Chromosomal factors of infertility in candidate couples for ICSI: an equal risk of constitutional aberrations in women and men*

J. Gekas1,10, F. Thepot1, C. Turleau2, J.P. Siffroi3, J.P. Dadoune7, S. Briault, M. Rio, G. Bourouillou, F. Carré-Pigeon, R. Wasels8, B. Benzacken9 and The Association des Cytogeneticiensde Langue Francaise**,**

1 Departments of Cytogenetics and Reproductive Medicine, University Hospital of Amiens, 2 Department of Cytogenetics, University Hospital of Necker-Enfants-Malades, Paris, 3 Departments of Cytogenetics and Reproductive Medicine, University Hospital of Tenon, Paris, 4Department of Human Genetics, University Hospital of Tours, France, 5Department of Cytogenetics, Hospital of Caen, 6Department of Human Genetics, University Hospital of Toulouse, 7 Department of Cytogenetics, University Hospital of Reims, 8 Cytogenetic Laboratory of Metz, 9 Department of Cytogenetics, University Hospital of Jean Verdier, Bondy, France


    Abstract
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
To assess the frequency of chromosomal aberrations in French candidates for intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), and to explore the existence of a female chromosomal factor in some cases of couple infertility, a collaborative retrospective clinical and cytogenetic study was performed, launched by the Association des Cytogénéticiens de Langue Franciaise (ACLF). The karyotypes of 3208 patients [2196 men (68.4%), 1012 (31.6%) women] included in ICSI programmes over a 3-year period in France were collected. A total of 183 aberrant karyotypes was diagnosed, corresponding to an abnormality frequency of 6.1% (134/2196) for men and 4.84% (49/1012) for women. The following frequencies of abnormalities were observed respectively for men and women: 1.23% (n = 27) and 0.69% (n = 7) for reciprocal translocations, 0.82% (n = 18) and 0.69% (n = 7) for Robertsonian translocations, 0.13% (n = 3) and 0.69% (n = 7) for inversions, 3.32% (n = 73) and 2.77% (n = 28) for numerical sex chromosome aberrations, and 0.59% (n = 13) and 0% for other structural aberrations. Among the male patients of this latter group, 0.40% (n = 9) had a Y chromosome abnormality. Among the male patients with numerical sex chromosome abnormalities, 2.23% (n = 49) were 47,XXY, 0.32% (n = 7) were 47,XYY, and 0.77% (n = 17) had a mosaicism for numerical sex chromosome anomalies. All the female patients with sex chromosome abnormalities (2.77%, n = 28) had mosaicism for numerical sex chromosome anomalies. Even if these cases—the significance of which was sometimes questioned—were disregarded in the analysis, 2.08% (21/1012) of abnormal karyotypes remained in women. An overall increased frequency of chromosomal aberrations was found, and this confirmed that in some cases of poor reproductive outcome there may be a contribution of maternal chromosome aberrations. Indeed, the existence of a chromosome abnormality in the female partner was associated with the group of infertile men in which there was no apparent cause of infertility.

Key words: chromosomal aberration/female infertility/genetic counselling/intracytoplasmic sperm injection/male infertility


    Introduction
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) is the treatment of choice for andrological infertility, allowing fertilization and pregnancy rates close to those of natural conception, even in the presence of severely compromised semen parameters (Van Steirteghem et al., 1993Go; Joris et al., 1994Go; Nagy et al., 1994Go). Several studies have shown a high incidence of chromosome abnormalities in infertile men (Chandley and Hargreave, 1996Go) that ranged from 2.2% to 14.3% (Laurent et al., 1973Go; Chandley, 1979Go; Matsuda et al., 1992Go), with an overall incidence of 7.1% (Retief et al., 1984Go). Based upon this increase, chromosomal analysis is widely recommended for the male partner undergoing ICSI (De Braekeleer and Dao, 1991Go; Meschede et al., 1995Go). Cytogenetic screening has been recommended for the female partner of ICSI couples by some authors (Healy et al., 1994Go; Meschede et al., 1995Go, 1998Go; Scholtes et al., 1998Go; Van der Ven et al., 1998Go), but the rationale of such an approach has not been firmly established. A causal relationship has been clearly established only for female chromosomal abnormality in spontaneous fetal losses (Plachot, 1997Go). Contradictory data have been published concerning the frequency of chromosomal abnormalities in women enrolled in ICSI programmes (from 1.1 to 15.3%; Meschede et al., 1998).

In order to assess the frequency of chromosomal aberrations in French ICSI candidates (including the female partners), and to explore the existence of a hidden female chromosomal factor in some cases of couple infertility, a collaborative, retrospective, clinical and cytogenetic study was performed, initiated by the Association des Cytogénéticiens de Langue Franciaise (ACLF), with 20 reproduction centres and cytogenetic laboratories in France. The results are presented here, and their implications discussed.


    Materials and methods
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Study design
Twenty reproduction centres and cytogenetic laboratories in France were asked to participate in a study on ICSI candidates. The centres were asked to complete a multiple choice questionnaire for each infertile patient or couple included in the survey. This questionnaire related to the patients' clinical and reproductive history, laboratory findings (serum FSH concentration, etc.), and cytogenetic and semen analysis results. Seventeen items of this questionnaire were used for this study and are presented in Figure 1Go.



View larger version (29K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 1. Multiple choice questionnaire with 17 items completed for ICSI patients included in the survey.

 
Semen analysis was performed on at least two separate occasions for each patient, on samples obtained and evaluated in line with World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations and standards (WHO, 1994).

Karyotyping was conducted by analysis of G and/or R banding using the peripheral blood lymphocyte culture technique. All chromosomal abnormalities were reported in accordance with the current international standard nomenclature (Mitelman, 1995Go). At least 20 metaphases were analysed for each patient. In cases of numerical mosaics (especially for sex chromosomes), >30 cells were examined. Only numerical abnormalities present in more than two cells were considered as mosaics (Mitelman, 1995Go). Sex chromosome mosaics occurring at a level of <10% were considered to be low-level mosaicism or minor mosaicism. The smallest sex chromosome mosaic reported contained a clone of 3% of cells (see Table IIIGo). Pericentric inversions of chromosome 9 or other structural chromosomal variants and polymorphisms (Dutch Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1996Go), low-level mosaicism for fragile sites, and structural rearrangements confined to a single cell were not included in chromosomal abnormalities, but considered as normal cytogenetic events.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table III. Congenital chromosomal abnormalities detected in 3208 candidates (2196 males, 1012 females) for ICSI
 
Testicular volume was measured using an orchidometer; the lower limit for normal volume was 8 ml. Where indicated (secreting form suspected of infertility) and possible, a testicular biopsy was performed. Serum concentrations of FSH were measured by immunoradiometric assay and compared with normal values (1.8–13.6 mIU/ml).

Inclusion criteria
All patients were referred for sterility (no spontaneous pregnancy despite >2 years unprotected intercourse) and ICSI treatment because of male factor infertility: semen alteration which does not permit conventional IVF and/or previous failure of fertilization in at least one conventional IVF attempt. Management of women patients excluded gynaecological causes of female infertility. Full medical and laboratory records were available in all cases.

Study population
A total of 2196 (88.5%) correctly and fully completed questionnaires from 2196 men and 1012 women was collected between April 1995 and August 1998. More male than female partners were collected because some centres did not consider the women. Incomplete questionnaires (n = 284; 11.5%) were not used for analysis.

Male partners of couples (n = 1012) included in the survey
Andrological examination, full medical history, serum FSH, vasography findings, and abnormal testicular volume or biopsy results were used to classify as explained (30%, 274/917) or unexplained (70%, 643/917) the origin of infertility of non-azoospermic male partners of couples included in the survey (sperm concentration >0.106/ml; 90.6%, 917/1012). Explained infertility referred to patients with infertility that was obstructive (retrograde ejaculation, testis, epididymis or prostate infection, agenesis of vas deferens and/or abnormal vasography results) or non-obstructive (testicular atrophy, high serum FSH concentration, abnormal testicular biopsy and/or clinical hypogonadism). Unexplained infertility referred to patients for whom there was no detectable reason for any obstructive or non-obstructive form of infertility.

Statistical analysis
The {chi}2-test was used for statistical evaluation. The level of significance was P < 0.05.


    Results
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
A total of 3208 candidates for ICSI [2196 males (68.5%), 1012 females (or couples, 31.5%)] was studied. More male than female partners were included because some centres did not perform cytogenetic analyses on women. Some 788 couples (77.9%) were referred for semen alteration, and 224 (22.1%) for long-term infertility with previous failure of fertilization (Table IGo). Frequencies (per 1000) of different abnormalities observed, and a comparison with the previously reported incidence in newborns, are detailed in Table IIGo.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table I. Incidence of chromosome abnormalities of studied couples(n = 1012) according to ICSI indication (%)
 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table II. Incidence of chromosome abnormality in study population (women and men) and comparison with general population unselected newborns (per 1000). Male population also subdivided into three classes in terms of sperm concentration [azoospermic, oligozoospermic (>0 and <20x106/ml respectively) and normal sperm concentration group (>=20x106/ml)]
 
Total frequency of chromosome abnormalities
A total of 183 aberrant karyotypes was diagnosed (Table IIIGo), corresponding to a frequency of 6.1% (134/2196) for men and 4.84% (49/1012) for women. The total incidences of chromosome abnormalities in women and men were not significantly different ({chi}2-test). In two couples, both husband and wife were diagnosed with an abnormal karyotype: 45,XY, der(13;14)(q10;q10) and 45,X [2]/46,XX [48]; 46,XY, inv(Y)(p11q12) and 45,X [3]/46,XX [27] respectively, for the male and female partner of these two couples.

Non-mosaic numerical sex chromosome abnormalities and Y chromosome abnormalities
The incidence of 47,XXY in azoospermic men was 141 times higher than in male newborns, while the incidence of Y chromosome abnormalities in azoospermic men was 46.6 times higher than in male newborns.

Frequency of sex chromosome mosaicism in men and women
Forty-five cases had mosaicism for number of sex chromosomes, with a strong preponderance of women (2.77%, 28/1012) compared with men (0.77%, 17/2196). These cases in women represented 100% (28/28) of abnormal cytogenetic results with a sex chromosome anomaly, compared with 23.3% (17/73) in the men. The increase noted for mosaicism for the sex chromosome was significantly higher in azoospermic men and among the female partners than in the men as a whole ({chi}2-test, respectively P < 0.05 and P < 0.001). Even if these cases were disregarded in the analysis, 2.08% (21/1012) of abnormal karyotypes remained in women (see Table IIGo). In the group of women with sex chromosome mosaicism, 79% (22/28) had a low level of mosaicism.

The mean age (32.6 years) of the 28 women with sex chromosome mosaicism in our cohort was above the average of 32.0 years calculated for the remainder of our female study population (n = 984), but the number of women with a mosaicism for sex chromosome anomaly in the >32-year-olds (16/648, 2.47%) or <32-year-olds (12/364, 3.29%; {chi}2-test) was not significantly different.

Autosomal balanced structural abnormalities
The incidence of autosomal balanced structural abnormalities in women and men was respectively 7.3 and 7.7 times higher than in newborns: the increase was not significantly different between these two groups ({chi}2-test).

The incidence of reciprocal translocations in women and men was respectively 4.5 and 8 times higher than in newborns: the increase was not significantly different between these two groups ({chi}2-test). The incidence of Robertsonian translocations in women and men was respectively 7.7 and 9.1 times higher than in newborns: the increase was not significantly different between these two groups ({chi}2-test).

The incidence of inversions in women was 16.4 times higher than in newborns. This increase compared to the infertile male group was significant: 16.4 times and 3.3 times higher than in newborns for women and men respectively ({chi}2, P < 0.01).

Sperm concentration, motility and morphology
The incidence of chromosome abnormalities in terms of sperm concentration for the study population is reported in Table IVGo. The incidence observed in azoospermic patients (18.71%) was significantly higher than that in the normal sperm concentration group (3.02%) ({chi}2, P < 0.001). However, the incidence noted for patients with a sperm concentration >0 and <5x106/ml (4.55%, {chi}2, not significant) or >=5x106/ml but <20x106/ml (2.37%, {chi}2, not significant) was not significantly different from that of the normal sperm concentration group (3.02%).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table IV. Incidence of chromosome abnormalities reported in population of studied males (n = 2196) in terms of sperm concentration (%)
 
In terms of sperm motility and morphology, no significant relationship was noted between the degree of disturbance and the incidence of major chromosome abnormalities (data not shown).

Female chromosomal factor
If there was no female chromosomal factor in some cases of couple infertility, a stochastic distribution of female partners with a chromosome aberration would have been expected in the present population of explored infertile couples (n = 1012). After having subdivided the men in terms of sperm concentration, a significantly higher frequency of chromosomal aberration in women was noted in couples when the sperm concentration was normal (7.55%, 21/278), compared with couples with an abnormal sperm concentration (3.81%, 28/734, {chi}2, P < 0.02) or with azoospermic (1.05%, 1/95, {chi}2, P < 0.02) or oligozoospermic (4.22%, 27/639, {chi}2, P < 0.05) male partners (Table VGo). Also, a significantly higher frequency of chromosomal aberration in women was noted in couples referred for fertilization failure, compared with those referred for semen alteration [respectively 9.37% (21/224) and 3.55% (28/788); {chi}2, P < 0.01] (see Table IGo).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table V. Incidence of chromosome abnormalities in studied couples (n = 1012) according to sperm concentration in male partners (%)
 
Azoospermic men (n = 95) whose infertility had an obvious cause were excluded. The remainder of the males (n = 917) were subdivided into two groups, namely those with an explained cause of the infertile state (obstructive or secreting form of infertility; n = 274/917, 29.9%) and those with no apparent cause of infertility (n = 643/917, 70.1%). A significantly higher frequency of chromosomal aberration in women was noted when no apparent cause was present that could justify the infertile state of their male partner: 2.55% (7/274) and 6.38% (41/643) of chromosome abnormality respectively in female partners in infertile couples with and without a male cause of infertility, ({chi}2, P < 0.02) (Table VIGo).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table VI. Incidence of chromosome abnormality in the female partner of couples for explained and unexplained origin of male infertility (%). Couples with an azoospermic male partner are excluded
 

    Discussion
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
The value of karyotyping women in the routine work-up of ICSI couples has long been debated, and data on female partner ICSI candidates (Table VIIGo) (Baschat et al., 1996Go; Peschka et al., 1996Go; Testart et al., 1996Go; Mau et al., 1997Go; Montag et al., 1997Go; Meschede et al., 1998Go; Scholtes et al., 1998Go; Tuerlings et al., 1998Go; Van der Ven et al., 1998Go; Peschka et al., 1999Go) may suggest the need for this screening. Our findings confirm these data, and underline unequivocally the potential existence of a chromosomal female factor in infertility of some ICSI couples. The reasons for this are three-fold: first, because reported chromosomal aberration frequencies (Table IIGo) exclude every normal chromosomal variant and polymorphisms; and second, because 2.08% (21/1012) of abnormal karyotypes remained in women, even if the 28 cases of female sex chromosome mosaicism (the significance of which is sometimes questioned) were disregarded in the analysis. In published data, when cases with sex chromosome mosaicism are either subtracted (Mau et al., 1997Go; Scholtes et al., 1998Go) or disregarded (Van der Ven et al., 1998Go), a similar frequency of chromosomal abnormality is reported as 2.32, 2.0, 3.3 and 2.5% by Scholtes et al. (1998), Mau et al. (1997), Van der Ven et al. (1998) and Peschka et al. (1999) respectively. The third reason is that because women have the same statistical risk of autosomal balanced structural abnormalities as men (Table IIGo) and the existence of a chromosome abnormality in the women was associated with groups of men with no apparent cause of infertility, namely normozoospermic men, or men with an unexplained form of infertility (non-azoospermic men without a defined obstructive or secreting form of infertility).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table VII. Cytogenetic studies of patients enrolled in ICSI programmes
 
Even if due to selection bias, this female chromosomal factor (when not a male factor of infertility) was a female factor resulting in couple infertility, and may not be neglected when planning the routine work-up of ICSI couples. It may have long been underestimated because the signs of chromosomal imbalance might be less obvious in oocytes than in spermatozoa, where reduced sperm numbers are easy to assess. Also, the incidence of women with a chromosomal aberration may have increased in ICSI candidates because ICSI treatments, which initially were reserved for men with severe infertility, have been extended to couples with long-term infertility and previous fertilization failure. Such couples constitute a new ICSI class which accounts for 22.1% of our study population, and points to a higher incidence of chromosome aberrations in the female partner since, as noted above, the incidence of chromosome abnormality in women of couples referred for previous fertilization failure was significantly higher than in those referred for semen alteration (Table IGo).

This excess of chromosome aberrations in women may have contributed to the infertility observed, even if selection against aneuploid oocytes at fertilization has been considered to be less likely than during the pre-implantation period or early stages of pregnancy (Plachot, 1997Go). An increased incidence of abnormality has been reported in oocytes obtained after IVF failure from couples with unexplained infertility compared with those with male factor infertility (Speed, 1986aGo,bGo; Mau et al., 1997Go; Plachot, 1997Go) and some authors report the possible implication of maternal chromosome abnormalities in reduced fertilization rates (Mittwoch et al., 1990Go; Meschede et al., 1995Go; Van der Ven et al., 1998Go).

The incidence of mosaicism for sex chromosomes is not related to women's age, is significantly higher in women than in men (where the incidence is significantly higher in azoospermic men than in the whole male population), and represents a large proportion of all chromosome abnormalities in women (Table IIGo), as noted previously (2.4%, Meschede et al., 1998; 7.2%, Scholtes et al., 1998). This may argue for the involvement of these mosaics in infertility. Low-level mosaicism is seen in 79% (22/28, Table IIIGo) of women with sex chromosome mosaicism. Low-frequency sex chromosomal aberrations have been described as an underestimated cause of failure in assisted reproduction (Simpson, 1992Go) and have been associated with a low implantation rate (Scholtes et al., 1998Go). In spite of this, and as reported previously (Healy et al., 1994Go; Van der Ven et al., 1998Go), it would be highly speculative to postulate a connection between this type of chromosomal aberration and the infertility of our couples. First, the incidence of such aberrations is still poorly known in the general population: the largest published study was based on cytogenetic analysis of a few cells (Hook and Hamerton, 1977Go). Second, many cytogeneticists do not even mention the aberrations in karyotyping results because they are considered as normal cytogenetic variants in asymptomatic patients. Third, there is no clearly established minimum percentage of aberrant cells required for the karyotype to be classified as a real mosaicism and not a low-level mosaicism (Mitelman, 1995Go). Also, one study reports comparable rates of low-level sex chromosomal mosaicism between women and men included in ICSI programmes and control groups of couples with a spontaneous pregnancy within 2 years (Peschka et al., 1999Go). More data are needed, particularly on the general population, to define the role of low-level sex chromosomal mosaicism in the infertility of some couples.

It has been known for some 25 years (Chandley et al., 1975Go; Chandley, 1979Go) that there is a causal relation between chromosomal aberrations and male infertility, that the incidence of chromosomal aberrations is inversely correlated with sperm count, and that the major indication for karyotyping an infertile man is still usually an abnormal sperm analysis. The frequency and type of chromosome abnormalities in our population of ICSI infertile men do not differ from published data on non-ICSI infertile men (Chandley et al., 1975Go; Chandley, 1979Go). Infertile male ICSI candidates therefore do not seem to have a particular chromosomal profile compared with non-ICSI infertile men. Although the frequency of chromosome abnormality in normozoospermic men was elevated (3.02%) (Table IVGo), as reported previously in non-ICSI candidates (1.68%, Yoshida et al., 1997), the incidence noted for patients with a sperm concentration >0 and <5x106/ml or >=5x106/ml but <20x106/ml was not significantly different from that of the normal sperm concentration group. No significant correlation was noted between sperm motility and morphology anomalies and the incidence of chromosome abnormalities, in accordance with some data (Bourrouillou et al., 1992Go; Testart et al., 1996Go), but in contradiction with others for sperm motility (Chandley et al., 1975Go; Bourrouillou et al., 1992Go) and morphology (Bourrouillou et al., 1992Go). This confirms the low weighting accorded to semen disturbance in predicting a risk of chromosomal abnormality (Pandiyan and Jequier, 1996Go), and perhaps suggests that fertilization failure is the only sign of chromosomal abnormality in men and may in itself justify a cytogenetic analysis.

A 47,XYY karyotype was found in seven men, a mosaic 47,XYY/46,XY in one, and a Y-chromosome aberration in nine (Table IIIGo): we confirm (Tuerlings et al., 1998Go) the relatively high frequency of men with a 47,XYY karyotype or Y-chromosome aberration in ICSI candidates (Table IIGo), although most men with a 47,XYY karyotype are reported to be normally fertile (Van Wijek et al., 1962Go; Jones, 1997Go). Failure of spermatogenesis in patients with a Yq chromosome aberration could be explained by alteration of the azoospermia factors a, b and c located on the euchromatic segment of Yq (Viguié et al., 1982Go; Tuerlings et al., 1998Go). As noted previously (Scholtes et al., 1998Go), we report more reciprocal than Robertsonian translocations in male ICSI candidates, in contrast to that reported by others (Tuerlings et al., 1998Go). Supernumerary marker chromosomes were found in three men (Table IIIGo). An excess of such markers was previously noted for infertile men (Pandiyan and Jequier, 1996Go; Mau et al., 1997Go; Tuerlings et al., 1998Go). A surprisingly high frequency of inversions was noted in women compared with men and newborns (Table IIIGo). An association between autosomal inversion and infertility in men has been reported (Faed et al., 1979Go), but inversions in women are not reported to be implicated in infertility. The inversion concerned chromosome 10 in three cases and chromosome 4 in two (Table IIIGo), each time at different breakpoints: more data may be useful in defining their status concerning female infertility, and particularly their influence on oocyte production and quality.

In the present study, an overall increased frequency of chromosomal aberrations was found in French ICSI candidates, and it was confirmed that in some cases of poor reproductive outcome there was a potential contribution of maternal chromosome aberrations that cannot be identified by standard clinical evaluation. Our results, like those of other authors, first emphasize the need for thorough genetic work-up in men (Meschede et al., 1998Go; Tuerlings et al., 1998Go; Van der Ven et al., 1998Go) and women (Meschede et al., 1998Go; Van der Ven et al., 1998Go) undergoing ICSI. In both cases, this work-up should include karyotyping. Second, the results show that aneuploid oocytes may be selected at fertilization, and third, that fertilization failure could be the only sign of chromosomal abnormality in men or women. By selecting a single spermatozoon for injection, the ICSI technique by-passes the usual process of natural selection which is thought to occur both during natural conception and in conventional IVF, resulting in a greater chance of fertilization involving an abnormal spermatozoon or oocyte. Fertilization and pregnancy rates are independent of both sperm motility and morphology (Baschat et al., 1996Go), and morphological parameters of embryo quality prior to implantation show no relation to karyotype. Also, preliminary follow-up data on pregnancies conceived through ICSI suggest that sex chromosome anomalies may be more common than in naturally occurring pregnancies (Jacobs et al., 1992Go; In't Veld et al., 1995; Liebaers et al., 1995aGo; Van Opstal et al., 1997Go). Karyotypes done on children conceived by ICSI have found an increased incidence of abnormalities (Zenzes et al., 1992Go; Liebaers et al., 1995aGo,bGo), and in a study reporting a significant difference in development one year after birth between newborns conceived by ICSI and IVF and naturally conceived newborns (Bowen et al., 1998Go) it was supposed that the slight development delays may be due to chromosomal abnormalities. In chromosomally abnormal couples, as there is a high likelihood of producing an embryo with chromosome abnormalities, the difficulty of prenatal diagnosis in multiple fetus pregnancy must be considered when making any decisions concerning the number of embryos that should be transferred.


    Notes
 
1 These analyses were carried out at the Department of Cytogenetics and Reproductive Medicine, University Hospital of Amiens, France. Back

2 Association de Cytogeneticiens de Langue Francaise:

M.Montagnon, Department of Cytogenetics, University Hospital of Ambroise Paré, Boulogne-Billancourt, France

N.Rives, Department of Cytogenetics, University Hospital of Rouen, France

L. Clotteau, Department of Cytogenetics, University Hospital of Rouen, France

M.C.Malingue, Department of Human Genetics, Centre University Hospital of Angers, France

P.Darabi, Department of Reproductive Medicine, Centre University Hospital of Cochin, Paris, France

C.Poitot, Department of Reproductive Medicine, Centre University Hospital of Cochin, Paris, France

F.Baverel, Department of Cytogenetics, University Hospital of Cochin, Paris, France

S.Lesourd, Departments of Cytogenetics and Reproductive Medicine, University Hospital of Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France

M.A.Collonge-Rame, Departments of Reproductive Medicine, Hospital of Besancion, France

J.Lespinasse, Department of Cytogenetics, University Hospital of Chambéry, France

C.Carel, Department of Human Genetics, University Hospital of Nice, France

A.Devaux, Department of Reproductive Medicine, University Hospital of Bichat, Paris, France

M.H.Couturier-Turpin, Department of Cytogenetics, University Hospital of Bichat, Paris, France

F.Mugneret, Department of Cytogenetics, Hospital of Dijon, France

S.Delcleve-Paulhac, Department of Reproductive Medicine, University Hospital of Limoges, France

C.Yardin, Department of Cytogenetics, University Hospital of Limoges, France

F.Cartault, Department of Human Genetics, Hospital of St Denis la Réunion, France Back

10 To whom correspondence should be addressed E-mail: gekas.jean{at}chu-amiens.fr Back


    References
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Baschat, A.A., Küpker, W. and Al Hasani, S. (1996) Results of cytogenetic analysis in men with severe subfertility prior to intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum. Reprod., 11, 330–333.[Abstract]

Bourrouillou, G., Bujan, L., Calvas, P. et al. (1992) Place et apports du caryotype en infertilité masculine. Progrès en Urologie, 2, 189–195.

Bowen, J.R., Gibson, F.L., Leslie, G.I. et al. (1998) Medical and developmental outcome at 1 year for children conceived by intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Lancet, 351, 1529–1534.[ISI][Medline]

Chandley, A.C. (1979) The chromosomal basis of human infertility. Br. Med. Bull., 35, 181–186.[ISI][Medline]

Chandley, A.C. and Hargreave, T.B. (1996) Genetic anomaly and ICSI. Hum. Reprod., 11, 930–932.[ISI][Medline]

Chandley, A.C., Edmond, P., Christie, S. et al. (1975) Cytogenetics and infertility in man. I. Karyotype and seminal analysis: results of a five-year survey of men attending a subfertility clinic. Ann. Hum. Genet., 39, 231–254.[ISI][Medline]

De Braekeleer, M. and Dao, T.N. (1991) Cytogenetic studies in male infertility: a review. Hum. Reprod., 6, 245–250.[ISI][Medline]

Dutch Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology (N.V.O.G.) (1996) N.V.O.G. standpunt nr 3, April. NVOG, Utrecht.

Faed, M.J., Robertson, J., Lamont, M.A. et al. (1979) A cytogenetic survey of men being investigated for infertility. J. Reprod. Fertil., 56, 209–216.[Abstract]

Healy, D.L., Trounson, A.O. and Andersen, A.N. (1994) Female infertility: causes and treatment. Lancet, 343, 1539–1544.[ISI][Medline]

Hook, E.B. and Hamerton, J.L. (1977) The frequency of chromosome abnormalities detected in consecutive new-born studies. Differences between studies. Results by sex and severity of phenotypic involvement. In Hook, E.B. and Porter, I.H. (eds), Population Cytogenetics. New York State Department of Health, Birth Defects Institute, symposium (1975), Albany, New York, October 1975. Academic Press, New York, London, pp. 63–79.

In't Veld, P., Brandenburg, H. and Verhoeff, A. (1995) Sex chromosomal anomalies and intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Lancet, 346, 773.[ISI][Medline]

Jacobs, P.A., Browne, C., Gregson, N. et al. (1992) Estimates of frequency of chromosome abnormalities detectable in unselected new-borns using moderate levels of banding. J. Med. Genet., 29, 103–108.[Abstract]

Jones, K.L. (1997) Smith's Recognizable Patterns of Human Malformation. 5th edn, Saunders, Philadelphia.

Joris, H., Nagy, Z., Liu, J. et al. (1994) Intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum. Reprod., 9 (Suppl. 4), 17.

Laurent, C., Papathanassiou, Z., Haour, P. et al. (1973) Facteurs génétiques dans la sterilité masculine. Lyon Méd., 229, 883–887.

Liebaers, I., Bonduelle, M., Van Assche, E. et al. (1995a) Sex chromosome abnormalities after intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Lancet, 346, 1095.

Liebaers, I., Bonduelle, M., Legein, J. et al. (1995b) Follow-up of children born after intracytoplasmic sperm injection. In Hedan, B., Bringer, J. and Mares, P. (eds), Fertility and Sterility: A Current Overview. The Parthenon Publishing Group, New York, pp. 409–412.

Matsuda, T., Horii, Y., Ogura, K. et al. (1992) Chromosomal survey of 1001 subfertile males: incidence and clinical features of males with chromosomal anomalies. Acta Urol. Jpn., 38, 803–809.

Mau, U.A., Bäckert, I.T., Kaiser, P. et al. (1997) Chromosomal findings in 150 couples referred for genetic counselling prior to intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum. Reprod., 12, 930–937.[ISI][Medline]

Meschede, D., DeGeyter, C., Nieschlag, E. et al. (1995) Genetic risk in micromanipulative assisted reproduction. Hum. Reprod., 10, 2880–2886.[Abstract]

Meschede, D., Lemcke, B., Exeler, J.R. et al. (1998) Chromosome abnormalities in 447 couples undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection – prevalence, types, sex distribution and reproductive relevance. Hum. Reprod., 13, 576–582.[Abstract]

Mitelman, F. (ed.) (1995) ISCN 1995 – An International System for Human Cytogenetic Nomenclature. Karger, Basel, p. 114.

Mittwoch, U., Mahadevajah, S.K. and Setterfield, S.A. (1990) Pachytene pairing and oocyte numbers in mice with two single Robertsonian translocations and the male-sterile compound with monobrachial homology. Cytogenet. Cell Genet., 53, 144–147.[ISI][Medline]

Montag, M., Van der Ven, K., Ved, S. et al. (1997) Success of intracytoplasmic sperm injection in couples with male and/or female chromosome aberrations. Hum. Reprod., 12, 2635–2640.[Abstract]

Nagy, Z.P., Liu, J., Joris, H. et al. (1994) Extremely impaired semen parameters and the outcome of intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum. Reprod., 9 (Suppl. 4), 27–24.

Pandiyan, N. and Jequier, A.M. (1996) Mitotic chromosomal anomalies among 1210 infertile men. Hum. Reprod., 11, 2604–2608.[Abstract]

Peschka, B., Schwanitz, G. and Van der Ven, K. (1996) Type and frequency of constitutional chromosome aberrations in couples undergoing ICSI. Hum. Reprod., 11, 222–225.

Peschka, B., Leygraaf, J., Van der Ven, K. et al. (1999) Type and frequency of chromosome aberrations in 781 couples undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum. Reprod., 14, 2257–2263.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Plachot, M. (1997) The human oocyte. Genetic aspects. Ann. Genet., 40, 115–120.[ISI][Medline]

Retief, A., Van Zyl, J. and Menkveld, M. (1984) Chromosome studies in 496 infertile males with a sperm count below 10 million per ml. Hum. Genet., 66, 162–164.[ISI][Medline]

Scholtes, M.C., Behrend, C., Dietzel-Dahmen, J. et al. (1998) Chromosomal aberrations in couples undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection: influence on implantation and ongoing pregnancy rates. Fertil. Steril., 70, 933–937.[ISI][Medline]

Simpson, J.L. (1992) Disorders of sex chromosomes and sexual differentiation. In Simpson, J.L. and Golbus, M.S. (eds), Genetics in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp. 133–164.

Speed, R.M. (1986a) Prophase pairing in a mosaic 18p-; iso 18q human female fetus studied by surface spreading. Hum. Genet., 72, 256–259.[ISI][Medline]

Speed, R.M. (1986b) Oocyte development in XO fetuses of man and mouse: the possible role of heterologous X-chromosome pairing in germ cell survival. Chromosoma, 94, 115–124.[ISI][Medline]

Testart, J., Gautier, E., Brami, C. et al. (1996) Intracytoplasmic sperm injection in infertile patients with structural chromosome abnormalities. Hum. Reprod., 11, 2609–2612.[Abstract]

Tuerlings, J.H.A.M., de France, H.F., Hamers, A. et al. (1998) Chromosome studies in 1792 males prior to intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection: the Dutch experience. Eur. J. Hum. Genet., 6, 194–200.[ISI][Medline]

Van der Ven, K., Peschka, B., Montag, M. et al. (1998) Increased frequency of congenital chromosomal aberrations in female partners of couples undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum. Reprod., 13, 48–54.[Abstract]

Van Opstal, D., Los, F.J. and Ramlakhan, S. (1997) Determination of the parent of origin in nine cases of prenatally detected chromosome aberrations found after intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum. Reprod., 12, 682–686.[Abstract]

Van Steirteghem, A.C., Liu, J., Joris, H. et al. (1993) Higher success rate by intracytoplasmic sperm injection than by subzonal insemination. A report of a second series of 300 consecutive treatment cycles. Hum. Reprod., 8, 1055–1060.[Abstract]

Van Wijek, J.A.M., Tijdink, G.A.J. and Stolte, L.A.M. (1962) Anomalies in the Y chromosomes. Lancet, ii, 218.

Viguié, F., Romani, F. and Dadoune, J.P. (1982) Male infertility in a case of (Y;16) balanced reciprocal translocation. Mitotic and meiotic study. Hum. Genet., 62, 225–227.[ISI][Medline]

World Health Organization (1994) Laboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen and Sperm-Cervical Mucus Interaction. 4th edn. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Yoshida, A., Miura, K. and Shirai, M. (1997) Cytogenetic survey of 1,007 infertile males. Urol. Int., 58, 166–176.[ISI][Medline]

Zenzes, M.T., Wang, P. and Casper, R.F. (1992) Evidence for maternal predisposition to chromosome aneuploidy in multiple oocytes of some in vitro fertilization patients. Fertil. Steril., 57, 143–149.[ISI][Medline]

Submitted on May 2, 2000; accepted on September 25, 2000.