Pronuclear pattern does not predict morphokinetics behavior in human embryos

Gynecological Endocrinology

Volumn 34, Issue 3, 2018, Pages 248-251

  Faramarzi, Azita ^a,b   Khalili, Mohammad Ali ^a   Omidi, Marjan ^a   Agha Rahimi, Azam ^a   Taheri, Fatemeh ^a  

^a SHAHID SADOUGHI UNIVERSITY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES   (Iran)

^b KERMANSHAH UNIVERSITY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES   (Iran)

Author keywords

cleavage pattern; embryo; morphokinetic; Z scoring; zygote

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BLASTOMA; CELL NUCLEUS INCLUSION BODY; CELL STRUCTURE; EMBRYO; HUMAN; HUMAN EMBRYO; INTRACYTOPLASMIC SPERM INJECTION; KINETICS; MORPHOKINETICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PRONUCLEUS; TIME-LAPSE MICROSCOPY; ZYGOTE; EMBRYO CULTURE; EMBRYO DEVELOPMENT; EMBRYO TRANSFER; FEMALE; OVULATION INDUCTION; PHYSIOLOGY; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY RATE; TIME LAPSE IMAGING;

EMBRYO CULTURE TECHNIQUES; EMBRYO TRANSFER; EMBRYONIC DEVELOPMENT; FEMALE; HUMANS; OVULATION INDUCTION; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY RATE; TIME-LAPSE IMAGING;

EID: 85031495057     PISSN: 09513590     EISSN: 14730766     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09513590.2017.1388365     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Ajduk A, Zernicka-Goetz M., Advances in embryo selection methods. F1000 Biol Rep 2012;4:11.
2. Molina I, Martínez JV, Pertusa JF, et al. Assessment of the implantation of day-2 human embryos by morphometric nonsubjective parameters. Fertil Steril 2014;102:1022–8.
3. Lee AM, Connell MT, Csokmay JM, Styer AK., Elective single embryo transfer-the power of one. Contracept Reprod Med 2016;1:11.
4. Sullivan EA, Wang YA, Hayward I, et al. Single embryo transfer reduces the risk of perinatal mortality, a population study. Hum Reprod 2012;27:3609–15.
5. Basile N, del Carmen Nogales M, Bronet F, et al. Increasing the probability of selecting chromosomally normal embryos by time-lapse morphokinetics analysis. Fertil Steril 2014;101:699–704. e1.
6. Khalili MA, Razavi V, Mardanian F, Esfandiari N., The predictive value of pronuclear morphology screening on embryo development and pregnancy outcome in ART cycles. MEFS 2008;13:44–51.
7. 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.
8. Nicoli A, Valli B, Di Girolamo R, et al. Limited importance of pre-embryo pronuclear morphology (zygote score) in assisted reproduction outcome in the absence of embryo cryopreservation. Fertil Steril 2007;88:1167–73.
9. Scott LA, Smith S., The successful use of pronuclear embryo transfers the day following oocyte retrieval. Hum Reprod 1998;13:1003–13.
10. 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.
11. Scott L, Alvero R, Leondires M, Miller B., The morphology of human pronuclear embryos is positively related to blastocyst development and implantation. Hum Repord 2000;15:2394–403.
12. Sadowy S, Tomkin G, Munné S, et al. Impaired development of zygotes with uneven pronuclear size. Zygote 1998;6:137–41.
13. Bar-Yoseph H, Levy A, Sonin Y, et al. Morphological embryo assessment: reevaluation. Fertil Steril 2011;95:1624–8.e2.
14. Faramarzi A, Khalili MA, Giulietta M, Agha-Rahimi A. Revealing the secret life of pre-implantation embryos by time-lapse monitoring: a review. Int J Reprod Biomed (Yazd) 2017; 15:257–64.
15. Goodman LR, Goldberg J, Falcone T, et al. Does the addition of time-lapse morphokinetics in the selection of embryos for transfer improve pregnancy rates? A randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2016;105:275–85. e10.
16. Azzarello A, Hoest T, Mikkelsen A., The impact of pronuclei morphology and dynamicity on live birth outcome after time-lapse culture. Hum Reprod 2012;27:2649–57.
17. Omidi M, Khalili MA, Ashourzadeh S, Rahimipour M., Zona pellucida birefringence and meiotic spindle visualisation of human oocytes are not influenced by IVM technology. Reprod Fertil Dev 2014;26:407–13.
18. Faramarzi AKM, Ashourzadeh S., Oocyte morphology and embryo morphokinetics in ICSI program: is there a relationship?. Zygote 2017;25:190–6.
19. Rubio I, Kuhlmann R, Agerholm I, et al. Limited implantation success of direct-cleaved human zygotes: a time-lapse study. Fertil Steril 2012;98:1458–63.
20. Liu Y, Chapple V, Roberts P, Matson P., Prevalence, consequence, and significance of reverse cleavage by human embryos viewed with the use of the Embryoscope time-lapse video system. Fertil Steril 2014;102:1295–300. e2.
21. Wirka KA, Chen AA, Conaghan J, et al. Atypical embryo phenotypes identified by time-lapse microscopy: high prevalence and association with embryo development. Fertil Steril 2014;101:1637–48. e5.
22. 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.
23. Tesarik J, Mendoza C, Greco E., Paternal effects acting during the first cell cycle of human preimplantation development after ICSI. Hum Reprod 2002;17:184–9.
24. Zollner U, Zollner K-P, 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.
25. Balaban B, Yakin K, Urman B, et al. Pronuclear morphology predicts embryo development and chromosome constitution. Reprod BioMed Online 2004;8:695–700.
26. 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.
27. King W, Niar A, Chartrain I, et al. Nucleolus organizer regions and nucleoli in preattachment bovine embryos. J Reprod Fertil 1988;82:87–95.
28. Meseguer M, Herrero J, Tejera A, et al. The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of embryo implantation. Hum Reprod 2011;26:2658–71.
29. Wong CC, Loewke KE, Bossert NL, et al. Non-invasive imaging of human embryos before embryonic genome activation predicts development to the blastocyst stage. Nature Biotechnol 2010;28:1115–21.