4.2 Article

Correlation between preimplantation genetic diagnosis for chromosomal aneuploidies and the efficiency of establishing human ES cell lines

期刊

STEM CELL RESEARCH
卷 2, 期 1, 页码 78-82

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.scr.2008.07.002

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There are several sources from which human embryonic stem cell (hESC) lines can be generated: surplus embryos after in vitro fertilization procedures, one- and three-pronuclear zygotes, early arrested or highly fragmented embryos that have reached the blastocyst stage, or otherwise chromosomally or genetically abnormal embryos after preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). We report on the efficiency of establishing hESC lines from blastocysts with proven meiotic or mitotic errors after sequential testing of both polar bodies and blastomere analysis on day 3. The success rate of establishing hESC tines originating from blastocysts carrying a meiotic error was as low as 2.4% and differed significantly from the success rate of establishing hESC lines originating from blastocysts; with balanced meiotic errors (21.6%) or mitotic errors (after sequential testing (9.1%) and after blastomere testing alone (12.2%)). This suggests that it may be reasonable to apply sequential PGD prior to the initiation of hESC culture. Information about the karyotype may in the future help refine the methods and possibly improve the efficiency by which hESC lines are derived from embryos with prezygotic abnormalities. Additionally, it may in general prove very difficult to obtain abnormal hESC. lines for scientific study from aneuploid PGD embryos, which with limit our ability to study the biological consequences of chromosomal abnormalities. Furthermore, the success rates for generating aneuploid cell lines originating from fertilized oocytes carrying a prezygotic nondisjunction error seem to mirror the miscarriage rates during pregnancy of embryos carrying such errors. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据