eMedicine Specialties > Obstetrics and Gynecology > Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility

Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis

Molina B Dayal, MD, MPH, Associate Professor, Medical Director of Egg Donation Program, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Medical Faculty Associates, George Washington University School of Medicine
Shvetha M Zarek, MD, Staff Physician, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, George Washington University Medical Center
Contributor Information and Disclosures

Updated: Nov 11, 2008

Introduction

Preimplantation genetic testing is a technique used to identify genetic defects in embryos created through in vitro fertilization (IVF) before pregnancy. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) refers specifically to when one or both genetic parents has a known genetic abnormality and testing is performed on an embryo to see if it also carries a genetic abnormality. In contrast, preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) refers to techniques where embryos from presumed chromosomally normal genetic parents are screened for aneuploidy.

Because only unaffected embryos are transferred to the uterus for implantation, preimplantation genetic testing provides an alternative to current postconception diagnostic procedures (ie, amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling), which are frequently followed by the difficult decision of pregnancy termination if results are unfavorable. PGD and PGS are presently the only options available for avoiding a high risk of having a child affected with a genetic disease. It is an attractive means of preventing heritable genetic disease before implantation, thereby eliminating the dilemma of pregnancy termination following unfavorable prenatal diagnosis.

History

Edwards and Gardner successfully performed the first known embryo biopsy on rabbit embryos in 1968. In humans, PGD was developed in the United Kingdom in the mid 1980s as an alternative to current prenatal diagnoses.1 Initially, PGD revolved around determination of gender as an indirect means of avoiding an X-linked disorder. In 1989 in London, Handyside and colleagues reported the first unaffected child born following PGD performed for an X-linked disorder.

As of 2006, more than 15,000 PGD cycles have been reported.2 PGD is currently available for most known genetic mutations.3 Although the indications for PGD are well established, PGS is a relatively new, evolving technique and remains controversial.

Indications and Conditions

Indications for Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is recommended when couples are at risk of transmitting a known genetic abnormality to their children. Only healthy and normal embryos are transferred into the mother's uterus, thus diminishing the risk of inheriting a genetic abnormality and decreasing the risk for adverse outcomes such as early and late miscarriage and late pregnancy termination (after positive prenatal diagnosis).

Primary candidates for PGD include the following:

  • Couples with a family history of X-linked disorders (Couples with a family history of X-linked disease have a 25% risk of having an affected embryo [half of male embryos].)
  • Couples with chromosome translocations, which can cause implantation failure, recurrent pregnancy loss, or mental or physical problems in offspring 
  • Carriers of autosomal recessive diseases (For carriers of autosomal recessive diseases, the risk an embryo may be affected is 25%.)
  • Carriers of autosomal dominant diseases (For carriers of autosomal dominant disease, the risk an embryo may be affected is 50%.)

Conditions diagnosed using PGD

PGD should be offered for 3 major groups of disease: (1) sex-linked disorders, (2) single gene defects, and (3) chromosomal disorders.

Sex-linked disorders

X-linked diseases are passed to the child through a mother who is a carrier. They are passed by an abnormal X chromosome and manifest in sons, who do not inherit the normal X chromosome from the father. Because the X chromosome is transmitted to offspring/embryos through the mother, affected fathers have sons who are not affected, but their daughters have a 50% risk of being carriers if the mother is healthy. Sex-linked recessive disorders include hemophilia, fragile X syndrome, most neuromuscular dystrophies (currently, >900 neuromuscular dystrophies are known), and hundreds of other diseases. Sex-linked dominant disorders include Rett syndromeincontinentia pigmenti, pseudohyperparathyroidism, and vitamin D–resistant rickets.

Single gene defects

PGD is used to identify single gene defects such as cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs disease, sickle cell anemia, and Huntington disease. In such diseases, the abnormality is detectable with molecular techniques using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification of DNA from a single cell. Although progress has been made, some single gene defects, such as cystic fibrosis, have multiple known mutations. In cystic fibrosis, only 25 mutations are currently routinely tested. Because most of these rare mutations are not routinely tested, a parent without any clinical manifestations of cystic fibrosis could still be a carrier. This allows the possibility for a parent carrying a rare mutation gene to be tested as negative but still have the ability to pass on the mutant cystic fibrosis gene.

PGD can also be used to identify genetic mutations like BRCA -1, which does not cause a specific disease but increases the risk of a set of diseases.

Chromosomal disorders

The last group includes chromosomal disorders in which a variety of chromosomal rearrangements, including translocations, inversions, and deletions, can be detected using fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH). FISH uses telomeric probes specific to the loci site of interest. Some parents may have never achieved a viable pregnancy without using PGD because previous conceptions resulted in chromosomally unbalanced embryos and were spontaneously miscarried.

Indications for Preimplantation Genetic Screening

Most early pregnancy failures can be attributed to aneuploidy. At present, no specific list of indications for preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) is available.

Primary candidates for PGS can include the following:

  • Women of advanced maternal age
  • Couples with history of recurrent pregnancy loss
  • Couples with repeated IVF failure
  • Male partner with severe male factor infertility

The risk of aneuploidy in children increases as women age. The chromosomes in the egg are less likely to divide properly, leading to an extra or missing chromosome in the embryo (see Table 1). The rate of aneuploidy in embryos is greater than 20% in mothers aged 35-39 years and is nearly 40% in mothers aged 40 years or older. The rate of aneuploidy in children is 0.6-1.4% in mothers aged 35-39 years and is 1.6-10% in mothers older than 40 years. The difference in percentages between affected embryos and live births is due to the fact that an embryo with aneuploidy is less likely to be carried to term and will most likely be miscarried, some even before pregnancy is suspected or confirmed. Therefore, using PGD to determine the chromosomal constitution of embryos increases the chance of a healthy pregnancy and reduces the number of pregnancy losses and affected offspring.

One of the most frequent aneuploidies, trisomy (ie, 3 identical chromosomes present in the embryo), is trisomy of chromosome 21, which leads to Down syndrome. This particular abnormality also frequently leads to spontaneous miscarriage, the precise frequency of which is difficult to determine. Thus, the only reliable information is on the frequency of babies born with Down syndrome. An informative article in the Journal of the American Medical Association 4 includes information on estimating the incidence of trisomy 21/Down syndrome in fetuses at 16 weeks of pregnancy (also see Table 2). 

 Table 1. Chromosomal Abnormalities

Open table in new window

Table
Age, yEmbryos (Normal), %Embryos (Aneuploidy), %Other Abnormality, %
25-3561831
36-37601030
38-39471835
40-41432631
42-44393031
Age, yEmbryos (Normal), %Embryos (Aneuploidy), %Other Abnormality, %
25-3561831
36-37601030
38-39471835
40-41432631
42-44393031
 Table 2. Frequency of Down Syndrome Per Maternal Age

Open table in new window

Table
Age, yFrequency of Fetuses With Down Syndrome to
Normal Fetuses at 16 Weeks of Pregnancy

Frequency of Live Births of Babies
With Down Syndrome to Normal Births 

15-19. . .1/1250
20-24. . .1/1400
25-29. . .1/1100
30-31. . .1/900
32. . .1/750
331/4201/625
341/3251/500
351/2501/350
361/2001/275
371/1501/225
381/1201/175
391/1001/140
401/751/100
411/601/85
421/451/65
421/351/50
441/301/40
45 and older1/201/25
Age, yFrequency of Fetuses With Down Syndrome to
Normal Fetuses at 16 Weeks of Pregnancy

Frequency of Live Births of Babies
With Down Syndrome to Normal Births 

15-19. . .1/1250
20-24. . .1/1400
25-29. . .1/1100
30-31. . .1/900
32. . .1/750
331/4201/625
341/3251/500
351/2501/350
361/2001/275
371/1501/225
381/1201/175
391/1001/140
401/751/100
411/601/85
421/451/65
421/351/50
441/301/40
45 and older1/201/25

PGD and Sex Selection Unrelated to Disease

Because PGD can help determine the sex of the embryo, many couples request PGD for sex selection, which can be motivated by cultural, social, ethnic, psychological, and other reasons such as the desire for family balancing.

The use of PGD for sex selection unrelated to disease is controversial and has elicited moral outrage about not implanting normal embryos when they are found to be of the undesired sex. Frequent objections include the danger of sex discrimination, the perpetuation of oppression against females, the ethics of expanding control over nonessential characteristics (those not required for life) of offspring, and the relative importance of sex selection when weighed against medical and financial burdens to parents. Personal, religious, ethical, and moral norms vary among different populations, and proper respect must be given to these views when discussing the performance of PGD for sex selection. Much discussion is still necessary to achieve a reasonable consensus and acceptance of PGD for sex selection.

Process

Before requesting preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), candidates should consult a geneticist or a genetic counselor to evaluate the risk of transferring their genetic abnormality to their offspring. Tests should be performed to confirm the diagnosis of the affected parent, to pinpoint the genetic change leading to the condition in question, and to ensure that the currently available technology can identify that genetic change in a polar body, cleavage state, or blastocyst embryo biopsy.

Steps involved

In order to have embryos to biopsy for PGD/PGS, patients must undergo in vitro fertilization (IVF). After fertilization of the egg with sperm, embryos are allowed to develop into cleavage-stage embryos. On day 3 after egg retrieval (equivalent to 2 days after fertilization), a single blastomere is removed from the developing embryo for performance of FISH or PCR for genetic evaluation of the embryo. Nonaffected or normal embryos are then transferred into the uterus for subsequent implantation/pregnancy.

In vitro fertilization

The IVF procedure consists of ovarian stimulation, egg retrieval, egg fertilization, embryo development, and embryo transfer. The steps can be summarized as follows (see Media file 1):

  1. Ovarian stimulation is needed in order to produce multiple eggs. During the 8- to 14-day hormonal stimulation period, frequent ultrasonographic examinations, and laboratory tests are performed to monitor the development and maturation of follicles (egg-containing ovarian cysts).
  2. When the follicles are ready for egg retrieval, the patient is given anesthesia for pain control. Under ultrasonographic guidance and a transvaginal approach, the follicles are punctured, their contents aspirated, and the eggs identified in the embryology laboratory. The procedure usually lasts less than 30 minutes.
  3. The eggs are then cultured for a few hours after their retrieval to allow for final maturation to occur. If desired, a polar body can then be removed for PGD/PGS. For the PGD/PGS procedure at a later stage of embryonic development, intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), where a single sperm is injected into a single egg, is preferred. In this manner, ICSI prevents the chance of polyspermy and the accidental acquisition of “extra” chromosomal material from the sperm, which can then impact the results of the PGD/PGS.
  4. Sperm for purposes of egg fertilization is typically obtained from the male partner by masturbation on the day of egg retrieval.
  5. The following morning, the eggs are examined for signs of fertilization, which is determined by the presence of 2 pronuclei, representing the male and female contribution to the embryo.
  6. Three days after egg retrieval, when the embryo is normally at approximately the 8-cell stage, the embryos can be prepared for a cleavage-stage biopsy. Normal development includes progress to the 4-cell stage on day 2 after egg retrieval, and, by the third day, usually 6-10 cells. (See Media file 2.)

Removal of the single cell

Most clinics perform a cleavage-stage embryos biopsy. However, one of the following 3 techniques can be used for PGD:

  • Polar body biopsy
    • Polar body biopsy works only for female chromosomal disorders. The adult egg produces 2 small cells called polar bodies. One of these cells can be removed and tested, providing information on only the chromosomal content of the egg.
    • Because only information about the mother can be obtained by analyzing polar bodies, chromosomal abnormalities occurring after fertilization (when the sperm meets the egg) are not detected.
    • This technique is infrequently used given the limitations listed above.
  • Cleavage-stage embryo biopsy
    • The most common approach is to biopsy single blastomeres from day 3 embryos, using the micromanipulating microscope; this allows extraction of a single blastomere from a developing embryo. The removal of the blastomere is a technically challenging procedure. The embryologist's goal, accomplished using a special microscope and micromanipulators, is to remove an intact cell with minimal trauma to the remaining embryo (see Media file 3).
    • Before extracting the single cell from an 8-cell embryo, the embryo is incubated in calcium- and magnesium-free medium for approximately 20 minutes in order to reduce blastomere-to-blastomere adherence.
    • The embryo is then anchored on one side with a holding pipette; simultaneously, a manipulation pipette containing acidic Tyrode solution is placed adjacent to the zona pellucida. The Tyrode solution is gently extruded so that the zona can be thinned and a small opening can eventually be made in the zona pellucida. An opening can also be created with the use of a laser or with a sharp pipette. The pipette is placed through this opening and focused on the blastomere of choice, containing a visible nucleus. The blastomere is subsequently gently aspirated into the pipette and expelled into the surrounding medium.
    • The embryo, now containing one less blastomere, is returned to the incubator into the appropriate culture medium. The blastomere is then processed for either FISH or PCR, depending on the genetic condition to be studied. 
  • Blastocyst biopsy
    • Blastocyst formation begins on day 5 post-egg retrieval and is defined by the presence of an inner cell mass and the outer cell mass or trophectoderm. A hole is breached in the zona pellucida in a similar manner as described for a cleavage-stage embryo biopsy, and cells are removed from the trophectoderm using a fine biopsy pipette. The inner cell mass is left undisturbed. Genetic analysis is performed via FISH or PCR analysis as described below.
    • A limitation of this procedure is the potential acquisition of cells from the trophectoderm that are not representative of the developing embryo (inner cell mass) due to mosaicism (having multiple different types of cell lines). In addition, genetic/aneuploidy testing is completed within 24 hours of the embryo biopsy; due to the limited viability of embryos (up to day 6 after egg retrieval) in the laboratory, many blastocysts may not survive until the time of embryo transfer. Often times, biopsied embryos must be frozen.

Genetic testing

Usually, the genetic/aneuploidy testing can be completed within 24 hours of the embryo biopsy, allowing for a day 4 or day 5 embryo transfer. Due to the limited viability of embryos (up to day 6 after egg retrieval) in the laboratory, fewer than half of all 23 chromosomes can be evaluated for aneuploidy in a timely fashion.

Polymerase chain reaction

PCR is used for the diagnosis of single gene defects, including dominant and recessive disorders. PCR, sometimes called DNA amplification, is a technique in which a particular DNA sequence is copied many times in order to facilitate its analysis. PCR rapidly multiplies a single DNA molecule into billions of molecules.

The DNA is immersed in a solution containing the DNA polymerase enzyme, unattached nucleotide bases, and primers. The solution is heated to break the bonds between the strands of the DNA. When the solution cools, the primers bind to the separated strands, and the DNA polymerase quickly builds new strands by joining the free nucleotide bases to the primers. By repeating this process, a strand that was formed with one primer binds to the other primer, resulting in a new strand that is specific solely to the desired segment. Further repetitions of the process can produce billions of copies of a small piece of DNA in several hours.

PCR is a relatively fast and convenient way to test DNA. The method has been used in a variety of preimplantation genetic testing protocols. However, it requires sufficient amounts of a pure, high-quality sample of DNA, which is sometimes difficult to obtain from a single cell such as a polar body or blastomere. In addition, laboratory contamination and allele dropout are possible complications.

Only one cell should be amplified; however, if another cell or piece of DNA enters the tube, it is also amplified. ICSI must be used to minimize this problem and to ensure that no excess sperm are present (paternal contamination) and that all the cumulus cells have been removed (maternal contamination).

The laboratory environment must be strictly controlled to avoid the introduction of contaminants to the tested material. The laboratory technicians must be trained extremely well to avoid all types of outside interferences.

Errors in PCR can result in misdiagnoses leading to an affected embryo being transferred or the discarding of a normal embryo. One error is caused by a phenomenon known as allele dropout. This refers to the preferential amplification of one allele over another during the PCR process and is mainly a problem for PGD of dominant disorders or when 2 different mutations are carried for a recessive disorder and only one mutation is being analyzed. In autosomal dominant diseases, the risk of transferring an affected embryo is 11% and 2% for recessive disorders.

Fluorescence in situ hybridization

FISH is used for the determination of sex for X-linked diseases, chromosomal abnormalities, and aneuploidy screening. FISH is used more commonly in PGS secondary due to its utility as an aneuploidy screen. Probes (ie, small pieces of DNA that are a match for the chromosomes being analyzed) bind to a particular chromosome. Each probe is labeled with a different fluorescent dye. These fluorescent probes are applied to the cell biopsy sample and are expected to attach to the specific chromosomes. They can be visualized under a fluorescent microscope. The number of chromosomes of each type (color) present in that cell is counted. The geneticist can thus distinguish normal cells from abnormal cells, such as those with aneuploidy (see Media files 4-5). Chromosomes that can be analyzed with FISH probes include X, Y, 1, 13, 16, 18, and 21.

A summary of PGD applications categorized by PCR or FISH is as follows:

  • Polymerase chain reaction
    • Single gene defects in autosomal disease
    • Single gene defects in male infertility
    • Identification of sex in X-linked diseases5
  • Fluorescence in situ hybridization (preferred because PCR bears the risk of misdiagnosis caused by contamination)
    • Aneuploidy screening in women of advanced maternal age
    • Aneuploidy screening for male infertility
    • Identification of sex in X-linked diseases
    • Recurrent miscarriages caused by parental translocations

Comparative genomic hybridization

In comparative genomic hybridization, the embryo nucleus is labeled with a fluorescent dye and a control cell is labeled using another color (ie, red or green). The two cells are then cohybridized onto a control metaphase spread, and the ratio between the 2 colors is compared. If the chromosomal analysis shows an excess of red, the embryo nucleus contains an extra chromosome. If an excess of green is apparent, then the embryo nucleus is missing one of these chromosomes. Currently, this technique takes 72 hours, and, given the limited duration of embryo viability in culture, embryo cryopreservation is necessary to provide the time necessary to obtain a diagnosis.

Considerations and Controversies

Considerations and challenges of preimplantation genetic diagnosis

  • Fertile patients must undergo IVF to produce suitable embryos and be counseled on the risks associated with IVF treatment.
  • Patients must have proper genetic counseling on not choosing IVF with PGD and the relevant patterns of inheritance and the impact of disease on the affected child and the family.
  • Patients must be counseled on prenatal diagnosis (a chorionic villus sampling/CVS or amniocentesis) even if PGD/PGS is performed.
  • Alternative treatment strategies, such as using donor gametes, must also be discussed.
  • Even with a successful IVF and PGD procedure, pregnancy is not guaranteed after transfer, and a term or near-term delivery is also not guaranteed.
  • Removal of a single cell without breaking it or causing serious damage is technically difficult and requires skill and experience. Damage to the embryo (projected to be 0.1%) may accidentally occur during removal of the cell.
  • The diagnostic methodology for a new disease is a time-consuming and expensive process.
  • Analysis of a single cell has limitations, and misdiagnosis resulting from mosaicism (when the embryo has cells with different compositions) may occur. For this reason, prenatal diagnosis with either a CVS or amniocentesis should be considered to confirm the condition of the fetus.
  • A relatively large number of eggs or embryos may be found to be abnormal, thus leaving only a few or no healthy embryos for transfer.
  • For aneuploidy screening, not all chromosomal or genetic abnormalities can be diagnosed with PGD because only a restricted number of chromosomes can be examined at one time during the course of a single procedure.
  • Currently, only a specific examination of a single biopsied cell is available. A single cell cannot be screened for multiple genetic conditions.
  • Some single gene disorders may not be amenable to PGD due to a variety of mutations that can result in a specific genetic disease (ie, cystic fibrosis). Couples must have specific testing performed in order to generate "probes" for testing. The process of generating molecular probes can take several weeks.

Considerations and challenges of preimplantation genetic screening

PGS remains a controversial technique. Although initially heralded as a method to identify and avoid aneuploidy in embryos of women at increased risk, recent studies suggest that success might be limited to specific patient populations. Most considerations and challenges listed in the PGD section apply to PGS.

  • Technical limitations: Currently, FISH offers evaluation of less than half of the 23 chromosomes; usually 9-11 are analyzed. Studies using comparative genetic hybridization (CGH) and FISH demonstrate that up to 25% of aneuploid embryos are characterized as normal because the abnormal chromosomes were not analyzed. In addition, approximately 10% of cells removed for screening yield no or inconclusive results.
  • Limitation of single cell analysis: If nondisjunction occurs during meiosis, then all the cells in an embryo are aneuploidic. However, if disjunction occurs at mitosis, then two or more cell lines may be present in the embryo. Thus, a mosaic embryo with normal and abnormal cells may be misdiagnosed with the present single cell biopsy technique.
  • "Self-correction": Self-correction refers to evidence that mosaic embryos are able to halt the proliferation of abnormal cells and that many embryos identified as aneuploid will survive and be reidentified as normal.

Results for PGS for advanced maternal age are mixed. Couples with recurrent pregnancy loss and established balanced translocation may benefit from PGS.

Current recommendations from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) and American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) state that available evidence does not support the use of PGS to improve live-birth rates for advanced maternal age, recurrent pregnancy loss, or implantation failure and recommends that patients be counseled about the limitations of the technique and should not make future treatment decisions based solely on PGS results.

To date, there are no reports of increased fetal malformation rates or other identifiable problems in babies born from IVF with PGD/PGS. However, the presentation of other abnormalities later in life as a consequence of the PGD/PGS procedure (biopsy) is possible.

Due to a reduction in the number of embryos available for embryo transfer, patients should be counseled that IVF with PGD/PGS may result in a lower pregnancy rate than if IVF is performed without PGD/PGS.

Advantages

Currently available technology can help eliminate some genetic diseases in the future (eg, Tay-Sachs disease, cystic fibrosis, Huntington disease, X-linked dystrophies). Complete cures for many genetic diseases are not likely to be found soon; therefore, preventing the disease is preferable to waiting for a possible cure to eventually become available. Furthermore, available treatments often have multiple adverse effects. Prolonging the lifespan of affected patients could cause them to develop diseases not previously known to be associated with the particular genetic condition (eg, diabetes, osteoporosis). For instance, as improved treatment prolongs life for individuals with cystic fibrosis, other manifestations of the pancreatic insufficiency and nutritional malabsorption associated with the disease, such as diabetes and osteoporosis, begin to emerge.

Prenatal testing for genetic diseases is currently performed through amniocentesis or chorionic villus testing (CVS) when the fetus is aged 10-16 weeks. If the examination findings reveal a genetically defective fetus, the options available to parents are to have a child with a genetic disease or to have an abortion. This is a difficult and often traumatic decision, especially in advanced pregnancy. However, PGD is performed before pregnancy begins, thus eliminating this difficult decision.

In the past, persons with a genetic disease or those who know that they are carriers frequently choose not to have children in order to avoid the risk of passing on the disease to future generations. Now, PGD allows these couples the opportunity to have a child free of their particular disease.

In addition, more than 500 babies have been born following PGD/PGS worldwide. To date, there are no reports of increased fetal malformation rates or other identifiable problems.

Future

The first successful cases of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) in humans were performed in 1988. However, the development and acceptance of PGD since then has been slow, mainly due to the time necessary to develop and learn single-cell diagnostic techniques and to the costs involved. PGD is a relatively new procedure, and much ongoing research is being performed to expand and improve it. However, much more work also must be completed before PGD becomes a more comprehensive, accepted, and widely available procedure. Given the technical considerations associated with PGD/PGS, these procedures should be limited to centers experienced with micromanipulation.

Almost weekly reports on identification of genetic changes tied to various diseases are published in scientific and lay literature. In the future, genetic links to common diseases (eg, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, endometriosis, cancers) may be identified, and PGD will become available to control the transmission of these diseases to future generations.

Although PGS has been incorporated into the care of patients undergoing IVF treatment, its indications, utility, and outcomes remain an active area of research in reproductive medicine. As preimplantation screening for medical disorders at the embryonic level optimizes, its place in medicine and society will continue to generate controversy and ethical debate. 

Multimedia

Click to see larger pictureMedia file 1: General process of steps required for preimplantation genetic diagnosis and preimplantation genetic screening.
General process of steps required for preimplanta...

General process of steps required for preimplantation genetic diagnosis and preimplantation genetic screening.

Click to see larger pictureMedia file 2: Aspiration, fertilization, and transfer.
Aspiration, fertilization, and transfer.

Aspiration, fertilization, and transfer.

Click to see larger pictureMedia file 3: Removal of blastomere from an 8-cell embryo (cleavage-stage embryo).
Removal of blastomere from an 8-cell embryo (clea...

Removal of blastomere from an 8-cell embryo (cleavage-stage embryo).

Click to see larger pictureMedia file 4: Abnormalities of chromosomes 13, 18, and 21.
Abnormalities of chromosomes 13, 18, and 21.

Abnormalities of chromosomes 13, 18, and 21.

Click to see larger pictureMedia file 5: Multiple fluorescence in situ hybridization demonstrating chromosomes 13 (triploid), 18, 21, and Y.
Multiple fluorescence in situ hybridization demon...

Multiple fluorescence in situ hybridization demonstrating chromosomes 13 (triploid), 18, 21, and Y.

Click to see larger pictureMedia file 6: Instruments used for preimplantation genetic diagnosis compared with a human hair (upper part of picture). To the lower-left side is the holding pipette and to the right side is the glass needle used for aspiration of the blastomere.
Instruments used for preimplantation genetic diag...

Instruments used for preimplantation genetic diagnosis compared with a human hair (upper part of picture). To the lower-left side is the holding pipette and to the right side is the glass needle used for aspiration of the blastomere.

Click to see larger pictureMedia file 7: Intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Puncture of the oocyte.
Intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Puncture of the...

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Puncture of the oocyte.

Click to see larger pictureMedia file 8: Intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Injection of sperm.
Intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Injection of sp...

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Injection of sperm.

Keywords

PGD, genetic testing, preimplantation genetic diagnosis, genetic defect, prenatal diagnosis, genetic screening, genetic diagnosis, genetic disease, X-linked disorder, genetic mutation, reproductive medicine, assisted reproduction, inherited diseases, sex-related genetic disorders, birth defect, birth defect prevention, chromosomal disorders, single gene defects, hemophilia, fragile X syndrome, neuromuscular dystrophy, Rett syndrome, Rett's syndrome, incontinentia pigmenti, rickets, cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs disease, sickle cell anemia, Huntington disease, Huntington's disease, chromosomal translocation, chromosomal inversion, chromosomal deletion, in vitro fertilization, IVF, amniocentesis, chorionic villus sampling, CVS, intracytoplasmic sperm injection, ICSI, polar body biopsy, blastocyst biopsy, blastomere biopsy, embryo biopsy, DNA amplification, comparative genomic hybridization, CGH, preimplantation genetic testing, preimplantation genetic screening

 
Acknowledgments

The authors and editors of eMedicine gratefully acknowledge the contributions of previous author, JJ Marik, MD, to the development and writing of this article.




References

  1. Harper JC. Introduction. In: Harper JC, Delhanty JDA, Handyside AH, eds. Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis. London, UK: John Wiley & Sons; 2001:3-12.

  2. SART CORS Web site. Available at: https://www.sartcorsonline.com/signin.aspx.

  3. International Working Group on Preimplantation Genetics, International Congress of Human Genetics. Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis: Experience of Three Thousand Cycles. Report of the 11th Annual Meeting of International Working Group on Preimplantation Genetics, in association with 10th International Congress of Human Genetics. Vienna, Austria: May 2001:[Full Text].

  4. Hook EB, Cross PK, Schreinemachers DM. Chromosomal abnormality rates at amniocentesis and in live-born infants. JAMA. Apr 15 1983;249(15):2034-8. [Medline].

  5. American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. A Practice Committee Report: Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis. Birmingham, Ala: American Society for Reproductive Medicine; June 2001.

  6. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American College of Medical Genetics. Preconception and Prenatal Carrier Screening for Cystic Fibrosis: Clinical and Laboratory Guidelines. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology; Oct 2001.

  7. Baird DD, Weinberg CR, McConnaughey DR, et al. Rescue of the corpus luteum in human pregnancy. Biol Reprod. Feb 2003;68(2):448-56. [Medline].

  8. Edwards RG, Gardner RL. Choosing Sex Before Birth. New Scientist. 1968;38:218-20.

  9. Ethics Committee, American Society of Reproductive Medicine. Sex selection and preimplantation genetic diagnosis. The Ethics Committee of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine. Fertil Steril. Oct 1999;72(4):595-8. [Medline].

  10. Flinter FA. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. BMJ. Apr 28 2001;322(7293):1008-9. [Medline].

  11. Gleicher N, Weghofer A, Barad D. Preimplantation genetic screening: "established" and ready for prime time?. Fertil Steril. Apr 2008;89(4):780-8. [Medline].

  12. Handyside AH, Pattinson JK, Penketh RJ, et al. Biopsy of human preimplantation embryos and sexing by DNA amplification. Lancet. Feb 18 1989;1(8634):347-9. [Medline].

  13. Kahraman S, Karlikaya G, Sertyel S, et al. Clinical aspects of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for single gene disorders combined with HLA typing. Reprod Biomed Online. Nov 2004;9(5):529-32. [Medline].

  14. Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van Echten-Arends J, Sikkema-Raddatz B, et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N Engl J Med. Jul 5 2007;357(1):9-17. [Medline].

  15. Munné S, Cohen J, Sable D. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for advanced maternal age and other indications. Fertil Steril. Aug 2002;78(2):234-6. [Medline].

  16. Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology; Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Preimplantation genetic testing: a Practice Committee opinion. Fertil Steril. Dec 2007;88(6):1497-504. [Medline].

Further Reading

Keywords

PGD, genetic testing, preimplantation genetic diagnosis, genetic defect, prenatal diagnosis, genetic screening, genetic diagnosis, genetic disease, X-linked disorder, genetic mutation, reproductive medicine, assisted reproduction, inherited diseases, sex-related genetic disorders, birth defect, birth defect prevention, chromosomal disorders, single gene defects, hemophilia, fragile X syndrome, neuromuscular dystrophy, Rett syndrome, Rett's syndrome, incontinentia pigmenti, rickets, cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs disease, sickle cell anemia, Huntington disease, Huntington's disease, chromosomal translocation, chromosomal inversion, chromosomal deletion, in vitro fertilization, IVF, amniocentesis, chorionic villus sampling, CVS, intracytoplasmic sperm injection, ICSI, polar body biopsy, blastocyst biopsy, blastomere biopsy, embryo biopsy, DNA amplification, comparative genomic hybridization, CGH, preimplantation genetic testing, preimplantation genetic screening

Contributor Information and Disclosures

Author

Molina B Dayal, MD, MPH, Associate Professor, Medical Director of Egg Donation Program, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Medical Faculty Associates, George Washington University School of Medicine
Molina B Dayal, MD, MPH is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, and Society for Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose

Coauthor

Shvetha M Zarek, MD, Staff Physician, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, George Washington University Medical Center
Shvetha M Zarek, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Medical Association, and Sigma Xi
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose

Medical Editor

Bryan D Cowan, MD, Professor and Chairman, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Mississippi College of Medicine; Consulting Staff, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Veterans Affairs Medical Center; Medical Director, Wiser Hospital for Women, University of Mississippi Medical Center
Bryan D Cowan, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Gynecological and Obstetrical Society, American Medical Association, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Central Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Endocrine Society, Sigma Xi, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technologies, Society for Gynecologic Investigation, Society for the Study of Reproduction, and Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
Disclosure: Galil None for Consulting

Pharmacy Editor

Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD, Senior Pharmacy Editor, eMedicine
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose

Managing Editor

A David Barnes, MD, PhD, MPH, FACOG, Consulting Staff, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mammoth Hospital, Mammoth Lakes, California, Pioneer Valley Hospital, Salt Lake City, Utah, Warren General Hospital, Warren, Pennsylvania and Mountain West Hospital, Tooele, Utah
A David Barnes, MD, PhD, MPH, FACOG is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Forensic Examiners, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Medical Association, Association of Military Surgeons of the US, and Utah Medical Association
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose

CME Editor

Michael E Zevitz, MD, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Finch University of the Health Sciences, The Chicago Medical School; Consulting Staff, Private Practice
Michael E Zevitz, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Cardiology, American College of Physicians, American Medical Association, and Michigan State Medical Society
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose

Chief Editor

Michel E Rivlin, MD, Professor, Coordinator, Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Mississippi School of Medicine
Michel E Rivlin, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Medical Association, Mississippi State Medical Association, and Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose

 
 
HONcode

We subscribe to the
HONcode principles of the
Health On the Net Foundation

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright© 1994- by Medscape.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

DISCLAIMER: The content of this Website is not influenced by sponsors. The site is designed primarily for use by qualified physicians and other medical professionals. The information contained herein should NOT be used as a substitute for the advice of an appropriately qualified and licensed physician or other health care provider. The information provided here is for educational and informational purposes only. In no way should it be considered as offering medical advice. Please check with a physician if you suspect you are ill.