Human pronuclei as a mode of predicting viability

Human Preimplantation Embryo Selection

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 31-40

  James, Aidita N ^a  

^a WALTER REED ARMY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84941005959     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (47)

1. Tesarik J, Kopecny V, Plachot M et al. Ultrastructural and autoradiographic observations on multinucleated blastomeres of human cleaving embryos obtained by in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1987;2: 127-36.
2. Wright G, Wiker S, Elsner C et al. Observations on the morphology of pronuclei and nucleoli in human zygotes and implications for cryopreservation. Hum Reprod 1990; 5: 109-15.
3. Winston NJ, Braude PR, Pickering SJ et al. The incidence of abnormal morphology and nucleocytoplasmic ratios in 2-, 3- and 5-day human pre-embryos. Hum Reprod 1991; 6: 17-24.
4. Munne S, Cohen J. Unsuitability of multinucleated human blastomeres for preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Hum Reprod 1993; 8: 1120-5.
5. Scott L, Alvero R, Leondires M et al. The morphology of human pro-nuclear embryos is positively related to blastocyst development and implantation. Hum Reprod 2000; 15: 2394-403.
6. Montag M, van der Ven H. Evaluation of pronuclear morphology as the only selection criterion for further embryo culture and transfer: results of a prospective multicentre study. Hum Reprod 2001; 16: 2384-9.
7. Lundin K, Bergh C, Hardarson T. Early embryo cleavage is a strong indicator of embryo quality in human IVF. Hum Reprod 2001; 16: 2652-7.
8. Manor D, Drugan A, Stein D et al. Unequal pronuclear size - a powerful predictor of embryonic chromosome anomalies. J Assist Reprod Genet 1999; 16: 385-9.
9. Van Blerkom J. Occurrence and developmental consequences of aberrant cellular organization in meiotically mature human oocytes afterexogenous ovarian hyperstimulation. J Electron Microsc Techn 1990; 16: 324-46.
10. Balaban B, Urman B, Isklar A et al. The effects of pronuclear morphology on embryo quality parameters and blastocyst transfer outcome. Hum Reprod 2001; 16: 2357-61.
11. Rienzi L, Ubaldi F, Iacobelli M et al. Day 3 embryo transfer with combined evaluation at the pronuclear and cleavage stages compares favourably with day 5 blastocyst transfer. Hum Reprod 2002; 17: 1852-5.
12. Zollner U, Zollner KP, Hartl G et al. The use of a detailed zygote score after IVF/ICSI to obtain good quality blastocysts: the German experience. Hum Reprod 2002; 17: 1327-33.
13. Scott L. Pronuclear score as a predictor of embryo development. Reprod BioMed Online 2003; 6: 201-14.
14. Payne D, Flaherty SP, Barry MF et al. Preliminary observations on polar body extrusion and pronuclear formation in human oocytes using time-lapse video cinematography. Hum Reprod 1997; 12: 532-41.
15. Scott L, Smith S. The successful use of pronuclear embryo transfers the day following oocyte retrieval. Hum Reprod 1998; 13: 1003-13.
16. Ludwig M, Schopper B, Al-Hasani S et al. Clinical use of a pronuclear stage score following intracytoplasmic sperm injection: impact on pregnancy rates under the conditions of the German embryo protection law. Hum Reprod 2000; 15: 325-9.
17. Ludwig M, Schopper B, Katalinic A et al. Experience with the elective transfer of two embryos under the conditions of the German embryo protection law: results of a retrospective data analysis of 2573 transfer cycles. Hum Reprod 2000; 15: 319-24.
18. Tesarik J, Junca AM, Hazout A et al. Embryos with high implantation potential after intracytoplasmic sperm injection can be recognized by a simple, non-invasive examination of pronuclear morphology. Hum Reprod 2000; 15: 1396-9.
19. Wittemer C, Bettahar-Lebugle K, Ohl J et al. Zygote evaluation: an efficient tool for embryo selection. Hum Reprod 2000; 15: 2591-7.
20. Scott L. The biological basis of non-invasive strategies for selection of human oocytes and embryos. Hum Reprod Update 2003; 9: 237-49.
21. Sadowy S, Tomkin G, Munne S et al. Impaired development of zygotes with uneven pronuclear size. Zygote 1998; 6: 137-41.
22. Schatten G. The centrosome and its mode of inheritance: the reduction of the centrosome during gametogenesis and its restoration during fertilization. Dev Biol 1994; 165: 299-335.
23. Asch R, Simerly C, Ord T et al. The stages at which human fertilization arrests: microtubule and chromosomal configurations in inseminated oocytes which failed to complete fertilization and development in humans. Hum Reprod 1995; 10: 1897-906.
24. Tesarik J, Kopecny V. Development of human male pronucleus: ultrastructure and timing. Gamete Res 1989; 24: 135-49.
25. Edwards RG, Beard HK. Oocyte polarity and cell determination in early mammalian embryos. Mol Hum Reprod 1997; 3: 863-905.
26. Van Blerkom J, Davis P, Alexander S. Differential mitochondrial distribution in human pronuclear embryos leads to disproportionate inheritance between blastomeres: relationship to microtubular organization, ATP content and competence. Hum Reprod 2000; 15: 2621-33.
27. Van Blerkom J, Davis P, Mathwig V et al. Domains of high-polarized and low-polarized mitochondria may occur in mouse and human oocytes and early embryos. Hum Reprod 2002; 17: 393-406.
28. Ebner T, Moser M, Sommergruber M et al. Presence, but not type or degree of extension, of a cytoplasmic halo has a significant influence on preimplantation development and implantation behaviour. Hum Reprod 2003; 18: 2406-12.
29. Bavister BD and Squirrell JM. Mitochondrial distribution and function in oocytes and early embryos. Hum Reprod 2000; 15: 189-98.
30. Shoukir Y, Campana A, Farley T et al. Early cleavage of in-vitro fertilized human embryos to the 2-cell stage: a novel indicator of embryo quality and viability. Hum Reprod 1997; 12: 1531-6.
31. Sakkas D, Shoukir Y, Chardonnens D et al. Early cleavage of human embryos to the two-cell stage after intracytoplasmic sperm injection as an indicator of embryo viability. Hum Reprod 1998; 13: 182-7.
32. Grisart B, Massip A, Dessy F. Cinematographic analysis of bovine embryo development in serum-free oviduct-conditioned medium. J Reprod Fertil 1994; 101: 257-64.
33. Tesarik J, Greco E. The probability of abnormal preimplantation development can be predicted by a single static observation on pronuclear stage morphology. Hum Reprod 1999; 14: 1318-23.
34. Senn A, Urner F, Chanson A et al. Morphological scoring of human pronuclear zygotes for prediction of pregnancy outcome. Hum Reprod 2006; 21: 234-9.
35. Kahraman S, Kumtepe Y, Sertyel S et al. Pronuclear morphology scoring and chromosomal status of embryos in severe male infertility. Hum Reprod 2002; 17: 3193-200.
36. Gianaroli L, Magli MC, Ferraretti AP et al. Pronuclear morphology and chromosomal abnormalities as scoring criteria for embryo selection. Fertil Steril 2003; 80: 341-9.
37. Scott L. Embryological strategies for overcoming recurrent assisted reproductive technology treatment failure. Hum Fertil 2002; 5: 206-14.
38. James AN, Hennessy S, Reggio B et al. The limited importance of pro-nuclear scoring of human zygotes. Hum Reprod 2006; 21: 1599-604.
39. Jaroudi K, Al-Hassan S, Sieck U et al. Zygote transfer on day 1 versus cleavage stage embryo transfer on day 3: a prospective randomized trial. Hum Reprod 2004; 19: 645-8.
40. Salumets A, Hyden-Granskog C, Suikkari AM et al. The predictive value of pronuclear morphology of zygotes in the assessment of human embryo quality. Hum Reprod 2001; 16: 2177-81.
41. Payne JF, Raburn DJ, Couchman GM et al. Relationship between preembryo pronuclear morphology (zygote score) and standard day 2 or 3 embryo morphology with regard to assisted reproductive technique outcomes. Fertil Steril 2005; 84: 900-9.
42. Kattera S, Chen C. Developmental potential of human pronuclear zygotes in relation to their pronuclear orientation. Hum Reprod 2004; 19: 294-9.
43. Balaban B, Yakin K, Urman B et al. Pronuclear morphology predicts embryo development and chromosome constitution. Reprod BioMed Online 2004; 8: 695-700.
44. 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: 2413-9.
45. Demirel LC, Evirgen O, Aydos K et al. The impact of the source of spermatozoa used for ICSI on pronuclear morphology. Hum Reprod 2001; 16: 2327-32.
46. Lan K-C, Huang F-J, Lin Y-C et al. The predicitive value of using a combined Z-score and day 3 embryo morphology score in the assessment of embryo survival on day 5. Hum Reprod 2003; 18: 1299-306.
47. Nagy ZP, Dozortsev D, Diamond M et al. Pronuclear morphology evaluation with subsequent evaluation of embryo morphology significantly increases implantation rates. Fertil Steril 2003; 80: 67-74.