Polar body array CGH for prediction of the status of the corresponding oocyte. Part II: technical aspects

M. Cristina Magli*, Markus Montag, Maria Koester, Luigi Muzi, Joep Geraedts, John Collins, Veerle Goossens, Alan H. Handyside, Joyce Harper, Sjoerd Repping, Andreas Schmutzler, Katerina Vesela, Luca Gianaroli

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

46 Citations (Web of Science)


BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess the technical aspects related to polar body (PB) biopsy, which might have an influence on the results of the microarray comparative genomic hybridization analysis. Furthermore, a comparison was made between two biopsy methods (mechanical and laser). METHODS: Biopsy of the first and second PB (PB1 and PB2) was performed by mechanical- or laser-assisted biopsy in two different IVF centres. PBs were separately amplified by whole genome amplification. RESULTS: The method of biopsy, mechanical or laser had no influence on the proportion of successfully biopsied oocytes. Especially, for the PB2, the timing of biopsy after ICSI was directly correlated to amplification efficiency. CONCLUSIONS: Special care has to be taken with respect to the timing of biopsy of the PB2. Mechanical- and laser-assisted biopsy give the same performance in terms of diagnostic efficiency.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)3181-3185
JournalHuman Reproduction
Issue number11
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2011


  • aneuploidy
  • array CGH
  • biopsy
  • polar body
  • oocyte

Cite this