Search

Human pluripotent stem cells (hPSCs) are pivotal in regenerative medicine, yet their in vitro expansion often leads to genetic abnormalities, raising concerns about their safety in clinical applications. This study analyzed ten human embryonic stem cell lines across multiple passages to elucidate the dynamics of chromosomal abnormalities and single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) in 380 cancer-related genes. Prolonged in vitro culture resulted in 80% of the lines acquiring gains of chromosome 20q or 1q, both known for conferring an in vitro growth advantage. 70% of lines also acquired other copy number variants (CNVs) outside the recurrent set. Additionally, we detected 122 SNVs in 88 genes, with all lines acquiring at least one de novo SNV during culture. Our findings showed higher loads of both CNVs and SNVs at later passages, which were due to the cumulative acquisition of mutations over a longer time in culture, and not to an increased rate of mutagenesis over time. Importantly, we observed that SNVs and rare CNVs followed the acquisition of chromosomal gains in 1q and 20q, while most of the low-passage and genetically balanced samples were devoid of cancer-associated mutations. This suggests that recurrent chromosomal abnormalities are potential drivers for the acquisition of other mutations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The field of reproductive genetics has undergone significant advancements with the completion of the Human Genome Project and the development of high-throughput sequencing techniques. This has led to the identification of numerous genes involved in both male and female infertility, revolutionizing the diagnosis and management of infertility patients. Genetic investigations, including karyotyping, specific genetic tests, and high-throughput sequencing, have become essential in determining the genetic causes of infertility. Moreover, the integration of genetics into reproductive medicine has expanded the scope of care to include not only affected individuals or couples but also their family members. Genetic consultations and counselling play a crucial role in identifying potentially affected relatives and offering tailored therapy and the possibility of fertility preservation. Despite the current limited therapeutic options, an increasing understanding of genotype–phenotype correlations in infertility genes holds promise for improved treatment outcomes. The availability of genetic diagnostic tools has reduced the number of idiopathic infertility cases by providing accurate aetiological diagnoses. The transition from research to clinical practice in reproductive genetics requires the establishment of genetic consultations and data warehousing systems to provide up-to-date information on gene–disease relationships. Overall, the integration of genetics into reproductive medicine has brought about a paradigm shift, emphasizing the familial dimension of infertility and offering new possibilities for personalized care and family planning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND As in other domains of medicine, high-throughput sequencing methods have led to the identification of an ever-increasing number of gene variants in the fields of both male and female infertility. The increasing number of recently identified genes allows an accurate diagnosis for previously idiopathic cases of female infertility and more appropriate patient care. However, robust evidence of the gene–disease relationships (GDR) allowing the proper translation to clinical application is still missing in many cases. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE An evidence-based curation of currently identified genes involved in female infertility and differences in sex development (DSD) would significantly improve both diagnostic performance and genetic research. We therefore performed a systematic review to summarize current knowledge and assess the available GDR. SEARCH METHODS PRISMA guidelines were applied to curate all available information from PubMed and Web of Science on genetics of human female infertility and DSD leading to infertility, from 1 January 1988 to 1 November 2021. The reviewed pathologies include non-syndromic as well as syndromic female infertility, and endocrine and reproductive system disorders. The evidence that an identified phenotype is caused by pathogenic variants in a specific gene was assessed according to a standardized scoring system. A final score (no evidence, limited, moderate, strong, or definitive) was assigned to every GDR. OUTCOMES A total of 45 271 publications were identified and screened for inclusion of which 1078 were selected for gene and variant extraction. We have identified 395 genes and validated 466 GDRs covering all reported monogenic causes of female infertility and DSD. Furthermore, we present a genetic diagnostic flowchart including 105 genes with at least moderate evidence for female infertility and suggest recommendations for future research. The study did not take into account associated genetic risk factor(s) or oligogenic/polygenic causes of female infertility. WIDER IMPLICATIONS We have comprehensively reviewed the existing research on the genetics of female infertility and DSD, which will enable the development of diagnostic panels using validated genes. Whole genome analysis is shifting from predominantly research to clinical application, increasing its diagnostic potential. These new diagnostic possibilities will not only decrease the number of idiopathic cases but will also render genetic counselling more effective for infertile patients and their families. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY QUESTION How should ART/preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) centres manage the detection of chromosomal mosaicism following PGT? SUMMARY ANSWER Thirty good practice recommendations were formulated that can be used by ART/PGT centres as a basis for their own policy with regards to the management of 'mosaic' embryos. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY The use of comprehensive chromosome screening technologies has provided a variety of data on the incidence of chromosomal mosaicism at the preimplantation stage of development and evidence is accumulating that clarifies the clinical outcomes after transfer of embryos with putative mosaic results, with regards to implantation, miscarriage and live birth rates, and neonatal outcomes. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This document was developed according to a predefined methodology for ESHRE good practice recommendations. Recommendations are supported by data from the literature, a large survey evaluating current practice and published guidance documents. The literature search was performed using PubMed and focused on studies published between 2010 and 2022. The survey was performed through a web-based questionnaire distributed to members of the ESHRE special interest groups (SIG) Reproductive Genetics and Embryology, and the ESHRE PGT Consortium members. It included questions on ART and PGT, reporting, embryo transfer policy and follow-up of transfers. The final dataset represents 239 centres. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS The working group (WG) included 16 members with expertise on the ART/PGT process and chromosomal mosaicism. The recommendations for clinical practice were formulated based on the expert opinion of the WG, while taking into consideration the published data and results of the survey. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Eighty percent of centres that biopsy three or more cells report mosaicism, even though only 66.9% of all centres have validated their technology and only 61.8% of these have validated specifically for the calling of chromosomal mosaicism. The criteria for designating mosaicism, reporting and transfer policies vary significantly across the centres replying to the survey. The WG formulated recommendations on how to manage the detection of chromosomal mosaicism in clinical practice, considering validation, risk assessment, designating and reporting mosaicism, embryo transfer policies, prenatal testing and follow-up. Guidance is also provided on the essential elements that should constitute the consent forms and the genetic report, and that should be covered in genetic counselling. As there are several unknowns in chromosomal mosaicism, it is recommended that PGT centres monitor emerging data on the topic and adapt or refine their policy whenever new insights are available from evidence. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Rather than providing instant standardized advice, the recommendations should help ART/PGT centres in developing their own policy towards the management of putative mosaic embryos in clinical practice. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS This document will help facilitate a more knowledge-based approach for dealing with chromosomal mosaicism in different centres. In addition to recommendations for clinical practice, recommendations for future research were formulated. Following up on these will direct research towards existing research gaps with direct translation to clinical practice. Emerging data will help in improving guidance, and a more evidence-based approach of managing chromosomal mosaicism. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The WG received technical support from ESHRE. M.D.R. participated in the EQA special advisory group, outside the submitted work, and is the chair of the PGT WG of the Belgian society for human genetics. D.W. declared receiving salary from Juno Genetics, UK. A.C. is an employee of Igenomix, Italy and C.R. is an employee of Igenomix, Spain. C.S. received a research grant from FWO, Belgium, not related to the submitted work. I.S. declared being a Co-founder of IVFvision Ltd, UK. J.R.V. declared patents related to 'Methods for haplotyping single-cells' and 'Haplotyping and copy number typing using polymorphic variant allelic frequencies', and being a board member of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis International Society (PGDIS) and International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis (ISPD). K.S. reported being Chair-elect of ESHRE. The other authors had nothing to disclose. DISCLAIMER This Good Practice Recommendations (GPR) document represents the views of ESHRE, which are the result of consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders and are based on the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation.   ESHRE GPRs should be used for information and educational purposes. They should not be interpreted as setting a standard of care or be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care, or be exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. They do not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, or variations based on locality and facility type.   Furthermore, ESHRE GPRs do not constitute or imply the endorsement, or favouring, of any of the included technologies by ESHRE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]