The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Cytogenetic analysis of human blastocysts with the use of FISH, CGH and aCGH: scientific data and technical evaluation
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent studies have suggested that biopsy of several trophectoderm (TE) cells from blastocysts followed by comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) analysis might represent an optimal strategy for aneuploidy detection, but few data on accuracy are available. The main question concerns the rate of mosaicism at the blastocyst stage, and to what extent this might cause misdiagnoses. We assessed blastocyst aneuploidy and mosaicism rates and evaluated the accuracy and efficiency of CGH and microarray-CGH (aCGH) for TE analysis. METHODS: A total of 52 blastocysts, from 20 couples, were biopsied and their chromosomes examined by CGH. The remaining cells were spread and tested by fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH). Of the 52 blastocysts, 20 underwent a second TE biopsy and were tested using aCGH. RESULTS: CGH and aCGH produced results for 98% of TE samples. 42.3% of blastocysts were uniformly euploid, 30% were uniformly aneuploid and 32.4% were mosaic. Of the mosaic embryos, 15.4% were found to be composed of a mixture of different aneuploid cell lines, while 17% contained both normal and aneuploid cells. Mosaic diploid-aneuploid blastocysts with >30% normal cells accounted for <6% of analysed embryos. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive chromosome screening and follow-up assessment of large numbers of cells provided a unique insight into the cytogenetics of human blastocysts. Meiotic and post-zygotic errors leading to mosaicism were common. However, most mosaic blastocysts contained no normal cells. Hence, CGH or aCGH TE analysis is an accurate aneuploidy detection tool and may assist in identifying viable euploid embryos with higher implantation potential.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Physiological and molecular determinants of embryo implantation
Zhang, S., Lin, H., Kong, S., Wang, S., Wang, H., Wang, H., & Armant, D. R. (2013) · Molecular Aspects of Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.mam.2012.12.011 · Cited by 587
Healthy Babies after Intrauterine Transfer of Mosaic Aneuploid Blastocysts
Greco, E., Minasi, M. G., & Fiorentino, F. (2015) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmc1500421 · Cited by 587
The ESHRE PGD Consortium: 10 years of data collection
Harper, J. C., Wilton, L., Traeger-Synodinos, J., Goossens, V., Moutou, C., SenGupta, S. B., Pehlivan Budak, T., Renwick, P., De Rycke, M., Geraedts, J. P. M., et al. (2012) · Human Reproduction Update · doi:10.1093/humupd/dmr052 · Cited by 299
The origin and impact of embryonic aneuploidy
Fragouli, E., Alfarawati, S., Spath, K., Jaroudi, S., Sarasa, J., Enciso, M., & Wells, D. (2013) · Human Genetics · doi:10.1007/s00439-013-1309-0 · Cited by 290
Self-citationMechanisms of Aneuploidy in Human Eggs
Webster, A., & Schuh, M. (2017) · Trends in Cell Biology · doi:10.1016/j.tcb.2016.09.002 · Cited by 267
Metadata
- Authors
- Fragouli, E., Alfarawati, S., Daphnis, D. D., Goodall, N.-N., Mania, A., Griffiths, T., Gordon, A., & Wells, D.
- Venue
- Human Reproduction
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2010-12-08
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 480-490
- ISSN
- 0268-1161 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2350
- OpenAlex
- W2128025311
- Cited by
- 277
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 14.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cytogenetic analysis of human blastocysts with the use of FISH, CGH and aCGH: scientific data and technical evaluation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/humrep/deq344
- The paper
- Fragouli, E., Alfarawati, S., Daphnis, D. D., Goodall, N.-N., Mania, A., Griffiths, T., Gordon, A., & Wells, D. (2011). Cytogenetic analysis of human blastocysts with the use of FISH, CGH and aCGH: scientific data and technical evaluation. Human Reproduction. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deq344
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.