Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34556730›Full record

Observational studyScientific reports2021

High concordance in preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy between automatic identification via Ion S5 and manual identification via Miseq.

Tzu-Hsuan Chuang, Zih-Huei Wu, Chin-Sheng Kuan, Meng-Ju Lee, Chia-Lin Hsieh, Huai-Lin Wang, Hsing-Hua Lai, Yu-Jen Chang, Shee-Uan Chen

Abstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors.

Tzu-Hsuan ChuangStork Fertility Center, Stork Ladies Clinic, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
Zih-Huei WuStork Fertility Center, Stork Ladies Clinic, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
Chin-Sheng KuanStork Fertility Center, Stork Ladies Clinic, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
Meng-Ju LeeStork Fertility Center, Stork Ladies Clinic, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
Chia-Lin HsiehStork Fertility Center, Stork Ladies Clinic, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
Huai-Lin WangStork Fertility Center, Stork Ladies Clinic, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
Hsing-Hua LaiStork Fertility Center, Stork Ladies Clinic, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
Yu-Jen ChangBioresource Collection and Research Center, Food Industry Research and Development Institute, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
Shee-Uan ChenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National Taiwan University Hospital and College of Medicine, No. 8, Chung-Shan South Road, Taipei, Taiwan. chensheeuan@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Ion S5 (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and Miseq (Illumina) NGS systems are both widely used in the clinical laboratories conducting PGT-A. Each system employs discrepant library preparation steps, sequencing principles, and data processing algorithms. The automatic interpretation via Ion Reporter software (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and the manual interpretation via BlueFuse Multi software (Illumina) for chromosomal copy number variation (CNV) represent very different reporting approaches. Thus, it is intriguing to compare their ability of ploidy detection as PGT-A/NGS system. In the present study, four aneuploid cell lines were individually mixed with a diploid cell line at different aneuploid ratios of 0% (0:5), 10% (1:9), 20% (1:4), 40% (2:3), 50% (3:3), 60% (3:2), 80% (4:1) and 100% (5:0) to assess the sensitivity and specificity for whole chromosomal and segmental aneuploidy detection. The clinical biopsies of 107 blastocysts from 46 IVF/PGT-A cycles recruited between December 2019 and February 2020 were used to calculate the concordance. Initially, the pre-amplified products were divided into two aliquots for different library preparation procedures of each system. Applying the same calling criteria, automatic identification was achieved through the Ion Reporter, while well-trained technicians manually identified each sample through the BlueFuse Multi. The results displayed that both systems reliably distinguished chromosomal CNV of the mixtures with at least 10% aneuploidy from karyotypically normal samples ([Ion S5] whole-chromosomal duplication: 2.14 vs. 2.05, p value = 0.009, segmental deletion: 1.88 vs. 2.05, p value = 0.003; [Miseq] whole-chromosomal duplication: 2.12 vs. 2.03, p value = 0.047, segmental deletion: 1.82 vs. 2.03, p value = 0.002). The sensitivity and specificity were comparable between the Ion S5 and Miseq ([sensitivity] 93% vs. 90%, p = 0.78; [specificity] 100% vs. 100%, p value = 1.0). In the 107 clinical biopsies, three displayed chaotic patterns (2.8%), which could not be interpreted for the ploidy. The ploidy concordance was 99.04% (103/104) per embryo and 99.47% (2265/2277) per chromosome pair. Since their ability of detection were proven to be similar, the automatic identification in Ion S5 system presents comparatively faster and more standardized performance.

Indexed as

AneuploidyAdultCell LineDNA Copy Number VariationsFemaleFertilization in VitroGenetic TestingHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansInfertilityMaleMaternal AgePregnancyPreimplantation DiagnosisReproducibility of ResultsTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID34556730
PMCPMC8460708

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.