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

70Citations
Citations of this article
81Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

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. © 2011 The Author.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Magli, M. C., Montag, M., Kster, M., Muzi, L., Geraedts, J., Collins, J., … Gianaroli, L. (2011). Polar body array CGH for prediction of the status of the corresponding oocyte. Part II: Technical aspects. Human Reproduction, 26(11), 3181–3185. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der295

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free