The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comprehensive chromosomal analysis of human preimplantation embryos using whole genome amplification and single cell comparative genomic hybridization
Abstract
Analysis of small numbers of chromosomes using interphase fluorescent in-situ hybridization (FISH) probes has revealed that 50% of human preimplantation embryos contain abnormal cells. Detection of high levels of mosaicism with so few probes has led some researchers to extrapolate that a full analysis of all 23 pairs of chromosomes would reveal that all human embryos contain a proportion of abnormal cells. However, existing cytogenetic protocols cannot achieve such an analysis due to technical limitations. We have developed a novel technique based on whole genome amplification and comparative genomic hybridization (CGH), which for the first time allows the copy number of every chromosome to be assessed in almost every cell of a cleavage-stage embryo. We have successfully analysed 64 cells (blastomeres) derived from 12 embryos and have detected unusual forms of aneuploidy, high levels of chromosomal mosaicism, non-mosaic aneuploidy and chromosome breakage. This is the first report of a comprehensive assessment of chromosome copy number in human embryos and indicates that, despite high levels of mosaicism, some embryos do have normal chromosome numbers in every cell. Such embryos may have a superior developmental potential, and their low frequency may explain correspondingly low success rates of natural and assisted conception in humans.
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
Cites
Early embryonic mortality in women
Edmonds, D. K., Lindsay, K. S., Miller, J. F., Williamson, E., & Wood, P. J. (1982) · Fertility and Sterility · doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(16)46579-9 · Cited by 512
Cited by
The variability of female reproductive ageing
te Velde, E. R. (2002) · Human Reproduction Update · doi:10.1093/humupd/8.2.141 · Cited by 1,214
Chromosome instability is common in human cleavage-stage embryos
Vanneste, E., Voet, T., Le Caignec, C., Ampe, M., Konings, P., Melotte, C., Debrock, S., Amyere, M., Vikkula, M., Schuit, F., et al. (2009) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/nm.1924 · Cited by 880
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-citationMorphological and cytogenetic assessment of cleavage and blastocyst stage embryos
Fragouli, E., Alfarawati, S., Spath, K., & Wells, D. (2014) · Molecular Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/molehr/gat073 · Cited by 189
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Wells, D.
- Venue
- Molecular Human Reproduction
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2000-11-01
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1055-1062
- ISSN
- 1360-9947 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2407
- OpenAlex
- W2163087091
- Cited by
- 502
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 20.70
- 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: Comprehensive chromosomal analysis of human preimplantation embryos using whole genome amplification and single cell comparative genomic hybridization. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/molehr/6.11.1055
- The paper
- Wells, D. (2000). Comprehensive chromosomal analysis of human preimplantation embryos using whole genome amplification and single cell comparative genomic hybridization. Molecular Human Reproduction. https://doi.org/10.1093/molehr/6.11.1055
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.