Skip to main content
Download PDF

Noninvasive preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy using blastocyst spent culture medium may serve as a backup of trophectoderm biopsy in conventional preimplantation genetic testing

BMC Medical Genomics volume 18, Article number: 34 (2025) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

To investigate whether the noninvasive preimplantation genetic testing (niPGT) complement conventional preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) in the embryos for aneuploidy.

Results

40 spent culture medium (SCM) samples from routine embryo culture were collected, and half of each SCM (10 µL) sample was used for whole genome amplification, while the other half was stored at -80 °C for 3–6 months. Thirty-six out of 40 fresh SCM samples were successfully amplified and sequenced. Thirty-six paired frozen-thawed SCM samples showed 100% concordance with the freshly amplified SCM samples. Then, SCM and trophectoderm (TE) samples from 149 blastocysts from 51 couples were collected. A 98.0% successful SCM sample amplification rate (146/149) was achieved. For the 146 paired TE biopsy and SCM samples, the overall concordance rate was 82.9% (121/146). Ten embryos with aneuploid TE results but euploid niPGT results were donated. A 70.0% (7/10) true negative rate was achieved by niPGT with respect to the inner cell mass (ICM) results (TE-positive embryos).

Conclusions

These results suggested that SCM stored at -80 °C for 6 months without affecting niPGT results based on NICSInst amplification.

Peer Review reports

Background

Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy and for structural rearrangements (PGT-A/-SR) performed on trophectoderm (TE) cells is an established and widely adopted clinical approach for identifying aneuploidies or chromosomal structural rearrangements in embryos obtained by in vitro fertilization (IVF). The aneuploidy rate of embryos increases with advancing maternal age, For patients aged 35–42, the aneuploidy rate ranges from 34.5 to 75.1% [1,2,3]. Studies reported PGT-A/-SR could improve the clinical outcomes of IVF patients via the selection and transfer of euploid embryos [4,5,6,7], debates persist regarding the safety and accuracy of the technique, as well as which groups of IVF patients would benefit most from this approach [8,9,10,11].

Given the need to perform TE biopsy, the invasiveness of PGT-A/-SR remains a concern, and its application may be limited as follows: (1) the biopsy may potentially negatively impact on the quality and development of the embryo; (2) the biopsy fraction may not fully represent the genetic status of the whole embryo due to mosaicism; and (3) biopsy is a sophisticated procedure that, despite the need for an experienced embryologist, still carries a risk of operational failure.

Stigliani et al. [12] first demonstrated the existence of fetal cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in spent culture medium (SCM), with 63% (205/326) of collected SCM samples containing genomic DNA. The Research by Hammond et al. further supported the detection of fetal DNA materials in SCM [13]. These findings have laid a groundwork for utilizing SCM as a source of early embryonic DNA sampling for developing noninvasive preimplantation genetic testing (niPGT). The noninvasive chromosome screening (NICS) method was first developed in 2016 [14]. In the NICS method, multiple annealing and looping-based amplification cycles (MALBACs) were used for whole-genome amplification (WGA) to analyze embryonic cfDNA in SCM. In that study, the researchers achieved a 100% amplification rate for 42 embryonic SCM samples collected for noninvasive preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (niPGT-A), with 88.2% sensitivity and 84.0% specificity in detecting aneuploid embryos. Several other studies have been conducted to compare PGT using SCM versus TE biopsy [15, 16], and showing variation in concordance rates (78.7–62.1%) as well as the sensitivity (94.5–81.6%) and specificity values (71.7–48.3%) due to the different concordant metrics applied.

Researchers and clinicians have questioned whether PGT with SCM, compared to PGT using TE biopsy, is more advanced in its reliability in representing the whole genetic profile of the tested embryo and its sensitivity in identifying moderately low-level mosaicism. Additionally, it is known that as the embryo passes through the different stages of cell proliferation, the biopsy procedure itself can interfere with the accuracy of PGT. A 20–30% level of mosaicism can be detected via microarray-based and NGS-based PGT [17], and mosaic results are commonly reported in PGT. Data from most reproductive centers indicate that the frequency of detecting mosaic embryos is approximately 5–20% [18,19,20] and up to 40% across IVF centers [21]. Moreover, an improperly performed biopsy technique may lead to an increased rate of mosaicism, resulting in embryo waste and cancellation of the transplantation cycle. An expert consensus has proposed that when the diagnosis of the first biopsy is unclear, a second biopsy (including cleavage stage embryos and blastocysts) can be considered; if the embryo is frozen after biopsy, a secondary biopsy after thawing may be considered [22]. However, secondary biopsies can also significantly affect the developmental potential of the embryo.

SCM is a noninvasive material for embryonic copy number variation (CNV) detection and analysis. Therefore, we hypothesize that SCM can be used as a supplemental source of genetic material when mosaic results or failed amplifications occur in conventional PGT assays. In the current study, we collected SCM samples from 149 blastocysts of 51 couples who underwent TE biopsy PGT-A/-SR assays as part of the ICSI–IVF process. The SCM samples were first kept at -80 °C during the waiting period for the PGT test results and subsequently examined by WGA and next-generation sequencing (NGS) for chromosome screening. The ploidy and chromosomal structure data were acquired using PGT from paired TE biopsies. Additionally, a small fraction of the blastocysts with aneuploidy or structural rearrangements as determined by TE results were donated for further validation by again sampling the TE and inner cell mass (ICM) cells of whole embryos. This new niPGT approach enables the use of SCM as a backup sample for validation when ambiguous or mosaic TE results are reported to avoid a harmful secondary biopsy of the embryo.

Methods

Ethics Statement and study patients

The ethics committee of the International Peace Maternity & Child Health Hospital (IPMCH) approved this study. Informed consent was obtained from all patients included in this study as required by the ethics committee of IPMCH. All experiments were performed following the relevant guidelines and regulations.

SCM samples and corresponding TE biopsy samples from a total of 149 fresh blastocysts were analyzed in this study. These blastocysts were obtained from 51 couples undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and embryo transfer (ET) from June 2019 to May 2022 at the IPMCH. In all, 23 patients (or their husbands) were known to carry a chromosomal rearrangement, while the remaining 28 couples had a normal karyotype.

Embryo culture

ICSI was performed to fertilize mature metaphase II oocytes collected from patients. Prior to ICSI, the oocytes will be denudated. The fertilized oocytes were cultured in 25 µL media under oil and then placed into an incubator. The embryos were cultured sequentially, switching to blastocyst medium on Day (D) 3. The cumulus and corona radiata cells were removed on D4, and the embryo was transferred to 25 µL fresh medium and cultured for D5 or D6.

Collection of Trophectoderm cells

Blastocysts with a grade of ≥ 4BC were transferred to a biopsy dish containing 10 µL G-GAMATE (Vitrolife; Sweden) under the oil used for the biopsy on D5 or D6. Four to six trophectoderm cells were collected from each blastocyst and immediately transferred into DNase-free PCR tubes containing 4 µL of cell lysis buffer. The biopsied cells were stored at -80 °C until the next step.

Collection of ICM cells

To obtain ICM cells, the blastocyst was held with a holding pipette, and the ICM was positioned at the 3 o’clock position. A laser was used to create a hole in the zona pellucida at the 3 o’clock position. A biopsy pipette was inserted into the blastocyst, and the ICM was removed with gentle suction and transferred into a 10 µL drop of G-GAMATE (Vitrolife; Sweden). Subsequently, four to six cells were collected from each isolated ICM. The collected cells were transferred into cell lysis buffer and stored at -80 °C.

Collection of spent embryo culture medium

After the blastocysts were removed, up to 20 µL spent embryo culture medium was collected into DNase-free PCR tubes containing 5 µL cell lysis buffer (Xukang Medical Technology (suzhou) Co., Ltd). These fluid samples were stored at -80 °C until the next step [23]. Blank medium samples were cultured under the same conditions and served as the negative controls.

PGT for TE Samples using a microarray

WGA and array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) amplification were performed, starting with the biopsied cells. The Sureplex kit (Rubicon; Bluegnome) was used according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Quality control of amplification products was performed using Qubit 3.0 and 1.5% agarose gel electrophoresis. A 24Sure microarray and Blue-Fuse Multi software (Illumina) were utilized to detect and visualize the blastocysts’ subchromosomal imbalances and euploidy/aneuploidy. Chromosomal abnormalities with a mosaicism extent of ≥ 30% and size ≥ 10 Mb were reported.

PGT for SCM, TE and ICM samples using CNV-Seq

ChromInst™ (Xukang Medical Technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd) was used to conduct WGA and NGS library preparation of TE and ICM according to the manufacturer’s instructions. NICSInst™ (Xukang Medical Technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd) was used or the amplification and library construction. Quality control of the NGS libraries was performed using Qubit 3.0 and 1.5% agarose gel electrophoresis. The indexed libraries were pooled in equal proportions and then sequenced with a NextSeq 550 (Illumina) to obtain approximately 2 million raw reads (single-end, 55 bp) for each library. The high-quality read numbers were counted along the whole genome with a bin size of 1 Mb and normalized by the GC content and a reference dataset. The circular binary segmentation algorithm was used to detect CNV segments. The data were then analyzed and visualized using ChromGo™ Analysis Software (Xukang Medical Technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.) with default parameters. If the result indicated mosaicism, the embryo was initially classified as “euploid” when the extent of mosaicism was below 30% and as “aneuploid” when the extent of mosaicism was above 70%, with a detection limit for segmental aneuploidy of ≥ 10 Mb; that is, 30% mosaicism was regarded as a negative result, and ≥ 30% mosaicism was regarded as a positive result.

Results

SCM Storage Feasibility at -80 °C for niPGT-A

To evaluate the feasibility of storing SCM samples at -80 °C, we first randomly collected 40 SCM samples from routine embryo culture. Half of each SCM (10 µL) sample was used for WGA, while the other half was stored at -80 °C for 3–6 months. Thirty-six out of 40 fresh SCM samples were successfully amplified and sequenced, with 19 being euploid and 17 being aneuploid. Subsequently, 36 pairs of frozen SCM sample were thawed after 3–6 months of storage at -80 °C and subjected to WGA and sequencing. All thirty-six frozen-thawed SCM samples were successfully amplified and showed 100% (36/36) concordance with the freshly amplified SCM samples (Fig. 1, Table S1). These results indicated that SCM can be feasibly and routinely stored at -80 °C and used as a source for niPGT-A assays.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Illustration of the experimental workflow of the study. In the pre-experimental stage to determine the SCM storage time at -80℃ (green), 51 families were enrolled and underwent IVF cycles of PGT-A or PGT-SR (dark purple). A total of 149 embryos were screened using PGT with TE biopsy and niPGT-A with spent culture medium (SCM). A total of 146 pairs of successfully amplified SCM and TE biopsy results were collected for downstream analysis (light purple). Ten embryos with severe chromosomal abnormal were donated for further validation by a 2nd round of testing with TE samples and ICM cells from whole embryos. These results were compared to the outcome of the 1st round of TE PGT and niPGT-A with SCM

Full size image

Evaluation of Concordance Rates between niPGT-A and PGT in normal and abnormal karyotype groups

A total of 51 families who underwent IVF cycles of PGT-A or PGT-SR were included in the study, with 149 embryos screened using PGT with TE biopsy first. Standard PGT was performed on biopsies from these embryos, and the euploid embryos were implanted. However, the SCM samples of these embryos were collected for niPGT-A analysis. The SCM samples were stored at -80 °C for approximately three to six months before performing the niPGT-A assay.

The embryos were grouped based on their parental karyotype information: 28 normal karyotype families with 59 embryos and 23 abnormal karyotype families with 87 embryos (Table 1). Eighteen TE biopsies were screened by microarray, while the other 128 were sequenced by NGS. To rule out the effect of the use of different testing platforms, we reviewed the concordance rates and the CNV profiles of the PGT results obtained by microarray and NGS within the normal karyotype group. In this study, we considered only the overall ploidy status, namely, euploid versus aneuploid, when calculating the concordance rate between the niPGT-A and PGT results. No significant difference in the concordance rate was observed between the microarray (72.2%) and NGS (75.6%) detection platforms (Table S2).

Table 1 Assessment of the 146 embryos with TE biopsy PGT and niPGT-A in the study
Full size table

Among these 149 ICSI embryos, paired TE biopsy and SCM samples were collected, and 146 (98.0%, 146/149) SCM samples were successfully amplified and sequenced (Fig. 1). A concordance rate of 78.1% (114/146) was achieved between the niPGT-A results and the TE biopsy PGT-A and PGT-SR results, with 81 true-positive samples, 33 true-negative samples, 12 false-positive samples (euploid according to PGT but aneuploid according to niPGT-A), and 20 false-negative samples (aneuploid according to PGT but euploid according to niPGT-A) (Table 1). The check for sex concordance showed that 2.7% (4/146) of the results might have been affected by maternal DNA contamination. In total, 32 samples presented inconsistent CNV profiles between the PGT and niPGT-A results, of which 12 and 20 tested positive for niPGT-A and PGT, respectively (Table S3). A large proportion of the PGT-positive (55.0%, 11/20) and niPGT-A-positive (91.7%, 11/12) blastocysts were found to have mosaic aneuploidy, reflecting potential false-positive and false-negative representations of the TE biopsy PGT results (Table S3).

Concordance between SCM and ICM

To confirm the concordance of TE and SCM with the gold standard ICM, ten PGT-A/SR-positive but niPGT-A negative embryos were donated from those families who gave birth to healthy babies. Clinical outcomes were collected from 23 patients who underwent single blastocyst transfer with embryos that were determined to be euploid by TE-PGT. Among them, 19 patients had euploid results from both TE-PGT and niPGT, and 8 achieved live birth (42.1%, 8/19); 4 patients with euploid TE-PGT results but aneuploid niPGT results, only 1 achieved live birth (25%, 1/4).

The CNV profiles of the TE, ICM and niPGT-A samples of the same blastocyst are shown in Table 2. As determined by the ICM results, seven out of ten blastocysts were euploid, while the other three had mosaic aneuploidy or chromosomal abnormalities. Among the SCM samples, seven were actually true negatives, and three were false negatives (Fig. 1; Table 2).

Table 2 Comparison of PGT and niPGT-A using TE, ICM and SCM biopsy samples from 10 donated blastocysts (positive in the 1st TE sample PGT)
Full size table

The 2nd round of TE PGT reported two positive embryos (true positive), one of which (EM81) was pinpointed to the same chromosomal locations as the ICM result. Moreover, the 2nd round of PGT results revealed five euploid embryos (true negatives), as supported by both the ICM and SCM (niPGT-A) results, which were marked as false positives in the 1st round of TE PGT. Considering the above ICM and 2nd TE PGT corrections, the overall concordance rate between the PGT and niPGT-A results improved to 82.9% (Table 1).

In addition, the 2nd round of TE biopsy PGT revealed a 50% (5/10) true-negative rate and a 20% (2/10) true-positive rate, while the 1st round of TE biopsy PGT revealed a 70.0% (7/10) false-positive rate. Notably, only a 40.0% (4/10) concordance rate was achieved between the two rounds of PGT tests using TE samples. The disagreement might be justified by the possible mosaicism of the blastocysts and technical variations between the two rounds of TE samplings.

Discussion

In this study, we demonstrated that storage of SCM samples at -80 °C for 3 to 6 months did not affect the amplification success rate or the accuracy of CNV detection. In the future, in cases where the results of PGT-A are mosaic, multiple abnormalities, or not available (N/A), niPGT via precollected SCM could be an alternative method to confirm chromosome ploidy. If the patients in the PGT-A cycle fail to achieve a successful transplant on the first attempt and there are no euploid embryos to be transplanted, SCM could be used as a backup sample for reassessing embryonic CNVs. This would allow embryologists to avoid performing unnecessary second biopsies or experiencing embryo loss due to inaccurate PGT-A results. However, the safety and clinical effect of niPGT still require the nonselection study and a subsequent randomized controlled trial to support.

The SCM sampling method was adjusted (D4–D5/D6) according to the conventional SCM collection period (D3–D5). Additionally, removing the culture medium from the early blastocyst stage (D3–D4) can further reduce the risk of maternal DNA contamination. One may be concerned that removing the medium would lead to the loss of cfDNA from the previous D3–D4 culture; indeed, the majority of niPGT-A studies using SCM extracted between D3–D5 achieved remarkably high amplification rates of 89–100% [14, 16, 24, 25]. Nevertheless, SCM collected between D4–D5/6/7 and D4–D6/D7 also yielded equivalent detection rates of 95% and 92%, respectively [15, 26], which is further supported by our amplification rate of 98% (146/149). More importantly, this extra step would help reduce the maternal contamination rate, according to the data in Huang et al.’s study [23]. In this study, only 2.7% (4/146) of samples were suspected of having maternal contamination, suggesting that the above sampling method indeed helped reduce the percentage of maternal DNA present in the collected SCM as a result of the elimination of granulosa cell DNA input after the medium change on D4, thereby minimizing the inconsistency in interpreting the results.

As shown in the results, a higher concordance rate (88.5% versus 74.6%) between niPGT and PGT was achieved in the patient group with chromosome rearrangements compared to the group with normal karyotypes (Table 1). This is primarily due to the higher proportion of positive embryos present among patients with abnormal karyotypes than in patients with normal karyotypes. Researchers have used different ways to calculate consistency in recent years. (1) Clinical consistency refers to the test results impacting clinical decisions, as some researchers suppose that only euploid embryos would be considered for implantation. This means that clinical consistency is the foundation, aligns with the transplantation decision. (2) Full consistency can only be considered consistent when the test result is in line with the karyotype, especially for patients with known chromosomal abnormalities. (3) Partial consistency: Some researchers consider SCM and the gold standard to be two different types of samples. In this study, we calculated the clinical consistency, mainly considering that implantation is usually avoided in clinical practice when chromosomal abnormalities are identified within the embryos.

Several studies have reported that some mosaic PGT-A embryos can also result in live births, indicating TE cells biopsied could not represent the entire embryos [27,28,29]. The DNA in the spent medium likely originates from the ICM and TE, which undergo apoptosis during preimplantation development. Huang et al. reported niPGT-A has the potential to be superior to TE biopsy for PGT-A [30]. The findings reported in this study agree with others on using a noninvasive approach (SCM) for human embryonic PGT. We conclude that embryonic cfDNA released between D4–D5/6 blastocyst cultures can be detected and that the whole genome can be amplified in almost all SCM samples. Further validation and testing are required to optimize the reporting threshold of mosaic chromosomal variations in niPGT-A readouts to maintain sensitivity and minimize the false-positive rate. Nevertheless, the noninvasiveness makes niPGT-A an informative supplement to PGT with TE biopsy and potentially a substitution in the near future.

This study provides a noninvasive detection assay as a remedy for failed PGT. In the future, for patients of advanced maternal age or with low-quality embryos found in the early embryo development stage, the embryo culture media may be stored at -80 °C in advance. When an uncertain PGT-A result is obtained, especially for mosaic embryos, the reserved SCM samples can be used for CNV validation to avoid further damage from invasive TE biopsy and secondary vitrification. Li et al. [31] found that the SCM samples of embryos initially determined to be mosaic by PGT-A had a remarkably high amplification success rate of 97.6%, as well as an 87.2% ploidy consistency with the whole embryo, suggesting that SCM can be used for secondary validation of PGT outcomes. In addition, for patients who have not undergone PGT-A in the first IVF cycle with implantation failure or first-trimester miscarriage, simultaneously collecting SCM during embryo culture is also recommended. NiPGT-A results might provide further explanations, and rather than conventional PGT-A and a second cryopreservation, niPGT-A should be considered for the remaining cryopreserved embryos. Before clinical application of niPGT, the prognostics cohort study is still needed to evaluate the predictive values. If the predictive values are good, randomized controlled trial should be performed to assess the clinical efficiency. A recent study demonstrated that the application of the gentle WGA lysis process to biopsy cells prior to PGT was unable to amplify sperm DNA. Once the technique is improved to ensure that paternal cell interference is indeed neglectable, IVF insemination may be preferred to PGT for patients with a normal sperm number, motility, and morphology [32,33,34]. The application of niPGT using SCM samples can be extended to IVF-inseminated embryos, avoiding the economic burden caused by ICSI insemination and allowing more people to potentially benefit.

The study has several limitations. First, the WGA method is limited to NICSInst technique. It remains unclear whether other WGA methods can successfully amplify samples stored at -80 °C for six months. Further experimental design is required to validate this result. Second, the culture medium samples were not subjected to maternal contamination testing, which could potentially affect the CNV results. Third, the number of clinical outcomes collected is small. A wide range of factors could explain that difference observe in the two cohorts. Therefore, the larger nonselection studies and a randomized controlled trial are needed to confirm the clinical efficacy of niPGT.

Conclusions

In conclusion, this study demonstrated SCM stored at -80 °C for 6 months without affecting niPGT results based on NICSInst amplification.

Data availability

The data access process is uploaded to National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). The temporary URL link is https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA760962.

Abbreviations

PGT:

Preimplantation genetic testing

niPGT-A:

Noninvasive preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy

SCM:

Spent culture medium

TE:

Trophectoderm

ICSI:

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection

ET:

Embryo transfer

WGA:

Whole-genome amplification

NGS:

Next-generation sequencing

ICM:

Inner cell mass

IVF:

In vitro fertilization

NICS:

Noninvasive chromosome screening

CNV:

Copy number variation

aCGH:

Array comparative genomic hybridization

References

  1. Fragouli E, Alfarawati S, Spath K, Jaroudi S, Sarasa J, Enciso M, Wells D. The origin and impact of embryonic aneuploidy. Hum Genet. 2013;132(9):1001–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Franasiak JM, Forman EJ, Hong KH, Werner MD, Upham KM, Treff NR, Scott RT. The nature of aneuploidy with increasing age of the female partner: a review of 15,169 consecutive trophectoderm biopsies evaluated with comprehensive chromosomal screening. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(3):656–e663651.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rabinowitz M, Ryan A, Gemelos G, Hill M, Baner J, Cinnioglu C, Banjevic M, Potter D, Petrov DA, Demko Z. Origins and rates of aneuploidy in human blastomeres. Fertil Steril. 2012;97(2):395–401.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Fiorentino F, Biricik A, Bono S, Spizzichino L, Cotroneo E, Cottone G, Kokocinski F, Michel CE. Development and validation of a next-generation sequencing-based protocol for 24-chromosome aneuploidy screening of embryos. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(5):1375–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lee HL, McCulloh DH, Hodes-Wertz B, Adler A, McCaffrey C, Grifo JA. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening improves implantation and live birth in women age 40 through 43. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32(3):435–44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Simon AL, Kiehl M, Fischer E, Proctor JG, Bush MR, Givens C, Rabinowitz M, Demko ZP. Pregnancy outcomes from more than 1,800 in vitro fertilization cycles with the use of 24-chromosome single-nucleotide polymorphism–based preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy. Fertil Steril. 2018;110(1):113–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wells D, Kaur K, Grifo J, Glassner M, Taylor JC, Fragouli E, Munne S. Clinical utilisation of a rapid low-pass whole genome sequencing technique for the diagnosis of aneuploidy in human embryos prior to implantation. J Med Genet. 2014;51(8):553–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Barad DH, Darmon SK, Kushnir VA, Albertini DF, Gleicher N. Impact of preimplantation genetic screening on donor oocyte-recipient cycles in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217(5):e576571–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kang HJ, Melnick AP, Stewart JD, Xu K, Rosenwaks Z. Preimplantation genetic screening: who benefits? Fertil Steril. 2016;106(3):597–602.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Munné S, Blazek J, Large M, Martinez-Ortiz PA, Nisson H, Liu E, Tarozzi N, Borini A, Becker A, Zhang J, et al. Detailed investigation into the cytogenetic constitution and pregnancy outcome of replacing mosaic blastocysts detected with the use of high-resolution next-generation sequencing. Fertil Steril. 2017;108(1):62–e7168.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Paulson RJ. Preimplantation genetic screening: what is the clinical efficiency? Fertil Steril. 2017;108(2):228–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Stigliani S, Anserini P, Venturini PL, Scaruffi P. Mitochondrial DNA content in embryo culture medium is significantly associated with human embryo fragmentation. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(10):2652–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hammond ER, Shelling AN, Cree LM. Nuclear and mitochondrial DNA in blastocoele fluid and embryo culture medium: evidence and potential clinical use. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(8):1653–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Xu J, Fang R, Chen L, Chen D, Xiao J-P, Yang W, Wang H, Song X, Ma T, Bo S, et al. Noninvasive chromosome screening of human embryos by genome sequencing of embryo culture medium for in vitro fertilization. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2016;113(42):11907–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Rubio C, Rienzi L, Navarro-Sánchez L, Cimadomo D, García-Pascual CM, Albricci L, Soscia D, Valbuena D, Capalbo A, Ubaldi F, et al. Embryonic cell-free DNA versus trophectoderm biopsy for aneuploidy testing: concordance rate and clinical implications. Fertil Steril. 2019;112(3):510–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Yeung QSY, Zhang YX, Chung JPW, Lui WT, Kwok YKY, Gui B, Kong GWS, Cao Y, Li TC, Choy KW. A prospective study of non-invasive preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (NiPGT-A) using next-generation sequencing (NGS) on spent culture media (SCM). J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36(8):1609–21.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. ESHRE PGT-SR/PGT-A Working Group, Coonen E, Rubio C, Christopikou D, Dimitriadou E, Gontar J, Goossens V, Maurer M, Spinella F, Vermeulen N, et al. ESHRE PGT Consortium good practice recommendations for the detection of structural and numerical chromosomal aberrations. Hum Reprod Open. 2020;2020(3):hoaa017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fragouli E, Munne S, Wells D. The cytogenetic constitution of human blastocysts: insights from comprehensive chromosome screening strategies. Hum Reprod Update. 2019;25(1):15–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Munne S, Grifo J, Wells D. Mosaicism: survival of the fittest versus no embryo left behind. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(5):1146–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ruttanajit T, Chanchamroen S, Cram DS, Sawakwongpra K, Suksalak W, Leng X, Fan J, Wang L, Yao Y, Quangkananurug W. Detection and quantitation of chromosomal mosaicism in human blastocysts using copy number variation sequencing. Prenat Diagn. 2016;36(2):154–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Electronic address. Asrm asrm.org, Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the society for assisted Reproductive Technology: the use of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A): a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2018;109(3):429–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Zhang S, Tan K, Gong F, Gu Y, Tan Y, Lu C, Luo K, Lu G, Lin G. Blastocysts can be rebiopsied for preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(6):1641–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Huang J, Yao Y, Jia J, Zhu X, Ma J, Wang J, Liu P, Lu S. Chromosome screening of human preimplantation embryos by using Spent Culture Medium: Sample Collection and Chromosomal Ploidy Analysis. J Visualized Experiments: JoVE. 2021; (175).

  24. Fang R, Yang W, Zhao X, Xiong F, Guo C, Xiao J, Chen L, Song X, Wang H, Chen J, et al. Chromosome screening using culture medium of embryos fertilised in vitro: a pilot clinical study. J Translational Med. 2019;17(1):73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Vera-Rodriguez M, Diez-Juan A, Jimenez-Almazan J, Martinez S, Navarro R, Peinado V, Mercader A, Meseguer M, Blesa D, Moreno I, et al. Origin and composition of cell-free DNA in spent medium from human embryo culture during preimplantation development. Hum Reprod. 2018;33(4):745–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Rubio C, Navarro-Sánchez L, García-Pascual CM, Ocali O, Cimadomo D, Venier W, Barroso G, Kopcow L, Bahçeci M, Kulmann MIR et al. Multicenter prospective study of concordance between embryonic cell-free DNA and trophectoderm biopsies from 1301 human blastocysts. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020, 223(5):751.e751-751.e713.

  27. Fragouli E, Alfarawati S, Spath K, Babariya D, Tarozzi N, Borini A, Wells D. Analysis of implantation and ongoing pregnancy rates following the transfer of mosaic diploid-aneuploid blastocysts. Hum Genet. 2017;136(7):805–19.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Greco E, Minasi MG, Fiorentino F. Healthy babies after intrauterine transfer of mosaic aneuploid blastocysts. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(21):2089–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lledo B, Morales R, Ortiz JA, Blanca H, Ten J, Llacer J, Bernabeu R. Implantation potential of mosaic embryos. Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2017;63(3):206–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Huang L, Bogale B, Tang Y, Lu S, Xie XS, Racowsky C. Noninvasive preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy in spent medium may be more reliable than trophectoderm biopsy. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2019;116(28):14105–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Li X, Hao Y, Chen D, Ji D, Zhu W, Zhu X, Wei Z, Cao Y, Zhang Z, Zhou P. Non-invasive preimplantation genetic testing for putative mosaic blastocysts: a pilot study. Hum Reprod. 2021;36(7):2020–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Niu X, Long J, Gong F, Wang W. Does ICSI for in vitro fertilization cause more aneuploid embryos? Mol Cytogenet. 2020;13:27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Practice Committee Genetic Counseling Professional Group of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine Electronic address. asrm@asrm.org: clinical management of mosaic results from preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) of blastocysts: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2020;114(2):246–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) for non-male factor infertility: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(6):1395–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Yan Zhou for contributing to the conception and study design, Jing Wang and Dunmei Zhao for performing the data acquisition.

Funding

This work was supported by the research grant from the sub-project of the National Key R&D Program (2023YFC2705600, 2023YFC2705601, 2023YFC2705603), National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 82171677, 82192864), the Shanghai Municipal Commission of Science and Technology Program (22S31901500, 23ZR1408000, 21Y21901002), Shanghai Municipal Commission of Health and family planning (2024ZZ2017).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Songchang Chen and Li Wang contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital, Institute of Reproduction and Development, Fudan University, Shanghai, China

    Songchang Chen, Hefeng Huang & Chenming Xu

  2. School of Medicine, The International Peace Maternity and Child Health Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China

    Songchang Chen, Li Wang, Yuting Hu, Chunxin Chang, Lanlan Zhang, Hefeng Huang & Chenming Xu

  3. State Key Laboratory of Genetic Engineering and MOE Engineering Research Centre of Gene Technology, School of Life Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai, China

    Songchang Chen & Daru Lu

  4. Shanghai Key Laboratory of Embryo Original Diseases, Shanghai, China

    Songchang Chen, Li Wang, Yuting Hu, Chunxin Chang, Lanlan Zhang, Hefeng Huang & Chenming Xu

  5. Yikon Genomics Co., Ltd., Suzhou, China

    Yaxin Yao & Fangfang Gao

Authors
  1. Songchang Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Li Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yuting Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yaxin Yao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Fangfang Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  6. Chunxin Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  7. Lanlan Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  8. Hefeng Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  9. Daru Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  10. Chenming Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

C.X., S. C., and L.W. designed the experiments and drafted the manuscript; L.W. and Y.H. contributed to the clinical samples; S. C., Y. Y., F. G., C. C. and L. Z. performed the experiments and analyzed the data; C. X., H. H., S.C. and D. L. reviewed the manuscript. The work was finalized by S. C.and C. X. with the assistance of all the authors. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Songchang Chen or Chenming Xu.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the ethics committee of the International Peace Maternity & Child Health Hospital (IPMCH). Informed consent was obtained from all patients included in this study as required by the ethics committee of IPMCH. All experiments were performed following the relevant guidelines and regulations.

Consent for publication

Not Applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary Material 2

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, S., Wang, L., Hu, Y. et al. Noninvasive preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy using blastocyst spent culture medium may serve as a backup of trophectoderm biopsy in conventional preimplantation genetic testing. BMC Med Genomics 18, 34 (2025). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12920-025-02106-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12920-025-02106-7

Keywords

BMC Medical Genomics

ISSN: 1755-8794

Contact us