The study of aneuploidy in human oocytes, discarded from IVF cycles, has provided a better understanding of the incidence of aneuploidy of female origin and the responsible mechanisms. Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) is an established technique that allows for the detection of aneuploidy in all chromosomes avoiding artifactual chromosome losses. In this review, results obtained using CGH in single cells (1PB and/or MII oocytes) are included. The results of oocyte aneuploidy rates obtained by CGH from discarded oocytes of IVF patients and of oocyte donors are summarized. Moreover, the mechanisms involved in the aneuploid events, e.g. whether alterations occurred due to first meiotic errors or germ-line mitotic errors are also discussed. Finally, the incidence of aneuploid oocyte production due to first meiotic errors and germ-line mitotic errors observed in oocytes coming from IVF patients and IVF oocyte donors was assessed.

Keywords:
Aneuploidy, Comparative genomic hybridization, Meiotic errors, Oocyte
1.
Andersen AN, Goossens V, Ferraretti AP, et al: Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2004: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 23:756–771 (2008).
2.
Angell R: First-meiotic-division nondisjunction in human oocytes. Am J Hum Genet 61:23–32 (1997).
3.
Bahçe M, Cohen J, Munne S: Preimplantation genetic diagnosis of aneuploidy: were we looking at the wrong chromosomes? J Assist Reprod Genet 16:176–181 (1999).
4.
Bodri D, Colodron M, Vidal R, et al: Prognostic factors in oocyte donation: an analysis through egg-sharing recipient pairs showing a discordant outcome. Fertil Steril 88:1548–1553 (2007).
5.
Boue A, Boue J, Gropp A: Cytogenetics of pregnancy wastage. Adv Hum Genet 14:1–57 (1985).
6.
Clyde JM, Gosden RG, Rutherford AJ, et al: Demonstration of a mechanism of aneuploidy in human oocytes using Multifluor fluorescence in situ hybridization. Fertil Steril 76:837–840 (2001).
7.
Cozzi J, Conn CM, Harper J, et al: A trisomic germ cell line and precocious chromatid segregation leads to recurrent trisomy 21 conception. Hum Genet 104:23–28 (1999).
8.
Cupisti S, Conn CM, Fragouli E, et al: Sequential FISH analysis of oocytes and polar bodies reveals aneuploidy mechanisms. Prenat Diagn 23:663–668 (2003).
9.
Fragouli E, Wells D, Doshi A, Gotts S, Harper JC, Delhanty JD: Complete cytogenetic investigation of oocytes from a young cancer patient with the use of comparative genomic hybridisation reveals meiotic errors. Prenat Diagn 26:71–76 (2006a).
10.
Fishel S, Gordon A, Lynch C, Dowell K, Ndukwe G, Kelada E, Thornton S, Jenner L, Cater E, Brown A, Garcia-Bernardo J: Live birth after polar body array comparative genomic hybridization prediction of embryo ploidy – the future of IVF? Fertil Steril 93:1006.e7–1006.e10 (2010).
11.
Fragouli E, Wells D, Thornhill A, et al: Comparative genomic hybridization analysis of human oocytes and polar bodies. Hum Reprod 21:2319–2328 (2006b).
12.
Fragouli E, Wells D, Whalley KM, et al: Increased susceptibility to maternal aneuploidy demonstrated by comparative genomic hybridization analysis of human MII oocytes and first polar bodies. Cytogenet Genome Res 114:30–38 (2006c).
13.
Fragouli E, Delhanty JD, Wells D: Single cell diagnosis using comparative genomic hybridization after preliminary DNA amplification still needs more tweaking: too many miscalls. Fertil Steril 88:247–248; author reply 248–249 (2007).
14.
Fragouli E, Escalona A, Gutierrez-Mateo C, et al: Comparative genomic hybridization of oocytes and first polar bodies from young donors. Reprod Biomed Online 19:228–237 (2009).
15.
Garcia-Velasco JA, Isaza V, Caligara C, et al: Factors that determine discordant outcome from shared oocytes. Fertil Steril 80:54–60 (2003).
16.
Geraedts J, Collins J, Gianaroli L, et al: What next for preimplantation genetic screening? A polar body approach! Hum Reprod 25:575–577 (2009).
17.
Gutiérrez-Mateo C, Benet J, Wells D, et al: Aneuploidy study of human oocytes first polar body comparative genomic hybridization and metaphase II fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis. Hum Reprod 19:2859–2868 (2004a).
18.
Gutiérrez-Mateo C, Wells D, Benet J, et al: Reliability of comparative genomic hybridization to detect chromosome abnormalities in first polar bodies and metaphase II oocytes. Hum Reprod 19:2118–2125 (2004b).
19.
Gutiérrez-Mateo C, Benet J, Starke H, et al: Karyotyping of human oocytes by cenM-FISH, a new 24-colour centromere-specific technique. Hum Reprod 20:3395–3401 (2005a).
20.
Gutiérrez-Mateo C, Gadea L, Benet J, et al: Aneuploidy 12 in a Robertsonian (13;14) carrier: Case report. Hum Reprod 20:1256–1260 (2005b).
21.
Gutiérrez-Mateo C, Sanchez-Garcia JF, Fischer J, et al: Preimplantation genetic diagnosis of single-gene disorders: experience with more than 200 cycles conducted by a reference laboratory in the United States. Fertil Steril 92:1544–1556 (2009).
22.
Handyside AH, Harton GL, Mariani B, et al: Karyomapping: a universal method for genome wide analysis of genetic disease based on mapping crossovers between parental haplotypes. J Med Genet 47:651–658 (2010).
23.
Hassold T, Hunt P: To err (meiotically) is human: the genesis of human aneuploidy. Nat Rev Genet 2:280–291 (2001).
24.
Hassold T, Abruzzo M, Adkins K, et al: Human aneuploidy: incidence, origin, and etiology. Environ Mol Mutagen 28:167–175 (1996).
25.
Hulten MA, Patel SD, Tankimanova M, et al: On the origin of trisomy 21 Down syndrome. Mol Cytogenet 1:21 (2008).
26.
Keskintepe L, Sher G, Keskintepe M: Reproductive oocyte/embryo genetic analysis: comparison between fluorescence in situ hybridization and comparative genomic hybridization. Reprod Biomed Online 15:303–309 (2007).
27.
Li Y, Feng HL, Cao YJ, et al: Confocal microscopic analysis of the spindle and chromosome configurations of human oocytes matured in vitro. Fertil Steril 85:827–832 (2006).
28.
Mahmood R, Brierley CH, Faed MJ, et al: Mechanisms of maternal aneuploidy: FISH analysis of oocytes and polar bodies in patients undergoing assisted conception. Hum Genet 106:620–626 (2000).
29.
Munne S, Alikani M, Tomkin G, et al: Embryo morphology, developmental rates, and maternal age are correlated with chromosome abnormalities. Fertil Steril 64:382–391 (1995).
30.
Munne S, Ary J, Zouves C, et al: Wide range of chromosome abnormalities in the embryos of young egg donors. Reprod Biomed Online 12:340–346 (2006).
31.
Navarro J, Gutierrez-Mateo C, Pujol A, Durban M, Sanchez-Garcia JF, et al: Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD): Screening for aneuploidy in human oocytes and polar bodies, in Wells D (ed): Cytogenetics in Reproductive Medicine. (Landes Bioscience, Austin 2005).
32.
Nicolaidis P, Petersen MB: Origin and mechanisms of non-disjunction in human autosomal trisomies. Hum Reprod 13:313–319 (1998).
33.
Obradors A, Fernandez E, Oliver-Bonet M, et al: Birth of a healthy boy after a double factor PGD in a couple carrying a genetic disease and at risk for aneuploidy: case report. Hum Reprod 23:1949–1956 (2008).
34.
Obradors A, Fernandez E, Rius M, et al: Outcome of twin babies free of Von Hippel-Lindau disease after a double-factor preimplantation genetic diagnosis: monogenetic mutation analysis and comprehensive aneuploidy screening. Fertil Steril 91:933e1–7 (2009).
35.
Obradors A, Rius M, Cuzzi J, et al: Errors at mitotic segregation early in oogenesis and at first meiotic division in oocytes from donor females: comparative genomic hybridization analyzes in metaphase II oocytes and their first polar body. Fertil Steril 93:675–679 (2010).
36.
Pellestor F: Frequency and distribution of aneuploidy in human female gametes. Hum Genet 86:283–288 (1991).
37.
Pellestor F, Andreo B, Arnal F, et al: Maternal aging and chromosomal abnormalities: new data drawn from in vitro unfertilized human oocytes. Hum Genet 112:195–203 (2003).
38.
Pujol A, Boiso I, Benet J, et al: Analysis of nine chromosome probes in first polar bodies and metaphase II oocytes for the detection of aneuploidies. Eur J Hum Genet 11:325–336 (2003).
39.
Reis Soares S, Rubio C, Rodrigo L, et al: High frequency of chromosomal abnormalities in embryos obtained from oocyte donation cycles. Fertil Steril 80:656–657 (2003).
40.
Requena A, Bronet F, Guillen A, et al: The impact of in-vitro maturation of oocytes on aneuploidy rate. Reprod Biomed Online 18:777–783 (2009).
41.
Rius M, Obradors A, Daina G, et al: Reliability of short comparative genomic hybridization in fibroblasts and blastomeres for a comprehensive aneuploidy screening: first clinical application. Hum Reprod 25:1824–1835 (2010).
42.
Sandalinas M, Sadowy S, Alikani M, et al: Developmental ability of chromosomally abnormal human embryos to develop to the blastocyst stage. Hum Reprod 16:1954–1958 (2001).
43.
Sandalinas M, Marquez C, Munne S: Spectral karyotyping of fresh, non-inseminated oocytes. Mol Hum Reprod 8:580–585 (2002).
44.
Schoolcraft WB, Fragouli E, Stevens J, et al: Clinical application of comprehensive chromosomal screening at the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril 94:1700–1706 (2010).
45.
Sher G, Keskintepe L, Keskintepe M, et al: Oocyte karyotyping by comparative genomic hybridization [correction of hybrydization] provides a highly reliable method for selecting ‘competent’ embryos, markedly improving in vitro fertilization outcome: a multiphase study. Fertil Steril 87:1033–1040 (2007).
46.
Verlinsky Y, Cieslak J, Freidine M, Ivakhnenko V, Wolf G, et al: Polar body diagnosis of common aneuploidies by FISH. J Assist Reprod Genet 13:157–162 (1996).
47.
Vialard F, Gomes DM, Hammoud I, et al: Stability of aneuploidy rate in polar bodies in 2 cohorts from the same patient. Reprod Biomed Online 17:213–219 (2008).
48.
Vlaisavljevic V, Krizancic Bombek L, Vokac NK, et al: How safe is germinal vesicle stage oocyte rescue? Aneuploidy analysis of in vitro matured oocytes. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 134:213–219 (2007).
49.
Voullaire L, Wilton L, Slater H, et al: Detection of aneuploidy in single cells using comparative genomic hybridization. Prenat Diagn 19:846–851 (1999).
50.
Voullaire L, Slater H, Williamson R, et al: Chromosome analysis of blastomeres from human embryos by using comparative genomic hybridization. Hum Genet 106:210–217 (2000).
51.
Voullaire L, Wilton L, McBain J, et al: Chromosome abnormalities identified by comparative genomic hybridization in embryos from women with repeated implantation failure. Mol Hum Reprod 8:1035–1041 (2002).
52.
Weghofer A, Munne S, Brannath W, et al: The impact of LH-containing gonadotropins on diploidy rates in preimplantation embryos: long protocol stimulation. Hum Reprod 23:499–503 (2008).
53.
Weghofer A, Munne S, Brannath W, et al: The impact of LH-containing gonadotropin stimulation on euploidy rates in preimplantation embryos: antagonist cycles. Fertil Steril 92:937–942 (2009).
54.
Wells D, Delhanty JD: Comprehensive chromosomal analysis of human preimplantation embryos using whole genome amplification and single cell comparative genomic hybridization. Mol Hum Reprod 6:1055–1062 (2000).
55.
Wells D, Sherlock JK, Handyside AH, et al: Detailed chromosomal and molecular genetic analysis of single cells by whole genome amplification and comparative genomic hybridisation. Nucleic Acids Res 27:1214–1218 (1999).
56.
Wells D, Escudero T, Levy B, et al: First clinical application of comparative genomic hybridization and polar body testing for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of aneuploidy. Fertil Steril 78:543–549 (2002).
57.
Wilton L: Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and chromosome analysis of blastomeres using comparative genomic hybridization. Hum Reprod Update 11:33–41 (2005).
58.
Wilton L, Voullaire L, Sargeant P, et al: Preimplantation aneuploidy screening using comparative genomic hybridization or fluorescence in situ hybridization of embryos from patients with recurrent implantation failure. Fertil Steril 80:860–868 (2003).
© 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel
2011
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.