The impact of new genomic technologies in reproductive medicine.

Recent advances in the clinical application of genomic technologies have significantly impacted the field of prenatal diagnosis. Central to these advances has been the implementation of chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA). Microdeletions and microduplications, undetectable by traditional karyotyping, have recently been confirmed to play a role in altered neurocognitive development. CMA is now recommended for fetuses with structural anomalies. However, CMA comes with an increased need and role for genetic counseling, because the potential genomic information available is exponentially increased. CMA also can be performed on a small number of preimplantation embryonic cells for assessment of the embryo's reproductive potential. Implementation of these new genomic techniques in an in vitro fertilization setting has already demonstrated significant improvements in reproductive outcome. Techniques are now being developed to eliminate the necessity for invasive prenatal diagnosis procedures. Currently in its infancy, noninvasive prenatal testing using cell-free fetal DNA from maternal blood has already improved the sensitivity for detection of the common aneuploidies and current efforts are focused on identifying select microdeletions. The explosion of new genomic technologies continues to offer great benefits. However, each needs critical assessment prior to adoption in a clinical setting.

[1]  Hye-Sung Won,et al.  Variety of prenatally diagnosed congenital heart disease in 22q11.2 deletion syndrome , 2014, Obstetrics & gynecology science.

[2]  W. Schoolcraft,et al.  Comprehensive chromosome screening of trophectoderm with vitrification facilitates elective single-embryo transfer for infertile women with advanced maternal age. , 2013, Fertility and sterility.

[3]  Deanne M. Taylor,et al.  Blastocyst biopsy with comprehensive chromosome screening and fresh embryo transfer significantly increases in vitro fertilization implantation and delivery rates: a randomized controlled trial. , 2013, Fertility and sterility.

[4]  N. Treff,et al.  Cleavage-stage biopsy significantly impairs human embryonic implantation potential while blastocyst biopsy does not: a randomized and paired clinical trial. , 2013, Fertility and sterility.

[5]  Deanne M. Taylor,et al.  In vitro fertilization with single euploid blastocyst transfer: a randomized controlled trial. , 2013, Fertility and sterility.

[6]  B. Levy,et al.  Non-invasive prenatal aneuploidy testing: technologies and clinical implication. , 2013, MLO: medical laboratory observer.

[7]  G. Rizzo,et al.  Chromosomal microarray analysis as a first-line test in pregnancies with a priori low risk for the detection of submicroscopic chromosomal abnormalities , 2012, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[8]  D. Ledbetter,et al.  Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[9]  B. Bernhardt,et al.  Women’s experiences receiving abnormal prenatal chromosomal microarray testing results , 2012, Genetics in Medicine.

[10]  Deanne M. Taylor,et al.  Development and validation of an accurate quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction-based assay for human blastocyst comprehensive chromosomal aneuploidy screening. , 2012, Fertility and sterility.

[11]  Xin Tao,et al.  Comprehensive chromosome screening is highly predictive of the reproductive potential of human embryos: a prospective, blinded, nonselection study. , 2012, Fertility and sterility.

[12]  C-N. Lee,et al.  Clinical utility of array comparative genomic hybridisation for prenatal diagnosis: a cohort study of 3171 pregnancies , 2012, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[13]  D. Driscoll,et al.  Integration of microarray technology into prenatal diagnosis: counselling issues generated during the NICHD clinical trial , 2012, Prenatal diagnosis.

[14]  N. Treff,et al.  Methods for comprehensive chromosome screening of oocytes and embryos: capabilities, limitations, and evidence of validity , 2012, Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics.

[15]  Eric P Hoffman,et al.  Genomics , Intellectual Disability , and Autism , 2012 .

[16]  L. Armengol,et al.  Clinical utility of chromosomal microarray analysis in invasive prenatal diagnosis , 2011, Human Genetics.

[17]  L. Shaffer,et al.  Diagnostic utility of array‐based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) in a prenatal setting , 2010, Prenatal diagnosis.

[18]  B. Levy,et al.  Accurate single cell 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening using whole genome amplification and single nucleotide polymorphism microarrays. , 2010, Fertility and sterility.

[19]  Leslie G Biesecker,et al.  Consensus statement: chromosomal microarray is a first-tier clinical diagnostic test for individuals with developmental disabilities or congenital anomalies. , 2010, American journal of human genetics.

[20]  Yong-shu He,et al.  [Structural variation in the human genome]. , 2009, Yi chuan = Hereditas.

[21]  L. D. White,et al.  Clinical use of array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) for prenatal diagnosis in 300 cases , 2009, Prenatal diagnosis.

[22]  L. Shaffer,et al.  Comparison of microarray‐based detection rates for cytogenetic abnormalities in prenatal and neonatal specimens , 2008, Prenatal diagnosis.

[23]  A. Beaudet,et al.  Array-based DNA diagnostics: let the revolution begin. , 2008, Annual review of medicine.

[24]  A. Cherry,et al.  Array-based comparative genomic hybridization: clinical contexts for targeted and whole-genome designs , 2007, Genetics in Medicine.

[25]  D. Conrad,et al.  Global variation in copy number in the human genome , 2006, Nature.

[26]  P. Stankiewicz,et al.  Prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities using array-based comparative genomic hybridization , 2006, Genetics in Medicine.

[27]  L. Shaffer.  Risk estimates for uniparental disomy following prenatal detection of a nonhomologous Robertsonian translocation , 2006, Prenatal diagnosis.

[28]  N. Carter,et al.  Prenatal detection of unbalanced chromosomal rearrangements by array CGH , 2005, Journal of Medical Genetics.

[29]  Bassem A Bejjani,et al.  Use of targeted array‐based CGH for the clinical diagnosis of chromosomal imbalance: Is less more? , 2005, American journal of medical genetics. Part A.

[30]  D. Ledbetter,et al.  Comparative genomic hybridization-array analysis enhances the detection of aneuploidies and submicroscopic imbalances in spontaneous miscarriages. , 2004, American journal of human genetics.

[31]  Tom H. Pringle,et al.  The human genome browser at UCSC. , 2002, Genome research.

[32]  Ajay N. Jain,et al.  Assembly of microarrays for genome-wide measurement of DNA copy number , 2001, Nature Genetics.

[33]  E. Zackai,et al.  Prevalence of 22q11 microdeletions in DiGeorge and velocardiofacial syndromes: implications for genetic counselling and prenatal diagnosis. , 1993, Journal of medical genetics.

[34]  Kang Zhang,et al.  DNA sequencing versus standard prenatal aneuploidy screening. , 2014, The New England journal of medicine.

[35]  Committee Opinion No. 581: the use of chromosomal microarray analysis in prenatal diagnosis. , 2013, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[36]  M. Robinson,et al.  ESHRE PGD Consortium 'Best practice guidelines for clinical preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)'. , 2005, Human reproduction.

[37]  E. Check.  Screen test , 2005 .

[38]  Dutch-speaking Brussels.  ESHRE PGD Consortium 'Best practice guidelines for clinical preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)' , 2004 .