2019 , Vol. 08 >Issue 03: 161 - 164
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-3259.2019.03.008
胚胎植入前基因检测的研究进展
收稿日期: 2019-06-04
网络出版日期: 2019-08-18
Research progress of pre－implantation genetic testing
黄荣业 , 郑剑兰 . 胚胎植入前基因检测的研究进展[J]. 中华产科急救电子杂志, 2019 , 08(03) : 161 -164 . DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-3259.2019.03.008
Pre-implantation genetic testing (PGT) is a new method in the field of assisted reproduction. The evolution started with technology that enabled single-cell screening of chromosomes, and developed in resolution with molecular approaches, to the extent that specific genetic sequences (gene mutations) can be identified in such samples. Hence screening for whole chromosomes (aneuploidy) developed into molecular definitions (from specific mutations to entire screens) in embryos. However, embryology and its understanding, revealed that mosaicism of abnormal lineages is relatively common; this impacted on how abnormal these embryos are, and whether these embryos should be transferred. An even newer possibility is the use of cell-free DNA from human embryo spent culture media for diagnosis, and it will be a guiding and reference value for clinic practice.
| [1] | Harper JC, Harper JC, Delhanty JDA, et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis [M]. London, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 2001: 3-12. |
| [2] | Chang L, Boulet SL, Jeng G, et al. Outcomes of in vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic diagnosis: an analysis of the United States Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance Data, 2011－2012 [J]. Fertil Steril, 2016, 105(2): 394-400. |
| [3] | Verlinsky Y, Cieslak J, Freidine M, et al. Pregnancies following pre-conception diagnosis of common aneuploidies by fluorescent in-situ hybridization [J]. Hum Reprod, 1995, 10(7): 1923-1927. |
| [4] | Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, Dyer S, et al. The International Glossary on Infertility and Fertility Care [J]. Hum Report, 2017, 32(9): 1786-1801. |
| [5] | 王珺，苟兴庆，李丽，等. 高龄患者行胚胎植入前遗传学筛查的有效性分析[J]. 中国优生与遗传杂志，2018, 26(8): 121-124. |
| [6] | Cao H, You D, Yuan M, et al. Hysterosocopy after repeated implantation failure of assisted reproductive technology: A meta-analysis [J]. J Obstet Gynaecol, 2018, 1(2):19. |
| [7] | Valdes CT, Schutt A, Simon C, et al. Implantation failure of endometria origin: it is not pathology, but our failure to synchronize the developing embryo with a receptive endometrium [J]. Fertil Steril, 2017, 108(1): 15-18. |
| [8] | Kushnir VA, Darmon SK, Barad DH, et al. Degree of mosaicism in trophectoderm does not predict pregnancy potential: a corrected analysis of pregnancy outcomes following transfer of mosaic embryos [J]. Reprod Biol Endocrinol, 2018, 16: 6. |
| [9] | Spinella F, Fliorentino F, Biricik A, et al. Extent of chromosomal mosaicism influences the clinical outcome of in vitro fertilization treatments [J]. Fertil Steril, 2018, 109(1): 77-83. |
| [10] | Victor AR, Griffin DK, Brake AJ, et al. Assessment of aneuploidy concordance between clinical trophectoderm biopsy and blastocyst [J]. Hum Reprod, 2019, 34(1): 181-192. |
| [11] | Scott RT Jr, Upham KM, Forman EJ, et al. Cleavage-stage biopsy significantly impairs human embryonic implantation potential while blastocyst biopsy does not: a randomized andpaired clinical trial [J]. Fertil Steril, 2013, 100(3): 624-630. |
| [12] | Verpoest W, Staessen C, Bossuyt PM, et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy by microarray analysis of polar bodies in advanced maternal age: a randomized clinical trial [J]. Hum Reprod, 2018, 33(9): 1767-1776. |
| [13] | Minasi MG, Fiorentino F, Ruberti A, et al. Genetic diseases and aneuploidies can be detected with a single blastocyst biopsy: a successful clinical approach [J]. Hum Reprod, 2017, 32(8): 1770-1777. |
| [14] | Jasper M, Brockman M, Hodgson B, et al. Combined PGD and PGS by NGS on the same biopsy using a single index [J]. Reprod Biomed Online, 2018, 36, 16-17. |
| [15] | Reignier A, Lammers J, Barriere P, et al. Can time-lapse parameters predict embryo ploidy? A systematic review [J]. Reprod Biomed Online, 2018, 36: 380-387. |
| [16] | Pribenszky C, Nilselid AM, Montag M. Time-lapse culture with morphokinetic embryo selection improves pregnancy and live birth chances and reduces early pregnancy loss: a meta-analysis [J]. Reprod Biomed Online, 2017, 35: 511-520. |
| [17] | Vera-Rodriguez M, Diez-Juan A, Jimenez-Almazan J, et al. Origin and composition of cell-free DNA in spent medium from human embryo culture during preimplantation development [J]. Hum Reprod, 2018, 33(4): 745-756. |
| [18] | Farra C, Choucair F, Awwad J. Non-invasive pre-implantation genetic testing of human embryos: an emerging concept [J]. Human Reproduction, 2018, 33(12): 2162-2167. |
| [19] | Gleicher N, Orvieto R. Is the hypothesis of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) still supportable? A review [J]. J Ovarian Res, 2017, 10(1): 21. |
| [20] | Brezina PR, Anchan R, Kearns WG. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: what technology should you use and what are the differences? [J]. J Assist Reprod Genet, 2016, 33(7): 823-832. |
| [21] | 曹云霞，郝燕，杨芳. 植入前遗传学诊断技术产生的社会伦理问题及其监管对策[J]. 中华生殖与避孕杂志，2018, 38(8): 657-661. |
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |