top of page

FACT SHEET: PREIMPLANTATION GENETIC TEST FOR ANEUPLOIDY IS

LACK OF SCIENTIFIC BASES AND IS NOT SAFE* 

 

Ke-Hui Cui M.D., Ph.D.

Savannah, Georgia, 31405, U.S.A.

March 15th, 2019

Email: khcui72@hereditics.net

 

 

* This historical document was one of two attached papers sent to CDC, FDA and ASRM on March 15th, 2019. Another attached paper was "Origin of life, heredity, differentiation and human reproduction: control of overpopulation and prohibition of subhuman reproduction" (Shortened as "Origin of life"), in which Hereditics was first time set up. Immediately US Congress positively recognized the new scientific theory - Hereditics. According to these two important papers, US Congress issued "Personhood Concern" to ASRM about the severe issue of "preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy" in March, 2019. Without cognition of new theory in Hereditics, Cytohetics and Epicytohetics (rather than Genetics), it is not possible for physicians to understand why PGT-A is neither scientific nor safe, for geneticists to explain why mosaic embryos may produce many normal karyotyping children, and for embryologists to understand why the presence of aneuploidy is a normal condition in human embryology. Thus, study of hereditics are urgently needed. Due to this reason, this document "Preimplantation genetic test for aneuploidy is lack of scientific bases and is not safe" was rewritten into two detailed educational papers to specially explain Cytohetics and Epicytohetics individually: "Cytohetics: preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy is not scientific" and "Epicytohetics: preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy is not safe". Another attached paper "Origin of life" was also rewritten into an educational paper "Hereditics and origin of life". All of these papers have been published at https://www.hereditics.net. Other important papers and documents in the field of life and health science, including "Ban subhuman reproduction", "Control of overpopulation", "MRT syndrome", "Legal discussion related to children born with embryo biopsy syndrome and laser radiation syndrome",  etc. have been or will be published on the hereditics.net.

 

Abstract

Presence of aneuploidy cells in human embryonic stages is an important and positive phenomenon of embryonic physiology for differentiation and for faster implantation. Preimplantation genetic test for aneuploidy (PGT-A) or preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) is to screen embryos to find out aneuploidy cells (or abnormal DNA). It is not following parents’ history. Clinical results from two papers showed: 26 embryos containing aneuploidy cells were transferred and they developed to 11 normal karyotyping babies. The heredity ability of those diagnosed aneuploidy cells (i.e. DNA) was not persistent in these live babies. Genetics about DNA to be the unique hereditary materials could not be used to explain this result. However, when following parent’s genetic history, preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) was performed. In 3755 pregnancy, only 34 misdiagnosis cases (0.9%) were reported. The results showed the embryos were keeping on their normal diagnosed heredity (>99.0% correct rate). Whether following patient’s history or not, the PGT results were significantly different (p<0.0001) in prediction of the heredity. If not following patient’s history, the diagnosed DNA (aneuploidy cells) will not show its heredity characteristic. Evolution history showed: origin of heredity was not DNA, but a combination of RNA and lipid membrane. Patient’s history is closely related to how perfect the hereditary control system is. Hereditary diseases are the combination results of both defects of DNA and heredity control system. To study the heredity function of cytoplasm is imperative. To use aneuploidy-producing techniques (embryo biopsy, laser radiation and freezing) to prevent aneuploidy is not scientific and not safe in PGT-A.

 

History of PGS

 

After failure in polymerase chain reaction (PCR) techniques with misdiagnosis of a female embryo, a boy with a hereditary disease was born in 1991. Dr. Handyside introduced fluorescent in-situ hybridization (FISH) techniques in sex determination for prevention of X-linked hereditary diseases. “Aneuploidy” phenomenon in human embryos was immediately emerged with FISH techniques. “Aneuploidy” debate was initiated. It was claimed by Dr. Verlinsky that “60% of human embryos were aneuploidy”, and preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) started. The hypothesis of PGS was that if all embryos obtained by IVF were screened for aneuploidy prior to transfer, implantation and pregnancy rates would improve and miscarriage rates decrease (Munné et al., 1993). FISH techniques are full of error to produce artifact of “aneuploidy”, in which only one side of the Chromosomes sticking of the glass will produce many artifact. Later, array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) and next generation sequencing (NGS) emerged in place of FISH techniques.

 

Aneuploidy embryo means that all of the cells in that embryo are aneuploidy. People are not possible using PGT to diagnose all of the cells of an embryo and transfer an empty zona to produce a life. People can only biopsy 1/8 of cells in 8-cell stage or up to 5 cells in blastocyst for PGT to represent the whole embryo. Thus their results can not confirm whether the said embryo is aneuploidy or not, but only confirm whether there is/are any “aneuploidy” cell to be found. After trophectoderm biopsy, people began to say that “60% of human embryos were mosaicism” rather than “aneuploidy”.

 

In 2015 ASRM meeting, Reprogenetics (recent Cooper Genomics) recommended to use blastocyst biopsy (trophectoderm biopsy) for PGS and elective Single Embryos Transfer (eSET). The eSET is to produce singleton, which is better for mother’s and child’s health, and is warmly welcome by the society. However, it is not the reason to perform the very draumatic techniques including laser radiation, embryo biopsy and freezing for every embryo, of which the majority are healthy embryos. The combination of PGS and eSET was misleading. In 2016, a “Great Leap” of PGS in U.S. happened. The results of massive movement was foreseeable: In 2017 ASRM meeting, “mosaicism tornado” occurred. News reported in New York that two normal babies were born from “mosaicism” embryos, because the mothers insisted transfer of “mosaicism” embryos while no “normal embryo” existed. Why could the “mosaicism” embryos produce the babies with normal rather than mosaic karyotyping? All people’s belief changed when more similar news came out – Transfer of 26 “mosaicism” embryos produced another 11 babies with normal karyotyping (42.3% birth rate) with only 3 miscarrage (Greco, et al., 2015, Gleicher, et al. 2016). The fact that 11 normal babies born from “abnormal mosacism” embryos confirmed that all of the theory and practice of PGS failure. The majority of diagnosed aneuploidy cells with abnormal DNA structures do not contain characteristics of heredity in the born babies. Diagnosis of PGS was not functioning anymore. Why does the diagnosed DNA (of the aneuploidy cells) from biopsy not keep its heredity? The credibility of PGS were all vanished (Gleicher, et al., 2018), from its most basic points: when to biopsy, how to biopsy, what instrument to be used for biopsy, how to treat the biopsied cell(s), to high technique question: how to solve allete drop out problem, how to design primers, how to select techniques for diagnoses, etc., to society and ethics questions: how to lecture patients scientifically, how to publish a scientific paper, how to organize our scientific meeting without dictatorship, etc. On the whole, it is the question of “how to deal with corruption” in human reproduction.

 

The clinical results in U.S. in 2016 got a great setback due to the great leap of PGS. According to Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) data, the cumulative outcome in U.S. per egg retrieval cycle, in lesser the 35 years old group, Live Births in 2015 was 53.9%, while in 2016 was 47.6%. It was 6.3% drop down, with singletons rate drop down 3.0% (from 42.4% to 39.4%). If without about half of the IVF cycles not involving PGS, the drop down of birth rate would be double. All of the fairy tale (“if all embryos obtained by IVF were screened for aneuploidy prior to transfer, implantation and pregnancy rates would improve and miscarriage rates decrease”) waned when facing the ironic fact. All of the past plenty of “scientific” papers of superiority of PGS with their “data” showed their ugly faces in the authenticity of the greatest scale of clinical malpractice. This serious setback has never been seen in the history of in vitro fertilization. 

 

 

Part I: PGT-A (or PGS) is not scientific and it is aimless in heredity

 

1. Aneuploidy cells exist in our bodies, in fetus and in embryos. Our bodies have plenty of cells dying every day and every hour, in which most of the dying cells are aneuploidy. Should we biopsy ourselves every day everywhere, and freeze the biopsied tissue to transfer later, as now a lot of laboratories biopsy all embryos, freezing before they are transferred to the uterus? Ridiculous. The temporary existence of aneuploidy cells are the physiological mosaic phenomena in our bodies but is not pathological mosaicism. Why are we not mosaicism or not called mosaicism? New scientific research results in recent 10 years showed new heredity control theory: every cell, (it does not matter where it is located, in our bodies, in fetus or in the early embryos,) contains heredity control (security) system, called check points and licensing system (see attached paper “Origin of Life” page 11-13). The check points and licensing system will not allow the aneuploidy cells to cleave and to grow further. When check points and licensing system is in normal condition, the aneuploidy cells will not pass mitotic exit to split, and to be inherited to progeny cells. The aneuploidy cells will be temporarily to be apoptosis and no mosaicism exist. The normal cells will grow and grow. The embryos grow to be fetus and to be our human beings without mosaicism. That is not self-correction, because aneuploidy cells are not possible to restore to be normal cells again. Thus, we should make the different concepts of “mosaic phenomena” and “mosaicism” to be clearly cut at the level of embryology. We should not define an embryo to be mosaicism just depending on the laboratories results of “aneuploidy cell(s) found” or how many percent of aneuploidy cells to be found. Mosaicism is a persistent abnormal growing pathological entity, which hereditary control system is abnormal. But mosaic phenomena are the temporary phenomena, which heredity control system is normal: aging and sick cells will die and new aging and new sick cells will come out, which will not grow further. Only the normal cells will grow into the growing entity because the hereditary control system (check points and licensing system) is normal.

 

2. Trophectoderm biopsy is not scientific in PGT-A. The embryo at 8 cell stage is topipotent. When embryo grows to blastocyst stage, the cells have differentiated and greatly polarized. In inner cell mass (ICM), the genes in all of the individual cells got about 90% genetic agreement. However, in trophectoderm cells, the genes in all of the individual cells only got about 50% agreement (2018 ASRM paper report). This great difference in genes of individual cells in different tissues was also confirmed by human brain cells. (Different brain cells contain different gene composition). This kind of difference between ICM and trophectoderm is the results of differentiation. The differentiation also changes the check points and licensing system to be great difference in ICM and in trophectoderm. The ICM, which will develop to germ track later, will maintain strict licensing of transcription and translation (Haig. 2016). However, the trophectoderm cells, which will develop to chorion, will produce new and different loose licensing component, (such as an important subunit of the origin recognition complex (Orc 2) is frequently absent and also Cdt1 is restricted) (Lin, et al. 2009). The new loose check points and licensing system allow the trophectoderm cells to differentiate towards syncytium (with multiple nuclei) and chorionic villi direction (Biancotti and Benvenisty, 2011). It is obvious that syncytium cells are not diploid. Thus more aneuploidy cells are found in trophectoderm is not a pathological problem, but is the normal functions and results from the new and loose check points and licensing system (Hong and Stambrook, 2004) in trophectoderm differentiation. Experimental results showed: 8 embryos were biopsied on day 3 and were confirmed as normal 2N. When they were grown to blastocysts and were analyzed in individual cells, all of them could not showed 100% normal 2N, in which there were three blastocysts showed tetraploid (4N) syncytium cell results. In that experiment, in total 21 blastocysts, there were nine blastocysts containing 4N chromosomes (42.8%) to show the differentiation of villi direction (Baart, et al., 2004; Baart, et al., 2006) It is a positive phenomenon while some aneuploidy cells contain more invasive function for villi to implant into mother’s endometrium (Gleicher, et al. 2016), because “aneuploidy-independent modulation of the microtubule cytoskeleton enhance directional migration and invasion” (Ogden, et al., 2013). Only the villi tissue develops fast enough in cell number, with abnormal nuclei and abnormal aneuploidy cells, so that villi can finish its hard task: invade into the mother’s endometrium faster to obtain enough nutrition to support the fast growing embryo and fetus, and to prevent ICM and embryonic soma from abnormal functioning due to lacking of nutrition. Gynecological data showed: under malnutrition condition, the loose check points and licensing system will lead to real pathological results: hydatidiform mole or choriocarcinoma, which are the aneuploidy entity. When tested 42 human blastocysts by individual cells, almost all of the blastocysts but one (98%) contained some aneuploidy cells (Daphnis, et al., 2005). It confirmed that embryos containing some aneuploidy cells are physiological phenomenon in blastocyst stage. It is nothing related to fetal mosaicism except very low (0.2%) opportunity. Those aneuploidy cells and syncytial cells in the villi will not result in fetal mosaicism and will be gone with the placenta after the baby is born. Those aneuploidy cells and syncytium cells from trophectoderm biopsy are nothing to do with the ICM karyotyping, because the check points and licensing system in trophectoderm cells and the system in ICM cells are greatly different after differentiation. Encourage using trophectoderm biopsy on day 5 in place biopsy on day 3 to find more aneuploidy cells and claiming them as fetal mosaicism and then discarding them, is a kind of business idea to take advantage of the patients. It is lack of the basic scientific knowledge. Trophectoderm biopsy is in the wrong time to perform biopsy at the wrong location with wrong aim and to give wrong diagnoses and wrong treatment. That is the strong reason for the government to step in and ban the clinical malpractice.

 

3. One paper reported: In 72472 pregnancies, chromosomal mosaicism was 2.1% in chorionic villi samples, while 0.084% in amniotic fluid with total 0.2% aneuploidy. That is: mosaicism in the fetus is lesser than 0.1% (Grati, et al. 2018). Mosaicism in babies is rare are the common sense in all of the Ob/Gyn doctors in the world for 7 decades. It is not safe and not scientific (for prevention of 0.2% aneuploidy or <0.1% mosaicism in the fetus,) that all of the laboratories should biopsy all embryos, freeze them, and discard a lot of embryos before embryo transfer. Should government allow this kind of malpractice? Chinese Health Department has banned this malpractice already according to the common sense. Also in Australia, “the trial was suspended and then terminated early when we were unable to show an advantage for PGS” (Jansen, et al., 2008).

 

4. Basic principle of hereditary diseases is neglected in PGS. Heredity is the basic principle of the hereditary diseases. In chromosomal abnormalities and genetic diseases, patient's history are valuable source for tracing the possibility of the heredity of the offspring. PGT which is performed according to this tracing of patient's history will be very successful, because the imperfect check points and licensing system in these parents and families will be inherited to the embryos with very high possibility. However, PGS is to find out aneuploidy cells and omits the patient's history. More than 99% normal embryos which containing aneuploidy cells will not keep on with aneuploidy cells when they grow to be fetus (see above point 3), because those embryos inherit normal check points and licensing system. Thus the success rate and correct diagnosis rate of PGS is lower than throwing a coin (50%). Now there are 11 babies born from 26 mosaicism embryos. The results showed those mosaicism embryos contained zero (0 / 11) heredity to the babies. The PGS correct predictive efficiency for the babies is also zero (0 / 11). PGS designers cheat patients that the aneuploidy cells would be inherited to the offspring because DNA is hereditary material. They neglected that cytoplasm is also hereditary material. The check points and licensing system in the cytoplasm is controlling DNA replication and cell division. Without cell division, heredity of the aneuploidy cells will stop. These aneuploidy cells in the healthy embryos do not have characteristic of heredity. This is why the repeated same PGS results from day 3, day 5, day 12 to stem cells or to the baby born are very rare. And this is why so many “mosaicism” embryos can produce normal babies. 

 

In reverse, the embryos from the parents with history of hereditary diseases (such as Robertsonian translocation) will contain heredity characteristic. Some embryos inherit the parent’s imperfect check points and licensing system, which can not recognize the DNA mistake of Robertsonian translocation, and allow the abnormal cells keeping on the grow course to produce babies with the said hereditary diseases. Following the principle of heredity (patient's history) to perform PGD, the successful diagnosis rate is very high. In ESHRE PGD Consortium data from 2011 to 2012, 17721 PGD cycles were performed. It resulted in 3755 cycles with positive heartbeat. Only 34 misdiagnosis cases (0.9%) were reported (De Rycke, et al., 2017). It confirmed that PGD is 99% correct predictive efficiency as it is following patients’ family history, while PGS get <1% correct predictive efficiency as it is not following patients’ family history. They are significant different in statistics (chi-squared test p<0.0001). For the 45 year-old patients, PGS correct predictive efficiency may be higher but will not over 5%. According to statistics, if a clinical test can not success to 95% correct diagnosis rate, there will not be any meaning in clinical diagnosis. Thus, PGS is totally lack of any meaning in clinical diagnosis, and it is not qualified as a kind of diagnosis technique according to any international laboratory standard. PGS should be out of the clinical practice.

 

The failure of PGS also showed that genetics is out of its limit to explain: why sometimes some aneuploidy cells will lead to chromosomal abnormalities in babies (<1%) and why most of the aneuploidy cells (99%) found at the blastocyst stage by PGS do not contain heredity. It confirmed that Genetics is not the only theory to explain heredity and the control system of heredity. Evolution history showed: origin of heredity, i.e. origin of life, was not DNA, but a combination of RNA and lipid membrane. Whether the aneuploidy cells containing heredity characteristic or not, is depend on whether the check points and licensing system is normal or not. Whether the check points and licensing system is normal or not, can be simply according to the patient's history. Without patient's history, to screen aneuploidy cells in human embryos by PGS is aimless and is not scientific in diagnosis of hereditary problems. Hereditary diseases are combination results of both defects of DNA and heredity control system. To understand the heredity of cytoplasm and the heredity control systems in cytoplasm in human beings, especially in the embryo physiology, is imperative (please see attached paper “Origin of Life”.

 

When PGS does not contain predictive value in heredity, great scale of PGS contains the following malfunctions:

1. PGS is the biggest cheating event in reproductive field, which lasts about 25 years long, crossing two centuries, crossing many countries, with great scale of clinical malpractice on many patients.

2. PGS ruins and discards plenty of normal human embryos without any scientific reason.

3. PGS produces many unhealthy babies daily.

4. PGS will greatly increase government financial burden to support those unhealthy population such as Section 8 population in U.S.

5. PGS will change the normal human beings into subhuman beings in heredity.

Thus, PGS is a great scale of corruption case in U.S. and in the world.

 

In general IVF, some embryos are really aneuploidy, i.e. all of the cells in the embryos are all aneuploidy. However, most of them will arrest at any embryonic stages. They will not hatch and implant. Even after implantation, miscarriage will happen as natural selection. After the immune system in the fetuses set up, the normal fetal immune system will also stop the aneuploidy cells to inherit further. Only lesser than 1% baby will be born with chromosomal abnormalities. It shows that natural selection is much superior to artificial selection - PGS. PGS misled people to believe that most of the aneuploidy cells (DNA) found in the embryos are containing heredity characteristic.

 

5. Most of aneuploidy cells in early embryos have some normal and positive function in human embryos as a results of long evolution history.

 

A. They maintain the embryo internal environment, from maintaining stable temperature to transfer nutrition, to buffer outside mechanical stress, to keep the embryo spatial configuration and polarity before they go to apoptosis. They are not hyperplasia or malignant. It is foreseeable that when any embryo grows to 64 or 128 cell stage before implantation, some cells of the embryo will turn to be sick or aging (i.e. aneuploidy).  

 

B. Aneuploidy cells in trophectoderm contain more invasive strength than normal cells when puncture into maternal endometrium for implantation.  

 

C. Some aneuploidy cells in inner cell mass will continuously go to the course of apoptosis for organ and tissue differentiation. In the pig, it has been shown that the changed looser checkpoint system of spindle MAD-2 in oocytes leading to increased aneuploidy and apoptosis (Ma, et al., 2005). “The development of a healthy child requires not only very high rates of proliferation and differentiation, but also apoptosis, which is a crucial mechanism for morphogenesis and the development of the inner organs.” Changes in the regulation and rate of apoptosis in more or lesser level have deleterious effects on the trophoblast and consequently the developing embryo and fetus (Huppertz and Herrler, 2005). Without aneuploidy cells, without apoptosis, then without differentiation and without further healthy human babies. “In mammals, cellular proliferation, differentiation, and death accompany early placental development. Programmed cell death is a critical driving force behind organ sculpturing…” (Jurisicova, et al.,2005). In 83 human embryos biopsied on day 3 and analyzed on day 5, only one embryo (1%) consistently showed 100% normal 2N cells. However, that embryo was arrested on 12 cells on day 4 (Barrt, et al., 2004). It confirmed that: without aneuploidy cells, without apoptosis, the embryo could not grow further. The inference is: those rare blastocysts consistently containing 100% normal 2N cells are not heathy and can not survive long, due to lack of differentiation function at the time of differentiation. To call those normal embryos containing some aneuploidy cells at the time of fast differentiation to be abnormal and “mosaicism” is lack of scientific basis, and lack of common sense.

 

6. In 2008 ASRM meeting, Cooper Genomics (the biggest PGS company in the world) showed severe personnel quality problems. They hold a party meeting in the evening of Oct. 7th to talk about the techniques of next generation sequencing (NGS). In 30 minute talk, the speaker said five times that under a lot of condition, their diagnoses were subjective rather than objective. Usually three people gave three different diagnoses results while looking at the same DNA chart. It showed that even using the most advanced techniques could not solve their “aneuploidy” artifact. They joked that they were inventing PGT-AI (Artificial Intelligence) to solve the diagnoses problem. Their key mistakes are: the biopsied cell samples are full of DNA contamination by trophectoderm biopsy. No anyone of their team is responsible, and is with basic and full knowledge to design the PGT test from beginning to the end: such as from biopsy, to single cell amplification, primer selection, quality control set up, and clinical heredity possibility, etc. And their boss agreed about their severe weak points. The speaker showed their PGT-A (PGS) data (which is the largest collective data in the world for the time being, and most of embryo biopsy were performed by blastocyst biopsy): They have performed near to 5000 PGT-A cases with 60% pregnant rate and 50% birth rate. That is: PGT-A produced 10% (60%-50%) miscarriage rate. From year 2011 to 2015 CDC data, lesser than 35 years old group, the miscarriage rate were all about 7% (pregnant rate minus birth rate). This confirmed that PGT-A (PGS) increased rather than decreased the miscarriage rate in great scale clinical practice. It meant that PGT-A increased aneuploidy rate after trophectoderm biopsy, laser radiation, and freezing-thawed procedures. The reason is:

 

Part II: PGT is not safe

 

1. Great scale of PGS without patient's history is a great scale of holocaust of “Eugenics”. If 60% of human embryos were diagnosed as aneuploidy or mosaicism, in which identical repeated results to be (13/53) 24.5% (Munné, et al. 2005), the misdiagnosed and discarded (or killed) embryos will be 60% X (1 - 24.5%) = 45.3%. The Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) data of all age groups in 2016 showed IVF cycles to be 115,610. If average embryos for PGT-A per cycle to be five, and only half of the patients to be performed with PGT-A, total embryos to be discarded was 5 X ½ X 115,610 X 45.3% = 130,928. If 30% of these embryos could be produced to be babies, and year 2017 and 2018 IVF data to be the same as 2016, total number of embryo to baby life to be killed (from 2016 to 2018) would be 130,928 X 30% X 3 = 117,835. It is not safe, not humanity and not ethical. Those several notorious repeated promoters for PGS should take responsibility of this large scale of cruel and shameful holocaust in 21 century. Is it safe? Can any country allow this kind of embryonic killing (“Eugenics”) to be continuing?

 

2. The following factors will lead microtubules and other cellular organelles to be damaged, thus they will produce aneuploidy cells in our embryos at any time:

A. Environment factors: room and culture temperature change, the embryos moving out incubator repeatedly, not suitable culture medium, not enough nutrition, bad air, etc.

B. Foreign and mechanical strength: suction strength, denude strength, biopsy pull and push strength, etc.

C. Physical factor: laser (electromagnetic radiation), freezing ice expansion, freezing and thawing osmolarity change, etc.

D. Chemical factor: cryoprotectant DMSO, HCl acid, etc.

To use aneuploidy-producing techniques to prevent aneuploidy is a joke. It is not scientific.

 

3. Embryo biopsy is traumatic, and is not safe for most manipulators. Embryo biopsy is safe were first time systematically analysed and announced with mice model under specific and strict conditions rather than random condition (Cui, et al., 1993a, 1993b, 1994). The “embryo biopsy is safe” a relative speaking. The papers confirmed that embryo biopsy will not reduce the cell number in the offspring body, organs and tissues. They also confirmed that embryo biopsy will not produce deformed organs or tissues from heart, kidney to bone skeleton, etc. The papers also confirmed that the function of liver, kidney and bone marrow (blood-making function), etc. will not be harmed by embryo biopsy. However, the author also set up the condition of safety for embryo biopsy: First, stage for embryo biopsy: “Embryo biopsy at the 8-cell stage may therefore be the optimal choice for preimplantation diagnoses”, rather than trophectoderm biopsy (Cui, 1993 Page 14-16). Second condition of safety for embryo biopsy was set up according to the results of 13 series biopsy experiments which showed how to improve the skill and technique of biopsy (Cui, et al. 1993c). The condition is: the hatching rate (rather than blastocyst rate) after embryo biopsy should be more than 90% as a simple and reliable guide to evaluate the technical skill of single cell embryo biopsy. Such high hatching rate will result in equivalent rates of implantation and fetal development for both biopsied and non-biopsied control groups. (Cui, et al. 1993c, Cui, 1993, Page 42-55). This condition of safety for embryo biopsy (i.e. 90% hatching rate after day 3 embryo biopsy) is too high demand for most of laboratory staff to succeed in this most difficult micro-manipulation. Most papers published about the results of embryo biopsy did not show to be the same results as the control group in embryo development, implantation rate, fetus rate and normal birth rate. Thus, embryo biopsy is not safe (in most IVF laboratory staff’s hands) is an absolute speaking. Excellent embryo biopsy performance needs strong basis of Embryology theory, very good brain-hand coordination, very patient temper and very responsible characteristic for the health of our offspring with rich practical training. In human embryo biopsy (biopsy using acid, using laser or using mechanical cutting to open the human zona pellucida), the only best and safest technique is day 3 biopsy with mechanical zona cutting (one point to three-dimensional cutting), which has not yet been popularized. The opened zona location by this cutting is like a blooming flower. Smooth bevelled needle will be easily pointed to the selected aim cell for biopsy. If using other unsafe biopsy techniques, some remained embryonic cells will be pushed or pulled to be deformation during embryo biopsy, which will influence microtubules in the cells to be broken or to be dislocated. The results are: the later differentiation of neuron, immune system, and heart, other organs and tissues will be abnormal functioning (See attached paper “Origin of Life”, part of differentiation). The offspring will be not healthy, with inferior function of their organs and tissues, especially with obvious mental problems. They are not normal human beings but subhuman beings. How healthy or how clever the future babies will be depends on the laboratory staff’s techniques, skills and their time and responsibility during manipulations. Thus embryo biopsy should not be performed in great scale as the recent PGS or PGT-A. Embryo biopsy should never be recognized as a safe technique for most staff as popular usage, and the PGT patients should be only limited to families with hereditary diseases.

 

When embryo biopsy is performed by inappropriate workers under loose condition: wrong stage, wrong techniques and bad skills, such as lesser than 90% hatching rate or not care hatching rate, embryo biopsy will really produce unsafe results. How to differentiate safe or unsafe results in human embryo biopsy? They are described as the following:

A. After embryo biopsy, the biopsied embryos will delay several hours to allow the check point and licensing system (see attached paper –“Origin of Life”) to restore their function to be normal. Then cell cleavage will goes on. The delay time for one point to three-dimensional mechanical cutting, acid cutting and laser cutting are each about 2 hours, 3 hours and 4 hours. The laser cutting will delay the longest time. If embryo biopsy harm microtubules, other cytoskeleton and DNA replication, which influence centrosome function, those cells will arrest. No cleavage will happen in those cells. If some of microtubules to be harmed by biopsy, some cells will cleave with abnormal chromosomal condition, aneuploidy cells will be produced.

B. After embryo biopsy, the biopsied embryos will grow to expanded blastocyst. The embryos performed by one point to three-dimensional mechanical cutting will arrive this condition as the non-biopsied ones at the same time, while laser cutting will delay 2-4 hours to arrive this condition. Only under very poor embryo biopsy condition, the blastocyst rate after biopsy will be lower than the control group. The blastocyst rate is not a sensitive indicator to evaluate the biopsy skill and technique (Cui, et al., 1993c).

C. The good biopsied embryos will easily arrive hatching and hatched stage to get 90% hatching rate.

D. The good biopsied embryos will achieve the same implantation rate as the non-biopsied ones.

E. The good biopsied embryos will achieve the same fetus rate as the non-biopsied ones.

F. The good biopsied embryos will achieve the low miscarrage rate as the non-biopsied ones. If the biopsied embryos get too many aneuploidy cells to influence their normal functions, they will be miscarried.

G. If the microtubules and actins of the cells are harmed by embryo biopsy which influence the normal differentiation of the fetal heart muscles, the fetal nervous system and endocrine system, stillbirth will happen (See attached paper – “Origin of Life”).

H. After birth, the unhealthy offspring may show different symptoms and signs, which may be simply called embryo biopsy syndrome. The unhealthy offspring data in mice after blastomere biopsy were concluded by Zacchini et al. as: increased or decreased body weight, impaired memory, impaired locomotor coordination, increased anxiety, altered response to stress, structural abnormalities in the corpora striatum and hippocampus, epigenetic and proteomic defects in brain, impaired function of adrenal glands, and reduced fertility in 40-week-old females (Zacchini, et al., 2017). According to these scared and severely unhealthy data, almost all of PGT centers in U.S.A. stopped blastomere biopsy, and remarkably switched to blastocyst biopsy since 2015 with laser cutting, and freezing all biopsied embryos before next time for embryo transfer. However, all of the papers Zacchini et al. reviewed and quoted (about the offspring results) were all mistakenly using very harmful chemical - cytochalasin B in the biopsy medium in very high concentration, (Yu, et al., 2009; Zhao, et al., 2013; Zeng, et al., 2013; Yu, et al., 2013; Sampino, et al., 2014; Wu, et al., 2014). None of those papers showed the manipulators got high hatching rate after blastomere biopsy, to confirm their techniques to be qualified for embryo biopsy. They also selected the harmful 4-cell stage to manipulate the embryos. Cytochalasin B was known as important microtubule and microfilament-disrupting drugs (Gregoraszczuk and Stoklosowa, 1997; Martin, et al., 1981). When microtubule and microfilament are disrupted, all kinds of abnormalities of organs and tissues will be produced. To use this kind of animal experiments to give a warning, to the field of human reproduction medicine not to perform embryo biopsy randomly as PGS, may be helpful. Nevertheless, the effect of pushing embryo biopsy from 8-cell stage to blastocyst biopsy is misleading. The popularized blastocyst biopsy for PGS for every IVF embryos is much more misleading. It is leading to the direction of subhuman reproduction with plenty of offspring, with mental and other problems, to be produced daily, monthly and yearly.

4. Using laser for human embryo biopsy is not safe and should be banned to be used in human IVF.

 

A. The term “Laser” originated as an acronym for “Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation”. A laser light is a kind of electromagnetic radiation. Perfectly collimated beam cannot be created due to diffraction. Spatial coherence allows a laser beam to stay narrow over great distances in air. The major laser system using in human IVF are:

           a. “Saturn” series made by Research Instruments Ltd (RI), England

           b. “OCTAX” system made by Medical Technolofy, Germany, (MTG)

           c. “LYKOS” system made by Hamilton Thorne, U.S.A.

All of these laser systems use near infrared, 1480nm or 1460 nm wavelength, Class 1 laser. Class 1 is inherently safe, usually because the light is contained in an enclosure, which will not directly radiate to our eyes. The safety classification is according to protection degree of our retina in the eyes and our skin. All of the above laser systems were all designed that the laser direction to be away from our eye location. The laser systems should be safe for our eyes. However, all of the laser systems were designed toward the human embryo direction. It seems that our embryos need not any safety protection. Our human embryos seem to be much tougher than our skin and our retina. Our retina is precious and our embryos are worthless. No. Both of our retina and our human embryos are all vulnerable and fragile when laser radiates. While facing to electromagnetic wave, the microtubules, actin and other cell organelles in our human embryo cells and in our retina cells are the same to be harmed (Moore, et al. 2009; Laband, et al., 2017). The eye nerve cells will be harmed by laser radiation. We can find the harm straight away by vision change. The human embryo cells which will differentiate to nervous system and other organs and tissues will also be harmed by laser radiation. And this kind of harm (such as the harm to microtubules) can not be repaired, which will inherit to future generations forever (please see attached paper “Origin of Life”). The harm of laser radiation on human embryos is not very obvious by our immediate watching under the microscope during assistant hatching or embryo biopsy. The harm is latent, which usually can not be detected within 24 hours (Uppangala, et al. 2016).

 

B. The laser beam is designed to go straightly in some long distance. That is the laser beam in the air condition. Most of us believe the laser for embryo biopsy to be the same as laser beam in the air, except the laser beam produce some thermal effect in the medium. It is quite safe according to this reasoning. Many papers have been published to confirm the safety of laser biopsy. Most papers showed better results of laser biopsy when comparing with acid biopsy. The acid biopsy showed immediately harm results very obviously. Until now, no any paper has been published to compare the safety of laser biopsy with the safety of (one point to three-dimensional) mechanical cutting. That is why people can not promptly find the unsafe effect of laser biopsy. Laser biopsy showed some side-effects which could not be explained only by the thermal effect. With careful investigation, the real problems of laser biopsy came out as the following:

 

The laser beam for embryo biopsy under microscope condition is not designed go straightly in the air only. The laser beam will go to the mirror for reflection first, then passes through the magnifying glass of objective len, heating glass plate on the microscope stage, plastic container, water and embryo zona. All of these objects will produce a lot of laser diffusion which can not be recognized by microscopic observation on the biopsied embryos. We can not see any harm of the embryonic microtubules, or centrosome, or DNA directly. However, the biological results by the laser harm will show short term and long term effects, even long after birth, childhood, adulthood or further generations. The laser diffusion during embryo biopsy is severe. A simple example: everyone will neglect the heating glass on the microscope stage. The heated glass is composed of tin dioxide. The concentration of semiconductor tin dioxide should be high enough to allow electrical current to pass through and produce heat by resistance. Tin dioxide has long been used in ceramic glazes due to its high refractive index. Thus the laser beam during embryo biopsy will be refracted by tin dioxide to any direction, to all of the cells of the biopsied embryos and even reflect to the laboratory micromanipulators’ eyes. More fragmentation observed in the laser assisted hatching embryos was random and did not specifically originate from the blastomere adjacent to the site of laser assisted hatching (Uppangala, et al. 2016). It confirmed that the scattered laser produced harm to the whole embryos rather than the local thermal effect at the local neighbor cells. While laser companies emphasized the thermal effect rings of laser on the biopsied embryos, it misled people’s focus away from the direct radiation, penetration effects, and the diffusing effects of the laser. The severe diffusion of laser beam can also be produced by the uneven mirror reflection and refraction. How even of the glass of the mirror will not produce any refraction is a difficult question for physicists to answer. Also, can anyone rule out the possibility of diffusion of the laser by target alignment and magnification calibration? Thus laser should not be used towards human embryos – the future human beings. Laser is an unseeable microtubule and centrosome cutting scattergun in embryo biopsy.

 

C. In animal, laser did produce very harmful effects. In Drosophila experiment, embryos were radiated by laser, in which the doses did not eliminate nuclei or cells at once. But up to 50% of the adult from those radiated embryos carried defects in the thorax (Lohs-Schardin, et al. 1979). In zebrafish experiment, laser could produce centrosome disruption, which inhibited peripheral neural axon outgrowth. Some neurons had either no peripheral axon or short axons that were significantly delayed compared with neighboring cells. Some of the cells also displayed ectopic protrusions of axon from the cell body. The study presents the first solid proof of positive association between the centrosome and axon formation in vivo, and suggests that the intact centrosome is important for normal differential neurite formation in neurons (Andersen and Halloran, 2012). It also confirmed that the laser radiation will harm neuron differentiation and development. If people wish offspring to be clever with normal differentiation and development of neural system, embryo biopsy with laser should be banned. In mice, it was found that laser increases DNA damage in laser-hatched embryos (Honguntikar, et al. 2015). Cell numbers in completely hatched blastocysts from laser-hatched group were significantly fewer than those in the controls (Chailert, et al. 2013; Honguntikar, et al. 2015). After biopsy with laser and some dye fluid injection, one group of mice pups presented heavier hearts and another group of pups presented lighter kidneys. The results suggest that the combination of laser radiation and dye fluid injection are harmful to the organ differentiation and pup health (Sepulveda-Rincon, et al. 2017)

 

D. In human, embryo biopsy using laser also showed a lot of unsafe facts:

 

Laser biopsy prolongs the biopsied embryos reach subsequent embryonic stages at significantly later time-points and alters the mechanism of hatching (Kirkegaard, K., et al. 2012).

 

“Compared with spontaneously obtained pregnancies, the risk of placenta previa after PGD was only significant in pregnancies obtained after embryo biopsy with laser but not acid” reported in Denmark (Bay, et al. 2016).

 

In Spain, PGS in 1512 women trials did not increase but instead was associated with lower rates of ongoing pregnancies and live births (Checa et al. 2009).

 

In Netherlands between 1995 and 2014, 439 pregnancies in 381 women after PGD/PGS resulted in 364 live born children by 311 deliveries (263 single, 44 twin and 4 triplet deliveries). Miscarriage and perinatal death rate = (439 – 311) / 439 = 29.2%. It was extremely high. It came with 2.5% children with major malformations, 1.4% minor malformations and another 1.1% chromosomal abnormality, and 20%premature born and less than 15% low birth weight (Heijligers, et al., 2018). PGS did not increase but instead significantly reduced the rate of ongoing pregnancies and live births in women of advanced maternal age (Mastenbroek, et al. 2007). There is 2.5% chance of major abnormalities in children born after PGS (Beukers, et al. 2013). More PGS children than controls had received paramedical care (for speech, physical, or occupational therapy) (Seggers, et al. 2013). In 54 PGS children, lower neurologic optimality scores were found by age 2 (Middelburg, et al., 2011). At 4-year-old, the fluency score of PGS twins was significantly lower than that of control twins; the same was true for the neurological  optimality score (Schendelaar, et al. 2013). Regarding socio-emotional development, the teachers’ scores revealed more externalizing (p = 0.011) and total problem (p = 0.019) behavior in PGD children than for IVF/ICSI children (Heijligers, et al. 2018).

 

PGD/PGS cases in U.K. were more likely to be lighter at birth, at <2500 g (24.5%) versus naturally conceived controls (1.5%; p < 0.0001), and born earlier than controls (38.2 ± 2.6 versus 40.0 ± 1.4 weeks; p < 0.0001) (Banerjee, et al., 2008).

 

In 102 2-year old children health outcome in Belgium, two PGD/PGS children had major malformations detected at birth. In PGD/PGS cases, about 2/3 underwent a two blastomere biopsy, the children body weight was lower than the control (p = 0.021) (Desmyttere et al., 2009). In 581 post PGD/PGS children report paper (Belgium), pregnancy rate was very low [484 / (1443+1310)] = 17.6%. And the perinatal death rate was significantly higher than control (ICSI) group (Liebaers, et al. 2010).

 

In Greece, PGD children were with the enhanced frequency of poor cognitive and motor skills. In parenting stress (which comprises 36 items for the assessment of stress in the parent-child system associated with parenting), PGD parents reported lower levels of the children result was almost two-fold greater as compared to naturally conceived children (p < 0.01). In addition, the occurrence of defensive responding significantly differed between the groups evaluated. Furthermore, PGD parents more often reported lower stress levels about their children as compared to the controls (Thomaidis, et al. 2012).

 

In Israel, 11 (40.7%) of the PGD cases in the study demonstrated mix eye-hand dominance, while it is found in just 20% of general population. It was double of the prevalence of the general population. It may already reflect other aspects of the individual’s cognitive functioning. In another study, 12 (44%) of the PGD children had a significantly difference between their Verbal IQ (VIQ) and Performance IQ (PIQ) scores due to obvious low PIQ (compared to 27% in the general population). This finding suggest that subjects have mixed lateralized cerebral hemisphere dysfunction. Also, the PGD children showed significantly lower intensity (p < 0.001) and a significantly higher threshold of response (p = 0.007). They were significantly less moody (negative mood) (p < 0.001) and significantly less active (p < 0.001) (Sacks, et al. 2016). If PGS in U.S. keeping similar percentage of possibility of cognitive problem (40.7%) and low performance IQ (44%) in PGS offspring, how many children will it be? Is this a kind of subhuman reproduction? Will they increase section 8 population in U.S.? How many percentage of immune problems and heart, vascular diseases or other PGT-A syndrome will be found is still a question.

 

In U.S., in order to rule out any bias, donor oocyte – recipient cycles were selected. It was a retrospective cross-sectional study of US national data from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System between 2005 and 2013. “Overall, Pregnancy and live birth rate were significantly lower in preimplantation genetic screening cycles than in control cycles. Adjusted odds of live birth for preimplantation genetic screening cycles were reduced by 35% (odds ratio, 0.65, 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.80; p < .001)” (Barad, et al. 2017).

 

In the above blastomere biopsy, most of them were performed half by acid biopsy and half by laser biopsy. After 2015, almost all of the blastocyst biopsy were performed by laser biopsy. When acid biopsy, the acid will harm the neighbor one to three cells and other remaining cells will be intact. When laser biopsy, the laser radiation will penetrate and harm all of the cells in the embryos due to reflection by all kinds of materials, especially by the subtle glazing tin dioxide. All of the cell organelles, from microtubules, actins to centrosome will be under the radiation. When microtubules, actins and centrosome to be harm, the above neuropathy problem will happen and will even transfer the problems to offspring. When astronauts got radiation in the space, they got similar neuropathy problem as the childrens born after radiation by laser biopsy. That is why laser is not safe and should be banned for embryo biopsy.

 

5.Blastocyst biopsy is not safe.

 

A. Cryopreservation instantly following embryo biopsy is not safe. Any surgeon understands that if two big surgeries to be performed one immediately after another one on the same patient on the same day, most patient can not sustain the strike. This is the same condition for our human embryos, because the embryos also need some time to restore between embryo biopsy and freezing. When embryos are biopsied on day three, the biopsied embryos can be cultured for two days before transfer and freezing. However, when blastocyst biopsy to be performed, the embryos will be biopsied and frozen on day 5. A lot of the biopsied embryos can not get enough time to recover. Low pregnancy rate (26%) was reported after biopsy-freezing cycles. While fresh transfer without freezing, it produced 41% pregnancy rate (McArthur, et al. 2005). The reason is:

 

B. Cryopreservation is not safe.

In mice experiment, the fluorescence intensity of both vitrified and slowfrozen embryos was significantly lower for tubulin, actin, and nucleus as compared to non-cryopreserved embryos (p<0.001) (Dasiman, et al. 2013). Vitrification “had a higher incidence of damaged blastomeres compared with fresh embryos.” And “multivariable analysis revealed that the proportion of abnormal spindles was significantly higher in vitrified/warmed embryos (p<0.05) (Oilonomou, et al 2016). “The level of abnormally shaped spindles, often associated with chromosome lagging, or congression failure, was significantly higher in the vitrified group compared with the fresh group (p<0.05)” (Chatzimeletiou, et al. 2012). It confirmed that cryopreservation increase aneuploidy cells in the embryos. “Significantly (p<0.05) higher proportion of chaotic embryos in study (24.1%) compared to control group (6.3%) was observed.” “Embryos analysed immediately after thawing indicates a potential negative impact of cryopreservation on the formation of chromosomal abnormalities in preimplantation embryos” (Salumets, et al. 2004). Obviously, in human, the implantation rate in the biopsied vitrified-warmed transfer group (14.4%) was significantly lower than biopsy-fresh transfer group (24.4%, p<0.05) (Van Landuyt, et al. 2011). Similar experiments were concluded that “current cryopreservation procedures are less successful when biopsied human embryos are cryopreserved” (Joris, et al. 1999).

 

C. Blastocyst biopsy will break many nuclei and chromosomes under invisible condition. Although washing the biopsied cells several times is recommended, this kind of washing can not wash out the severe DNA contamination. The washing is naïve when PCR techniques are performed. That is the reason why several staffs in Reprogenetics (recent Cooper Genomics) usually get several different diagnosis results. The basic theory is that contamination will make any of the PGT techniques to lose diagnosis meaning. Without a correct embryo biopsy technique, without a correct PGT diagnosis result.

 

D. Blastocyst biopsy contains all of the unsafe results which are described in the above Point 4.

 

Conclusion:

PGT-A (PGS) is a great scale of premature practice of hypothesis - not following the principle of heredity (i.e. not following the patient history), to screen aneuploidy cell(s) at the embryonic differentiation stage to diagnose hereditary diseases (chromosomal abnormalities). It is conceived that those aneuploidy cells (DNA) definitely contain heredity characteristics to produce abnormal babies, and that those aneuploidy cells will harm implantation rather than helping implantation. It is also conceived that only embryos containing all diploid cells (normal DNA) in 100 percent would produce normal babies. PGT-A is a kind of "Eugenics" which is lack of the scientific bases in embryo differentiation and evolution. It is based on the wrong theory, that is: DNA is the only heredity materials in human beings, and neglect the heredity control (security) system in the cytoplasm, called check points and licensing system. The failure of PGS confirmed that cytoplasm is also hereditary material and is closely related to differentiation (please also see attached paper “Origin of Life”). PGS breaks down the normal internal and external environment of human embryos. When working with laser radiation, blastocyst biopsy, and freezing together, the results of PGT-A (PGS) are severe and not safe: it will lead to subhuman reproduction, in which the offspring are accompanied with obvious neuropathy problems (such as lower stress response, lower intensity, less active, negative mood, and low performance IQ, etc.) and cognitive problems. PGT-A (PGS) and laser biopsy should be banned in clinical practice.

 

 

References:

 

Andersen, E. F. and Halloran, M. C. Centrosome movements in vivo correlate with specific neurite formation downstream of LIM homeodomain transcription factor activity. Develop 2012, 139: 3590-3599.

Baart, E. B., Van Opstal, D., Los, F. J., et al. Fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis of two blastomeres from day 3 frozen-thawed embryos followed by analysis of the remaining embryo on day 5. Hum Reprod 2004, 19: 685-693.

Baart, E. B., Martini, E., van den Berg, I.,et al. Preimplantation genetic screening reveals a high incidence of aneuploidy and mosaicism in embryos from young women undergoing IVF. Hum Reprod 2006, 21: 223-233.

Banerjee, I., Shevlin, M., Taranissi, M., et al. Health of children conceived after preimplantation genetic diagnosis: a preliminary outcome study. RBM Online 2008, 16: 376-381.

Barad, D. H., Darmon, S. K., Kushnir, V. A., et al. Impact of preimplantation genetic screening on donor oocyte-recipient cycles in the United States. Am J Ob Gyn 2017, Nov. 576 e1-e8.

Bay, B., Ingerslev, H. J., Lemmen, J. G., et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: a national multicenter obstetric and Neonatal follow-up study. Fert Steril 2016, 106: 1363-1369.

Biancotti, J. C. and Benvenisty, N. Aneuploid human embryonic stem cells: origins and potential for modeling chromosomal disorders. Regen Med 2011, 6: 493-503.

Beukers, F., van der Heide, M., Middelburg, K. J., et al. Morphologic abnormalities in 2-year-old children born after in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection with preimplantation genetic screening: follow-up of randomized controlled trial. Fert Steril 2013, 99: 408-413.

Chailert, C., Sanmee, U., Piromlertamorn, W., et al. Effects of partial or complete laser-assisted hatching on the hatching of mouse blastocysts and their cell numbers. Reprod Biol Endocrin 2013, 11:21.

Chatzimeletiou, K., Morrison, E. E., Panagiotidis, Y., et al. Cytoskeletal analysis of human blastocysts by confocal laser scanning microscopy following vitrification. Hum Reprod 2012, 27: 106-113.

Checa, M. A., Alonso-Coello, P., Sola, I., et al. IVF/ICSI with or without preimplantation genetic screening for aneuploidy in couples without genetic disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet 2009, 26: 273-283.

Cui, Ke-Hui Preimplantation Diagnosis, 1993 Thesis, http://hdl.handle.net/2440/2125

Cui, K. H., Dudkiewicz, A. B., Wang, L. J., et al. Basic methods and science in sex determination of preimplantation diagnosis”. 11/10/1997 draft.

Cui K-H, Putland RA, Seamark RF and Matthews CD. Precise sex selected births of mice following single cell embryo biopsy and Y-linked testis specific gene analysis. Hum Reprod. 1993a, 8: 621-6.

Cui K-H, Pannall P, Cates G, Matthews CD. Blood analysis of mice born following single cell embryo biopsy. Hum Reprod. 1993b, 8: 1906-1909.

Cui K-H, Verma PJ and Matthews CD. Hatching rate: an optimal discriminator for the assessment of single blastomere biopsy. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1993c, 10: 157-62.

Cui K-H, Barua R, Matthews CD. Histopathological analysis of mice born following single cell embryo biopsy. Human Reprod 1994, 9: 1146-1152.

Daphnis, D. D., Delhanty, J. D. A., Jerkovic, S., et al. Detailed FSH analysis of day 5 human embryos reveals the mechanisms leading to mosaic aneuploidy. Human Reprod 2005, 20: 129-137.

Dasiman, R., Rahman, N. A., Othman, S., et al. Cytoskeletal alterations in different developmental stages of in vivo cryopreserved preimplantation murine embryos. Med Sci Monit Basic Res 2013, 19: 258-266.

De Rycke, M., Goossens, V., Kokkali, G., et al. ESHRE PGD Consortium data collection XIV-XV: cycles from January 2011 to December 2012 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2013. Hum Reprod 2017, 32: 1974-1994.

Desmyttere, S., Bonduelle, M., Nekkebroeck, J., et al. Growth and health outcome of 102 2-year-old children conceived after preimplantation genetic diagnosis or screening. Early Hum Devel 2009, 85: 755-759.

Grati, F. R., Gallazzi, G., Branca, L., et al. An evidence-based scoring system for prioritizing mosaic aneuploid embryos following preimplantation genetic screening. Reprod Biomed Online. 2018, 36: 442-449.

Greco, E., Minasi, M.G., Florentino, F. Healthy babies after intrauterine transfer of mosaic aneuploid blastocysts. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015, 373: 2089–2090.

Gleicher, N., Vidali, A., Braverman, J, et al. Accuracy of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) is compromised by degree of mosaicism of human embryos. Reprod Biol Endo 2016, 14: 54.

Gleicher N, Kushnir VA, Barad DH. How PGS/PGT-A laboratories succeeded in losing all credibility. Reprod Biomed Online. 2018 Aug;37(2):242-245. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.06.019.

Gregoraszczuk, E. L. and Stoklosowa, S. The effect of microtubule and microfilament-disrupting drugs on prolactin-stimulated progesterone synthesis and secretion by cultured porcine theca cells. Acta Histochem 1997, 99: 207-215.

Haig, D. Transposable elements: Self-seekers of the germline, team-players of the soma. Bioessays. 2016,38: 1158-1166.

Heijligers, M., Montfoort, A., Meijer-Hoogeveen, M., et al. Perinatal follow-up of children born after preimplantation genetic diagnosis between 1995 and 2014. J Assist Reprod Genet 2018, 35: 1995-2002.

Heijligers, M., Verheijden, L. M. M., Jonkman, L. M., et al. The cognitive and socio-emotional development of 5-year-old children born after PGD. Hum Reprod 2018, 33: 2150-2157.

Hong, Y. L. and Stambrook, P. J. Restoration of an absent G1 arrest and protection from apoptosis in embryonic stem cells after ionizing radiation. PNAS 2004, 101: 14443-14448.

Honguntikar, S. D., Uppangala, S., Salian, S. R., et al. Laser-assisted hatching of cleavage-stage embryos impairs developmental potential and increases DNA damage in blastocysts. Lasers Med Sci 2015, 30: 95-101.

Huppertz, B. and Herrler, A. Regulation of proliferation and apoptosis during development of the preimplantation embryo and the placenta. Birth Defects Research 2005, 75: 249-261.

Jansen, R. P. S., Bowman, M. C., de Boer, K. A., et al. What next for preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)? Experience with blastocyst biopsy and testing for aneuploidy. Hum Reprod 2008, 23: 1476-1478.

Joris, H., Van den Abbeel, E., De Vos, A., et al. Reduced survival after human embryo biopsy and subsequent cryopreservation. Hum Reprod 1999, 14: 2833-2837.

Jurisicova, A., Detmar, J. and Caniggia, I. Molecular mechanisms of trophoblast survival: from implantation to birth. Birth Defects Research 2005, 75: 262-280.

Kirkegaard, K., Hindkjaer, J. J. and Ingerslev, H. J. Human embryonic development after blastomere removal: a time-lapse analysis. Hum Reprod 2012, 27: 97-105.

Laband, K., Borgne, R. L., Edwards, F., et al. Chromosome segregation occurs by microtubule pushing in oocytes. Nature Commun 2017, 1499. DOI:10.1038/s41467-017-01539-8

Van Landuyt, L., Verpoest, W., Verheyen, G., et al. Closed blastocyst vitrification of biopsied embryos: evaluation of 100 consecutive warming cycles. Hum Reprod 2011, 26: 316-322.

Liebaers, I., Desmyttere, S., Verpoest, W., et al. Report on a consecutive series of 581 children born after blastomere biopsy for preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Hum Reprod 2010, 25: 275-282.

Lin, H. C., Wu, J. T., Tan, B. C. M., et al. Cul4 and DDB1 regulate Orc2 localization, BrdU incorporation and Dup stability during gene amplification in Drosophila follicle cells. J Cell Sci 2009, 122: 2393-2401.

Lohs-Schardin, M., Sander, K., Cremer, C., et al. Localized ultraviolet laser microbeam irradiation of early Drosophila embryos: fate maps based on location and frequency of adult defects. Devel Biol 1979, 68: 533-545.

Ma, W., Zhang, D., Hou, Y., et al. Reduced expression of MAD2, BCL2, and MAP kinase activity in pig oocytes after in vitro aging are associated with defects in sister chromatid segregation during meiosis II and embryo fragmentation after activation. Biol Reprod 2005, 72: 373-383.

Martin, F., Olsson, N. O. and Jeannin, J. F. Effects of Four Agents that Modify Microtubules and Microfilaments (Vinblastine, Colchicine, Lidocaine, and Cytochalasin B) on Macrophage-mediated Cytotoxicity to Tumor Cells. Cancer Immunol Immunother 1981, 10: 113-119.

Mastenbroek, S., Twisk, M., Echten-Arends, J., et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N Engl J Med 2007, 357: 9-17.

McArthur, S. J., Leigh, D., Marshall, J. T., et al. Pregnancies and live births after trophectoderm biopsy and preimplantation genetic testing of human blastocysts. Fert Steril 2005, 84: 1628-1636.

Middelburg, K. J., et al. Mental, psychomotor, neurologic, and behavioral outcomes of 2-year-old children born after preimplantation genetic screening: follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2011, 96: 165-169.

Moore, J. K., Magidson, V., Khodjakov, A., et al. The spindle position checkpoint requires positional feedback from cytoplasmic microtubules. Curr Biol 2009, 19: 2026-2030.

Munné, S., Lee, A., Rosenwaks, Z., Grifo, J., Cohen, J. Diagnosis of major chromosome aneuploidies in human preimplantation embryos. Human reprod 1993, 8: 2185-2191.

Munné, S., Velilla, E., Colls, P., et al. Self-correction of chromosomally abnormal embryos in culture and implications for stem cell production. Fert Steril 2005, 84: 1328-1334.

Munné, Santiago. Origins of mosaicism and criteria for the transfer of mosaic embryos. Reprod Biomed Online. 2018 Aug;36: 369-370.

Ogden, A., Rida, P. C. G., and Aneja, R. Heading off with the herd: How cancer cells might maneuver supernumerary centrosomes for directional migration. Cancer Metastasis Rev, 2013, 32: 269-287.

Oikonomou, Z., Chatzimeletiou, K., Sioga, A., et al. Effects of vitrification on blastomere viability and cytoskeletal integrity in mouse embryos. Zygote 2016, 25: 75-84.

Sacks, G. C., Altarescu, G., Guedalia, J., et al. Developmental neuropsychological assessment of 4- 5-year-old children born following preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD): a pilot study. Child Neuropsychol 2016, 22: 458-471

Salumets, A., Horelli-Kuitunen, N. Suikkari, A., et al. Elevated incidence of chromosomally chaotic embryos among frozen-thawed preimplantation embryos. Euro J Ob Gyn Reprod Biol 2004, 114: 59-63.

Sampino,S., Zacchini, F., Swiergiel, A. H. et al. Effects of blastomere biopsy on post-natal growth and behavior in mice. Human Reproduction 2014, 29: 1875–1883.

Schendelaar, P., Middelburg, K. J., Bos, A. F., et al. The effect of preimplantation genetic screening on neurological, cognitive and behavioural development in 4-year-old children: follow up of a RCT. Hum Reprod 2013, 28: 1508-1518.

Seggers, J., Haadsma, M. L., Bastide-van Gemert, S. l., et al. Blood pressure and anthropometrics of 4-y-old children born after preimplantation genetic screening: follow-up of a unique, moderately sized, randomized controlled trial. Pediat Res 2013, 74: 606-614.

Sepulveda-Rincon, L. P., Islam, N., Marsters, P., et al. Embryo cell allocation patterns are not altered by biopsy but can be linked with further development. Reprod 2017, 154: 807-814.

Thomaidis, L., Kitsiou-Tzeli, S., Critselis, E., et al. Psychomotor development of children born after preimplantation genetic diagnosis and parental stress evaluation. World J Pediatr 2012, 8: 309-316.

Uppangala, S., D’Souza, F., Pudakalakatti, S., et al. Laser assisted zona hatching does not lead to immediate impairment in human embryo quality and metabolism. Sys Biol Reprod Med 2016, 62: 396-403.

Wu, Y., Lu, Z., Yang, Y., et al. Blastomere biopsy influences epigenetic reprogramming during early embryo development, which impacts neural development and function in resulting mice. Cell Mol Life Sci 2014, 71: 1761–1774.

Yu,Y., Wu, J., Fan, Y. et al. Evaluation of blastomere biopsy using a mouse model indicates the potential high risk of neurodegenerative disorders in the offspring. Mol Cell Proteom 2009, 8: 1490–1500.

Yu, Y., Zhao, Y., Li, R. et al. Assessment of the risk of blastomere biopsy during preimplantation genetic diagnosis in a mouse model: reducing female ovary function with an increase in age by proteomics method. J Proteom Res 2013, 12: 5475–5486.

Zacchini, F., Arena, R., Abramik, A., et al. Embryo biopsy and development: the known and the unknown. Reprod 2017, 154: R143-148

Zeng, Y., Lv, Z., Gu, L. et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) influences adrenal development and response to cold stress in resulting mice. Cell Tissue Res 2013, 354: 729–741.

Zhao, H. C., Zhao, Y., Li, M. et al. Aberrant epigenetic modification in murine brain tissues of offspring from preimplantation genetic diagnosis blastomere biopsies. Biol Reprod 2013, 89: 1-10.

bottom of page