Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25685330›Full record

ArticleGigaScience2014

Clinical outcome of preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening using next generation sequencing.

Yueqiu Tan, Xuyang Yin, Shuoping Zhang, Hui Jiang, Ke Tan, Jian Li, Bo Xiong, Fei Gong, Chunlei Zhang, Xiaoyu Pan and 15 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in GigaScience, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

25 authors.

Yueqiu TanInstitute of Reproductive and Stem Cell Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, China ; National Engineering and Research Center of Human Stem Cell, Changsha, China ; Reproductive & Genetic Hospital of CITIC Xiangya, Changsha, China.
Xuyang YinBGI-Health, BGI-Shenzhen, Shenzhen, China ; Shenzhen Municipal Birth Defect Screening Project Lab, BGI-Shenzhen, Shenzhen, China ; Guangdong Enterprise Key Laboratory of Human Disease Genomics, BGI-Shenzhen, Shenzhen, China.
Shuoping ZhangInstitute of Reproductive and Stem Cell Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, China ; Reproductive & Genetic Hospital of CITIC Xiangya, Changsha, China ; Key Laboratory of Stem Cell and Reproductive Engineering, Ministry of Health, Changsha, China.
Hui JiangShenzhen Municipal Birth Defect Screening Project Lab, BGI-Shenzhen, Shenzhen, China ; Guangdong Enterprise Key Laboratory of Human Disease Genomics, BGI-Shenzhen, Shenzhen, China ; Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Ke TanInstitute of Reproductive and Stem Cell Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, China ; National Engineering and Research Center of Human Stem Cell, Changsha, China.
Jian LiBGI-ShenZhen, ShenZhen, China.
Bo XiongReproductive & Genetic Hospital of CITIC Xiangya, Changsha, China.
Fei GongInstitute of Reproductive and Stem Cell Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, China ; Reproductive & Genetic Hospital of CITIC Xiangya, Changsha, China.
Chunlei ZhangShenzhen Municipal Birth Defect Screening Project Lab, BGI-Shenzhen, Shenzhen, China ; Guangdong Enterprise Key Laboratory of Human Disease Genomics, BGI-Shenzhen, Shenzhen, China.
Xiaoyu PanShenzhen Municipal Birth Defect Screening Project Lab, BGI-Shenzhen, Shenzhen, China ; Guangdong Enterprise Key Laboratory of Human Disease Genomics, BGI-Shenzhen, Shenzhen, China ; School of Bioscience and Bioengineering, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China.
Fang ChenShenzhen Municipal Birth Defect Screening Project Lab, BGI-Shenzhen, Shenzhen, China ; Guangdong Enterprise Key Laboratory of Human Disease Genomics, BGI-Shenzhen, Shenzhen, China ; Section of Molecular Disease Biology, Department of Veterinary Disease Biology, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Shengpei ChenShenzhen Municipal Birth Defect Screening Project Lab, BGI-Shenzhen, Shenzhen, China ; Guangdong Enterprise Key Laboratory of Human Disease Genomics, BGI-Shenzhen, Shenzhen, China ; State Key Laboratory of Bioelectronics, School of Biological Science and Medical Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing, China.
Chun GongBGI-ShenZhen, ShenZhen, China.
Changfu LuInstitute of Reproductive and Stem Cell Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, China ; Reproductive & Genetic Hospital of CITIC Xiangya, Changsha, China.
Keli LuoInstitute of Reproductive and Stem Cell Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, China ; Reproductive & Genetic Hospital of CITIC Xiangya, Changsha, China.
Yifan GuInstitute of Reproductive and Stem Cell Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, China ; Reproductive & Genetic Hospital of CITIC Xiangya, Changsha, China.
Xiuqing ZhangGuangdong Enterprise Key Laboratory of Human Disease Genomics, BGI-Shenzhen, Shenzhen, China.
Wei WangBGI-Health, BGI-Shenzhen, Shenzhen, China ; Shenzhen Municipal Birth Defect Screening Project Lab, BGI-Shenzhen, Shenzhen, China.
Xun XuBGI-ShenZhen, ShenZhen, China.
Gábor VajtaBGI-ShenZhen, ShenZhen, China ; Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Queensland Australia.
Lars BolundBGI-ShenZhen, ShenZhen, China ; Department of Biomedicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Huanming YangBGI-ShenZhen, ShenZhen, China ; Prince Aljawhra Center of Excellence in Research of Hereditary Disorders, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia ; James D Watson Institute of Genome Science, Hangzhou, China.
Guangxiu LuInstitute of Reproductive and Stem Cell Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, China ; National Engineering and Research Center of Human Stem Cell, Changsha, China ; Reproductive & Genetic Hospital of CITIC Xiangya, Changsha, China ; Key Laboratory of Stem Cell and Reproductive Engineering, Ministry of Health, Changsha, China.
Yutao DuBGI-Health, BGI-Shenzhen, Shenzhen, China.
Ge LinInstitute of Reproductive and Stem Cell Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, China ; National Engineering and Research Center of Human Stem Cell, Changsha, China ; Reproductive & Genetic Hospital of CITIC Xiangya, Changsha, China ; Key Laboratory of Stem Cell and Reproductive Engineering, Ministry of Health, Changsha, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNext generation sequencing (NGS) is now being used for detecting chromosomal abnormalities in blastocyst trophectoderm (TE) cells from in vitro fertilized embryos. However, few data are available regarding the clinical outcome, which provides vital reference for further application of the methodology. Here, we present a clinical evaluation of NGS-based preimplantation genetic diagnosis/screening (PGD/PGS) compared with single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array-based PGD/PGS as a control.

resultsA total of 395 couples participated. They were carriers of either translocation or inversion mutations, or were patients with recurrent miscarriage and/or advanced maternal age. A total of 1,512 blastocysts were biopsied on D5 after fertilization, with 1,058 blastocysts set aside for SNP array testing and 454 blastocysts for NGS testing. In the NGS cycles group, the implantation, clinical pregnancy and miscarriage rates were 52.6% (60/114), 61.3% (49/80) and 14.3% (7/49), respectively. In the SNP array cycles group, the implantation, clinical pregnancy and miscarriage rates were 47.6% (139/292), 56.7% (115/203) and 14.8% (17/115), respectively. The outcome measures of both the NGS and SNP array cycles were the same with insignificant differences. There were 150 blastocysts that underwent both NGS and SNP array analysis, of which seven blastocysts were found with inconsistent signals. All other signals obtained from NGS analysis were confirmed to be accurate by validation with qPCR. The relative copy number of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) for each blastocyst that underwent NGS testing was evaluated, and a significant difference was found between the copy number of mtDNA for the euploid and the chromosomally abnormal blastocysts. So far, out of 42 ongoing pregnancies, 24 babies were born in NGS cycles; all of these babies are healthy and free of any developmental problems.

conclusionsThis study provides the first evaluation of the clinical outcomes of NGS-based pre-implantation genetic diagnosis/screening, and shows the reliability of this method in a clinical and array-based laboratory setting. NGS provides an accurate approach to detect embryonic imbalanced segmental rearrangements, to avoid the potential risks of false signals from SNP array in this study.

Indexed as

BlastocystClinical outcomeCryopreserved embryo transferNext generation sequencingPreimplantation genetic diagnosis/screening

Identifiers

PMID25685330
PMCPMC4326468

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.