular biologists, and embryologists. Mol Hum Reprod. 2016. doi:10.1093/molehr/gaw034.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Peikoff K (2016) In IVF, questions about ‘mosaic’ embryos. The New York Times

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA

    Mario Vega & Sangita Jindal

Authors
  1. Mario Vega
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sangita Jindal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sangita Jindal.

Additional information

Capsule

Causes and clinical implications of mosaicism detected by preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) have yet to be fully established. This commentary suggests possible evidence-based approaches to diagnosing and reporting mosaicism.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vega, M., Jindal, S. Mosaicism: throwing the baby out with the bath water?. J Assist Reprod Genet 34, 11–13 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-016-0819-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-016-0819-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation