Our Technology
Juniper PGT.
Screening with science.
Our approach to reproductive technology is grounded in detailed, rigorous science. This provides patients and clinics with the clarity they need to make informed and ethical decisions before embryo implantation
The IVF journey: Finding a better way
Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy (PGT-A) is currently the most effective method for accelerating the path to pregnancy. It prevents the transfer of embryos with an incorrect number of chromosomes (aneuploid), which are responsible for approximately 50% of IVF failure and pregnancy losses. 1
However even with PGT-A testing, more than 45% of embryos deemed “chromosomally normal” still don’t succeed — a rate that has remained largely unchanged since 2016. 2
Understanding the role of genetics
When a transfer doesn’t succeed, it’s tempting to ask: “Why did this happen?” or “Is there something I should have done differently?” But it’s simply not the parents’ fault. We know from studying pregnancy loss, that at least 85% of pregnancy loss is caused by the genetics of the embryo itself. 3
The Juniper Test
Our screening technology boosts the likelihood of success with the first embryo transfer by detecting genetic changes beyond aneuploidy that can cause embryo failure. Our PGT is uniquely able to identify these changes by integrating multiple data types for enhanced accuracy.
How our test works
In addition to testing for aneuploidy, our testing involves sequencing 99% of the 3 billion base pairs in each embryo’s genome with the same high clinical standards used for genetic disease testing.
This improves accuracy to reach clinical levels of variant detection and also enhances our ability to identify euploid embryos, minimizing confusion over “mosaic” and “complex” results.
We also integrate data from both biological parents of the embryo (trio sequencing), and data from the embryo’s transcriptome (RNA) as well as the genome (DNA).
Taken together, our technology identifies the critical data needed for IVF success and delivers clear answers. In our validation study, six of seven embryo sets each contained at least one embryo with no detectable risk of pregnancy loss or genetic disease, providing a clear choice for an initial transfer.
Aspiring parents can now achieve a successful pregnancy sooner, with greater confidence and lower costs.
Our screening methodology
Juniper’s embryo screening examines the entire genome and transcriptome of each embryo, including parental genetics, to identify inherited and “de novo” variants. De novo variants, which appear for the first time in embryos, significantly contribute to embryo risk. We analyze around 20,000 genes, focusing on genetic changes that may prevent implantation or development in the womb.
Our comprehensive approach includes coding and non-coding regions, utilizing leading clinical annotation databases to annotate changes. We also use population, molecular, and evolutionary genetics criteria to help classify potentially lethal changes that by definition are not found in clinical databases.
Despite our thorough methods, limitations do exist — parental sequencing covers about 99% of the genome, and some embryo regions may be insufficiently covered.
More importantly, the scientific understanding of implantation failure, pregnancy loss, and disease is not complete and new information is emerging constantly. Also, some causes of implantation failure, pregnancy loss, and disease remain unknown or are genuinely unrelated to genetics. While we strive to maximize success, we cannot guarantee a successful pregnancy or a healthy child.
1: SART National Database at https://sartcorsonline.com/Csr/Public?ClinicPKID=0&reportingYear=2016&newReport=True (PGT data using PGT only filter and reviewing per-transfer outcomes in the pregnancy outcomes drop-down as a weighted average across age ranges from the first embryo transfer, which is presumably the highest morphological score and most likely to be a euploid PGT-A finding.)
2: Gen in Med 2021; 23: 435-442. doi: 10.1038/s41436-020-01008-6; Fertil Steril. 2016 May;105(5):1307-1313. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.01.025
3: Zhao, C., Chai, H., Zhou, Q., et al. (2021) Genetics in Medicine, 23, 435-442. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-020-01008-6 ; Byrne, A.B., Arts, P., Ha, T.T. et al. Nat Med 29, 180–189 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-02142-1 ; Cytogenet Genome Res. 2017;152(2):81-89. doi: 10.1159/000477707; Baillieres Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2000 Oct;14(5):855-65. doi: 10.1053/beog.2000.0124. Am J Hum Genet. 2021 Dec 2;108(12):2238-2247. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2021.11.002