Journals / Gülhane Tıp Dergisi / 2007 / Cilt: 49 - Sayı: 4

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: the GATA experience

Preimplantasyon genetik tanı: GATA sonuçları

Pages
245–249
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

According to the results of genetic analysis and embryonic growth, embryos with a number of 1 to 3 were transferred.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: the GATA experience In this study, results of genetic analysis, success rates of implantation, pregnancy and live birth of 18 patients in whom preimplantation genetic diagnosis was performed by making biopsy in their 3rd day embriyos with 6-8 blastomers at the Assisted Reproductive Techniques Unit of Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of Gülhane Military Medical Faculty between September 2005 and June 2007 were evaluated.
📊
Key Findings & Data:According to the results of genetic analysis and embryonic growth, embryos with a number of 1 to 3 were transferred.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In view of the results of the present study preimplantation genetic diagnosis seems to be an effective method in in vitro diagnosis of chromosomal anomalies of couples who have a risk of genetic disease and/or recurrent implantation failure.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2005 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Doğum öncesi tanı · Tanı teknikleri · kadın doğum ve kadın hastalıkları

Abstract

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: the GATA experience In this study, results of genetic analysis, success rates of implantation, pregnancy and live birth of 18 patients in whom preimplantation genetic diagnosis was performed by making biopsy in their 3rd day embriyos with 6-8 blastomers at the Assisted Reproductive Techniques Unit of Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of Gülhane Military Medical Faculty between September 2005 and June 2007 were evaluated. Genetic analysis was performed by fluorescent in situ hybridization method on the same day. According to the results of genetic analysis and embryonic growth, embryos with a number of 1 to 3 were transferred. Two hundred and nine oocytes were collected during in vitro fertilization procedures of 18 patients. Of these oocytes, intracytoplasmic sperm injection procedure was performed to 183, which were mature, and 127 embriyos were achieved. Blastomere biopsy was performed to 83 of these embryos which had grade I quality. When the patients were analyzed according to the indications of preimplantation genetic diagnosis, 1, 11, 5 and 1 patients had a history of chromosomal anomaly, recurrent implantation failure, recurrent abortus and cryptozoospermia, respectively. Of the 16 patients performed embryo transfer after preimplantation genetic diagnosis, 8 (50%) and 5 (31.3%) patients had chemical and clinical pregnancy, respectively. In view of the results of the present study preimplantation genetic diagnosis seems to be an effective method in in vitro diagnosis of chromosomal anomalies of couples who have a risk of genetic disease and/or recurrent implantation failure.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, GATF Kadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum AD Yardımcı Üreme Teknikleri Ünitesinde Eylül 2005 ile Haziran 2007 arasında 6-8 blastomer aşamasındaki 3. gün embriyolarından biyopsi alınarak preimplantasyon genetik tanı uygulanmış 18 hasta ve genetik analiz sonuçları, implantasyon ve gebelik başarısı ile canlı doğum oranları değerlendirildi. Genetik inceleme aynı gün içerisinde flöresan in situ hibridizasyon yöntemi kullanılarak yapıldı. Genetik analiz sonuçlarına ve embriyonal gelişime göre 1-3 arası embriyo transfer edildi. On sekiz hastanın in vitro fertilizasyon uygulamaları sırasında 209 oosit toplandı. Bu oositlerden matür olan 183 tanesine "intracytoplasmic sperm injection" işlemi uygulandı ve 127 embriyo elde edildi. Bu embriyolardan Grade I kalitede olan 83 embriyoya blastomer biyopsisi yapıldı. Preimplantasyon genetik tanı endikasyonları açısından hastalar incelendiğinde, 1 hastaya kromozomal anomali öyküsü, 11 hastaya tekrarlayan implantasyon başarısızlığı, 5 hastaya tekrarlayan gebelik kaybı, 1 hastaya ise kriptozoospermi nedeni ile preimplantasyon genetik tanı uygulandı. Preimplantasyon genetik tanı uygulaması sonrası embriyo transferi uygulanan 16 hastanın 8'inde kimyasal gebelik oluşurken (%50), 5 hastada klinik gebelik tespit edildi (%31.3). Bu sonuçlar ışığında preimplantasyon genetik tanı, genetik hastalık riskine sahip ve/veya tekrarlayan implantasyon başarısızlığı olan çiftler için kromozomal anomalilerin in vitro tanısında etkin bir yöntem olarak görünmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÖKTOLGA, Ü., KORKMAZ, C., CEYHAN, S. T., KESKİN, U., BAŞER, İ., BAHÇE, M. (2007). Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: the GATA experience. Gülhane Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 49 - Sayı: 4, 245–249. https://ajindex.com/articles/226206

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Gardner RL, Edwards RG. Control of the sex ratio at full term in the rabbit by transferring sexed blastocysts. Nature 1968; 218: 346-349
  2. Munne S, Weier H-UG, Grifo J, Cohen J. Chromosome mosaicism in human embryos. Biol Reprod 1994; 51: 373-379
  3. Delhanty JDA, Harper JC, Ao A, Handyside AH, Winston RML. Multicolour FISH detects frequent chromosomal mosaicism and chaotic division in normal preimplantation embryos from fertile patients. Hum Genet 1997; 99: 755-760
  4. Grace J, Toukhy T, Scriven P, et al. Three hundred and thirty cycles of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for serious genetic disease. I. Clinical considerations affecting outcome. BJOG 2006; 113: 1393-1401
  5. Katz MG, Fitzgerald L, Bankier A, Savulescu J, Cram DS. Issues and concerns of couples presenting for preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGT). Prenat Diagn 2002; 22: 1117-1122
  6. Sermon KD, Michiels A, Harton G, et al. ESHRE PGT Consortium data collection VI: cycles from January to December 2003 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2004. Hum Reprod 2007; 22: 323-336
  7. Verlinsky Y, Rechitsky S, Verlinsky O, et al. Polar body based preimplantation diagnosis for X-linked genetic disorders. Reprod Biomed Online 2002; 4: 38-42
  8. Kuliev A, Verlinsky Y. Meiotic and mitotic non-disjunction: lessons from preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Hum Reprod Update 2004; 10: 401-407
  9. Clement-Sengewald A, Buchholz T, Schutze K, Berg U, Berg ED. Non-contact, laser-mediated extraction of polar bodies for prefertilization genetic diagnosis. J Assist Reprod Genet 2002; 19: 183-194
  10. Munne S, Wells D. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2002; 14: 239-244
  11. Van de Velde H, De Vos A, Sermon K, et al. Embriyo implantation after biopsy of one or two cells from cleavage- stage embriyos with a view to preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Prenat Diagn 2000; 20: 1030-1037
  12. De Boer KA, Catt JW, Jansen RPS, et al. Moving to blastocyst biopsy for preimplantation genetic diagnosis and single embriyo transfer at Sydney IVF. Fertil Steril 2004; 82: 295-298
  13. Harper JC, Boelaert K, Geraedts J, et al. ESHRE PGT Consortium data collection V: cycles from January to December 2002 with pregnancy follow up to October 2003. Hum Reprod 2006; 21: 3-21
  14. Vandervorst M, Staessen C, Sermon K, et al. The Brussels' experience of more than 5 years of clinical preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Hum Reprod Update 2000; 6: 364-373. 15. de Die-Smulders CE, Land JA, Dreesen JC, Coonen E, Ever