<i>In vitro</i> fertilization as an option for couples with genetic disorders

F. Yudha Christianti; Legiran Legiran

doi:10.5653/cerm.2023.06667

Clin Exp Reprod Med > Epub ahead of print

Christianti and Legiran: In vitro fertilization as an option for couples with genetic disorders

Review Article

Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine 2024;cerm.2023.06667.

Published online: June 10, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5653/cerm.2023.06667

In vitro fertilization as an option for couples with genetic disorders

F. Yudha Christianti¹

, Legiran Legiran²

¹Biomedical Study Program, Faculty of Medicine, Sriwijaya University, Palembang, Indonesia

²Biomedical Division, Faculty of Medicine, Sriwijaya University, Palembang, Indonesia

Corresponding author: Legiran Legiran Biomedical Division, Faculty of Medicine, Sriwijaya University, Jl. Dr. Mohd. Ali Komp, RSMH Palembang 30126, Indonesia
Tel: +62-812-7811-705 E-mail: dr.legiran@fk.unsri.ac.id

Received November 7, 2023 Revised March 20, 2024 Accepted March 28, 2024

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Errors in human DNA may cause genetic disorders. Technological developments have raised hopes for reducing the risks of genetic inheritance among married couples who have a history of such disorders. Among the developments in reproductive health technology that reduce those risks is the in vitro fertilization (IVF) process. This review aimed to describe the current strategies using IVF and preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), which would be effective for couples with genetic disorders to have healthy offspring. The literature review included full-text, open-access research articles from ScienceDirect, PubMed, and Google Scholar that were published between 2013 and 2023, with 65 articles obtained from various journals. The keywords were “in vitro fertilization,” “reproductive genetic disorders,” “PGT-A,” “PGT-M,” “PGT-SR,” and “oocyte donor.” A total of 46 articles were selected as the most relevant to the review topic, and the results show that the IVF process can be an option for couples with a history of genetic disorders. Several additional procedures can be performed following IVF, such as oocyte donation and PGT, to help couples who want to have offspring without transmitting their genetic disorders. IVF can be an option for couples who have or carry genetic disorders. With IVF, couples can undertake several procedures such as oocyte donation and PGT for aneuploidy, monogenic disorders, or structural rearrangement.

Keywords: Genetic diseases, inborn; In vitro fertilization; Oocyte donors; Preimplantation genetic testing

Introduction

An error in human DNA, such as a single base mutation, single or multiple gene defects, or a change in the number of chromosomes, may cause a medical condition known as a genetic disorder. Such disorders may affect development in various ways. The three main categories are single-gene, chromosomal, and complex disorders [1].

When a genetic disorder is diagnosed in a family, it is likely that the family members and their children would want to know about the condition’s heritability. Because many factors may influence the chances of inheriting the disorder, it may be difficult to predict. After receiving genetic counseling, the couple will likely want to try again to conceive, despite their advanced age. Infertility management requires comprehensive and thorough approaches [2]. In a family with a history of genetic disorders, it is crucial to be aware of the disorders and the possible risks associated with childbirth. Along with technological developments, access to healthcare services has increased for families with a history of genetic disorders, especially regarding efforts to reduce the risk of transmitting genetic disorders to their children and to give them a better quality of life.

In the field of reproductive health, in vitro fertilization (IVF) is a technique that can help couples to have children. It involves joining mature oocytes and spermatozoa outside the human body [3,4]. Initially, IVF was applied to help infertile couples to produce offspring. As public knowledge of reproductive technology develops, members of the public desire to have healthy children. The role of IVF has been extended to help couples with a history of genetic disorders have healthy children through optional measures. The current paper aimed to delineate the contemporary IVF options for couples, especially those with a history of genetic disorders, to have healthy children.

Methods

For this literature review, we searched for articles containing the topic of IVF options for people with reproductive genetic disorders. The inclusion criteria used were full-text, open-access research articles from ScienceDirect, PubMed, and Google Scholar which were published between 2013 and 2023. We chose 46 articles that passed the inclusion criteria through the following stages: database search (n=250) with the keywords “in vitro fertilization,” “reproductive genetic disorders,” “PGT-A,” “PGT-M,” “PGT-SR,” and “oocyte donor”; screening of articles by title (n=65); and screening of articles by abstract and type of study (n=46).

Results and discussion

IVF is an assisted reproductive technology that is typically used for couples with histories of primary and secondary infertility. For couples with various causative factors or a family history of genetic disorders, IVF may offer help because each step of the process of conception is controlled. Patients with genetic disorders may be able to benefit from IVF through oocyte donation and preimplantation genetic testing (PGT).

The IVF process begins with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) and progresses through egg retrieval, fusion of egg cells with the sperm, embryo development, and embryo transfer. COH is accomplished through administering a combination of gonadotropin and gonadotropin antagonist, along with human chorionic gonadotropin. Following a series of ovarian stimulation procedures, the next steps are egg retrieval, sperm preparation, fertilization by intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), and monitoring of embryonic development. Embryonic development is monitored during IVF until the embryos cleave on the third or fifth day [5].

Oocyte donation

In 1983, oocyte donation was first performed in Austria. Since then, it has become part of assisted reproductive technology. Oocyte donation may be offered to women with a genetic abnormality to prevent their children from inheriting the associated disorder, such as Huntington’s disease or thalassemia [6-8]. Donor oocytes are paired with sperm from the patient's partner [9].

The indications for using donor oocytes include hypergonadotropic hypogonadism, advanced age, a history of diminished ovarian reserves, and genetic disorders. The stringent selection criteria for oocyte donors include age, medical and genetic history, good mental health, and having received genetic counseling [10].

The oocyte donor is given drugs to suppress natural hormone production. Hormone injections are administered for COH, and the results are evaluated through a transvaginal ultrasound examination. The next step is the selection of oocyte cells, which can then be frozen or directly fertilized with sperm [6]. After the fertilization process, the developing embryo is transferred into the recipient’s endometrium.

Although oocyte donation can be an option for helping patients who want to have children without transmitting their genetic disorders, the procedure raises ethical issues because of the link between oocyte donors and commercialization, and the possibility of the exploitation of women [11]. Several countries, such as Indonesia, do not allow couples to use oocyte donation [12]. Other countries, such as Costa Rica and Italy, prohibit reproduction through gamete donation [13].

Preimplantation genetic testing

PGT is a procedure to analyze embryos genetically for couples who have a high risk of passing genetic disorders to their children. It requires IVF so that the procedures may occur in sequence. Fertilization through ICSI is preferred for PGT so that the risk of contamination is limited from residual cumulus cells or sperm cell remnants in the zona pellucida [14].

Common indicators for using PGT currently include myotonic dystrophy type 1, hemoglobinopathies such as thalassemia and sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, late-onset neurodegenerative disorders such as Huntington’s disease, hereditary cancer syndromes such as breast and ovarian cancer (BRCA1 and BRCA2), and structural chromosomal anomalies [15,16]. Recurrent miscarriage, implantation failure, male factor infertility, advanced maternal and paternal ages, and parental genetic abnormalities such as sex chromosome mosaicism are also indications for PGT [17,18].

The three types of PGT currently in use are PGT for detecting aneuploidy (PGT-A), PGT for monogenic disorders (PGT-M), and PGT for structural rearrangements (PGT-SR). PGT-M and PGT-SR are also known as preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) methods [19]. These types of PGT differ in practice, beginning with initial referral through the IVF program and continuing with follow-up on pregnancy, birth, and children, as described by the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) PGT consortium (Figure 1) [20].

PGT for detecting aneuploidy

PGT-A is a genetic test used before implantation to identify aneuploid embryos. Humans have 46 chromosomes, but in aneuploidy conditions, the cells have an incorrect number of chromosomes, such as 45 or 47 [21]. The goals of PGT-A during the IVF process are to improve the conditions for pregnancy, reduce the risk of chromosomal abnormal pregnancies, and reduce the risk of miscarriage. PGT-A is also used increasingly to reduce the risk of inheriting certain diseases [17,22]. For infertility, to improve the odds of pregnancy or reduce the odds of miscarriage, PGT-A is used to select euploid embryos in cases of recurrent implantation failure or advanced maternal age. Many couples choose PGT-A because they want to avoid an abortion if a fetus would show chromosomal abnormalities and disabilities as it develops into a child [23].

PGT-A consists of three main stages—namely, embryo biopsy, chromosomal screening, and embryo transfer, and is generally preceded by the IVF process. The patient undergoes a series of ovarian stimulation, egg collection, sperm preparation, and ICSI. The embryo biopsy process can be performed on oocytes’ polar bodies, embryos in the 6–8 cell cleavage stage, or embryos in the blastocyst phase (Figure 2) [24]. In a polar body biopsy, the first polar body is biopsied on day 0, and the second polar body is biopsied on the first day after visible fertilization. Subsequent biopsies can be performed at the 6–8 cell embryonic cleavage stage, from which 1 to 2 cells are taken after the zona has been thinned with acid Tyrode’s solution or a laser. As for blastocyst biopsy, the zona can be perforated on day 3 or day 5, which allows some trophectoderm to emerge through the hole on day 5, after which about five trophectoderm cells are taken or cut [25]. The most commonly used technique is blastocyst biopsy because the blastocyst contains numerous cells yet is still embryonic, making it more amenable to genetic evaluation and less susceptible to damage [20].

Chromosomal screening uses comprehensive screening technology to analyze chromosomes [24]. One common technique, next-generation sequencing (NGS), determines the number of chromosomes in each embryo biopsy, distinguishes between normal (euploid) embryos and aneuploid embryos, and enables detection of chromosomal mosaicism at 20%–80% accuracy [26,27]. Mosaic embryos contain both euploid and aneuploid cells, as determined by preimplantation genetic analysis.

The chromosomes are examined to make sure they are not aneuploidy before the embryo transfer procedure is attempted. In addition, euploid embryos can be frozen if they are to be reserved for future use. For mosaic embryos, this requires good management. PGT-A faces a critical challenge in managing mosaicism. Embryonic mosaicism originates from post-zygotic chromosome segregation errors caused by mitotic non-disjunction, anaphase lag, chromosome deletion, or duplication [28]. If there are no euploid embryos and only mosaic embryos are available, then it is more advisable to transfer or freeze single embryos, prioritized by the level and type of their mosaic traits [29,30]. According to a study that evaluated 1,000 mosaic embryos, the prioritization scheme applies to all embryos regarding their morphology and mosaic attributes [31].

PGT-A has the advantage of increasing the chances of implantation and pregnancy while decreasing the risk of miscarriage. PGT-A in IVF transfers the healthiest embryos to improve clinical pregnancy and birth outcomes [24]. According to a study by He et al. [32], the “clinical pregnancy and birth rates in the PGT-A group were higher than in the IVF-conventional group.” That is, the PGT-A group of patients aged ≥40 years had a significantly higher pregnancy success rate than those in the non-PGT-A group (Figure 3) [33].

Although PGT-A has various advantages, it also has several weaknesses. The presence of arrested cells and debris in the zona pellucida of blastocysts suggests a self-correction mechanism during early embryonic development [34]. The observed self-correcting ability of human embryos poses a challenge to many invasive and non-invasive PGT-A procedures at the blastocyst stage, resulting in the identification of cell-free DNA from human embryos. This results in a high rate of false positives [35]. Biopsy procedures from the cleavage stage to the blastocyst phase, along with vitrification techniques, have improved PGT-A’s reproductive outcomes. However, the biopsy process may damage an embryo [36].

Among PGT-A’s deficiencies is the risk of misdiagnosis by indicating genetic results different from the correct genetic code of the sample under analysis. Possible risks include human errors such as incorrect labeling or contamination, errors in choosing methods, and errors in the use of diagnostic techniques [18]. In addition, PGT-A requires a higher cost than conventional IVF. The average cost for patients undergoing PGT-A is 9.23% higher [32]. Several patient groups still reject the PGT-A. Many couples refuse to consider PGT-A due to their religious values [17].

PGT for monogenic disorders

PGT-M is used in cases of single-gene disorders caused by mutations in specific regions of a single gene. When such disorders are heritable, they are likely to affect the children of an individual with the disorder. Cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, muscular dystrophy, fragile-X syndrome, and spinal muscular atrophy type 3 are examples of monogenic disorders [37].

PGT-M is known as PGD for a single gene. PGD, which involves extracting cells from an embryo suspected of having a genetic disorder, was first performed on human embryos more than 26 years ago [38]. PGT-M is performed to diagnose specific disorders in embryos with specific risks of heritability [39]. This process involves assisted reproductive technology through IVF. In the ESHRE PGD Consortium and large United States centers, PGT-M cases for non-disclosure account for 5%–10% of all single-gene disorders [38].

The PGT-M stage involves the process of IVF starting from gamete preparation and fertilization until the embryo stage is reached. After an embryo is obtained, among the techniques used for PGT-M are linkage analysis, sequencing, karyomapping, and NGS. PGT-M may also involve PGT-A because of its procedures regarding cell biopsy and chromosomal analysis. The characteristics, applications, and limitations of each method are presented in Table 1 [37].

PGT-M can detect >99% of inherited single-gene disorders. PGT-M can also identify both affected and unaffected embryos with >98% accuracy [40]. The combination of PGT-A and PGT-M may be used to diagnose and screen embryos at the same time. When both partners are asymptomatic carriers of a mutation, one partner has a genetic disorder, and both partners show evidence of abnormality, this method is selected [37].

The results of PGT-M are improved when it is followed by PGT-A. Unsal et al. [41] found that “PGT-M and 24 chromosome testing in 44 patients revealed that 49% of the embryos examined were euploid and 64% of pregnancies were achieved through PGT-M, followed by PGT-A.” Nonetheless, PGT-A before PGT-M is the most cost-effective approach for X-linked, autosomal recessive gene disorders, and it can avoid the intensive laboratory testing required by genetic laboratories [42].

PGT for structural rearrangements

PGT-SR identifies embryos with the correct (balanced and normal) amount of genetic material, as well as embryos with excess or deficient amounts of genetic material due to translocations or rearrangements (unbalanced) [43]. PGT-SR is more effective than traditional prenatal diagnostic methods in helping couples achieve an uneventful pregnancy and deliver a child without unbalanced translocation.

After IVF, PGT-SR is available to evaluate human embryos from parents with the most common type of structural rearrangement, a Robertsonian or reciprocal translocation [44]. The priority in using PGT-SR is to give couples with chromosomal rearrangements a similar opportunity to have a child with a normal karyotype [45]. This test applies fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), microarray comparative genome hybridization (aCGH), and NGS [46]. NGS had the highest birth outcome of these three techniques (73.7%) when compared to FISH and aCGH [44].

Ethical issues regarding the use of PGT

Although IVF followed by the PGT process can help couples have genetically normal children, it may provoke ethical problems such as embryo selection, sex selection, and so-called designer babies [47]. Selecting the best embryos for clinical use can increase the potential for embryos to be discarded upon donation for research. This raises an ethical issue related to the medical oath and the terms in the Indonesian Code of Medical Ethics or Kode Etik Kedokteran Indonesia (KODEKI), which states that humans are considered to be alive from the moment of conception. In addition, the selection of embryos has ethical issues related to religious norms. Regarding sex selection, the results of PGT reveal an embryo’s sex as well as any X-linked diseases that may be inherited. Some couples may undertake PGT primarily to find out the sex of their child and then select embryos based on that information. Furthermore, PGT has the potential to develop into modern eugenics, in which children are designed according to the wishes of the couple who undergo testing. Because of these ethical issues that might arise from IVF with PGT, it is necessary to regulate the examination of genetic disorders.

Conclusion

Based on the literature review above, IVF may be an option for couples who have or carry genetic disorders. IVF enables a couple to undertake several alternative actions, such as oocyte donation and PGT (PGT-A, PGT-M, PGT-SR) through IVF. As a result of PGT, couples with genetic disorders are expected to be able to have genetically normal children. However, in practice, couples who choose one of the four alternatives above should still pay attention to ethics, norms, and cost-effectiveness.

Notes

Conflict of interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Author contributions

Conceptualization: LL. Methodology: FYC. Writing original draft: FYC, LL. Writing-review & editing: FYC, LL.

Acknowledgments

We are very grateful to the Sriwijaya University Information Technology team for facilitating the collection of article data.

Figure 1.

Overview of the in vitro fertilization (IVF)/preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) (PGT for aneuploidy [PGT-A], PGT for monogenic disorders [PGT-M], PGT for structural rearrangements [PGT-SR]) process.

Figure 2.

Three methods for preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) biopsy. (A) Polar body (PB) biopsy. (B) Blastomere biopsy. (C) Trophectoderm (TE) biopsy.

Figure 3.

Percentage of live births per embryo transferred with and without preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A). ^a)There is significant differences of live births percentage between PGT-A and non-PGT-A based on maternal age group (years).

Table 1.

PGT-M methods, features, applications, and disadvantages [33]

Method	Features	Applications	Disadvantages
Linkage analysis sequencing	Using specific primers, investigate single-gene mutations in specific regions, and then subject the amplicons to mini-sequencing for genotyping.	Using specific primers, investigate single-gene mutations in specific regions, and then subject the amplicons to mini-sequencing for genotyping.	Requires specific probe and prime designs
Linkage analysis sequencing			Setting up the conditions for each case takes time
Karyomapping	Before being hybridized onto microarray slides containing thousands of SNP variants, DNA extracted from single-cell or multi-cell biopsies was amplified and labeled with fluorochromes. The detected SNP frequency determines the embryo's haplotype.	Haplotyping allows for the indirect detection of single-gene mutations.	Requires good SNP markers for haplotyping
		It is simple, quick, and case-specific.	Not appropriate for de novo mutations
			Expensive
NGS	Sequencing and data analysis are used to investigate the amplification of targets whose sequences are known and tracked.	Analysis of multiple genes at the same time	Expensive

PGT-M, preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic disorders; SNP, single-nucleotide polymorphism; NGS, next-generation sequencing.

References

1. Abdullah H. Human genetic disorders clinical [Internet]. ResearchGate; 2018 [cited 2024 Apr 26]. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328388901_Human_genetic_disorders

2. Hadiprajitno PI, Faradz S. Genetic counseling in a couple with primary infertility. J Biomed Transl Res 2022;8:149-54.

3. MedlinePlus. Inheriting Genetic Conditions [Internet]. MedlinePlus; 2012 [cited 2024 Apr 26]. Available from: https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/inheritance

4. Xolmurodovich XJ, Abduvoxidovna RX. In vitro fertilization: as an effective method of infertility treatment. Int J Innov Eng Res Technol 2021;8:4-7.

5. Gardner DK, Simon C. Handbook of in vitro fertilization. 4th ed. CRC Press; 2017.

6. Tulay P, Atılan O. Oocyte donors’ awareness on donation procedure and risks: a call for developing guidelines for health tourism in oocyte donation programmes. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc 2019;20:236-42.

7. Fahy N, Rice C, Lahiri N, Desai R, Stott J. Genetic risk for Huntington disease and reproductive decision-making: a systematic review. Clin Genet 2023;104:147-62.

8. Origa R, Comitini F. Pregnancy in thalassemia. Mediterr J Hematol Infect Dis 2019;11:e2019019.

9. European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines & HealthCare. Donation of oocytes, a guide for women to support informed decisions (2018) [Internet]. EDQM; 2018 [cited 2024 Apr 26]. Available from: https://www.edqm.eu/en/d/76041?p_l_back_url=%2Fen%2Fsearch-edqm%3Fq%3DDONATION%2BOF%2BOOCYTES%2BA%2Bguide%2Bfor%2Bwomen

10. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Practice Committee for the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Guidance regarding gamete and embryo donation. Fertil Steril 2021;115:1395-410.

11. International Bioethics Committee. Report of the IBC on the principle of non-discrimination and non-stigmatization [Internet]. UNESCO Digital Library; 2014 [cited 2024 Apr 26]. Available from:https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000221196?posInSet=1&queryId=e068fa34-0d50-4160-ac33-0f3f51041b57

12. Kemal Harzif A, Maidarti M, Silvia M, Mariana A, Dewi Mutia H, Wiweko B. Knowledge, attitude, intention, and religion aspect toward fertility preservation among obstetrics and gynecology residents in Indonesia: a cross-sectional study. Int J Reprod Biomed 2020;18:47-56.

13. Kenney NJ, McGowan ML. Egg donation compensation: ethical and legal challenges. Medicoleg Bioeth 2014;4:15-24.

14. Cervero A, Martin J. Preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic diseases. In: Garcia-Velasco JA, Seli E, editors. Human reproductive genetics: emerging technologies and clinical applications. Academic Press; 2020. p. 243-54.

15. De Rycke M, Berckmoes V, De Vos A, Van De Voorde S, Verdyck P, Verpoest W, et al. Preimplantation genetic testing: clinical experience of preimplantation genetic testing. Reproduction 2020;160:A45-58.

16. Laot L, Sonigo C, Nobre J, Benachi A, Dervin T, El Moujahed L, et al. Should preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) systematically be proposed to BRCA pathogenic variant carriers? Cancers (Basel) 2022;14:5769.

17. Parikh FR, Athalye AS, Naik NJ, Naik DJ, Sanap RR, Madon PF. Preimplantation genetic testing: its evolution, where are we today? J Hum Reprod Sci 2018;11:306-14.

18. Brezina PR, Kutteh WH. Clinical applications of preimplantation genetic testing. BMJ 2015;350:g7611.

19. Chamayou S. Preimplantation genetic testing. In: Lagana AS, Guglielmino A, editors. Management of infertility: a practical approach. Academic Press; 2023. p. 287-307.

20. ESHRE PGT Consortium and SIG-Embryology Biopsy Working Group; Kokkali G, Coticchio G, Bronet F, Celebi C, Cimadomo D, et al. ESHRE PGT Consortium and SIG Embryology good practice recommendations for polar body and embryo biopsy for PGT. Hum Reprod Open 2020;2020:hoaa020.

21. Sciorio R, Dattilo M. PGT-A preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies and embryo selection in routine ART cycles: time to step back? Clin Genet 2020;98:107-15.

22. Ren J, Peng C, Zhou F, Li Y, Keqie Y, Chen H, et al. Case report: preimplantation genetic testing for X-linked severe combined immune deficiency caused by IL2RG gene variant. Front Genet 2022;13:926060.

23. Lamb B, Johnson E, Francis L, Fagan M, Riches N, Canada I, et al. Pre-implantation genetic testing: decisional factors to accept or decline among in vitro fertilization patients. J Assist Reprod Genet 2018;35:1605-12.

24. Homer HA. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A): the biology, the technology and the clinical outcomes. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2019;59:317-24.

25. Harper JC. Preimplantation genetic screening. J Med Screen 2018;25:1-5.

26. Alyafee Y, Alam Q, Tuwaijri AA, Umair M, Haddad S, Alharbi M, et al. Next-generation sequencing-based pre-implantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A): first report from Saudi Arabia. Genes (Basel) 2021;12:461.

27. Kahraman S, Cetinkaya M, Yuksel B, Yesil M, Pirkevi Cetinkaya C. The birth of a baby with mosaicism resulting from a known mosaic embryo transfer: a case report. Hum Reprod 2020;35:727-33.

28. Alteri A, Corti L, Sanchez AM, Rabellotti E, Papaleo E, Vigano P. Assessment of pre-implantation genetic testing for embryo aneuploidies: a SWOT analysis. Clin Genet 2019;95:479-87.

29. ESHRE Working Group on Chromosomal Mosaicism; De Rycke M, Capalbo A, Coonen E, Coticchio G, Fiorentino F, et al. ESHRE survey results and good practice recommendations on managing chromosomal mosaicism. Hum Reprod Open 2022;2022:hoac044.

30. Practice Committee and Genetic Counseling Professional Group (GCPG) of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Clinical management of mosaic results from preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) of blastocysts: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2020;114:246-54.

31. Viotti M, Victor AR, Barnes FL, Zouves CG, Besser AG, Grifo JA, et al. Using outcome data from one thousand mosaic embryo transfers to formulate an embryo ranking system for clinical use. Fertil Steril 2021;115:1212-24.

32. He X, Wang X, Shen J, Wan B, Wang Y, Zhang Z, et al. Cost-effectiveness of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy for women with subfertility in China: an economic evaluation using evidence from the CESE-PGS trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2023;23:254.

33. Sanders KD, Silvestri G, Gordon T, Griffin DK. Analysis of IVF live birth outcomes with and without preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A): UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority data collection 2016-2018. J Assist Reprod Genet 2021;38:3277-85.

34. Wang X, Zhao J, Yao Z, Xia Q, Chang T, Zeng J, et al. Arrested cells/cellular debris expelled from blastocysts is self-correction phenomenon during early embryonic development. Reprod Sci 2023;30:2177-87.

35. Orvieto R, Shimon C, Rienstein S, Jonish-Grossman A, Shani H, Aizer A. Do human embryos have the ability of self-correction? Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2020;18:98.

36. Kuliev A, Rechitsky S. Preimplantation genetic testing: current challenges and future prospects. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2017;17:1071-88.

37. Fesahat F, Montazeri F, Hoseini SM. Preimplantation genetic testing in assisted reproduction technology. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 2020;49:101723.

38. Simpson JL, Kuliev A, Rechitsky S. Overview of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD): historical perspective and future direction. Methods Mol Biol 2019;1885:23-43.

39. NHS Commissioning Board Clinical Reference Group for Genetics. Clinical commissioning policy: pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) [Internet]. NHS Commissioning Board; 2013 [cited 2024 Apr 26]. Available from: https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/e01-p-a.pdf

40. Igenomix. PGT-M Update [Internet]. Igenomix; 2019 [cited 2024 Apr 26]. Available from: https://www.igenomix.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2024/02/PGT-M_2024.pdf

41. Unsal E, Aktuna S, Aydin M, Ozer L, Baltaci V. 69. Improved IVF success of combined PGT-M and PGt-A applications. Reprod Biomed Online 2019;39(Supplement 1): e69-70.

42. Abittan B, Singer T, Mullin C, Bristow SL, Hershlag A. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) followed by PGT-for monogenic/single gene diseases (PGT-M) is the sequence of choice in preconception genetic testing with non-dominant disorders. Fertil Steril 2018;110:e422.

43. Griffin DK, Ogur C. PGT-SR: a comprehensive overview and a requiem for the interchromosomal effect. DNA 2023;3:41-64.

44. Bartels CB, Makhijani R, Godiwala P, Bartolucci A, Nulsen JC, Grow DR, et al. In vitro fertilization outcomes after preimplantation genetic testing for chromosomal structural rearrangements comparing fluorescence in-situ hybridization, microarray comparative genomic hybridization, and next-generation sequencing. F S Rep 2020;1:249-56.

45. Scriven PN. PGT-SR: the red-herring and the siren; interchromosomal effect and screening for unrelated aneuploidy. J Assist Reprod Genet 2021;38:1015-8.

46. Escudero T. PGT for structural rearrangements (PGT-SR). Reprod Biomed Online 2019;38:e3-4.

47. Budiyanti RT. Ethical aspects of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) in in-vitro fertilization (IVF). Cermin Dunia Kedokteran 2015;42:542-4.