Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

Title abbreviation: Adv Clin Exp Med
JCR Impact Factor (IF) – 2.1 (5-Year IF – 2.0)
Journal Citation Indicator (JCI) (2023) – 0.4
Scopus CiteScore – 3.7 (CiteScore Tracker 3.8)
Index Copernicus  – 171.00; MNiSW – 70 pts

ISSN 1899–5276 (print)
ISSN 2451-2680 (online)
Periodicity – monthly

Download original text (EN)

Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

2020, vol. 29, nr 11, November, p. 1355–1361

doi: 10.17219/acem/127679

Publication type: original article

Language: English

License: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

Optimization of tubing method of biopsy samples during preimplantation genetic testing

Shuai Liu1,A,B,C,D,F, Zhiheng Chen1,A,F, Yunhao Liang1,B,F, Hui Wang1,C,F, Li Yang1,C,F, Ling Sun1,A,B,C,D,F

1 Center of Reproductive Medicine, Guangzhou Women and Children’s Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, China

Abstract

Background. Preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) is a powerful tool for patients with a high risk of transmitting a genetic abnormality to their children. Unlike other assisted reproductive technologies (ART), it has technical issues which remain unresolved.
Objectives. To develop a modified tubing method for placing biopsied samples into amplification tubes for PGT.
Material and Methods. A modified tubing method was developed and applied to PGT, with the micromanipulator aiding in the fine movement of transfer pipettes, and with a microinjector to minimize the amount of medium which is transferred with the biopsy samples into the amplification tube. A total of 826 blastocysts from 222 PGT cycles performed between December 2016 and December 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. As the tubing of the cells could not always be inspected visually and they would only be detected by the presence of DNA after amplification, the main outcome measure was the amplification success rate.
Results. The amplification success rate with the modified tubing method was 99.6%.
Conclusion. The modified tubing method is efficient and simple. It is a promising technique for PGT tubing. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report on the use of a modified micromanipulator and microinjector for improving the tubing rate in PGT cycles, and the presented method is by far the closest to actual use for PGT tubing.

Key words

trophectoderm biopsy, preimplantation genetic testing, modified tubing method, vision-based tubing system, biopsy tubing

References (32)

  1. Harper JC, Wilton L, Traeger-Synodinos J, et al. The ESHRE PGD Consortium: 10 years of data collection. Hum Reprod Update. 2012;18(3):234–247.
  2. Kakourou G, Kahraman S, Ekmekci GC, et al. The clinical utility of PGD with HLA matching: A collaborative multi-centre ESHRE study. Hum Reprod. 2018;33(3):520–530.
  3. Ubaldi FM, Cimadomo D, Capalbo A, et al. Preimplantation ­genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy testing in women older than 44 years: A multicenter experience. Fertil Steril. 2017;107(5):1173–1180.
  4. Rubio C, Bellver J, Rodrigo L, et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidies in advanced maternal age: A randomized, controlled study. Fertil Steril. 2017;107(5):1122–1129.
  5. Cimadomo D, Ubaldi FM, Capalbo A, et al. Failure mode and effects analysis of witnessing protocols for ensuring traceability during PGD/PGS cycles. Reprod Biomed Online. 2016;33(3):360–369.
  6. Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis International Society (PGDIS). Guidelines for good practice in PGD: Programme requirements and laboratory quality assurance. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;16(1):134–147.
  7. Harton GL, Magli MC, Lundin K, Montag M, Lemmen J, Harper JC; European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) PGD Consortium/Embryology Special Interest Group. ESHRE PGD Consortium/Embryology Special Interest Group: Best practice guidelines for polar body and embryo biopsy for preimplantation genetic diagnosis/screening (PGD/PGS). Hum Reprod. 2011;26(1):41–46.
  8. Harper JC, Sengupta S, Vesela K, et al. Accreditation of the PGD laboratory. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(4):1051–1065.
  9. Imudia AN, Plosker S. The past, present, and future of preimplantation genetic testing. Clin Lab Med. 2016;36(2):385–399.
  10. Harton GL, De Rycke M, Fiorentino F, et al; European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) PGD Consortium. ESHRE PGD consortium best practice guidelines for amplification-based PGD. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(1):33–40.
  11. Malter HE. Micromanipulation in assisted reproductive technology. Reprod Biomed Online. 2016;32(4):339–347.
  12. Shojaei-Baghini E, Zheng Y, Sun Y. Automated micropipette aspiration of single cells. Ann Biomed Eng. 2013;41(6):1208–1216.
  13. Zhang X, Leung C, Lu Z, Esfandiari N, Casper RF, Sun Y. Controlled aspiration and positioning of biological cells in a micropipette. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2012;59(4):1032–1040.
  14. Banerjee AG, Gupta SK. Research in automated planning and control for micromanipulation. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering. 2013;10(3):485–495.
  15. Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB. In-vitro culture of human blastocyst. In: Jansen R, Mortimer D, eds. Towards Reproductive Certainty: Infertility Genetics Beyond 1999: The Plenary Proceedings of the 11th World Congress. New York NY: Parthenon Press; 1999:378–388.
  16. De Rycke M, Goossens V, Kokkali G, Meijer-Hoogeveen M, Coonen E, Moutou C. ESHRE PGD Consortium data collection XIV–XV: Cycles from January 2011 to December 2012 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2013. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(10):1974–1994.
  17. Capalbo A, Ubaldi FM, Cimadomo D, 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.
  18. Cimadomo D, Rienzi L, Romanelli V, et al. Inconclusive ­chromosomal assessment after blastocyst biopsy: Prevalence, causative factors and outcomes after re-biopsy and re-vitrification. A multicenter ­experience. Hum Reprod. 2018;33(10):1839–1846.
  19. Xu K, Montag M. New perspectives on embryo biopsy: Not how, but when and why? Semin Reprod Med. 2012;30(4):259–266.
  20. Thornhill AR, deDie-Smulders CE, Geraedts JP, et al; ESHRE PGD Consortium. ESHRE PGD Consortium “Best practice guidelines for clinical preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)”. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(1):35–48.
  21. Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis International Society. The Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis International Society (PGDIS): Guidelines for good practice in PGD. Reprod Biomed Online. 2004;9(4):430–434.
  22. ESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology and Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine. The Vienna consensus: Report of an expert meeting on the development of art laboratory performance indicators. Hum Reprod Open. 2017;35(5):494–510.
  23. Dreesen J, Destouni A, Kourlaba G, et al. Evaluation of PCR-based preimplantation genetic diagnosis applied to monogenic ­diseases: A collaborative ESHRE PGD consortium study. Eur J Hum Genet. 2014;22(8):1012–1018.
  24. Zhang S, Tan K, Gong F, et al. Blastocysts can be rebiopsied for preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(6):1641–1645.
  25. Wininger JD, Taylor TH, Orris JJ, Glassner M, Anderson SH. Pregnancy after rebiopsy and vitrification of blastocysts following allele dropout after day 3 biopsy. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(3):1122.e1–e2.
  26. Parriego M, Coll L, Vidal F, et al. Inconclusive results in preimplantation genetic testing: Go for a second biopsy? Gynecol Endocrinol. 2019;35(1):90–92.
  27. Sciorio R, Tramontano L, Catt J. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A): Status and future challenges. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2020;36(1):6–11.
  28. Jing S, Luo K, He H, et al. Obstetric and neonatal outcomes in blastocyst-stage biopsy with frozen embryo transfer and cleavage-stage biopsy with fresh embryo transfer after preimplantation genetic diagnosis/screening. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(1):105–112.e4.
  29. Scott RT Jr, Upham KM, Forman EJ, Zhao T, Treff NR. Cleavage-stage biopsy significantly impairs human embryonic implantation potential while blastocyst biopsy does not: A randomized and paired clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(3):624–630.
  30. Wei D, Liu JY, Sun Y, et al. Frozen versus fresh single blastocyst transfer in ovulatory women: A multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2019;393(10178):1310–1318.
  31. Zeng M, Su S, Li L. Comparison of pregnancy outcomes after vitrification at the cleavage and blastocyst stage: A meta-analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35(1):127–134.
  32. Martins WP, Nastri CO, Rienzi L, van der Poel SZ, Gracia C, Racowsky C. Blastocyst vs cleavage-stage embryo transfer: Systematic review and meta-analysis of reproductive outcomes. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;49(5):583–591.
© Wroclaw Medical University