US study claims they can spot disease risk in IVF embryos…but experts insist it’s a waste of money

Genes linked to a dozen serious illnesses such as cancer, diabetes and heart disease can be detected in embryos, experts claimed today.  

The tests, if proven to be accurate, could be used by couples undergoing IVF to pick the healthiest children. 

And there are fears the technology could go on to be used to help pick out desirable traits, such as height and intelligence, in ‘designer babies’.

But independent scientists today called for caution over the findings, saying that any such test would be a waste of money because they cannot definitively prove that an embryo will go on to develop an illness.  

UK experts have urged caution over a US study claiming it can predict an embryo’s risk of diseases like cancer and diabetes with 99 per cent accuracy, saying such tests do not predict a child will or will not get such a disease, and such tests could be a waste of money

For the study in Nature Medicine, Californian-based firm MyOme analysed the genes of 110 embryos taken from 10 couples who underwent IVF.  

A more in-depth DNA analysis was also carried out on the parents, allowing the team to predict the genetic make-up of embryos. 

MyOme researchers were able to check if their projection was accurate — by taking samples from 10 embryos that were eventually used in IVF cycles and went on to be born. 

Results showed the children born had almost exactly the same genetic make-up as the team expected, with the predictions up to 99 per cent accurate. 

The genomes were analysed at sections of DNA used to produce a ‘polygenic risk score’, Nature reports.

Professor Dusko Ilic, an expert in stem cell science from King’s College London, said: ‘For future parents the proposed testing might sound seductive.

‘And they could easily be tempted to spend extra cash to assure that their child lives a healthier life. However, the money would be wasted.’

Polygenic risk testing differs from preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), which is legal in the UK. 

HOW DOES IVF WORK? 

In-vitro fertilisation, known as IVF, is a medical procedure in which a woman has a fertilised egg inserted into her womb to become pregnant.

It is used when couples are unable to conceive naturally, and a sperm and egg are removed from their bodies and combined in a laboratory before the embryo is inserted into the woman.

Once the embryo is in the womb, the pregnancy should continue as normal.

The procedure can be done using eggs and sperm from a couple or those from donors. 

Guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends that IVF should be offered on the NHS to women under 43 who have been trying to conceive through regular unprotected sex for two years.

People can also pay for IVF privately, which costs an average of £3,348 for a single cycle, according to figures published in January 2018, and there is no guarantee of success.

The NHS says success rates for women under 35 are about 29 per cent, with the chance of a successful cycle reducing as they age.

Around eight million babies are thought to have been born due to IVF since the first ever case, British woman Louise Brown, was born in 1978.

Chances of success

The success rate of IVF depends on the age of the woman undergoing treatment, as well as the cause of the infertility (if it’s known).

Younger women are more likely to have a successful pregnancy. 

IVF isn’t usually recommended for women over the age of 42 because the chances of a successful pregnancy are thought to be too low.

Between 2014 and 2016 the percentage of IVF treatments that resulted in a live birth was:

29 per cent for women under 35

23 per cent for women aged 35 to 37

15 per cent for women aged 38 to 39

9 per cent for women aged 40 to 42

3 per cent for women aged 43 to 44

2 per cent for women aged over 44

 

PGD is used to screen for roughly 500 diseases that have a single gene mutation that triggers them, such as cystic fibrosis.

But illnesses linked with DNA quirks are usually caused by multiple genes, which can also affect other areas of the body in different ways. Both lifestyle and environmental factors can also raise the risk of various diseases.

Polygenic risk scores are not currently available on the NHS, but their legal status in private clinics remains murky. 

Experts have repeatedly urged British couples seeking IVF treatment not to be lured across the Atlantic for the costly treatments. The screening can cost around £1,000 for a single test.

Professor Ilic argued the study was more robust than others which have touted the use of PRS to screen for disease in embryos.

But he said the fundamental problem is that the score only indicates the potential for disease, not a certainty.

‘None of the predictions can actually exclude disease and guarantee that a child will remain free of these medical conditions,’ he added. ‘So, what is the point?’    

Dr Francesca Forzano, an expert in genetics Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, said the study was full of unanswered questions.

He highlighted how the authors did not list the genes analysed, nor the sex of the embryos tested — a key factor for some diseases like breast and prostate cancers. 

‘The data presented, as well as the conclusions, are incomplete and need further clarification,’ he said. 

Dr Forzano also accused the researchers of ‘passing the buck’ when it came to the potential ethical problems. 

‘The most important issue – the ethics of the practice – is glossed over and dismissed as something to be handled in a counselling session with a medical geneticist,’ he said. 

‘This is major buck passing. A session of genetic counselling does not equate to an endorsement of any test, particularly one which is inappropriate.’ 

Professor Ewan Birney, deputy director general of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory said the idea of using PRS for embryos made him ‘uncomfortable’. 

‘As a citizen I am uncomfortable about a wide set of traits that could be considered in polygenic risk scores and I don’t think society is well served by allowing parents apparent control over these aspects,’ he said. 

Professor Alastair Sutcliffe, an expert in paediatrics at University College London, added PRS scores for embryos may lead to unintended consequences as families traumatised by certain diseases in their history look to exclude them at all costs.   

‘It’s possible that other polygenic conditions not looked at could have a higher prevalence in the residual embryos, a law of unintended consequences,’ he said.   

‘When a family is traumatised by a strong family risk of X (e.g. breast cancer) they will focus on that potentially irrationally and thus counselling will simply wash over.’

***
Read more at DailyMail.co.uk