Cited by 142Prenatal Screening and DiagnosticsReproductive Biology and FertilityGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities

The incidence and origin of segmental aneuploidy in human oocytes and preimplantation embryos

Open access
Babariya, D, Fragouli, E, Alfarawati, S, Spath, K, Wells, D·2017·Human Reproduction

Abstract

STUDY QUESTION: What is the incidence, origin and clinical significance of segmental aneuploidy in human oocytes and preimplantation embryos? SUMMARY ANSWER: Segmental aneuploidy occurs at a considerable frequency in preimplantation embryos with a majority being mitotic in origin. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In recent years, accurate techniques for the detection of aneuploidy in single cells have been developed. Research using such methods has confirmed that aneuploidy is a common feature of human oocytes and preimplantation embryos. However, thus far research has mainly focused on loss or gain of whole chromosomes. We utilized sensitive molecular methods to study another important form of cytogenetic abnormality at the earliest stages of human development, namely segmental aneuploidy. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Chromosomal copy number data was obtained from oocytes and embryos of 635 IVF patients, who requested chromosome screening for various reasons, most commonly for advanced maternal age or previously unsuccessful IVF treatments. A total of 3541 samples comprising of 452 human oocytes, 1762 cleavage stage and 1327 blastocyst stage embryos were investigated in the present study. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Whole genome amplification (Sureplex, Illumina) was performed on cells biopsied from oocytes and embryos of IVF patients who requested chromosome screening. The samples were subsequently processed and analyzed for their chromosome complement using microarray comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH), (Illumina, Cambridge, UK). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Segmental abnormalities, involving loss or gain of chromosomal fragments in excess of 15 Mb, were found to occur at a high frequency. The incidence of such abnormalities was 10.4% in oocytes, but this increased dramatically during the first 3 days of embryonic development (24.3%), before starting to decline as embryos reached the final (blastocyst) stage of preimplantation development (15.6%). While some segmental errors were clearly of meiotic origin, most appear to arise during the first few mitoses following fertilization. The reduction in frequency at the blastocyst stage suggests that many cells/embryos affected by segmental abnormalities are eliminated (e.g. via arrest of the affected embryos or apoptosis of abnormal cells). Interestingly, sites of chromosome breakage associated with segmental aneuploidy were not entirely random but tended to occur within distinct chromosomal regions. Some of the identified hotspots correspond to known fragile sites while others may be considered novel and may be specific to gametogenesis and/or embryogenesis. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: The cytogenetic analysis was performed on biopsies of embryos, which might not be representative of the true incidence of mosaic segmental aneuploidy of the entire embryo. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The findings of this study are valuable for understanding the origin of subchromosomal duplications and deletions, a clinically important class of abnormalities that are a common cause of congenital abnormalities and miscarriage. Furthermore, the results provide additional evidence that control of the cell cycle is more relaxed during the first few mitotic divisions following fertilization, permitting DNA double-strand breaks to occur and persist through cell division. The data are also of great relevance for preimplantation genetic testing, where the detection of segmental aneuploidy is currently considered problematic for embryo diagnosis and patient counseling. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was supported by institutional funding (Reprogenetics UK). Additionally, DW is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre Programme. DB was supported by the University of Oxford's Clarendon funding. No conflict of interests to declare.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/humrep/dex324

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Chromosome instability, including whole or segmental chromosome gain or loss, is common in human preimplantation embryos.

    “Chromosome instability, including whole or segmental chromosome gain or loss, is common in human preimplantation embryos (27,28).”
  • Chromosomal anomalies are likely to become increasingly detrimental to cellular viability, although a degree of tolerance may persist in trophectoderm cells.

    “Following this, chromosomal anomalies are likely to become increasingly detrimental to cellular viability, although a degree of tolerance may persist in trophectoderm cells (28).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Babariya, D., Fragouli, E., Alfarawati, S., Spath, K., & Wells, D.
Affiliations
John Radcliffe Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Babariya, D
Venue
Human Reproduction
Published
2017-11-08
Volume
32
Issue
12
Pages
2549-2560
ISSN
  • 0268-1161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2350
OpenAlex
W2767736649
Cited by
142
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 7
FWCI
13.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Human Reproduction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • University of Oxford
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Biology and Fertility
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Keywords
segmental aneuploidy, human oocytes, preimplantation embryo, meiotic aneuploidy, embryonic development, blastocyst, embryo biopsy, embryo selection, advanced maternal age, in vitro fertilization, implantation outcomes
MeSH terms
Adult, Aneuploidy, Biopsy, Blastocyst, Chromosomes, Female, Fertilization in Vitro, Humans, Karyotyping, Male, Maternal Age, Middle Aged, Mitosis, Oocytes, Pregnancy, Reproducibility of Results, Incidence, Preimplantation Diagnosis, Chromosome Disorders, Embryonic Development, Comparative Genomic Hybridization

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