Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

A randomized and blinded comparison of qPCR and NGS-based detection of aneuploidy in a cell line mixture model of blastocyst biopsy mosaicism.

PURPOSE: A subset of preimplantation stage embryos may possess mosaicism of chromosomal constitution, representing a possible limitation to the clinical predictive value of comprehensive chromosome screening (CCS) from a single biopsy. However, contemporary methods of CCS may be capable of predicting mosaicism in the blastocyst by detecting intermediate levels of aneuploidy within a trophectoderm biopsy. This study evaluates the sensitivity and specificity of aneuploidy detection by two CCS platforms using a cell line mixture model of a mosaic trophectoderm biopsy.

METHODS: Four cell lines with known karyotypes were obtained and mixed together at specific ratios of six total cells (0:6, 1:5, 2:4, 3:3, 4:2, 5:1, and 6:0). A female euploid and a male trisomy 18 cell line were used for one set, and a male trisomy 13 and a male trisomy 15 cell line were used for another. Replicates of each mixture were prepared, randomized, and blinded for analysis by one of two CCS platforms (quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) or VeriSeq next-generation sequencing (NGS)). Sensitivity and specificity of aneuploidy detection at each level of mosaicism was determined and compared between platforms.

RESULTS: With the default settings for each platform, the sensitivity of qPCR and NGS were not statistically different, and 100 % specificity was observed (no false positives) at all levels of mosaicism. However, the use of previously published custom criteria for NGS increased sensitivity but also significantly decreased specificity (33 % false-positive prediction of aneuploidy).

CONCLUSIONS: By demonstrating increased false-positive diagnoses when reducing the stringency of predicting an abnormality, these data illustrate the importance of preclinical evaluation of new testing paradigms before clinical implementation.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app