Could time-lapse embryo imaging reduce the need for biopsy and PGS?

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

Volumn 30, Issue 8, 2013, Pages 1081-1090

  Swain, Jason E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

Aneuploidy; Blastocyst; Embryo; Morphokinetics; Time lapse

Indexed keywords

ANEUPLOIDY; ARTICLE; BIOPSY; BLASTOCYST; CHROMOSOME ABERRATION; CHROMOSOME ANALYSIS; EMBRYO; EMBRYO DEVELOPMENT; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; GENETIC SCREENING; HUMAN; INFERTILITY THERAPY; MORPHOLOGY; NIDATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PREIMPLANTATION EMBRYO; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELIABILITY; ZYGOTE;

ANEUPLOIDY; BIOPSY; EMBRYO CULTURE TECHNIQUES; EMBRYONIC DEVELOPMENT; HUMANS; MITOSIS; PREIMPLANTATION DIAGNOSIS; TIME FACTORS; TIME-LAPSE IMAGING;

EID: 84885653507     PISSN: 10580468     EISSN: 15737330     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10815-013-0048-4     Document Type: Article

References (83)

1. Alfarawati S, Fragouli E, Colls P, et al. The relationship between blastocyst morphology, chromosomal abnormality, and embryo gender. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(2):520-4.
2. Alikani M, Calderon G, Tomkin G, et al. Cleavage anomalies in early human embryos and survival after prolonged culture in-vitro. Hum Reprod. 2000;15(12):2634-43.
3. Alikani M, Cohen J, Tomkin G, et al. Human embryo fragmentation in vitro and its implications for pregnancy and implantation. Fertil Steril. 1999;71(5):836-42.
4. Ambroggio J, Gindoff PR, Dayal MB, et al. Multinucleation of a sibling blastomere on day 2 suggests unsuitability for embryo transfer in IVF-preimplantation genetic screening cycles. Fertil Steril. 2011;96(4):856-9.
5. Arav A, Aroyo A, Yavin S, Roth Z. Prediction of embryonic developmental competence by time-lapse observation and 'shortest-half' analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;17(5):669-75.
6. Azzarello A, Hoest T, Mikkelsen A. The impact of time-lapse assessment on nuclearity: is multinucleation a proper character for embryo selection. Hum Reprod. 2012;27 suppl 2:ii103-5.
7. Balaban B, Yakin K, Urman B, et al. Pronuclear morphology predicts embryo development and chromosome constitution. Reprod Biomed Online. 2004;8(6):695-700.
8. Baltaci V, Satiroglu H, Kabukcu C, et al. Relationship between embryo quality and aneuploidies. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;12(1):77-82.
9. Barlow P, Puissant F, Van der Zwalmen P, et al. In vitro fertilization, development, and implantation after exposure of mature mouse oocytes to visible light. Mol Reprod Dev. 1992;33(3):297-302.
10. Basile N, Bronet F, Nogales M del C, Martinez E, Ariza M, Mesequer M. Time lapse technology reveals no difference between embryo quality and the chromosomal status of day 3 embryos. Fertil Steril 2012;98(35 (suppl 3)):s142.
11. Bavister BD. A minichamber device for maintaining a constant carbon dioxide in air atmosphere during prolonged culture of cells on the stage of an inverted microscope. Vitro Cell Dev Biol. 1988;24(8):759-63.
12. Bayram A, Ciray H, Sahin O, et al. Comparison of morphokinetic parameters between euploid and aneuploid embryos by time-lapse monitoring. Hum Reprod. 2012;27 suppl 2:ii103-5.
13. Campbell A, Fishel S, Bowman N, et al. Modelling a risk classification of aneuploidy in human embryos using non-invasive morphokinetics. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;26(5):477-85.
14. Campbell A, Fishel S, Bowman N, et al. Retrospective analysis of outcomes after IVF using an aneuploidy risk model derived from time lapse imaging without PGS. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;in press.
15. Chavez SL, Loewke KE, Han J, et al. Dynamic blastomere behaviour reflects human embryo ploidy by the four-cell stage. Nat Commun. 2012;3:1251.
16. Cruz M, Gadea B, Garrido N, et al. Embryo quality, blastocyst and ongoing pregnancy rates in oocyte donation patients whose embryos were monitored by time-lapse imaging. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2011;28(7):569-73.
17. Cruz M, Garrido N, Herrero J, et al. Timing of cell division in human cleavage-stage embryos is linked with blastocyst formation and quality. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012;25(4):371-81.
18. Dal Canto M, Coticchio G, Mignini Renzini M, et al. Cleavage kinetics analysis of human embryos predicts development to blastocyst and implantation. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012;25(5):474-80.
19. Daniel Jr JC. Clevage of mammalian ova inhibited by visible light. Nature. 1964;201:316-7.
20. Eaton JL, Hacker MR, Barrett CB, et al. Influence of patient age on the association between euploidy and day-3 embryo morphology. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(1):365-7.
21. Eaton JL, Hacker MR, Harris D, et al. Assessment of day-3 morphology and euploidy for individual chromosomes in embryos that develop to the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(6):2432-6.
22. Edirisinghe WR, Jemmott R, Smith C, Allan J. Association of pronuclear Z score with rates of aneuploidy in in vitro-fertilised embryos. Reprod Fertil Dev. 2005;17(5):529-34.
23. Feenan K, Herbert M. Can 'abnormally' fertilized zygotes give rise to viable embryos? Hum Fertil (Camb). 2006;9(3):157-69.
24. Figueira R, Setti A, Braga D, et al. Blastocyst morphology holds clues concerning the chromosomal status of the embryo. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(35(supple 3)):s141.
25. Finn A, Scott L, O'Leary T, et al. Sequential embryo scoring as a predictor of aneuploidy in poor-prognosis patients. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;21(3):381-90.
26. Forman E, Ferry K, Hong KH, et al. Morphology plus ploidy: a prospective study comparing traditional morphology based selection for single embryo transfer (SET) with comprehensive chromosomal screening. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(35 (suppl 3)):s18.
27. Forman EJ, Tao X, Ferry KM, et al. Single embryo transfer with comprehensive chromosome screening results in improved ongoing pregnancy rates and decreased miscarriage rates. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(4):1217-22.
28. Fragouli E, Wells D. Aneuploidy screening for embryo selection. Semin Reprod Med. 2012;30(4):289-301.
29. Friedman B, Chavez S, Behr B, et al. Non invasive imaging for the detection of human embryonic aneuploidy at the balstocyst stage. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(35 (suppl 3)):s38.
30. Gamiz P, Rubio C, de los Santos MJ, et al. The effect of pronuclear morphology on early development and chromosomal abnormalities in cleavage-stage embryos. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(11):2413-9.
31. Gianaroli L, Magli MC, Ferraretti AP, et al. Pronuclear morphology and chromosomal abnormalities as scoring criteria for embryo selection. Fertil Steril. 2003;80(2):341-9.
32. Gianaroli L, Magli MC, Ferraretti AP, et al. Oocyte euploidy, pronuclear zygote morphology and embryo chromosomal complement. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(1):241-9.
33. Gonzales DS, Boatman DE, Bavister BD. Kinematics of trophectoderm projections and locomotion in the peri-implantation hamster blastocyst. Dev Dyn. 1996;205(4):435-44.
34. Hardarson T, Caisander G, Sjogren A, et al. A morphological and chromosomal study of blastocysts developing from morphologically suboptimal human pre-embryos compared with control blastocysts. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(2):399-407.
35. Hashimoto S, Kato N, Saeki K, Morimoto Y. Selection of high-potential embryos by culture in poly(dimethylsiloxane) microwells and time-lapse imaging. Fertil Steril. 2012;97(2):332-7.
36. Hirao Y, Yanagimachi R. Detrimental effect of visible light on meiosis of mammalian eggs in vitro. J Exp Zool. 1978;206(3):365-9.
37. Hodes-Wertz B, Ampeloquin E, Morin S, et al. Does day 5 embryo morphology better predict euploidy compared to day 6? Fertil Steril. 2012;98(35):s55.
38. Holm P, Shukri NN, Vajta G, et al. Developmental kinetics of the first cell cycles of bovine in vitro produced embryos in relation to their in vitro viability and sex. Theriogenology. 1998;50(8):1285-99.
39. Jaroudi S, Alfarawati S, Poli M, et al. The effect of aneuploidy of embryo morphology and preimplantation development from the cleavage to blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(35):s164.
40. Kahraman S, Kumtepe Y, Sertyel S, et al. Pronuclear morphology scoring and chromosomal status of embryos in severe male infertility. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(12):3193-200.
41. Kirkegaard K, Agerholm IE, Ingerslev HJ. Time-lapse monitoring as a tool for clinical embryo assessment. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(5):1277-85.
42. Kirkegaard K, Hindkjaer JJ, Grondahl ML, et al. A randomized clinical trial comparing embryo culture in a conventional incubator with a time-lapse incubator. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29(6):565-72.
43. Kirkegaard K, Hindkjaer JJ, Ingerslev HJ. Human embryonic development after blastomere removal: a time-lapse analysis. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(1):97-105.
44. Kligman I, Benadiva C, Alikani M, Munne S. The presence of multinucleated blastomeres in human embryos is correlated with chromosomal abnormalities. Hum Reprod. 1996;11(7):1492-8.
45. Kroener L, Ambartsumyan G, Hill D, et al. Increased blastomere numbers in cleavage stage embryos are associated with higher aneuploidy rates determined by comparative genomic hybridization. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(35 suppl 3):s14.
46. Kulesa PM, Kasemeier-Kulesa JC. Construction of a heated incubation chamber around a microscope stage for time-lapse imaging. CSH Protoc. 2007;pdb prot4792. 2007.
47. Lemmen JG, Agerholm I, Ziebe S. Kinetic markers of human embryo quality using time-lapse recordings of IVF/ICSI-fertilized oocytes. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;17(3):385-91.
48. Li G, Jin H, Xin Z, et al. Impact of abnormal embryonic molecular karyotype determined by single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) microarray preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) on embryo development and blastocyst formation. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(35):s162.
49. Littman E, Harris D, Lopez C, La A. Correlation between embryo morphology and development and chromosomal complement. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(5):s140.
50. Magli MC, Gianaroli L, Ferraretti AP, et al. Embryo morphology and development are dependent on the chromosomal complement. Fertil Steril. 2007;87(3):534-41.
51. Massip A, Mulnard J, Vanderzwalmen P, et al. The behaviour of cow blastocyst in vitro: cinematographic and morphometric analysis. J Anat. 1982;134(Pt 2):399-405.
52. Melzer K, McCaffrey C, Adler A, et al. Developmental morphology and continous timelapse microscopy (TLM) of human embryos: can we predict euploidy. Fertil Steril. 2012;98 suppl 3:s136.
53. Meseguer M, Herrero J, Tejera A, et al. The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of embryo implantation. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(10):2658-71.
54. Mio Y, Maeda K. Time-lapse cinematography of dynamic changes occurring during in vitro development of human embryos. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(6):660 e1-5.
55. Moayeri SE, Allen RB, Brewster WR, et al. Day-3 embryo morphology predicts euploidy among older subjects. Fertil Steril. 2008;89(1):118-23.
56. Montgomery S, S D, Bowman N, et al. Does the timing and degree of cleavage stage embryo fragmentation differ in euploid and aneuploid embryos? Fertility. 2013;Liverpool, UK. 2013.
57. Munne S, Chen S, Colls P, et al. Maternal age, morphology, development and chromosome abnormalities in over 6000 cleavage-stage embryos. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007;14(5):628-34.
58. Nematollahi-mahani SN, Pahang H, Moshkdanian G, Nematollahi-mahani A. Effect of embryonic fibroblast cell co-culture on development of mouse embryos following exposure to visible light. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009;26(2-3):129-35.
59. Ottosen LD, Hindkjaer J, Ingerslev J. Light exposure of the ovum and preimplantation embryo during ART procedures. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2007;24(2-3):99-103.
60. Palini S, Galluzzi L, De Stefani S, et al. Genomic DNA in human blastocoele fluid. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;26(6):603-10.
61. Payne D, Flaherty SP, Barry MF, Matthews CD. Preliminary observations on polar body extrusion and pronuclear formation in human oocytes using time-lapse video cinematography. Hum Reprod. 1997;12(3):532-41.
62. Pribenszky C, Matyas S, Kovacs P, et al. Pregnancy achieved by transfer of a single blastocyst selected by time-lapse monitoring. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;21(4):533-6.
63. Rubino P, Rocio C, Fiorentino F, et al. Correlation between embryo morphology and chromosomal arrangement: preliminary data. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(35s162).
64. Scott Jr RT, Ferry K, Su J, et al. Comprehensive chromosome screening is highly predictive of the reproductive potential of human embryos: a prospective, blinded, nonselection study. Fertil Steril. 2012;97(4):870-5.
65. Semeniuk L, Mazur P, Mikitenko D, et al. Time lapse and aCGH, is there any connection between ploidy and embryo cleavage timing on early stages of embryo development. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(35):s6.
66. Smith GD, Takayama S, Swain JE. Rethinking in vitro embryo culture: new developments in culture platforms and potential to improve assisted reproductive technologies. Biol Reprod. 2012;86(3):62.
67. Staessen C, Van Steirteghem A. The genetic constitution of multinuclear blastomeres and their derivative daughter blastomeres. Hum Reprod. 1998;13(6):1625-31.
68. Stevens J, Rawlins M, Janesch J, et al. Time lapse observation of embryo development identifies later stage morphology based parameters associated with blastocyst quality, but not chromosome constitute. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(35):s30.
69. Swain JE, Smith GD. Advances in embryo culture platforms: novel approaches to improve preimplantation embryo development through modifications of the microenvironment. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17(4):541-57.
70. Takahashi M, Saka N, Takahashi H, et al. Assessment of DNA damage in individual hamster embryos by comet assay. Mol Reprod Dev. 1999;54(1):1-7.
71. Takenaka M, Horiuchi T, Yanagimachi R. Effects of light on development of mammalian zygotes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104(36):14289-93.
72. Terada Y, Ugajin T, Hasegawa H, et al. Different embryonic development after blastomere biopsy for preimplantation genetic diagnosis, observed by time-lapse imaging. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(4):1470-1.
73. Treff NR. Genome-wide analysis of human preimplantation aneuploidy. Semin Reprod Med. 2012;30(4):283-8.
74. Ugajin T, Terada Y, Hasegawa H, et al. Aberrant behavior of mouse embryo development after blastomere biopsy as observed through time-lapse cinematography. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(8):2723-8.
75. Umaoka Y, Noda Y, Nakayama T, et al. Effect of visual light on in vitro embryonic development in the hamster. Theriogenology. 1992;38(6):1043-54.
76. Van Blerkom J, Chavez DJ. Morphodynamics of outgrowths of mouse trophoblast in the presence and absence of a monolayer of uterine epithelium. Am J Anat. 1981;162(2):143-55.
77. Van Blerkom J, Davis P, Alexander S. A microscopic and biochemical study of fragmentation phenotypes in stage-appropriate human embryos. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(4):719-29.
78. Vanneste E, Voet T, Le Caignec C, et al. Chromosome instability is common in human cleavage-stage embryos. Nat Med. 2009;15(5):577-83.
79. Vera M, Rodrigo I, Mercader A, et al. Blastocyst rates according to embryo fragmentation and aneuploidy assessed by array CGH. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(35):s139.
80. Wells D. Embryo aneuploidy and the role of morphological and genetic screening. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;21(3)274-7.
81. Wong C, Chen AA, Behr B, Shen S. Time-lapse microscopy and image analysis in basic and clinical embryo development research. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;26(2):120-9.
82. Wong CC, Loewke KE, Bossert NL, et al. Non-invasive imaging of human embryos before embryonic genome activation predicts development to the blastocyst stage. Nat Biotechnol. 2010;28(10):1115-21.
83. Ziebe S, Lundin K, Loft A, et al. FISH analysis for chromosomes 13, 16, 18, 21, 22, X and Y in all blastomeres of IVF pre-embryos from 144 randomly selected donated human oocytes and impact on pre-embryo morphology. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(12):2575-81.