Understanding inherited conditions, reproductive carrier screening, chromosomal abnormalities, genetic counseling, and how advances in genomic medicine can help prospective parents make informed decisions.
Before attempting to conceive, many prospective parents begin evaluating their health.
They may review nutritional intake, metabolic health, reproductive hormones, physical activity, and environmental exposures.
But there is another dimension of preconception care that is less obvious.
What can the medical histories of previous generations tell us about the health of future generations?
Why do some inherited conditions appear unexpectedly in families with no previous history of disease?
What does it mean to be a carrier of a genetic condition?
Can two healthy parents have a child with a serious inherited disorder?
And with increasingly sophisticated genetic technologies available, how much can we actually predict about a future pregnancy?
These questions introduce the fields of genetics and genomics.
In 2008, researchers from the National Human Genome Research Institute and Boston University published The Clinical Content of Preconception Care: Genetics and Genomics in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology.
The authors emphasized the importance of identifying inherited conditions, obtaining a detailed family history, and helping prospective parents understand their reproductive options.
They also recognized that genetic technology was advancing faster than the evidence supporting some of its clinical applications.
Nearly two decades later, this observation remains remarkably relevant.
Modern genomic sequencing can examine large numbers of genes simultaneously, identify previously unrecognized inherited risks, and help diagnose certain conditions that were once difficult to explain.
However, greater technological capability does not automatically produce better medical decisions.
The central question is not simply how much genetic information can be obtained.
It is which information is clinically meaningful, how reliably it can be interpreted, and whether it can help prospective parents make informed decisions.
1. Genetics and Genomics: Understanding the Difference
Genetics is the study of heredity, including how genetic variants are transmitted between generations and influence biological characteristics.
Genomics examines genetic information more broadly, including the structure, function, regulation, and interactions of genes across the genome.
Every person inherits genetic material from their biological parents.
However, possessing a particular genetic variant does not necessarily mean that a person will develop a disease.
Some variants have little or no known clinical effect.
Others contribute to disease risk.
Some cause well-defined inherited disorders under particular circumstances.
The clinical interpretation depends on several factors, including the variant's biological effects, inheritance pattern, and relationship to the condition being investigated.
It is also important to recognize that genes do not operate independently of their biological environment.
Gene expression is regulated through dynamic interactions among cellular processes, developmental conditions, and environmental signals.
Many common diseases involve numerous genetic and environmental influences.
Therefore, genomic information should not be interpreted as a fixed prediction of someone's future health.
Nevertheless, certain inherited disorders follow relatively well-characterized patterns of inheritance.
Identifying these conditions before conception can provide meaningful opportunities for reproductive planning.
2. Why Family History Remains Important
The original AJOG paper described a three-generation family history as one of the most valuable starting points for preconception genetic assessment.
This remains an important principle.
A family history can identify patterns suggesting inherited disease even before laboratory testing is considered.
Relevant information may include known genetic diagnoses, congenital abnormalities, developmental conditions, recurrent pregnancy losses, unexplained infant deaths, or medical problems occurring at unusually young ages.
A three-generation pedigree generally includes the prospective parents, their parents and siblings, and earlier generations or other relevant relatives.
Information should be obtained from both sides of the family.
For example, a family history of cystic fibrosis may prompt targeted testing for a known familial variant.
A history of unexplained developmental disability may warrant further evaluation for an inherited condition.
Repeated pregnancy losses may raise questions about chromosomal abnormalities.
A family history of certain cardiac disorders may require specialized genetic assessment before pregnancy.
However, the absence of a family history does not establish the absence of genetic risk.
Some inherited conditions remain unrecognized for generations because carriers are healthy.
Others arise through new genetic changes that were not present in either parent's inherited DNA.
Family history is therefore an important starting point, not a comprehensive genetic test.
3. How Genetic Conditions Are Inherited
Several inheritance patterns are especially relevant to reproductive counseling.
Autosomal recessive inheritance
In a typical autosomal recessive disorder, an affected child inherits a disease-causing variant in the same gene from each biological parent.
The parents may each carry one variant without experiencing the disease themselves.
Examples include many forms of cystic fibrosis, spinal muscular atrophy, and certain metabolic disorders.
Autosomal dominant inheritance
Some conditions can develop when a person carries one disease-causing variant in a relevant gene.
Examples include certain forms of Marfan syndrome and hereditary cardiac disorders.
A parent with a pathogenic variant associated with an autosomal dominant condition may have a 50% chance of transmitting that variant during each pregnancy.
However, the severity and likelihood of disease can vary.
X-linked inheritance
Certain conditions involve variants located on the X chromosome.
The probability of transmission and the clinical presentation depend on the specific disorder and the biological sex chromosomes inherited by the child.
Chromosomal abnormalities
Some reproductive conditions involve changes in chromosome number or structure rather than variants in one particular gene.
These may arise during formation of eggs or sperm, during early embryonic development, or through inheritance of a chromosomal rearrangement.
Understanding these distinctions is essential because different genetic mechanisms require different approaches to testing and counseling.
4. What Does It Mean to Be a Genetic Carrier?
A carrier is someone who possesses a genetic variant associated with a recessive condition but typically does not experience the disorder.
Carriers are often healthy.
This is why carrier status may remain unknown without screening.
For an autosomal recessive disorder, if both biological parents carry a disease-causing variant in the same gene, each pregnancy generally has:
A 25% chance of producing a child affected by the condition.
A 50% chance of producing a child who is an unaffected carrier.
A 25% chance of producing a child who inherits neither familial disease-causing variant.
These probabilities apply independently to each pregnancy.
They do not mean that exactly one out of every four children will be affected.
The outcome of one pregnancy does not change the probability for the next.
Importantly, not all variants in a gene produce the same clinical effects.
Some combinations result in more severe disease.
Others may cause milder presentations or have uncertain implications.
This is one reason genetic counseling is important when both prospective parents carry variants in the same disease-associated gene.
5. Carrier Screening: One of the Most Important Advances in Preconception Care
Carrier screening is designed to identify individuals or couples with an increased likelihood of having a child affected by certain inherited genetic conditions.
Historically, screening was often offered according to family history or ethnic background.
For example, testing for Tay–Sachs disease was emphasized among populations with higher carrier frequencies.
Other screening recommendations targeted sickle cell disease, thalassemias, and additional conditions.
The original 2008 AJOG paper reflected this approach.
However, modern sequencing technology has changed what is possible.
Laboratories can now examine many genes simultaneously.
This has led to the development of broader carrier-screening panels.
The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics addressed these developments in its 2021 practice resource published in Genetics in Medicine, a Nature Portfolio journal at the time.
The organization recommended a more standardized and inclusive approach to reproductive carrier screening.
An important conclusion was that eligibility should not depend exclusively on self-identified ethnicity.
6. Why Carrier Screening Is Moving Beyond Ethnicity
Genetic ancestry can influence the frequency of particular inherited variants.
However, racial and ethnic categories are imperfect indicators of a person's genetic background.
Individuals may have mixed ancestry or incomplete information about earlier generations.
Certain pathogenic variants also occur across many populations.
A screening approach based exclusively on ethnic categories may therefore overlook relevant reproductive risks.
The 2021 ACMG guidance recommended offering Tier 3 carrier screening for autosomal recessive and X-linked conditions to all pregnant individuals and those planning pregnancy.
The goal was to provide more consistent access to clinically relevant information.
This does not mean ancestry has become irrelevant.
A known familial variant or population-specific risk may still inform the choice of additional testing.
Rather, ancestry should not function as the sole determinant of whether someone can access carrier screening.
This shift reflects both technological progress and a greater emphasis on equity in genomic medicine.
7. What Is Tier 3 Carrier Screening?
The ACMG developed a tiered framework to improve consistency in reproductive carrier screening.
Tier 1 includes long-established universal screening considerations, such as cystic fibrosis and spinal muscular atrophy.
Broader tiers include additional autosomal recessive and X-linked conditions selected according to clinical and population-level considerations.
Tier 3 represents the broader screening level that ACMG recommends offering during preconception or pregnancy.
However, the number of genes included in commercially available panels can vary.
A test described as comprehensive or expanded is not necessarily superior simply because it includes more genes.
A clinically useful panel should consider the severity of included disorders, reliability of testing, variant interpretation, and whether the findings can meaningfully inform reproductive decisions.
The selection of a screening panel should therefore involve appropriate counseling rather than relying exclusively on the number of genes advertised.
8. New Research: What Happens When Couples Receive Broad Genomic Screening?
In 2026, researchers published Citywide Premarital Genomic Screening in a Middle Eastern Population in Nature Medicine.
The study investigated a large-scale reproductive genomic screening program involving 1,000 couples in Dubai.
The screening approach included hundreds of genes associated with inherited disorders.
Researchers identified 79 couples who were at increased risk of having offspring affected by an inherited recessive condition.
This represents approximately 8% of the couples studied.
The findings demonstrate how genomic screening can identify reproductive risks that may otherwise remain unknown.
However, this percentage should not be generalized to all couples worldwide.
The study population had particular ancestry and demographic characteristics, including patterns of shared ancestry and consanguinity that can influence recessive disease risk.
Indeed, the authors compared their findings with an Australian screening population in which the proportion of newly identified at-risk couples was considerably lower.
The clinical value of the study lies in demonstrating that systematic screening can identify meaningful reproductive information.
It does not establish that all populations will experience the same screening yield.
9. Why Population Diversity Matters in Genetic Testing
A major limitation of genetic research is that some populations have historically been underrepresented in genomic databases.
This can affect which variants are recognized and how confidently findings are interpreted.
A 2026 study published in npj Genomic Medicine, Expanding Carrier Screening: Beyond the Genes, to Include Underrepresented Ancestries, investigated this challenge.
Researchers analyzed genomic information from more than 9,000 individuals representing several Asian populations in Singapore.
They identified disease-associated genes relevant to those populations that were absent from some established commercial screening panels.
The researchers developed a framework for selecting genes based on local genomic data, disease severity, and clinical relevance.
This finding highlights an important principle.
The quality of carrier screening depends not only on sequencing technology, but also on the populations used to develop and validate the test.
More inclusive genomic research may improve the ability to identify inherited risks across diverse populations.
However, screening strategies must still consider informed consent, interpretation, and clinical usefulness.
10. A Negative Carrier Screen Does Not Mean Zero Risk
One of the most important limitations of genetic screening is the concept of residual risk.
A negative carrier-screening result means that the test did not identify the variants it was designed to detect.
It does not establish that the individual carries no disease-associated variants.
Some variants may not be included in the panel.
Others may be difficult to detect because of technical limitations.
New variants may also be identified as scientific knowledge advances.
In addition, many genetic conditions are not covered by routine carrier screening.
Some arise through new mutations.
Others involve chromosomal abnormalities or complex combinations of genetic and environmental influences.
Therefore, a negative test result reduces certain identified risks without eliminating all possible reproductive risks.
Effective counseling should communicate this distinction clearly.
11. Why Genetic Counseling Matters Before Testing
Genetic testing can produce information that is emotionally and medically significant.
Some results may reveal reproductive risks that were previously unknown.
Others may identify uncertain findings or information relevant to additional family members.
Genetic counselors are professionals trained to help individuals understand genetic risk, testing options, inheritance patterns, and the possible implications of results.
Pretest counseling may involve discussing which conditions are included, what the test can and cannot identify, and how results might affect reproductive choices.
Post-test counseling focuses on interpreting findings within the individual's family history and circumstances.
The objective is informed decision-making.
Genetic counseling is not intended to direct someone toward one particular reproductive decision.
Different individuals and families may make different choices based on their values, medical circumstances, and preferences.
Respect for patient autonomy is fundamental.
12. Genetic Variants: Why Classification Matters
Not all genetic variants have the same clinical significance.
Laboratories commonly classify variants into categories such as pathogenic, likely pathogenic, uncertain significance, likely benign, and benign.
A pathogenic variant has sufficient evidence supporting a disease-related interpretation.
A variant of uncertain significance, or VUS, does not have enough evidence to be classified confidently as disease-causing or harmless.
This distinction is important.
A VUS should not automatically be treated as a diagnosis.
Nor should it generally form the sole basis for major reproductive decisions.
As additional research becomes available, variant classifications may change.
This is one reason professionally interpreted clinical testing differs from consumer-facing reports that merely list numerous genetic variations.
The objective is not to identify the greatest possible number of variants.
It is to understand which findings have reliable clinical meaning.
13. Maternal Age, Chromosomal Abnormalities, and Reproductive Risk
Maternal age remains an important factor in reproductive counseling.
As the age of the individual producing the eggs increases, the probability of certain chromosomal abnormalities generally rises.
One important mechanism involves errors in chromosome separation during meiosis.
These errors can produce eggs containing an abnormal number of chromosomes.
Following fertilization, the resulting embryo may have a chromosomal condition known as aneuploidy.
Some forms of aneuploidy are compatible with survival, while others frequently result in early pregnancy loss.
Trisomy 21, associated with Down syndrome, is one familiar example.
However, chromosomal risk is probabilistic rather than deterministic.
Many pregnancies at older maternal ages result in healthy infants.
Likewise, chromosomal abnormalities and miscarriage can occur at younger ages.
Age is one relevant variable among several and should be discussed without unnecessarily alarming prospective parents.
14. What About Paternal Age?
Paternal age is also relevant to reproductive genetics.
As individuals age, sperm-producing cells undergo additional divisions, creating opportunities for new genetic variants to arise.
Some de novo genetic variants are associated with increasing paternal age.
Certain rare autosomal dominant disorders have well-characterized paternal-age relationships.
However, this should not be interpreted to mean that older fathers will have children with genetic conditions.
Absolute risks for most individual disorders remain low.
Paternal age may also interact with broader reproductive factors, including sperm characteristics and other health conditions.
Preconception counseling should therefore include the ages and medical histories of both prospective parents when relevant.
15. Recurrent Pregnancy Loss: How Genetic Evaluation Has Changed
The original 2008 AJOG article identified recurrent pregnancy loss as a reason to consider genetic evaluation.
This remains relevant, but the recommended testing strategy has changed.
In 2026, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine published updated guidance concerning recurrent pregnancy loss.
The organization defines recurrent pregnancy loss as two or more pregnancy losses, excluding confirmed ectopic or molar pregnancies.
Its recommendations emphasize chromosome analysis of miscarriage tissue when feasible.
Array-based chromosome testing can identify many numerical and structural chromosome abnormalities that may explain a loss.
This information may help distinguish sporadic aneuploid pregnancy loss from circumstances warranting further evaluation.
Parental karyotyping may be appropriate in selected circumstances, such as when miscarriage testing suggests an unbalanced translocation or relevant tissue testing is unavailable.
However, routine parental chromosome testing is not necessary for every couple after a single miscarriage.
Testing should be individualized according to clinical circumstances.
16. Why MTHFR Testing Is Not a Routine Miscarriage Evaluation
One important correction to older approaches concerns genetic testing for inherited thrombophilia.
The 2008 AJOG paper suggested considering hereditary thrombophilia evaluation in certain cases of recurrent pregnancy loss.
However, contemporary evidence does not support routine testing for inherited thrombophilias as part of a recurrent pregnancy loss evaluation in the absence of other indications.
The 2026 ASRM guidance specifically advises against routine testing for Factor V Leiden, the prothrombin gene variant, MTHFR variants, and several other inherited thrombophilia markers.
It also advises against routine anticoagulant treatment for unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss based solely on these findings.
This is an important example of how clinical recommendations evolve.
A test may identify a biological variation without providing information that improves clinical outcomes.
MTHFR polymorphisms are relatively common.
Their presence alone does not establish a cause of miscarriage, infertility, or a need for specialized supplementation or anticoagulant treatment.
The appropriate preconception approach emphasizes evidence-based folic acid recommendations and testing for specific medical indications.
17. Folic Acid: A Preconception Intervention Supported by Strong Evidence
The original AJOG article included an important recommendation that remains foundational today.
Individuals planning pregnancy should obtain adequate folic acid before conception.
Folic acid supplementation reduces the risk of neural tube defects, which involve abnormal development of the embryonic neural tube.
Neural tube closure occurs early, often before pregnancy recognition.
This is why supplementation should begin before conception.
For most individuals capable of becoming pregnant, U.S. preventive guidance recommends 400–800 micrograms of folic acid daily.
Certain individuals with specific risk factors, including a previous neural tube defect–affected pregnancy, may require a higher prescribed dose.
However, higher doses are not automatically appropriate for everyone.
A known common MTHFR variant is not, by itself, a reason to avoid folic acid.
The practical objective is to follow established recommendations rather than replace an evidence-based intervention with unproven genomic personalization.
18. Preimplantation Genetic Testing: What Are the Different Types?
Modern assisted reproductive technology can incorporate several types of genetic testing.
However, they serve different purposes.
Preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic disorders (PGT-M) is designed for situations involving a known single-gene disorder.
For example, a couple at significant risk of transmitting a particular inherited condition may consider IVF with PGT-M.
The testing strategy is developed around the relevant familial variants.
Preimplantation genetic testing for structural rearrangements (PGT-SR) may be considered when a prospective parent carries a chromosomal rearrangement such as a balanced translocation.
Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) attempts to identify embryos with certain abnormalities in chromosome number.
These technologies should not be treated as interchangeable.
The identification of a specific inherited condition creates a different clinical question from general screening for embryo aneuploidy.
19. Does Preimplantation Genetic Testing Improve IVF Success?
The answer depends on the type of testing, clinical indication, and outcome being measured.
A major randomized trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2021 compared IVF with and without PGT-A among women with a good prognosis for producing viable embryos.
The study included 1,212 women.
Cumulative live birth occurred in 77.2% of the PGT-A group and 81.8% of the conventional IVF group.
These results did not demonstrate an improvement in cumulative live-birth rates from routine PGT-A in the population studied.
This is an important distinction.
Identifying embryos with chromosomal abnormalities does not automatically mean that testing improves the total likelihood of having a baby.
Potential benefits and limitations depend on the circumstances.
PGT-A also has limitations related to embryo mosaicism, biopsy sampling, and possible classification uncertainty.
The results of one trial cannot answer every question about its use in all IVF populations.
Nevertheless, the evidence does not justify presenting PGT-A as a universally beneficial reproductive intervention.
PGT-M for a known inherited disorder is a different application and should be evaluated according to its particular purpose.
20. Prenatal Genomic Sequencing: How Much Has Diagnostic Medicine Advanced?
One of the most remarkable developments in reproductive medicine is the ability to investigate genetic causes of certain fetal abnormalities through exome or genome sequencing.
Exome sequencing evaluates the protein-coding regions of genes.
Genome sequencing examines a broader proportion of genetic material.
These tests may be considered in selected pregnancies when conventional testing has not established the cause of significant fetal abnormalities.
A 2020 New England Journal of Medicine study, Exome Sequencing for Prenatal Diagnosis in Nonimmune Hydrops Fetalis, evaluated 127 unexplained cases.
Researchers identified diagnostic pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in 37 cases, representing approximately 29% of the study population.
The findings demonstrated that sequencing could provide meaningful diagnostic information for certain complex fetal presentations.
However, this was a selected high-risk population.
The results do not justify routine fetal exome sequencing in every uncomplicated pregnancy.
In 2025, another New England Journal of Medicine report described a prenatal genomic diagnosis of congenital thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura that enabled prompt treatment after birth.
This case illustrates how genetic information can sometimes change clinical management.
It also raises ethical questions concerning incidental findings and the boundaries of genomic reporting.
21. What About Polygenic Risk Scores and Embryo Selection?
Some modern genetic technologies attempt to estimate susceptibility to common diseases using many genetic variants.
These estimates are called polygenic risk scores.
They are being investigated for conditions such as coronary artery disease, diabetes, and certain cancers.
However, most common diseases develop through interactions among many genetic and non-genetic factors.
A polygenic risk score provides a statistical estimate, not a definitive prediction.
The interpretation may also vary according to genetic ancestry and the populations represented in the original research.
Using polygenic scores to select embryos introduces additional scientific and ethical uncertainties.
The ability to rank embryos according to a statistical model does not establish that such selection improves long-term health outcomes.
Nor does it demonstrate reliable prediction of complex traits.
These applications should therefore be distinguished from established genetic testing for clearly characterized inherited disorders.
More genomic information does not necessarily translate into meaningful control over future health.
22. Genetics Is Not Destiny: The Importance of Biological Context
A major principle of contemporary biology is that genetic information operates within complex biological systems.
Genes participate in networks involving transcription, translation, metabolism, signaling, and environmental responsiveness.
Development depends on regulated interactions among these processes.
Certain pathogenic variants can have substantial and relatively predictable effects.
However, even among individuals carrying the same variant, disease expression may vary.
This can involve penetrance, variable expressivity, modifier genes, and other biological influences.
For complex traits, prediction is even more difficult.
Nutrition, environmental exposures, metabolic conditions, and other factors may contribute to outcomes.
This does not mean that lifestyle changes can override every inherited genetic condition.
Some disorders require specialized medical treatment regardless of lifestyle.
Instead, it means genetic risk should be interpreted within its appropriate biological and clinical context.
The genome contributes to the possibilities and constraints of biological development; it does not function as a complete script determining every health outcome.
23. Genetic Screening Versus Direct-to-Consumer Genomic Testing
Not every genetic test is designed for reproductive healthcare.
Consumer genetic products may provide information about ancestry, selected traits, or statistical health associations.
Some also advertise personalized nutrition, exercise, or wellness recommendations.
However, the scientific and clinical validity of these applications varies considerably.
Reproductive carrier screening requires appropriate assay validation and interpretation of disease-associated variants.
Clinical decisions may depend on detecting specific inherited conditions with sufficient sensitivity and specificity.
A consumer report identifying common polymorphisms does not replace this type of evaluation.
Likewise, a broad genomic report does not necessarily contain the information required for reproductive counseling.
Patients should understand what a test measures, how results are interpreted, and whether the information can guide a meaningful clinical decision.
24. Genetic Information, Privacy, and Reproductive Autonomy
Genetic information can have implications extending beyond one individual.
A result may reveal information relevant to siblings, parents, or other biological relatives.
Some findings may influence family-planning decisions.
Others may create emotional distress or uncertainty.
Consequently, genetic testing requires particular attention to informed consent and privacy.
Patients should understand how results are stored, who may access them, whether data may be shared, and what legal protections apply.
In the United States, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act provides certain protections involving health insurance and employment.
However, its protections have important limitations and do not extend to every form of insurance or circumstance.
Patients should also understand that participation in genetic screening is voluntary.
The goal is to expand informed reproductive choices, not to define which reproductive decisions a family should make.
25. What Should a Comprehensive Preconception Genetic Assessment Include?
An evidence-informed evaluation can begin with several practical considerations.
Personal and family history: Review inherited conditions, congenital abnormalities, unexplained developmental disorders, early-onset disease, pregnancy losses, and relevant findings from both biological families.
Reproductive history: Consider prior pregnancies, fertility difficulties, known chromosomal abnormalities, or previous children affected by inherited conditions.
Parental age: Discuss maternal and paternal age-related risks when relevant.
Carrier screening: Offer screening according to current professional guidance, with appropriate explanation of its benefits and limitations.
Known inherited disorders: Arrange specialist evaluation when a prospective parent has a diagnosed genetic condition that may influence pregnancy or offspring health.
Prior genetic results: Review existing laboratory reports rather than unnecessarily repeating tests.
Counseling and reproductive choices: Provide access to genetics professionals when findings warrant further interpretation.
Nutritional prevention: Ensure appropriate folic acid supplementation and other established preconception recommendations.
The purpose is not to identify every conceivable genetic variation.
It is to recognize actionable information that can improve understanding and reproductive decision-making.
26. How This Research Informs Our Preconception Care
We view reproductive health through an integrated framework involving genetics, physiology, environment, lifestyle, and individual circumstances.
Within our women's health and conscious conception services, family history provides important context for understanding potential inherited risks.
We recognize that both prospective parents contribute genetic information to a future pregnancy.
We also recognize that the interpretation of this information requires appropriate expertise.
Our approach emphasizes research-informed education, relevant health history, personalized preconception preparation, and collaboration with qualified medical and genetics professionals.
When a family history or clinical finding suggests a possible inherited disorder, referral for genetic counseling or appropriate clinical genetic evaluation may be valuable.
Similarly, patients considering carrier screening should receive information about the purpose of testing, residual risk, and possible reproductive implications.
Our broader wellness services can support modifiable aspects of reproductive health, such as nutrition, physical activity, sleep, and other lifestyle-related factors.
However, lifestyle coaching should not be presented as a method for eliminating pathogenic genetic variants or preventing all inherited disorders.
We also recognize the importance of avoiding unnecessary genomic testing.
A test should be selected because it addresses a meaningful clinical question—not simply because the technology exists.
Our objective is to help prospective parents understand the available evidence, ask informed questions, and navigate appropriate professional resources.
Conclusion: Genetic Knowledge Should Expand Understanding, Not Create the Illusion of Certainty
The field of reproductive genetics has changed considerably since the original 2008 AJOG publication.
Carrier screening can now examine many more inherited conditions.
Genomic sequencing can identify previously unrecognized reproductive risks.
Specialized testing can help explain certain fetal abnormalities and selected cases of recurrent pregnancy loss.
And genetic counseling can help individuals understand their options before conception.
However, scientific progress has also revealed important limitations.
A negative screening result does not eliminate risk.
A genetic variant does not always predict disease.
A broader test is not necessarily a better test.
And sophisticated embryo testing does not automatically improve the likelihood of a successful pregnancy.
These distinctions matter because reproductive healthcare must prioritize reliable evidence and informed decisions over technological novelty.
Perhaps the most enduring insight from the original AJOG article is that meaningful genetic care begins with understanding the individual and their family.
A detailed history, appropriate screening, and access to qualified counseling can provide important information without assuming that every possible genetic variation needs to be measured.
The purpose of preconception genetics is not to predict or control every aspect of a future child's health. It is to identify meaningful inherited risks, clarify available choices, and help prospective parents make informed decisions consistent with their circumstances and values.
Research References
Solomon BD, Jack BW, Feero WG. The clinical content of preconception care: genetics and genomics. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2008;199(6 Suppl 2)–S344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2008.09.870
Gregg AR, Aarabi M, Klugman S, et al. Screening for autosomal recessive and X-linked conditions during pregnancy and preconception: a practice resource of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genetics in Medicine. 2021;23:1793–1806. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-021-01203-z
Guha S, Reddi HV, Aarabi M, et al. Laboratory testing for preconception/prenatal carrier screening: a technical standard of the ACMG. Genetics in Medicine. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gim.2024.101137
Alblooshi K, Sharaf R, et al. Citywide premarital genomic screening in a Middle Eastern population. Nature Medicine. 2026. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-026-04251-7
Bylstra Y, Jian PC, Lin S, et al. Expanding carrier screening: beyond the genes, to include underrepresented ancestries. npj Genomic Medicine. 2026;11:8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41525-025-00545-w
Yan J, Qin Y, Zhao H, et al. Live birth with or without preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy. New England Journal of Medicine. 2021;385:2047–2058. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2103613
Sparks TN, Lianoglou BR, Adami RR, et al. Exome sequencing for prenatal diagnosis in nonimmune hydrops fetalis. New England Journal of Medicine. 2020;383:1746–1756. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2023643
Fennell AP, Roscioli T, Buckley M, et al. Lifesaving diagnosis through prenatal genomic sequencing. New England Journal of Medicine. 2025;393:93–95. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2506080
American Society for Reproductive Medicine Practice Committee. Recurrent pregnancy loss: a committee opinion. 2026. https://www.asrm.org/practice-guidance/practice-committee-documents/recurrent-pregnancy-loss-a-committee-opinion-2026/
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Carrier screening in the age of genomic medicine. Committee Opinion No. 690. 2017. https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2017/03/carrier-screening-in-the-age-of-genomic-medicine
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Carrier screening for genetic conditions. Committee Opinion No. 691. 2017. https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2017/03/carrier-screening-for-genetic-conditions
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Folic acid supplementation to prevent neural tube defects: preventive medication. JAMA. 2023;330:454–459. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2023.12876