PGDA NGS 360°™
PGD NGS for aneuploidy screening

What is PGDA-NGS 360°™?

PGDA NGS 360°™ (preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy screening using Next Generation Sequencing) employs state of the art human genome sequencing techniques (direct reading of genetic information) to examine embryos. It opens up new diagnostic possibilities.

In the past, embryos were selected mainly based on the basis of their morphology, The FISH and microarray methods were used for chromosome analysis. However, both techniques were limited in terms of range and accuracy. But with the PGDA NGS 360°™, all 24 chromosomes are analysed with unprecedented precision. This provides doctors with a unique opportunity to help couples exposed to increased risk of genetic abnormalities in their children.

Chromosomal aneuploidy (an abnormal number of chromosomes) is one of the main causes for the failure of IVF programs. Most embryos with aneuploidies are unable to nest in the uterus, and those that are implanted often miscarry in the first three months of the pregnancy 1, 2. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis used to provide optimal selection of embryos for transfer, can greatly increases the chances of success of the procedure and the birth of a healthy child.


Figure 1. Results of IVF programs after PGDA NGS 360°™ using NGS

Why is it worth doing the PGDA NGS 360°™?

  • Analyses all autosomal and sex chromosomes
  • Allows for diagnosis of the most common genetic defects, including: Downs, Edwards, Patau, Turner, and Klinefelter’s syndrome, while still at the embryo stage
  • Increases the embryo implantation rate
  • Reduces the risk of miscarriage
  • Increases the number of healthy births
  • Increases the efficiency of single embryo transfer by reducing the number of multiple pregnancies

Table 1. The results of efficacy studies of IVF programs in patients with Repeated Implantation Failure (RIF) using the PGDA NGS 360°™.
What are the indications for a PGDA NGS 360°™?

  • Age of woman over 35
  • Failure of IVF programs (although embryos of normal morphology were transferred)
  • Recurrent miscarriages
  • Genetic defects diagnosed in previous pregnancies / birth of a child with genetic abnormalities in the past
  • A history of genetic defects in the family
  • The intention of ruling out the presence of genetic defects in previously frozen embryos
  • Need to increase the chances of pregnancy in an IVF cycle with donor cells
  • Fear of childbirth with chromosomal defects

Cooperation step by step

This test is designed to detect aneuploidy and/or irregularities from Roberstonian translocation. This test does not detect partial aneuploidy (i.e. fragments of chromosomes) or chromosome mosaicism and structural chromosomal abnormalities (e.g. a fragments of chromosome deletions, inversions, duplications) or uniparental disomy, triploidy and tetraploidy.


  • 1. Łukaszuk K, Pukszta S, Wells D, []. Routine use of next–generation sequencing for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of blastomeres obtained from embryos on day 3 in fresh in vitro fertilization cycles. J.FertilSteril. 2015 Jan 23.
  • 2. Scott RT Jr, Ferry K, Su J, Tao X, Scott K, et al. (2012) Comprehensive chromosome screening is highly predictive of the reproductive potential of human embryos: a prospective, blinded, non–selection study. FertilSteril 97(4): 870–875.
  • 3. 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. FertilSteril. 2014 May;101(5):1375–82. doi: 10.1016/j. fertnstert.2014.01.051. Epub 2014 Mar 6.
  • 4. Fiorentino F1, Bono S2, Biricik A2, Nuccitelli A2, Cotroneo E2, Cottone G2, Kokocinski F3, Michel CE3, Minasi MG4, Greco E4.Application of next–generation sequencing technology for comprehensive aneuploidy screening of blastocysts in clinical preimplantation genetic screening cycles. HumReprod. 2014 Dec;29(12):2802–13. doi: 10.1093/humrep/ deu277. Epub 2014 Oct 21.
  • 5. Anderson SH, Stankewicz–McKinney T, Glassner MJ, Hanshew K, Ketterson K, et al. (2013) Similar pregnancy and implantation rates following day 6 embryo transfer or frozen embryo transfer (FET) after blastocyst biopsy for preimplantation genetic screening (PGS). FertilSteril 100(3): S37.
  • 6. Ata B, Kaplan B, Danzer H, Glassner M, Opsahl M, et al. (2012) Array CGH analysis shows that aneuploidy is not related to the number of embryos generated. Reprod Biomed Online 24(6): 614–620.
  • 7. Balmir F, Hughes M, Jenkins J, Stelling JR (2013) A pilot study comparing fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis in preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) to array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) technique. FertilSteril 100(3): S206.
  • 8. Brezina PR, Brezina DS, Kearns WG (2012) Preimplantation genetic testing. BMJ 345:e5908.
  • 9. Colls P, Coates A, Peters A, Acacio B, Roche M, et al. (2013) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis at blastocyst stage by array comparative genomic hybridization. Error rate determination. FertilSteril 100(3): S196.
  • 10. Fishel S, Thornton S, Dowell K (2011) A new era of PGS for IVF – will it yield the anticipated improved efficiency? J Fertil In Vitro 1:1.
  • 11. Forman EJ, Hong KH, Ferry KM, Tao X, Taylor D, et al. (2013) In vitro fertilization with single euploid blastocyst transfer: a randomized controlled trial. FertilSteril 100(1): 100–7.e1.
  • 12. Fragouli E, Wells D (2011) Aneuploidy in the human blastocyst. Cytogenet Genome Res 133(2–4): 149–159.
  • 13. Fragouli E, Wells D (2012) Aneuploidy screening for embryo selection. SeminReprod Med 30(4): 289–301.
  • 14. Handyside AH (2010) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis after 20 years. Reprod Biomed Online 21(3): 280–282.
  • 15. Handyside AH (2013) 24–chromosome copy number analysis: a comparison of available technologies. FertilSteril 100(3): 595–602.
  • 16. Harasim T, Roesemann M, Heinrich U, Wagner A, Schiller J, et al. (2013) Detection of genetic mosaicism during preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). In: Abstracts of the 12th International Conference on Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis; Reprod Biomed Online 6 (suppl 1).
  • 17. Harton G, Braude P, Lashwood A, Schmutzler A, Traeger– Synodinos J, et al. (2011) ESHRE PGD consortium best practice guidelines for organization of a PGD centre for PGD/preimplantation genetic screening. Hum Reprod 26(1): 41–46.
  • 18. Keltz MD, Vega M, Sirota I, Lederman M, Moshier EL, et al. (2013) Preimplantation Genetic Screening (PGS) with Comparative Genomic Hybridization (CGH) following day 3 single cell blastomere biopsy markedly improves IVF outcomes while lowering multiple pregnancies and miscarriages. J Assist Reprod Genet 10: 1333–1339.
  • 19. Lee, H–L, Hodes–Wertz B, Alexis A, Lee T–L, McCulloh D, et al. (2013) Preimplantation genetic screening improves IVF success rate in women over 40. FertilSteril 100(3): S83.
  • 20. Ata B, Kaplan B, Danzer H, Glassner M, Opsahl M, et al. (2012) Array comparative genomic hybridization screening in IVF significantly reduces number of embryos available for cryopreservation. ClinExpReprod Med 39(2): 52–57.
  • 21. Lorwatthanasirikul J, Quangkananurug W, Rattanajitr T, Chanchamroen S, Sawakwongpra K (2013) Comprehensive chromosome screening with vitrified warmed single blastocyst transfer increases the pregnancy rate in advanced maternal age. In: Abstracts of the 12th International Conference on Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis; Reprod Biomed Online 6 (suppl 1).