Aneuploidy in Oocytes From Women of Advanced Maternal Age: Analysis of the Causal Meiotic Errors and Impact on Embryo Development

P. Verdyck, G. Altarescu, S. Santos-Ribeiro, C. Vrettou, U. Koehler, G. Griesinger, V. Goossens, C. Magli, C. Albanese, M. Parriego, L. Coll, R. Ron-El, K. Sermon, J. Traeger-Synodinos
{"title":"Aneuploidy in Oocytes From Women of Advanced Maternal Age: Analysis of the Causal Meiotic Errors and Impact on Embryo Development","authors":"P. Verdyck, G. Altarescu, S. Santos-Ribeiro, C. Vrettou, U. Koehler, G. Griesinger, V. Goossens, C. Magli, C. Albanese, M. Parriego, L. Coll, R. Ron-El, K. Sermon, J. Traeger-Synodinos","doi":"10.1097/ogx.0000000000001254","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Many chromosome abnormalities are commonly observed and can lead to early pregnancy loss, miscarriage, or the birth of children with chromosomal defects. Such abnormalities are considered a major factor in the low pregnancy rate after assisted reproductive technology and natural conception. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) aims to minimize the transfer of aneuploid embryos. Embryonic aneuploidies arising from errors in meiosis have an incidence of approximately 25% in embryos from women younger than 35 years, to more than half in embryos from women aged older than 35 years. Although these embryos are able to develop to the blastocyst stage, they tend to be of lower morphological quality. A recent multicenter randomized clinical trial (ESTEEM) analyzed polar bodies (PBs) from women after intracytoplasmic sperm injection aged between 36 and 40 years using microarrays in 205 cycles and found that the transfer of embryos from euploid oocytes did not lead to a higher live birth rate but was associated with a reduction in the number of embryo transfers and miscarriages.\n This study aimed to evaluate all PB results from this RCT and characterize the types of chromosomal abnormalities and the chromosomes most frequently affected. The ESTEEM trial obtained biopsy of first (PB1) and second (PB2) PB in the cohort receiving PGT-A and analyzed them using array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH). A total of 693 PB pairs had full results available, including 676 confirmed fertilized oocytes. Chromosome segregations, including likely underlying mechanisms, from these pairs are reported here. To estimate the reliability of the aCGH procedure, 72 PB pairs from a single center were reanalyzed using next-generation sequencing (NGS). Embryos were classified into 4 categories based on morphology: good, fair, poor, and degenerated. A comparative analysis was performed to assess the association between chromosome status and embryo quality as well as study group (PGT-A vs control) and embryo quality.\n A total of 213/676 oocytes were euploid and 413/676 were aneuploid, whereas in the remaining 50 oocytes, an abnormality observed in PB1 was compensated by an abnormality in PB2. A total of 693 PB pairs reported chromatic numbers with results for 15,939 chromosomes. An abnormal segregation, in PB1 and/or PB2, was observed in 1162 chromosomes (7.3%) in 461 PB pairs. Chromosomes 22 (16.7%), 16 (16.6%), 19 (14.4%), 21 (13.7%), and 15 (12.4%) had the highest frequencies for abnormal segregations. The abnormal segregations were compatible with precocious separation of sister chromatids in meiosis 1 (M1) (n = 568; 48.9%), nondisjunction of chromatics in meiosis 2 (M2) or reverse segregation (n = 417; 35.9%), and nondisjunction in M1 (n = 65; 5.6%). However, 112 chromosomes had segregation patterns that could not be categorized into 1 of the 9 known mechanisms causing aneuploidy in oocytes. Concordance between aCGH and NGS was obtained for both PBs for 1650 of 1656 analyzed chromosomes (99.6%). Embryos predicted to be aneuploid had significantly worse quality scores on day 3 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43–0.90), day 4 (aOR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.06–0.39), and day 5 (aOR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.14–0.58).\n This study represents one of the largest analyses of chromosomal copy number in both PBs to date and highlights the frequent unexplained chromosome copy numbers underscoring the gap of knowledge into the mechanisms causing aneuploidy in oocytes.","PeriodicalId":509854,"journal":{"name":"Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey","volume":"60 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ogx.0000000000001254","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Many chromosome abnormalities are commonly observed and can lead to early pregnancy loss, miscarriage, or the birth of children with chromosomal defects. Such abnormalities are considered a major factor in the low pregnancy rate after assisted reproductive technology and natural conception. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) aims to minimize the transfer of aneuploid embryos. Embryonic aneuploidies arising from errors in meiosis have an incidence of approximately 25% in embryos from women younger than 35 years, to more than half in embryos from women aged older than 35 years. Although these embryos are able to develop to the blastocyst stage, they tend to be of lower morphological quality. A recent multicenter randomized clinical trial (ESTEEM) analyzed polar bodies (PBs) from women after intracytoplasmic sperm injection aged between 36 and 40 years using microarrays in 205 cycles and found that the transfer of embryos from euploid oocytes did not lead to a higher live birth rate but was associated with a reduction in the number of embryo transfers and miscarriages. This study aimed to evaluate all PB results from this RCT and characterize the types of chromosomal abnormalities and the chromosomes most frequently affected. The ESTEEM trial obtained biopsy of first (PB1) and second (PB2) PB in the cohort receiving PGT-A and analyzed them using array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH). A total of 693 PB pairs had full results available, including 676 confirmed fertilized oocytes. Chromosome segregations, including likely underlying mechanisms, from these pairs are reported here. To estimate the reliability of the aCGH procedure, 72 PB pairs from a single center were reanalyzed using next-generation sequencing (NGS). Embryos were classified into 4 categories based on morphology: good, fair, poor, and degenerated. A comparative analysis was performed to assess the association between chromosome status and embryo quality as well as study group (PGT-A vs control) and embryo quality. A total of 213/676 oocytes were euploid and 413/676 were aneuploid, whereas in the remaining 50 oocytes, an abnormality observed in PB1 was compensated by an abnormality in PB2. A total of 693 PB pairs reported chromatic numbers with results for 15,939 chromosomes. An abnormal segregation, in PB1 and/or PB2, was observed in 1162 chromosomes (7.3%) in 461 PB pairs. Chromosomes 22 (16.7%), 16 (16.6%), 19 (14.4%), 21 (13.7%), and 15 (12.4%) had the highest frequencies for abnormal segregations. The abnormal segregations were compatible with precocious separation of sister chromatids in meiosis 1 (M1) (n = 568; 48.9%), nondisjunction of chromatics in meiosis 2 (M2) or reverse segregation (n = 417; 35.9%), and nondisjunction in M1 (n = 65; 5.6%). However, 112 chromosomes had segregation patterns that could not be categorized into 1 of the 9 known mechanisms causing aneuploidy in oocytes. Concordance between aCGH and NGS was obtained for both PBs for 1650 of 1656 analyzed chromosomes (99.6%). Embryos predicted to be aneuploid had significantly worse quality scores on day 3 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43–0.90), day 4 (aOR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.06–0.39), and day 5 (aOR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.14–0.58). This study represents one of the largest analyses of chromosomal copy number in both PBs to date and highlights the frequent unexplained chromosome copy numbers underscoring the gap of knowledge into the mechanisms causing aneuploidy in oocytes.
高龄产妇卵母细胞中的非整倍体:减数分裂错误的成因分析及其对胚胎发育的影响
常见的染色体异常有很多,可导致早孕流产、流产或出生染色体缺陷儿。这些异常被认为是辅助生殖技术和自然受孕后怀孕率低的主要因素。非整倍体胚胎植入前基因检测(PGT-A)旨在尽量减少非整倍体胚胎的移植。在 35 岁以下女性的胚胎中,由减数分裂错误引起的胚胎非整倍体发生率约为 25%,而在 35 岁以上女性的胚胎中,非整倍体发生率则超过一半。虽然这些胚胎能发育到囊胚阶段,但形态质量往往较低。最近的一项多中心随机临床试验(ESTEEM)使用微阵列分析了 205 个周期中 36 至 40 岁女性卵胞浆内单精子注射后的极体(PBs),结果发现,移植来自优倍卵母细胞的胚胎并不会提高活产率,但会减少胚胎移植和流产的次数。本研究旨在评估该研究试验的所有 PB 结果,并确定染色体异常的类型和最常受影响的染色体。ESTEEM试验获取了接受PGT-A的组群中第一个(PB1)和第二个(PB2)PB的活检结果,并使用阵列比较基因组杂交(aCGH)对其进行了分析。共有 693 对 PB 得到了完整的结果,其中包括 676 个确认的受精卵细胞。本文报告了这些配对的染色体分离情况,包括可能的内在机制。为了评估 aCGH 程序的可靠性,我们使用新一代测序技术(NGS)重新分析了来自一个中心的 72 对 PB。胚胎根据形态分为 4 类:良好、一般、较差和退化。为评估染色体状态与胚胎质量之间的关系,以及研究组(PGT-A 与对照组)与胚胎质量之间的关系,进行了对比分析。共有 213/676 个卵母细胞为优倍体,413/676 个卵母细胞为非优倍体,而在剩余的 50 个卵母细胞中,PB1 中观察到的异常被 PB2 中的异常所补偿。共有 693 对 PB 报告了染色体数目,结果涉及 15 939 条染色体。在 461 对 PB 中,有 1162 条染色体(7.3%)在 PB1 和/或 PB2 中出现异常分离。染色体 22(16.7%)、16(16.6%)、19(14.4%)、21(13.7%)和 15(12.4%)的异常分离频率最高。异常分离与减数分裂 1(M1)中姐妹染色单体的过早分离(568 条;48.9%)、减数分裂 2(M2)中染色体的不分离或反向分离(417 条;35.9%)以及减数分裂 1 中的不分离(65 条;5.6%)相符。然而,有 112 条染色体的分离模式无法归类为导致卵母细胞非整倍体的 9 种已知机制中的一种。在分析的 1656 条染色体中,有 1650 条(99.6%)的 aCGH 和 NGS 在两个 PB 中都获得了一致性。预测为非整倍体的胚胎在第 3 天(调整比值比 [aOR],0.62;95% 置信区间 [CI],0.43-0.90)、第 4 天(aOR,0.15;95% CI,0.06-0.39)和第 5 天(aOR,0.28;95% CI,0.14-0.58)的质量评分明显较差。这项研究是迄今为止对两种 PB 中染色体拷贝数进行的最大规模的分析之一,它强调了染色体拷贝数经常出现无法解释的情况,突出了人们对造成卵母细胞非整倍体机制的认识存在差距。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信