Abstract
Although numerical chromosome errors are known to be prevalent in early human embryos and are likely to be a considerable factor influencing the mortality of early embryos and implantation failure, in domestic animals data about the frequency and nature of errors is limited. The objectives of this study were to investigate the whole chromosome set of in vivo obtained early pig embryos, applying methods of whole genome amplification and comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) and to contribute to the comprehensive understanding of the topic. The embryos were collected from gilts 72 h after insemination. Further, they were lysed and underwent whole genome amplification by multiple displacement amplification. In a subsequent CGH, amplified DNA was compared to control DNA using different fluorescent labeling and hybridization to male pig mitoses. 11 (14.3%) of the 77 pig embryos examined were observed to be aneuploid. We found chromosome errors comprising loss/gain of one or a few chromosomes (10.4%) but also extensive chromosome imbalances (3.9%). Chromosomes 8, 11, 12, 13, 17, and X were most frequently involved in aneuploidies, when compared to chromosomes 2, 9, and 18, which were rarely involved in chromosome errors.
References
1.
Apiou F, Vincent-Naulleau S, Spatz A, Vielh P, Geffrotin C, et al: Comparative genomic hybridization analysis of hereditary swine cutaneous melanoma revealed loss of the swine 13q36–49 chromosomal region in the nodular melanoma subtype. Int J Cancer 110:232–238 (2004).
2.
Dunn KA, Thomas R, Binns MM, Breen M: Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) in dogs – Application to the study of a canine glial tumour cell line. Vet J 160:77–82 (2000).
3.
Dullea RG, Robinson JF, Bedford JS: Nonrandom degradation of DNA in human leukemic cells during radiation-induced apoptosis. Cancer Res 59:3712–3718 (1999).
4.
Eiben B, Bartels I, Bahrporsch S, Borgmann S, Gatz G, et al: Cytogenetic analysis of 750 spontaneous abortions with the direct-preparation method of chorionic villi and its implications for studying genetic causes of pregnancy wastage. Am J Hum Genet 47:656–663 (1990).
5.
Fishel S, Lynch C: Can comparative genomic hybridization improve in vitro fertilization outcomes? Expert Rev Obstet Gynecol 3:51–58 (2008).
6.
Frumkin T, Malcov M, Yaron Y, Ben-Yosef D: Elucidating the origin of chromosomal aberrations in IVF embryos by preimplantation genetic analysis. Mol Cell Endocrinol 282:112–119 (2008).
7.
Jiang ZW, Zhang XQ, Deka R, Jin L: Genome amplification of single sperm using multiple displacement amplification. Nucleic Acids Res 33:e91 (2005).
8.
Kallioniemi A, Kallioniemi OP, Sudar D, Rutovitz D, Gray JW, et al: Comparative genomic hybridization for molecular cytogenetic analysis of solid tumors. Science 258:818–821 (1992).
9.
King WA: Chromosome variation in the embryos of domestic animals. Cytogenet Genome Res 120:81–90 (2008).
10.
Kirchhoff M, Gerdes T, Maahr J, Rose H, Bentz M, et al: Deletions below 10 megabasepairs are detected in comparative genomic hybridization by standard reference intervals. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 25:410–413 (1999).
11.
Koenig JLF, Stormshak F: Cytogenetic evaluation of ova from pubertal and 3rd-estrous gilts. Biol Reprod 49:1158–1162 (1993).
12.
Lechniak D, Warzych E, Pers-Kamczyc E, Sosnowski J, Antosik P, Rubes J: Gilts and sows produce similar rate of diploid oocytes in vitro whereas the incidence of aneuploidy differs significantly. Theriogenology 68:755–762 (2007).
13.
Munne S, Weier HUG, Grifo J, Cohen J: Chromosome mosaicism in human embryos. Biol Reprod 51:373–379 (1994).
14.
Oostlander AE, Meijer GA, Ylstra B: Microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization and its applications in human genetics. Clin Genet 66:488–495 (2004).
15.
Pellestor F: The cytogenetic analysis of human zygotes and preimplantation embryos. Hum Reprod Update 1:581–585 (1995).
16.
Pellestor F, Andreo B, Arnal F, Humeau C, Demaille J: Mechanisms of non-disjunction in human female meiosis: the co-existence of two modes of malsegregation evidenced by the karyotyping of 1397 in-vitro unfertilized oocytes. Hum Reprod 17:2134–2145 (2002).
17.
Peng W, Takabayashi H, Ikawa K: Whole genome amplification from single cells in preimplantation genetic diagnosis and prenatal diagnosis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 131:13–20 (2007).
18.
Rubes J, Vozdova M, Kubickova S: Aneuploidy in pig sperm: multicolor fluorescence in situ hybridization using probes for chromosomes 1, 10, and Y. Cytogenet Cell Genet 85:200–204 (1999).
19.
Slimane-Bureau WC, King WA: Chromosomal abnormalities: a potential quality issue for cloned cattle embryos. Cloning Stem Cells 4:319–329 (2002).
20.
Sosnowski J, Waroczyk M, Switonski M: Chromosome abnormalities in secondary pig oocytes matured in vitro. Theriogenology 60:571–581 (2003).
21.
Trussler JL, Pickering SJ, Ogilvie CM: Investigation of chromosomal imbalance in human embryos using CGH. Reprod Biomed Online 8:701–711 (2004).
22.
Ulloa CMU, Yoshizawa M, Komoriya E, Mitsui A, Nagai T, Kikuchi K: The blastocyst production rate and incidence of chromosomal abnormalities by developmental stage in in vitro produced porcine embryos. J Reprod Dev 54:22–29 (2008).
23.
Van der Hoeven FA, Cuijpers MP, de Boer P: Karyotypes of 3- or 4-day-old pig embryos after short in-vitro culture. J Reprod Fertil 75:593–597 (1985).
24.
Voullaire L, Wilton L, Slater H, Williamson R: Detection of aneuploidy in single cells using comparative genomic hybridization. Prenat Diagn 19:846–851 (1999).
25.
Voullaire L, Slater H, Williamson R, Wilton L: Chromosome analysis of blastomeres from human embryos by using comparative genomic hybridization. Hum Genet 106:210–217 (2000).
26.
Vozdova M, Machatkova M, Kubickova S, Zudova D, Jokesova E, Rubes J: Frequency of aneuploidy in pig oocytes matured in vitro and of the corresponding first polar bodies detected by fluorescent in situ hybridization. Theriogenology 56:771–776 (2001).
27.
Warburton D, Kinney A: Chromosomal differences in susceptibility to meiotic aneuploidy. Environ Mol Mutagen 28:237–247 (1996).
28.
Wells D, Sherlock JK, Handyside AH, Delhanty JDA: Detailed chromosomal and molecular genetic analysis of single cells by whole genome amplification and comparative genomic hybridisation. Nucleic Acids Res 27:1214–1218 (1999).
29.
Wells D, Alfarawati S, Fragouli E: Use of comprehensive chromosomal screening for embryo assessment: microarrays and CGH. Mol Hum Reprod 14:703–710 (2008).
30.
Zudova D, Rezacova O, Kubickova S, Rubes J: Aneuploidy detection in porcine embryos using fluorescence in situ hybridization. Cytogenet Genome Res 102:179–183 (2003).
© 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel
2009
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.
