Multi-centre evaluation of a comprehensive preimplantation genetic test through haplotyping-by-sequencing

Heleen Masset, Masoud Zamani Esteki, Eftychia Dimitriadou, Jos Dreesen, Sophie Debrock, Josien Derhaag, Kasper Derks, Aspasia Destouni, Marion Drusedau, Jeroen Meekels, Cindy Melotte, Karen Peeraer, Olga Tsuiko, Chris van Uum, Joke Allemeersch, Benoit Devogelaere, Katrien Omer Francois, Scott Happe, Dennis Lorson, Rebecca Louise RichardsJessie Theuns, Han Brunner, Christine de Die-Smulders, Thierry Voet, Aimee Paulussen, Edith Coonen, Joris Robert Vermeesch*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review


STUDY QUESTION Can reduced representation genome sequencing offer an alternative to single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) arrays as a generic and genome-wide approach for comprehensive preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic disorders (PGT-M), aneuploidy (PGT-A) and structural rearrangements (PGT-SR) in human embryo biopsy samples?

SUMMARY ANSWER Reduced representation genome sequencing, with OnePGT, offers a generic, next-generation sequencing-based approach for automated haplotyping and copy-number assessment, both combined or independently, in human single blastomere and trophectoderm samples.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Genome-wide haplotyping strategies, such as karyomapping and haplarithmisis, have paved the way for comprehensive PGT, i.e. leveraging PGT-M, PGT-A and PGT-SR in a single workflow. These methods are based upon SNP array technology.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This multi-centre verification study evaluated the concordance of PGT results for a total of 225 embryos, including 189 originally tested for a monogenic disorder and 36 tested for a translocation. Concordance for whole chromosome aneuploidies was also evaluated where whole genome copy-number reference data were available. Data analysts were kept blind to the results from the reference PGT method.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Leftover blastomere/trophectoderm whole genome amplified (WGA) material was used, or secondary trophectoderm biopsies were WGA. A reduced representation library from WGA DNA together with bulk DNA from phasing references was processed across two study sites with the Agilent OnePGT solution. Libraries were sequenced on an Illumina NextSeq500 system, and data were analysed with Agilent Alissa OnePGT software. The embedded PGT-M pipeline utilises the principles of haplarithmisis to deduce haplotype inheritance whereas both the PGT-A and PGT-SR pipelines are based upon read-count analysis in order to evaluate embryonic ploidy. Concordance analysis was performed for both analysis strategies against the reference PGT method.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE PGT-M analysis was performed on 189 samples. For nine samples, the data quality was too poor to analyse further, and for 20 samples, no result could be obtained mainly due to biological limitations of the haplotyping approach, such as co-localisation of meiotic crossover events and nullisomy for the chromosome of interest. For the remaining 160 samples, 100% concordance was obtained between OnePGT and the reference PGT-M method. Equally for PGT-SR, 100% concordance for all 36 embryos tested was demonstrated. Moreover, with embryos originally analysed for PGT-M or PGT-SR for which genome-wide copy-number reference data were available, 100% concordance was shown for whole chromosome copy-number calls (PGT-A).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Inherent to haplotyping methodologies, processing of additional family members is still required. Biological limitations caused inconclusive results in 10% of cases.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Employment of OnePGT for PGT-M, PGT-SR, PGT-A or combined as comprehensive PGT offers a scalable platform, which is inherently generic and thereby, eliminates the need for family-specific design and optimisation. It can be considered as both an improvement and complement to the current methodologies for PGT.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) Agilent Technologies, the KU Leuven (C1/018 to J.R.V. and T.V.) and the Horizon 2020 WIDENLIFE (692065 to J.R.V. and T.V). H.M. is supported by the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO, 11A7119N). M.Z.E, J.R.V. and T.V. are co-inventors on patent applications: ZL910050-PCT/EP2011/060211- WO/2011/157846 Methods for haplotyping single cells' and ZL913096-PCT/EP2014/068315 Haplotyping and copy-number typing using polymorphic variant allelic frequencies'. T.V. and J.R.V. are co-inventors on patent application: ZL912076-PCT/EP2013/070858 High-throughput genotyping by sequencing'. Haplarithmisis (Haplotyping and copy-number typing using polymorphic variant allelic frequencies') has been licensed to Agilent Technologies. The following patents are pending for OnePGT: US2016275239, AU2014345516, CA2928013, CN105874081, EP3066213 and WO2015067796. OnePGT is a registered trademark. D.L., J.T. and R.L.R. report personal fees during the conduct of the study and outside the submitted work from Agilent Technologies. S.H. and K.O.F. report personal fees and other during the conduct of the study and outside the submitted work from Agilent Technologies. J.A. reports personal fees and other during the conduct of the study from Agilent Technologies and personal fees from Agilent Technologies and UZ Leuven outside the submitted work. B.D. reports grants from IWT/VLAIO, personal fees during the conduct of the study from Agilent Technologies and personal fees and other outside the submitted work from Agilent Technologies. In addition, B.D. has a patent 20160275239 - Genetic Analysis Method pending. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1608-1619
Number of pages12
JournalHuman Reproduction
Issue number8
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2019


  • PGD

Cite this