Aligning genotyping and copy number data in single trophectoderm biopsies for aneuploidy prediction: uncovering incomplete concordance
Lisa De Witte,Machteld Baetens,Kelly Tilleman,Frauke Vanden Meerschaut,Sandra Janssens,Ariane Van Tongerloo,Virginie Szymczak,Dominic Stoop,Annelies Dheedene,Sofie Symoens,Björn Menten
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoae056
2024-09-18
Abstract:Study question: To what extent can genotype analysis aid in the classification of (mosaic) aneuploid embryos diagnosed through copy number analysis of a trophectoderm (TE) biopsy? Summary answer: In a small portion of embryos, genotype analysis revealed signatures of meiotic or uniform aneuploidy in those diagnosed with intermediate copy number changes, and signatures of presumed mitotic or putative mosaic aneuploidy in those diagnosed with full copy number changes. What is known already: Comprehensive chromosome screening (CCS) for preimplantation genetic testing has provided valuable insights into the prevalence of (mosaic) chromosomal aneuploidy at the blastocyst stage. However, diagnosis of (mosaic) aneuploidy often relies solely on (intermediate) copy number analysis of a single TE biopsy. Integrating genotype information allows for independent assessment of the origin and degree of aneuploidy. Yet, studies aligning both datasets to predict (putative mosaic) aneuploidy in embryos remain scarce. Study design size duration: A single TE biopsy was collected from 1560 embryos derived from 221 couples tested for a monogenic disorder (n = 218) or microdeletion-/microduplication syndrome (n = 3). TE samples were subjected to both copy number and genotyping analysis. Participants/materials setting methods: Copy number and SNP genotyping analysis were conducted using GENType. Unbalanced chromosomal anomalies ≥10 Mb (or ≥20 Mb for copy number calls <50%) were classified by degree, based on low-range intermediate (LR, 30-50%), high-range intermediate (HR, 50-70%) or full (>70%) copy number changes. These categories were further subjected to genotyping analysis to ascertain the origin (and/or degree) of aneuploidy. For chromosomal gains, the meiotic division of origin (meiotic I/II versus non-meiotic or presumed mitotic) was established by studying the haplotypes. The level of monosomy (uniform versus putative mosaic) in the biopsy could be ascertained from the B-allele frequencies. For segmental aneuploidies, genotyping was restricted to deletions. Main results and the role of chance: Of 1479 analysed embryos, 24% (n = 356) exhibited a whole-chromosome aneuploidy, with 19% (n = 280) showing full copy number changes suggestive of uniform aneuploidy. Among 258 embryos further investigated by genotyping, 95% of trisomies with full copy number changes were identified to be of meiotic origin. For monosomies, a complete loss of heterozygosity (LOH) in the biopsy was observed in 97% of cases, yielding a 96% concordance rate at the embryo level (n = 248/258). Interestingly, 4% of embryos (n = 10/258) showed SNP signatures of non-meiotic gain or putative mosaic loss instead. Meanwhile, 5% of embryos (n = 76/1479) solely displayed HR (2.5%; n = 37) or LR (2.6%; n = 39) intermediate copy number changes, with an additional 2% showing both intermediate and full copy number changes. Among embryos with HR intermediate copy number changes where genotyping was feasible (n = 25/37), 92% (n = 23/25) showed SNP signatures consistent with putative mosaic aneuploidy. However, 8% (n = 2/25) exhibited evidence of meiotic trisomy (9%) or complete LOH in the biopsy (7%). In the LR intermediate group, 1 of 33 (3%) genotyped embryos displayed complete LOH. Furthermore, segmental aneuploidy was detected in 7% of embryos (n = 108/1479) (or 9% (n = 139) with added whole-chromosome aneuploidy). These errors were often (52%) characterized by intermediate copy number values, which closely aligned with genotyping data when examined (94-100%). Large scale data: N/A. Limitations reasons for caution: The findings were based on single TE biopsies and the true extent of mosaicism was not validated through embryo dissection. Moreover, evidence of absence of a meiotic origin for a trisomy should not be construed as definitive proof of a mitotic error. Additionally, a genotyping diagnosis was not always attainable due to the absence of a recombination event necessary to discern between meiotic II and non-meiotic trisomy, or the unavailability of DNA from both parents. Wider implications of the findings: Interpreting (intermediate) copy number changes of a single TE biopsy alone as evidence for (mosaic) aneuploidy in the embryo remains suboptimal. Integrating genotype information alongside the copy number status could provide a more comprehensive assessment of the embryo's genetic makeup, within and beyond the single TE biopsy. By identifying meiotic aberrations, especially in presumed mosaic embryos, we underscore the potential value of genotyping analysis as a deselection tool, ultimately striving to reduce adverse clinical outcomes. Study funding/competing interests: L.D.W. was supported by the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO; 1S74621N). M.B., K.T., F.V.M., S.J., A.V.T., V.S., D.S., A.D., and S.S. are supported by Ghent University Hospital. B.M. was funded by Ghent University. The authors have no conflicts of interest.