Human Reproduction Update, Vol.10, No.1 pp.79-94, 2004
© European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology 2004; all rights reserved
The development of cytogenetically normal, abnormal and mosaic embryos: a theoretical model
Department of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus Medical Centre, P.O.Box 1738, NL-3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands 1 To whom correspondence should be addressed. e-mail: f.j.los{at}erasmusmc.nl
Assisted reproduction and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) involve various complicated techniques, each of them with its own problems. However, the greatest problem with PGD for chromosome abnormalities is not of a technical nature but is a biological phenomenon: chromosomal mosaicism in the cleavage stage embryo. Here, we present a hypothetical, quantitative model for the development of chromosomally normal, abnormal and mosaic embryos. The arising of mosaicism in 2–8-cell embryos was described by a binomial probability model on the occurrence of mitotic events inducing chromosomal changes in the blastomeres. This model converted the ‘mean’ rate of mosaicism found in cross-sectional studies (60%) into an equal rate of mosaic embryos at arrival at the 8-cell stage (59.8%). The disappearance of >90% of the mosaic embryos or the mosaicism itself from surviving embryos during the morula stage was explained by mitotic arrest of most of the mitotically changed cells under increasing cell cycle control. In our model, 25.9 and 14.3% of the embryos at the 8-cell stage are normal and abnormal respectively. The remaining 59.8% of the embryo shows mosaicism: 34.6% of abnormal/normal cells and 25.2% of abnormal/abnormal cells. The high proportion of abnormal and mosaic embryos together explains the high rate of abnormal laboratory findings in PGD for chromosomal abnormalities and aneuploidy screening. The poor representation of a 1- or 2-cell biopsy for the 7- or 6-cell post-biopsy embryo in the case of mosaicism explains the high rate of false-negative and false-positive results.
Key words: chromosomal mosaicism/embryo/model/preimplantation genetic diagnosis/uniparental disomy
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  C. M.H. Combelles What are the trade-offs between one-cell and two-cell biopsies of preimplantation embryos? Hum. Reprod., March 1, 2008; 23(3): 493 - 498. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. Donoso, C. Staessen, B.C.J.M. Fauser, and P. Devroey Current value of preimplantation genetic aneuploidy screening in IVF Hum. Reprod. Update, January 1, 2007; 13(1): 15 - 25. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Vialard, C. Petit, M. Bergere, D. M. Gomes, V. Martel-Petit, R. Lombroso, Y. Ville, H. Gerard, and J. Selva Evidence of a high proportion of premature unbalanced separation of sister chromatids in the first polar bodies of women of advanced age Hum. Reprod., May 1, 2006; 21(5): 1172 - 1178. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N. S. Macklon, R. L. Stouffer, L. C. Giudice, and B. C. J. M. Fauser The Science behind 25 Years of Ovarian Stimulation for in Vitro Fertilization Endocr. Rev., April 1, 2006; 27(2): 170 - 207. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E.B. Baart, E. Martini, I. van den Berg, N.S. Macklon, R-J.H. Galjaard, B.C.J.M. Fauser, and D. Van Opstal Preimplantation genetic screening reveals a high incidence of aneuploidy and mosaicism in embryos from young women undergoing IVF Hum. Reprod., January 1, 2006; 21(1): 223 - 233. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Gutierrez-Mateo, L. Gadea, J. Benet, D. Wells, S. Munne, and J. Navarro Aneuploidy 12 in a Robertsonian (13;14) carrier: Case report Hum. Reprod., May 1, 2005; 20(5): 1256 - 1260. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Staessen, P. Platteau, E. Van Assche, A. Michiels, H. Tournaye, M. Camus, P. Devroey, I. Liebaers, and A. Van Steirteghem Comparison of blastocyst transfer with or without preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy screening in couples with advanced maternal age: a prospective randomized controlled trial Hum. Reprod., December 1, 2004; 19(12): 2849 - 2858. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|