Download PDF
Semin Reprod Med 2024; 42(01): 060-068
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1782618
Special Communication

Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Polygenetic Conditions: A Legal, Ethical, and Scientific Challenge

Perrine Ginod
1   MUHC Reproductive Centre, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada
2   CHU Dijon Bourgogne, Service de Gynécologie-Obstétrique et Assistance Médicale à la Procréation, Dijon, France
,
Michael H. Dahan
1   MUHC Reproductive Centre, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada
3   Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada
› Author Affiliations Funding This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The recent commercialization of the Embryo Health Score (EHS), determined through preimplantation genetic testing for polygenic conditions, offers the potential to select embryos with lower disease risk, thus potentially enhancing offspring longevity and health. Lately, Orchid Health company increased testing from less than 20 diseases to more than 900+ conditions for birth defects. However, the “geneticization” of phenotype estimates to a health state erases the environmental part, including the in vitro fertilization potential risks, questioning its scientific usefulness. EHS is utilized in countries with minimal regulatory oversight and will likely expand, while it remains illegal in other countries due to ethical and legal dilemmas it raises about reproductive autonomy, discrimination, impacts on family dynamics, and genetic diversity. The shift toward commercialized polygenic embryo screening (PES) redefines healthcare relationships, turning prospective parents into consumers and altering the physician's role. Moreover, PES could increase social inequalities, stigmatize those not born following PES, and encourage “desirable” phenotypic or behavioral traits selection, leading to ethical drift. Addressing these issues is essential before further implementation and requires a collaborative approach involving political, governmental, and public health, alongside geneticists, ethicists, and fertility specialists, focusing on the societal implications and acceptability of testing for polygenic traits for embryo selection.

Keywords

polygenic risk score - Embryo Health Score - embryo selection - ethics - legislation


Publication History

Article published online:
22 March 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Iews M, Tan J, Taskin O. et al. Does preimplantation genetic diagnosis improve reproductive outcome in couples with recurrent pregnancy loss owing to structural chromosomal rearrangement? A systematic review. Reprod Biomed Online 2018; 36 (06) 677-685
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Handyside AH, Lesko JG, Tarín JJ, Winston RML, Hughes MR. Birth of a normal girl after in vitro fertilization and preimplantation diagnostic testing for cystic fibrosis. N Engl J Med 1992; 327 (13) 905-909
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Munné S, Kaplan B, Frattarelli JL. et al; STAR Study Group. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy versus morphology as selection criteria for single frozen-thawed embryo transfer in good-prognosis patients: a multicenter randomized clinical trial. Fertil Steril 2019; 112 (06) 1071-1079.e7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Rubio C, Bellver J, Rodrigo L. et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidies in advanced maternal age: a randomized, controlled study. Fertil Steril 2017; 107 (05) 1122-1129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Yan J, Qin Y, Zhao H. et al. Live birth with or without preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy. N Engl J Med 2021; 385 (22) 2047-2058
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kucherov A, Fazzari M, Lieman H, Ball GD, Doody K, Jindal S. PGT-A is associated with reduced cumulative live birth rate in first reported IVF stimulation cycles age ≤ 40: an analysis of 133,494 autologous cycles reported to SART CORS. J Assist Reprod Genet 2023; 40 (01) 137-149
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 LifeView by Genomic Prediction. Accessed March 7, 2023 at: https://www.lifeview.com/
    PubMed
  • 8 Tellier LCAM, Eccles J, Treff NR, Lello L, Fishel S, Hsu S. Embryo screening for polygenic disease risk: recent advances and ethical considerations. Genes (Basel) 2021; 12 (08) 1105
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Pre-Implantation Genetic Testing for Birth Defects. Accessed February 8, 2024 at: https://guides.orchidhealth.com/post/pre-implantation-genetic-testing-for-birth-defects
    PubMed
  • 10 Lencz T, Backenroth D, Granot-Hershkovitz E. et al. Utility of polygenic embryo screening for disease depends on the selection strategy. eLife 2021; 10: e64716
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Turley P, Meyer MN, Wang N. et al. Problems with using polygenic scores to select embryos. N Engl J Med 2021; 385 (01) 78-86
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Treff NR, Eccles J, Marin D. et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for polygenic disease relative risk reduction: evaluation of genomic index performance in 11,883 adult sibling pairs. Genes (Basel) 2020; 11 (06) 648
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Lello L, Raben TG, Yong SY, Tellier LCAM, Hsu SDH. Genomic prediction of 16 complex disease risks including heart attack, diabetes, breast and prostate cancer. Sci Rep 2019; 9 (01) 15286
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Konuma T, Okada Y. Statistical genetics and polygenic risk score for precision medicine. Inflamm Regen 2021; 41 (01) 18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Khera AV, Chaffin M, Aragam KG. et al. Genome-wide polygenic scores for common diseases identify individuals with risk equivalent to monogenic mutations. Nat Genet 2018; 50 (09) 1219-1224
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Tada H, Yeo KK, Li JJ. et al. Polygenic risk scores for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the Asia-Pacific region. JACC Asia 2021; 1 (03) 294-302
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Treff NR, Eccles J, Lello L. et al. Utility and first clinical application of screening embryos for polygenic disease risk reduction. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2019; 10: 845
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Lello L, Avery SG, Tellier L, Vazquez AI, de Los Campos G, Hsu SDH. Accurate genomic prediction of human height. Genetics 2018; 210 (02) 477-497
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Widen E, Lello L, Raben TG, Tellier LCAM, Hsu SDH. Polygenic health index, general health, and pleiotropy: sibling analysis and disease risk reduction. Sci Rep 2022; 12 (01) 18173
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Meisner A, Kundu P, Zhang YD. et al. Combined utility of 25 disease and risk factor polygenic risk scores for stratifying risk of all-cause mortality. Am J Hum Genet 2020; 107 (03) 418-431
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Wald NJ, Old R. The illusion of polygenic disease risk prediction. Genet Med 2019; 21 (08) 1705-1707
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Khoury MJ, Janssens ACJW, Ransohoff DF. How can polygenic inheritance be used in population screening for common diseases?. Genet Med 2013; 15 (06) 437-443
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Duncan L, Shen H, Gelaye B. et al. Analysis of polygenic risk score usage and performance in diverse human populations. Nat Commun 2019; 10 (01) 3328
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Mostafavi H, Harpak A, Agarwal I, Conley D, Pritchard JK, Przeworski M. Variable prediction accuracy of polygenic scores within an ancestry group. eLife 2020; 9: e48376
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Amariuta T, Ishigaki K, Sugishita H. et al. Improving the trans-ancestry portability of polygenic risk scores by prioritizing variants in predicted cell-type-specific regulatory elements. Nat Genet 2020; 52 (12) 1346-1354
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Koyama S, Ito K, Terao C. et al. Population-specific and trans-ancestry genome-wide analyses identify distinct and shared genetic risk loci for coronary artery disease. Nat Genet 2020; 52 (11) 1169-1177
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Forzano F, Antonova O, Clarke A. et al; Executive Committee of the European Society of Human Genetics, Public and Professional Policy Committee of the European Society of Human Genetics. The use of polygenic risk scores in pre-implantation genetic testing: an unproven, unethical practice. Eur J Hum Genet 2022; 30 (05) 493-495
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Polyakov A, Amor DJ, Savulescu J. et al. Polygenic risk score for embryo selection-not ready for prime time. Hum Reprod 2022; 37 (10) 2229-2236
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Orchid | Whole Genome Embryo Report. Accessed February 8, 2024 at: https://www.orchidhealth.com/
    PubMed
  • 30 Lencz T, Sabatello M, Docherty A. et al. Concerns about the use of polygenic embryo screening for psychiatric and cognitive traits. Lancet Psychiatry 2022; 9 (10) 838-844
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Ginod P, Dahan MH. Polygenic embryo screening: are there potential maternal and fetal harms?. Reprod Biomed Online 2023; 47 (06) 103327
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Qin J, Liu X, Sheng X, Wang H, Gao S. Assisted reproductive technology and the risk of pregnancy-related complications and adverse pregnancy outcomes in singleton pregnancies: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Fertil Steril 2016; 105 (01) 73-85.e1 , 6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Roque M, Valle M, Sampaio M, Geber S. Obstetric outcomes after fresh versus frozen-thawed embryo transfers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JBRA Assist Reprod 2018; 22 (03) 253-260
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Rodriguez-Wallberg KA, Lundberg FE, Ekberg S. et al. Mortality from infancy to adolescence in singleton children conceived from assisted reproductive techniques versus naturally conceived singletons in Sweden. Fertil Steril 2020; 113 (03) 524-532
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Mani S, Ghosh J, Coutifaris C, Sapienza C, Mainigi M. Epigenetic changes and assisted reproductive technologies. Epigenetics 2020; 15 (1-2): 12-25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 D'Angelo DV, Whitehead N, Helms K, Barfield W, Ahluwalia IB. Birth outcomes of intended pregnancies among women who used assisted reproductive technology, ovulation stimulation, or no treatment. Fertil Steril 2011; 96 (02) 314-320.e2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Imudia AN, Awonuga AO, Doyle JO. et al. Peak serum estradiol level during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation is associated with increased risk of small for gestational age and preeclampsia in singleton pregnancies after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2012; 97 (06) 1374-1379
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Treff NR, Zimmerman R, Bechor E. et al. Validation of concurrent preimplantation genetic testing for polygenic and monogenic disorders, structural rearrangements, and whole and segmental chromosome aneuploidy with a single universal platform. Eur J Med Genet 2019; 62 (08) 103647
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Peters BA, Kermani BG, Alferov O. et al. Detection and phasing of single base de novo mutations in biopsies from human in vitro fertilized embryos by advanced whole-genome sequencing. Genome Res 2015; 25 (03) 426-434
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Delaneau O, Zagury JF, Robinson MR, Marchini JL, Dermitzakis ET. Accurate, scalable and integrative haplotype estimation. Nat Commun 2019; 10 (01) 5436
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Kumar A, Ryan A, Kitzman JO. et al. Whole genome prediction for preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Genome Med 2015; 7 (01) 35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Leaver M, Wells D. Non-invasive preimplantation genetic testing (niPGT): the next revolution in reproductive genetics?. Hum Reprod Update 2020; 26 (01) 16-42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Brouillet S, Martinez G, Coutton C, Hamamah S. Is cell-free DNA in spent embryo culture medium an alternative to embryo biopsy for preimplantation genetic testing? A systematic review. Reprod Biomed Online 2020; 40 (06) 779-796
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Munné S, Alikani M, Ribustello L, Colls P, Martínez-Ortiz PA, McCulloh DH. Referring Physician Group. Euploidy rates in donor egg cycles significantly differ between fertility centers. Hum Reprod 2017; 32 (04) 743-749
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 PRS. Accessed March 10, 2023 at: https://www.eshre.eu/Europe/Position-statements/PRS
    PubMed
  • 46 ACMG Board of Directors. Direct-to-consumer prenatal testing for multigenic or polygenic disorders: a position statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genet Med 2021; 23 (11) 2027-2028
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Zappala MAP, Ariza L, Lima NS. Conceptualization of genotype–phenotype relationships and the assessment of risk in advertising of direct-to-consumer and preimplantation polygenic tests. Biosocieties (Published online September 30, 2023) DOI: 10.1057/s41292-023-00313-y.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Harvey A. Genetic risks and healthy choices: creating citizen-consumers of genetic services through empowerment and facilitation. Sociol Health Illn 2010; 32 (03) 365-381
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Irvine R. Fabricating health consumers in health care politics. In: Henderson S, Petersen A. eds. Consuming Health: The Commodification of Health Care. Routledge; 2002: 31-47
    Google Scholar
  • 50 Holster K. Making connections: egg donation, the Internet, and the new reproductive technology marketplace. Adv Med Sociol 2001; 10: 53-73
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 23AndMe Will Decode Your DNA for $1,000. Welcome to the Age of Genomics | WIRED. Accessed February 4, 2024 at: https://www.wired.com/2007/11/ff-genomics/
    PubMed
  • 52 The Politics of Life Itself | Princeton University Press. Published November 19, 2006. Accessed February 5, 2024 at: https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691121918/the-politics-of-life-itself
    PubMed
  • 53 Swoboda D. Frames of reference: marketing the practice and ethics of PGD on fertility clinic Websites. Adv Med Sociol 2015; 16: 217-247
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Ethics Statements | ISPG - International Society of Psychiatric Genetics. Accessed March 8, 2023 at: https://ispg.net/ethics-statement/
    PubMed
  • 55 Polygenic Risk Score Task Force of the International Common Disease Alliance. Responsible use of polygenic risk scores in the clinic: potential benefits, risks and gaps. Nat Med 2021; 27 (11) 1876-1884
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Polygenic screening of embryos is here, but is it ethical? | Genetics | The Guardian. Accessed February 5, 2024 at: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/oct/17/polygenic-screening-of-embryos-is-here-but-is-it-ethical
    PubMed
  • 57 Picking Embryos With Best Health Odds Sparks New DNA Debate. Bloomberg.com. Accessed February 5, 2024 at: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-17/picking-embryos-with-best-health-odds-sparks-new-dna-debate Published September 17, 2021
    PubMed
  • 58 Rank Ordering Embryos for Transfer, Utilizing PGT-P: Patient and Clinician Perspectives. 2021. Accessed February 5, 2024 at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE5ADe7BgdM
    PubMed
  • 59 Treff NR, Savulescu J, de Melo-Martín I, Shulman LP, Feinberg EC. Should preimplantation genetic testing for polygenic disease be offered to all - or none?. Fertil Steril 2022; 117 (06) 1162-1167
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Eugenics 2.0: We're at the Dawn of Choosing Embryos by Health, Height, and More | MIT Technology Review. Accessed February 5, 2024 at: https://www.technologyreview.com/2017/11/01/105176/eugenics-20-were-at-the-dawn-of-choosing-embryos-by-health-height-and-more/
    PubMed
  • 61 Choice Over Chance; 2020. Accessed February 5, 2024 at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwVyv91BcNU
    PubMed
  • 62 The Ethics of Embryo Screening. Q&A with a UPenn Bioethicist. Accessed February 5, 2024 at: https://guides.orchidhealth.com/post/the-ethics-of-embryo-screening-q-a-with-a-upenn-bioethicist
    PubMed
  • 63 Siermann M, Tšuiko O, Vermeesch JR, Raivio T, Borry P. A review of normative documents on preimplantation genetic testing: recommendations for PGT-P. Genet Med 2022; 24 (06) 1165-1175
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Farsides B, Scott R. No small matter for some: practitioners' views on the moral status and treatment of human embryos. Med Law Rev 2012; 20 (01) 90-107
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Kalfoglou AL, Scott J, Hudson K. PGD patients' and providers' attitudes to the use and regulation of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Reprod Biomed Online 2005; 11 (04) 486-496
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Klitzman R. Challenges, dilemmas and factors involved in PGD decision-making: providers' and patients' views, experiences and decisions. J Genet Couns 2018; 27 (04) 909-919
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Patrick Olesen A, Mohd Nor SN. Ethical perceptions with regard to pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) from the perspective of selected medical professionals in Malaysia. J Clin Med Genom 2016; 4 (01) DOI: 10.4172/2472-128X.1000136.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Scott R, Williams C, Ehrich K, Farsides B. The appropriate extent of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis: health professionals' and scientists' views on the requirement for a ‘significant risk of a serious genetic condition’. Med Law Rev 2007; 15 (03) 320-356
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Williams C, Ehrich K, Farsides B, Scott R. Facilitating choice, framing choice: staff views on widening the scope of preimplantation genetic diagnosis in the UK. Soc Sci Med 2007; 65 (06) 1094-1105
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Kumar A, Im K, Rabinowitz M. Use of polygenic scores to select embryos. N Engl J Med 2021; 385 (18) 1726-1727
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Griffin DK, Gordon AT. Preimplantation testing for polygenic disease (PGT-P): brave new world or mad pursuit?. DNA (Basel) 2023; 3 (02) 104-108
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Lázaro-Muñoz G, Pereira S, Carmi S, Lencz T. Screening embryos for polygenic conditions and traits: ethical considerations for an emerging technology. Genet Med 2021; 23 (03) 432-434
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Bu Z, Chen ZJ, Huang G. et al. Live birth sex ratio after in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer in China – an analysis of 121,247 babies from 18 centers. PLoS One 2014; 9 (11) e113522
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Arribas-Ayllon M. After geneticization. Soc Sci Med 2016; 159: 132-139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Lippman A. Led (astray) by genetic maps: the cartography of the human genome and health care. Soc Sci Med 1992; 35 (12) 1469-1476
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Weiner K, Martin P, Richards M, Tutton R. Have we seen the geneticisation of society? Expectations and evidence. Sociol Health Illn 2017; 39 (07) 989-1004
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Turrini M. A genealogy of “healthism”: Healthy subjectivities between individual autonomy and disciplinary control. Eä - Journal of Medical Humanities & Social Studies of Science and Technology. Healthism & Self-Care: Reconfiguring Body & Life through Science & Technology 2015; 7 (01) 11-27
    PubMedGoogle Scholar