Risk Factors Associated with Recurrent Pregnancy Loss and Outcome of Pre-Implantation Genetic Screening of Affected Couples

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 1. Department of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, School of Medicine, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences (ZUMS), Zanjan, Iran. 2. Department of Genetics, Reproductive Biomedicine Research Center, Royan Institute for Reproductive Biomedicine, ACECR, Tehran, Iran

2 2. Department of Genetics, Reproductive Biomedicine Research Center, Royan Institute for Reproductive Biomedicine, ACECR, Tehran, Iran. 3. Department of Molecular Genetics, Faculty of Basic Sciences and Advanced Technologies in Biology, University of Science and Culture, Tehran, Iran

3 Department of Endocrinology and Female Infertility, Reproductive Biomedicine Research Center, Royan Institute for Reproductive Biomedicine, ACECR, Tehran, Iran

4 Department of Genetics, Reproductive Biomedicine Research Center, Royan Institute, ACECR, Tehran, Iran.

5 Reproductive Epidemiology Research Center, Royan Institute for Reproductive Biomedicine, ACECR, Tehran, Iran

6 1. Department of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, School of Medicine, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences (ZUMS), Zanjan, Iran.

7 2. Department of Genetics, Reproductive Biomedicine Research Center, Royan Institute for Reproductive Biomedicine, ACECR, Tehran, Iran. 6. Department of Stem Cells and Developmental Biology, Cell Science Research Center, Royan Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Technology, ACECR, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Background: Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) is a multifactorial disorder which affects up to 5% of couples around the world. Several factors are considered to be involved in RPL; but, the etiology remains unexplained in 35-60% of cases. The aim of this study was to assess the frequency of risk factors associated with RPL in a group of our clinic clients, and their pre-implantation genetic screening (PGS) outcome.
Materials and Methods: We designed a retrospective descriptive study among, 602 Iranian couples referred to the Royan Reproductive Clinic (Tehran-Iran) from 2006 to 2018. Their karyotyping test and PGS outcomes were analyzed. PGS had been applied by array comparative genomic hybridization (array-CGH) on embryos from these patients. Also, karyotyping test had been performed using standard cytogenetic techniques.
Results: G-banding analysis revealed a frequency of 15.61% chromosomal abnormalities in RPL couples. Also, the reciprocal translocations were more frequent (33/1204 cases) compared to the other structural abnormalities. Pregnancy rate per embryo transferred were 50% with array-CGH approach.
Conclusion: Our findings could confirm a positive correlation between chromosomal abnormalities and RPL rate. Applying PGS for the RPL couples, leads to improvement of pregnancy success rate.

Keywords


  1. El Hachem H, Crepaux V, May-Panloup P, Descamps P, Legendre G, Bouet PE. Recurrent pregnancy loss: current perspectives. Int J Womens Health. 2017; 9: 331-345.
  2. Pereza N, Ostojić S, Kapović M, Peterlin B. Systematic review and meta-analysis of genetic association studies in idiopathic recurrent spontaneous abortion. Fertil Steril. 2017; 107(1): 150-159. e2.
  3. ESHRE Guideline Group on RPL, Bender Atik R, Christiansen OB, Elson J, Kolte AM, Lewis S, et al. ESHRE guideline: recurrent pregnancy loss. Hum Reprod Open. 2018; 2018(2): hoy004.
  4. Arias-Sosa LA, Acosta ID, Lucena-Quevedo E, Moreno-Ortiz H, Esteban-Pérez C, Forero-Castro M. Genetic and epigenetic variations associated with idiopathic recurrent pregnancy loss. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018; 35(3): 355-366.
  5. Priya PK, Mishra VV, Roy P, Patel H. A study on balanced chromosomal translocations in couples with recurrent pregnancy loss. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2018; 11(4): 337-342.
  6. Bhatt RK, Agarwal M. Study of spectrum of chromosomal rearrangements in recurrent pregnancy loss. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2020; 70(3): 189-194.
  7. Jia CW, Wang L, Lan YL, Song R, Zhou LY, Yu L, et al. Aneuploidy in early miscarriage and its related factors. Chin Med J (Engl). 2015; 128(20): 2772-2776.
  8. Totonchi M, Babaabasi B, Najafi H, Rezazadeh Valojerdi M, Eftekhari-Yazdi P, Karimian L, et al. Preimplantation genetic screening and the success rate of in vitro fertilization: a three-years study on Iranian population. Cell J. 2021; 22(4): 467-475.
  9. Weise A, Mrasek K, Pentzold C, Liehr T. Chromosomes in the DNA era: Perspectives in diagnostics and research. Medizinische Genetik. 2019; 31(1): 8-19.
  10. Majumdar G, Majumdar A, Lall M, Verma IC, Upadhyaya KC. Preimplantation genetic screening for all 24 chromosomes by microarray comparative genomic hybridization significantly increases implantation rates and clinical pregnancy rates in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization with poor prognosis. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2016; 9(2): 94-100.
  11. Dang TT, Phung TM, Le H. Preimplantation genetic testing of aneuploidy by next generation sequencing: association of maternal age and chromosomal abnormalities of blastocyst. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2019; 7(24): 4427-4431.
  12. Verma RS, Babu A. Human chromosomes: manual of basic techniques. New York: Pergamon; 1989.
  13. McGowan-Jordan J, Simons A, Schmid M. ISCN 2016: An international system for human cytogenomic nomenclature (2016). Cytogenetic and Genome Research. 2016; 149(1-2).
  14. Ashrafi M, Arabipoor A, Yahyaei A, Zolfaghari Z, Ghaffari F. Does the “delayed start” protocol with gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist improve the pregnancy outcome in Bologna poor responders? A randomized clinical trial. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2018; 16(1): 1-7.
  15. Stray-Pedersen B, Stray-Pedersen S. Etiologic factors and subsequent reproductive performance in 195 couples with a prior history of habitual abortion. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1984; 148(2): 140-146.
  16. Jaslow CR, Carney JL, Kutteh WH. Diagnostic factors identified in 1020 women with two versus three or more recurrent pregnancy losses. Fertil Steril. 2010; 93(4): 1234-1243.
  17. Stephenson MD. Frequency of factors associated with habitual abortion in 197 couples. Fertil Steril. 1996; 66(1): 24-29.
  18. Ford HB, Schust DJ. Recurrent pregnancy loss: etiology, diagnosis, and therapy. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 2(2): 76-83.
  19. Braekeleer MD, Dao TN. Cytogenetic studies in couples experiencing repeated pregnancy losses. Hum Reprod. 1990; 5(5): 519-528.
  20. Goud TM, Al Harassi SM, Al Salmani KK, Al Busaidy SM, Rajab A. Cytogenetic studies in couples with recurrent miscarriage in the Sultanate of Oman. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009; 18(3): 424-429.

 

  1. Kacprzak M, Chrzanowska M, Skoczylas B, Moczulska H, Borowiec M, Sieroszewski P. Genetic causes of recurrent miscarriages. Ginekol Pol. 2016; 87(10): 722-726.
  2. Kar B, Linda C. Genetic factors associated with recurrent pregnancy loss. Obstet Gynecol Int J. 2017; 7(6): 00272.
  3. Xie X, Li F, Tan W, Tang J. Analysis of the clinical features of pericentric inversion of chromosome 9. J Int Med Res. 2020; 48(9): 0300060520957820.
  4. Sismani C, Rapti SM, Iliopoulou P, Spring A, Neroutsou R, Lagou M, et al. Novel pericentric inversion inv (9)(p23q22. 3) in unrelated individuals with fertility problems in the Southeast European population. J Hum Genet. 2020; 65(9): 783-795.
  5. Merrion K, Maisenbacher M. Pericentric inversion (Inv) 9 variant-reproductive risk factor or benign finding? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019; 36(12): 2557-2561.
  6. Aleksandrova N, Shubina E, Ekimov A, Kodyleva T, Mukosey I, Makarova N, et al. Comparison of the results of preimplantation genetic screening obtained by a-CGH and NGS methods from the same embryos. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2016; 32 Suppl 2: 1-4.
  7. Borovik CL, Perez ABA, da Silva LR, Krepischi-Santos ACV, Costa SS, Rosenberg C. Array-CGH testing in spontaneous abortions with normal karyotypes. Genet Mol Biol. 2008; 31(2): 416-422.