Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
, 38 (5)

Effect of Assisted Reproductive Technology on the Molecular Karyotype of Missed Abortion Tissues

Affiliations

Effect of Assisted Reproductive Technology on the Molecular Karyotype of Missed Abortion Tissues

Gang Li et al. Biosci Rep.

Abstract

Missed abortion is one of the common complications of assisted reproductive technology (ART). Genetic abnormality is the most important factor. However, the effect of ART on the molecular karyotype of products of conception (POC) remains unknown. We explored the effect of ART on the molecular karyotype of POC in miscarriage. POC were obtained from women undergoing ART. Single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) microarray was used to analyze the molecular karyotype. A total of 1493 POC were collected for SNP array analysis. The total rate of karyotypic abnormalities was 63.1% (943/1493). The proportion of karyotypic abnormalities was 70.4% (193/416) in >35-year-old group, which was significantly higher than that (60.6%) (343/566) in <30-year-old group and that (60%) (307/511) in the 30-35-year-old group. In natural conception (NC) group, the proportion of karyotypic abnormalities was 64.6% (201/311), whereas in ART group it was 62.7% (742/1182) and, there was no significant difference. The ratio between male and female fetuses was 1:1.13 (698/795). The rate of karyotypic abnormalities in male was 62.9% (439/698) and that in female was 63.4% (504/795), and these values did not differ significantly (P=0.84). Molecular karyotypic abnormality is the most important reason in miscarriage, and female age is a significant factor influencing the karyotypic abnormalities. Comparison with NC, ART, and gender of aborted embryos may not increase the rate of molecular karyotypic abnormality in miscarriage.

Keywords: Single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP); assisted reproductive technology (ART); missed abortion; molecular karyotype.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that there are no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Effect of ART on the molecular karyotype of POC
There is no significant difference in the rate of karyotypic abnormalities between the NC and ART groups (A). As for abnormal molecular karyotype in different modes of fertilization, there was no statistically significant difference amongst the NC + AI, IVF, and ICSI groups (B). The ratio between aborted male and female embryos was approximately 1:1.13. The rate of karyotypic abnormalities in male and female embryos was 62.9 and 63.4%, respectively. The difference between these two values was not statistically significant (C). P was calculated by Chi-square test analysis; *P>0.05.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Molecular karyotype of POC using SNP microarrays
(A) Displays the trisomy chromosome 16 diagnostic reading obtained from miscarriage, AAA, AAB, ABB, and BBB alleles, and a significant shift in the smooth log R ratio is observed, consistent with the trisomy karyotype. (B) Shows the monosomy chromosome 21 diagnostic reading obtained from POC, AA, and BB alleles observed without AB and a significant shift in the smooth log R ratio is observed, consistent with the monosomy karyotype. (C) Demonstrates the duplication of q25.32→q29 reading of chromosome 3. AAA, AAB, ABB, and BBB alleles are observed from q25.32 to q29. A significant shift in the smooth log R ratio is observed from q25.32 to q29 of chromosome 3. (D) Presents the deletion of p26.1→pter reading of chromosome 1. AA, AB, and BB alleles are observed from p26.1 to qter of chromosome 1, however, AA and BB alleles are observed without AB from p26.1 to pter of chromosome 1 represented. A significant shift in the smooth log R ratio is observed from p26.1 to pter of chromosome 1.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Miller D.T., Adam M.P., Aradhya S., Biesecker L.G., Brothman A.R., Carter N.P. et al. (2010) Consensus statement: chromosomal microarray is a first-tier clinical diagnostic test for individuals with developmental disabilities or congenital anomalies. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 86, 749–764 10.1016/j.ajhg.2010.04.006 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Nybo Andersen A.M., Wohlfahrt J., Christens P., Olsen J. and Melbye M. (2000) Maternal age and fetal loss: population based register linkage study. BMJ 320, 1708–1712 10.1136/bmj.320.7251.1708 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Schieve L.A., Tatham L., Peterson H.B., Toner J. and Jeng G. (2003) Spontaneous abortion among pregnancies conceived using assisted reproductive technology in the United States. Obstet. Gynecol. 101, 959–967 - PubMed
    1. Saunders D.M. and Lancaster P. (1989) The wider perinatal significance of the Australian in vitro fertilization data collection program. Am. J. Perinatol. 6, 252–257 10.1055/s-2007-999587 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sunkara S.K., Khalaf Y., Maheshwari A., Seed P. and Coomarasamy A. (2014) Association between response to ovarian stimulation and miscarriage following IVF: an analysis of 124 351 IVF pregnancies. Hum. Reprod. 29, 1218–1224 10.1093/humrep/deu053 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Feedback