Preimplantation genetic screening: does it help or ... - ResearchGate

848 J Assist Reprod Genet (2011) 28:833–849
102. Wells D. Embryo aneuploidy and the role of morphological and
genetic screening. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;21(3):274–7.
103. Debrock S, et al. Preimplantation genetic screening for aneuploidy
of embryos after in vitro fertilization in women aged at
least 35 years: a prospective randomized trial. Fertil Steril. 2009
104. Checa MA et al. IVF/ICSI with or without preimplantation
genetic screening for aneuploidy in couples without genetic
disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Assist
Reprod Genet. 2009;26(5):273–83.
105. Fritz MA. Perspectives on the efficacy and indications for
preimplantation genetic screening: where are we now? Hum
Reprod. 2008;23(12):2617–21.
106. Cohen J, Wells D, Munne S. Removal of 2 cells from cleavage
stage embryos is likely to reduce the efficacy of chromosomal
tests that are used to enhance implantation rates. Fertil Steril.
2007;87(3):496–503.
107. Michiels A et al. The analysis of one or two blastomeres for
PGD using fluorescence in-situ hybridization. Hum Reprod.
2006;21(9):2396–402.
108. Goossens Vet al. Diagnostic efficiency, embryonic development
and clinical outcome after the biopsy of one or two blastomeres
for preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Hum Reprod. 2008;23
(3):481–92.
109. Harton GL et al. ESHRE PGD consortium best practice guidelines
for amplification-based PGD. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(1):33–40.
110. Harton GL et al. ESHRE PGD consortium best practice guidelines
for fluorescence in situ hybridization-based PGD. Hum
Reprod. 2011;26(1):25–32.
111. Kokkali G et al. Blastocyst biopsy versus cleavage stage biopsy and
blastocyst transfer for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of betathalassaemia:
a pilot study. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(5):1443–9.
112. Schoolcraft WB et al. Clinical application of comprehensive
chromosomal screening at the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril.
2010;94(5):1700–6.
113. Magli MC et al. The combination of polar body and embryo
biopsy does not affect embryo viability. Hum Reprod. 2004;19
(5):1163–9.
114. DeUgarte CM et al. Accuracy of FISH analysis in predicting
chromosomal status in patients undergoing preimplantation
genetic diagnosis. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(4):1049–54.
115. Agerholm IE et al. Sequential FISH analysis using competitive
displacement of labelled peptide nucleic acid probes for eight
chromosomes in human blastomeres. Hum Reprod. 2005;20
(4):1072–7.
116. Gutierrez-Mateo C et al. Karyotyping of human oocytes by
cenM-FISH, a new 24-colour centromere-specific technique.
Hum Reprod. 2005;20(12):3395–401.
117. Pellestor F et al. Fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis of
human oocytes: advantages of a double-labeling procedure. Fertil
Steril. 2004;82(4):919–22.
118. Yan LY, et al. Application of three-dimensional fluorescence in
situ hybridization to human preimplantation genetic diagnosis.
Fertil Steril. 2008
119. Wells D, Alfarawati S, Fragouli E. Use of comprehensive
chromosomal screening for embryo assessment: microarrays
and CGH. Mol Hum Reprod. 2008;14(12):703–10.
120. Fragouli E, et al. Comprehensive chromosome screening of polar
bodies and blastocysts from couples experiencing repeated
implantation failure. Fertil Steril. 2009
121. Pellestor F et al. Mechanisms of non-disjunction in human
female meiosis: the co-existence of two modes of malsegregation
evidenced by the karyotyping of 1397 in-vitro unfertilized
oocytes. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(8):2134–45.
122. Sandalinas M, Marquez C, Munne S. Spectral karyotyping of
fresh, non-inseminated oocytes. Mol Hum Reprod. 2002;8
(6):580–5.
123. Gutierrez-Mateo C et al. Aneuploidy study of human oocytes
first polar body comparative genomic hybridization and metaphase
II fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis. Hum
Reprod. 2004;19(12):2859–68.
124. Gutierrez-Mateo C et al. Reliability of comparative genomic
hybridization to detect chromosome abnormalities in first polar
bodies and metaphase II oocytes. Hum Reprod. 2004;19
(9):2118–25.
125. Wilton L et al. Preimplantation aneuploidy screening using
comparative genomic hybridization or fluorescence in situ
hybridization of embryos from patients with recurrent implantation
failure. Fertil Steril. 2003;80(4):860–8.
126. Keskintepe L, Sher G, Keskintepe M. Reproductive oocyte/embryo
genetic analysis: comparison between fluorescence in-situ hybridization
and comparative genomic hybridization. Reprod Biomed
Online. 2007;15(3):303–9.
127. Hellani A et al. Successful pregnancies after application of arraycomparative
genomic hybridization in PGS-aneuploidy screening.
Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;17(6):841–7.
128. Rius M et al. Reliability of short comparative genomic
hybridization in fibroblasts and blastomeres for a comprehensive
aneuploidy screening: first clinical application. Hum Reprod.
2010;25(7):1824–35.
129. Gutierrez-Mateo C, et al. Validation of microarray comparative
genomic hybridization for comprehensive chromosome analysis
of embryos. Fertil Steril. 2010
130. Handyside AH et al. Karyomapping: a universal method for
genome wide analysis of genetic disease based on mapping
crossovers between parental haplotypes. J Med Genet. 2010;47
(10):651–8.
131. Treff NR et al. Accurate single cell 24 chromosome aneuploidy
screening using whole genome amplification and single nucleotide
polymorphism microarrays. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(6):2017–
21.
132. Johnson DS et al. Preclinical validation of a microarray method
for full molecular karyotyping of blastomeres in a 24-h protocol.
Hum Reprod. 2010;25(4):1066–75.
133. Bonduelle M et al. Prenatal testing in ICSI pregnancies: incidence of
chromosomal anomalies in 1586 karyotypes and relation to sperm
parameters. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(10):2600–14.
134. Sanchez-Castro M et al. Prognostic value of sperm fluorescence
in situ hybridization analysis over PGD. Hum Reprod. 2009;24
(6):1516–21.
135. Kuznyetsov Vet al. Duplication of the sperm genome by human
androgenetic embryo production: towards testing the paternal
genome prior to fertilization. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007;14
(4):504–14.
136. Lewis-Jones I et al. Sperm chromosomal abnormalities are linked to
sperm morphologic deformities. Fertil Steril. 2003;79(1):212–5.
137. Dubey A et al. The influence of sperm morphology on
preimplantation genetic diagnosis cycles outcome. Fertil Steril.
2008;89(6):1665–9.
138. Maille L et al. Pronuclear morphology differs between women
more than 38 and women less than 30 years of age. Reprod
Biomed Online. 2009;18(3):367–73.
139. Gianaroli L et al. Oocyte euploidy, pronuclear zygote morphology
and embryo chromosomal complement. Hum Reprod. 2007;22
(1):241–9.
140. Noyes N et al. Embryo biopsy: the fate of abnormal pronuclear
embryos. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;17(6):782–8.
141. Rosenbusch B et al. Cytogenetic analysis of giant oocytes and
zygotes to assess their relevance for the development of digynic
triploidy. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(9):2388–93.
142. Edwards RG, Beard HK. Oocyte polarity and cell determination
in early mammalian embryos. Mol Hum Reprod. 1997;3
(10):863–905.