Download PDF
Semin Reprod Med 2014; 32(02): 114-126
DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1363553
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Morphological Assessment of Embryo Viability

Michael Abeyta
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stanford Fertility and Reproductive Medicine Center, Palo Alto, California
,
Barry Behr
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stanford University Medical Center, Palo Alto, California
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
10 February 2014 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Morphological assessment is discussed in the context of significant literature at all stages of in vitro development, beginning with the oocyte and culminating at the blastocyst stage. Current evidence is used to debate the inclusion of commonly observed morphological features in grading schemes. The biological rationale behind observed phenomena such as multinucleation and fragmentation are also explored. Current limitations as well as technological advancements that increase our ability to assess viability are highlighted. Particular attention is paid to the relationship between developmental timing and assessment schemes. Failure to standardize assessment timing and inclusion criteria are glaring weaknesses of the literature that currently make consensus unattainable. Mounting evidence suggests that the future of static assessment is very likely to be influenced by information gathered from preimplantation genetic screening and other invasive techniques as well as from continuous monitoring tools such as time lapse.

Keywords

morphology - embryo - implantation - in vitro fertilization
 

  • References

  • 1 Arce JC, Ziebe S, Lundin K, Janssens R, Helmgaard L, Sørensen P. Interobserver agreement and intraobserver reproducibility of embryo quality assessments. Hum Reprod 2006; 21 (8) 2141-2148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Baxter Bendus AE, Mayer JF, Shipley SK, Catherino WH. Interobserver and intraobserver variation in day 3 embryo grading. Fertil Steril 2006; 86 (6) 1608-1615
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Paternot G, Wetzels AM, Thonon F , et al. Intra- and interobserver analysis in the morphological assessment of early stage embryos during an IVF procedure: a multicentre study. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2011; 9: 127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 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) e1-e5
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 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 (2) 299-335
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Mtango NR, Potireddy S, Latham KE. Oocyte quality and maternal control of development. Int Rev Cell Mol Biol 2008; 268: 223-290
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Bergh C, Broden H, Lundin K, Hamberger L. Comparison of fertilization, cleavage and pregnancy rates of oocytes from large and small follicles. Hum Reprod 1998; 13 (7) 1912-1915
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Rosen MP, Shen S, Dobson AT, Rinaudo PF, McCulloch CE, Cedars MI. A quantitative assessment of follicle size on oocyte developmental competence. Fertil Steril 2008; 90 (3) 684-690
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Rodríguez-Fuentes A, Hernández J, García-Guzman R, Chinea E, Iaconianni L, Palumbo A. Prospective evaluation of automated follicle monitoring in 58 in vitro fertilization cycles: follicular volume as a new indicator of oocyte maturity. Fertil Steril 2010; 93 (2) 616-620
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Downs SM. A gap-junction-mediated signal, rather than an external paracrine factor, predominates during meiotic induction in isolated mouse oocytes. Zygote 2001; 9 (1) 71-82
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Albertini DF, Combelles CM, Benecchi E, Carabatsos MJ. Cellular basis for paracrine regulation of ovarian follicle development. Reproduction 2001; 121 (5) 647-653
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Coticchio G, Sereni E, Serrao L, Mazzone S, Iadarola I, Borini A. What criteria for the definition of oocyte quality?. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2004; 1034: 132-144
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Warriach HM, Chohan KR. Thickness of cumulus cell layer is a significant factor in meiotic competence of buffalo oocytes. J Vet Sci 2004; 5 (3) 247-251
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Feuerstein P, Cadoret V, Dalbies-Tran R, Guerif F, Bidault R, Royere D. Gene expression in human cumulus cells: one approach to oocyte competence. Hum Reprod 2007; 22 (12) 3069-3077
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Jungheim ES, Macones GA, Odem RR , et al. Associations between free fatty acids, cumulus oocyte complex morphology and ovarian function during in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2011; 95 (6) 1970-1974
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Karuputhula NB, Chattopadhyay R, Chakravarty B, Chaudhury K. Oxidative status in granulosa cells of infertile women undergoing IVF. Syst Biol Reprod Med 2013; 59 (2) 91-98
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Cheng EH, Chen SU, Lee TH , et al. Evaluation of telomere length in cumulus cells as a potential biomarker of oocyte and embryo quality. Hum Reprod 2013; 28 (4) 929-936
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Xia P. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection: correlation of oocyte grade based on polar body, perivitelline space and cytoplasmic inclusions with fertilization rate and embryo quality. Hum Reprod 1997; 12 (8) 1750-1755
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Kahraman S, Yakin K, Dönmez E , et al. Relationship between granular cytoplasm of oocytes and pregnancy outcome following intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod 2000; 15 (11) 2390-2393
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Shen Y, Stalf T, Mehnert C, Eichenlaub-Ritter U, Tinneberg HR. High magnitude of light retardation by the zona pellucida is associated with conception cycles. Hum Reprod 2005; 20 (6) 1596-1606
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Esfandiari N, Burjaq H, Gotlieb L, Casper RF. Brown oocytes: implications for assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril 2006; 86 (5) 1522-1525
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Setti AS, Figueira RC, Braga DP, Colturato SS, Iaconelli Jr A, Borges Jr E. Relationship between oocyte abnormal morphology and intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcomes: a meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2011; 159 (2) 364-370
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Balakier H, Bouman D, Sojecki A, Librach C, Squire JA. Morphological and cytogenetic analysis of human giant oocytes and giant embryos. Hum Reprod 2002; 17 (9) 2394-2401
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Rosenbusch B, Schneider M, Gläser B, Brucker C. Cytogenetic analysis of giant oocytes and zygotes to assess their relevance for the development of digynic triploidy. Hum Reprod 2002; 17 (9) 2388-2393
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 De Sutter P, Dozortsev D, Qian C, Dhont M. Oocyte morphology does not correlate with fertilization rate and embryo quality after intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod 1996; 11 (3) 595-597
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Ebner T, Moser M, Tews G. Is oocyte morphology prognostic of embryo developmental potential after ICSI?. Reprod Biomed Online 2006; 12 (4) 507-512
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 ALPHA Scientists In Reproductive Medicine; ESHRE Special Interest Group Embryology. Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Reprod Biomed Online 2011; 22 (6) 632-646
    Google Scholar
  • 29 De Vos A, Van de Velde H, Joris H, Van Steirteghem A. In-vitro matured metaphase-I oocytes have a lower fertilization rate but similar embryo quality as mature metaphase-II oocytes after intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod 1999; 14 (7) 1859-1863
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Shu Y, Gebhardt J, Watt J, Lyon J, Dasig D, Behr B. Fertilization, embryo development, and clinical outcome of immature oocytes from stimulated intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. Fertil Steril 2007; 87 (5) 1022-1027
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Eichenlaub-Ritter U, Schmiady H, Kentenich H, Soewarto D. Recurrent failure in polar body formation and premature chromosome condensation in oocytes from a human patient: indicators of asynchrony in nuclear and cytoplasmic maturation. Hum Reprod 1995; 10 (9) 2343-2349
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Liu L, Oldenbourg R, Trimarchi JR, Keefe DL. A reliable, noninvasive technique for spindle imaging and enucleation of mammalian oocytes. Nat Biotechnol 2000; 18 (2) 223-225
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Waterman-Storer CM. Microtubules and microscopes: how the development of light microscopic imaging technologies has contributed to discoveries about microtubule dynamics in living cells. Mol Biol Cell 1998; 9 (12) 3263-3271
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Pickering SJ, Johnson MH. The influence of cooling on the organization of the meiotic spindle of the mouse oocyte. Hum Reprod 1987; 2 (3) 207-216
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Baka SG, Toth TL, Veeck LL, Jones Jr HW, Muasher SJ, Lanzendorf SE. Evaluation of the spindle apparatus of in-vitro matured human oocytes following cryopreservation. Hum Reprod 1995; 10 (7) 1816-1820
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Eichenlaub-Ritter U, Stahl A, Luciani JM. The microtubular cytoskeleton and chromosomes of unfertilized human oocytes aged in vitro. Hum Genet 1988; 80 (3) 259-264
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Wang WH, Meng L, Hackett RJ, Odenbourg R, Keefe DL. The spindle observation and its relationship with fertilization after intracytoplasmic sperm injection in living human oocytes. Fertil Steril 2001; 75 (2) 348-353
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Wang WH, Meng L, Hackett RJ, Keefe DL. Developmental ability of human oocytes with or without birefringent spindles imaged by Polscope before insemination. Hum Reprod 2001; 16 (7) 1464-1468
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Eichenlaub-Ritter U, Shen Y, Tinneberg HR. Manipulation of the oocyte: possible damage to the spindle apparatus. Reprod Biomed Online 2002; 5 (2) 117-124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Moon JH, Hyun CS, Lee SW, Son WY, Yoon SH, Lim JH. Visualization of the metaphase II meiotic spindle in living human oocytes using the Polscope enables the prediction of embryonic developmental competence after ICSI. Hum Reprod 2003; 18 (4) 817-820
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Cooke S, Tyler JPP, Driscoll GL. Meiotic spindle location and identification and its effect on embryonic cleavage plane and early development. Hum Reprod 2003; 18 (11) 2397-2405
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Keefe D, Liu L, Wang W, Silva C. Imaging meiotic spindles by polarization light microscopy: principles and applications to IVF. Reprod Biomed Online 2003; 7 (1) 24-29
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Held E, Mertens EM, Mohammadi-Sangcheshmeh A , et al. Zona pellucida birefringence correlates with developmental capacity of bovine oocytes classified by maturational environment, COC morphology and G6PDH activity. Reprod Fertil Dev 2012; 24 (4) 568-579
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 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) 532-541
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 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 (5) 1318-1323
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 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 (1) 67-74
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Scott LA, Smith S. The successful use of pronuclear embryo transfers the day following oocyte retrieval. Hum Reprod 1998; 13 (4) 1003-1013
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Scott L, Alvero R, Leondires M, Miller B. The morphology of human pronuclear embryos is positively related to blastocyst development and implantation. Hum Reprod 2000; 15 (11) 2394-2403
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Tesarik J, Kopecny V. Assembly of the nucleolar precursor bodies in human male pronuclei is correlated with an early RNA synthetic activity. Exp Cell Res 1990; 191 (1) 153-156
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Balaban B, Yakin K, Urman B, Isiklar A, Tesarik J. Pronuclear morphology predicts embryo development and chromosome constitution. Reprod Biomed Online 2004; 8 (6) 695-700
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Zollner U, Zollner KP, Hartl G, Dietl J, Steck T. The use of a detailed zygote score after IVF/ICSI to obtain good quality blastocysts: the German experience. Hum Reprod 2002; 17 (5) 1327-1333
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Salumets A, Hydén-Granskog C, Suikkari AM, Tiitinen A, Tuuri T. The predictive value of pronuclear morphology of zygotes in the assessment of human embryo quality. Hum Reprod 2001; 16 (10) 2177-2181
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 James AN, Hennessy S, Reggio B, Wiemer K, Larsen F, Cohen J. The limited importance of pronuclear scoring of human zygotes. Hum Reprod 2006; 21 (6) 1599-1604
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Nicoli A, Capodanno F, Moscato L , et al. Analysis of pronuclear zygote configurations in 459 clinical pregnancies obtained with assisted reproductive technique procedures. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2010; 8: 77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Jaroudi K, Al-Hassan S, Sieck U, Al-Sufyan H, Al-Kabra M, Coskun S. Zygote transfer on day 1 versus cleavage stage embryo transfer on day 3: a prospective randomized trial. Hum Reprod 2004; 19 (3) 645-648
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Ludwig M, Schöpper B, Al-Hasani S, Diedrich K. 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 (2) 325-329
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Montag M, van der Ven H ; German Pronuclear Morphology Study Group. 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 (11) 2384-2389
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Gardner RL, Davies TJ. An investigation of the origin and significance of bilateral symmetry of the pronuclear zygote in the mouse. Hum Reprod 2006; 21 (2) 492-502
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Edwards RG, Beard HK. Oocyte polarity and cell determination in early mammalian embryos. Mol Hum Reprod 1997; 3 (10) 863-905
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Antczak M, Van Blerkom J. Temporal and spatial aspects of fragmentation in early human embryos: possible effects on developmental competence and association with the differential elimination of regulatory proteins from polarized domains. Hum Reprod 1999; 14 (2) 429-447
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Boiso I, Veiga A, Edwards RG. Fundamentals of human embryonic growth in vitro and the selection of high-quality embryos for transfer. Reprod Biomed Online 2002; 5 (3) 328-350
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Shoukir Y, Campana A, Farley T, Sakkas D. 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 (7) 1531-1536
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Sakkas D, Shoukir Y, Chardonnens D, Bianchi PG, Campana A. Early cleavage of human embryos to the two-cell stage after intracytoplasmic sperm injection as an indicator of embryo viability. Hum Reprod 1998; 13 (1) 182-187
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Trounson AO, Mohr LR, Wood C, Leeton JF. Effect of delayed insemination on in-vitro fertilization, culture and transfer of human embryos. J Reprod Fertil 1982; 64 (2) 285-294
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Balakier H, MacLusky NJ, Casper RF. Characterization of the first cell cycle in human zygotes: implications for cryopreservation. Fertil Steril 1993; 59 (2) 359-365
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Capmany G, Taylor A, Braude PR, Bolton VN. The timing of pronuclear formation, DNA synthesis and cleavage in the human 1-cell embryo. Mol Hum Reprod 1996; 2 (5) 299-306
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Van Blerkom J. Occurrence and developmental consequences of aberrant cellular organization in meiotically mature human oocytes after exogenous ovarian hyperstimulation. J Electron Microsc Tech 1990; 16 (4) 324-346
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Meseguer M, Herrero J, Tejera A, Hilligsøe KM, Ramsing NB, Remohí J. The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of embryo implantation. Hum Reprod 2011; 26 (10) 2658-2671
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Montag M, Liebenthron J, Köster M. Which morphological scoring system is relevant in human embryo development?. Placenta 2011; 32 (Suppl. 03) S252-S256
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Edwards RG, Purdy JM, Steptoe PC, Walters DE. The growth of human preimplantation embryos in vitro. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1981; 141 (4) 408-416
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Van Royen E, Mangelschots K, Vercruyssen M , et al. Multinucleation in cleavage stage embryos. Hum Reprod 2003; 18 (5) 1062-1069
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Munné S, Cohen J. Unsuitability of multinucleated human blastomeres for preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Hum Reprod 1993; 8 (7) 1120-1125
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Lopata A, Kohlman D, Johnston I. The fine structure of normal and abnormal human embryos developed in culture. In: Beier HM, Lindner HR, , eds. Fertilization of the Human Egg In Vitro. Heidelberg: Springer; 1983: 189
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Tesarík J, Kopecný V, Plachot M, Mandelbaum J. Ultrastructural and autoradiographic observations on multinucleated blastomeres of human cleaving embryos obtained by in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1987; 2 (2) 127-136
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Hardy K, Winston RML, Handyside AH. Binucleate blastomeres in preimplantation human embryos in vitro: failure of cytokinesis during early cleavage. J Reprod Fertil 1993; 98 (2) 549-558
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 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 (1) 17-24
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Hertig AT, Rock J, Adams EC, Mulligan WJ. On the preimplantation stages of the human ovum: a description of four normal and four abnormal specimens ranging from the second to the fifth day of development. Contrib Embryol 1954; 35: 199-220
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Plachot M, Mandelbaum J, Junca AM, Salat-Baroux J, Cohen J. Impairment of human embryo development after abnormal in vitro fertilization. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1985; 442: 336-341
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Sadowy S, Tomkin G, Munné S, Ferrara-Congedo T, Cohen J. Impaired development of zygotes with uneven pronuclear size. Zygote 1998; 6 (2) 137-141
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 80 Pickering SJ, Taylor A, Johnson MH, Braude PR. An analysis of multinucleated blastomere formation in human embryos. Hum Reprod 1995; 10 (7) 1912-1922
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 81 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) 1492-1498
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 82 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) 856-859
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 83 Pelinck MJ, De Vos M, Dekens M, Van der Elst J, De Sutter P, Dhont M. Embryos cultured in vitro with multinucleated blastomeres have poor implantation potential in human in-vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod 1998; 13 (4) 960-963
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 84 Saldeen P, Sundström P. Nuclear status of four-cell preembryos predicts implantation potential in in vitro fertilization treatment cycles. Fertil Steril 2005; 84 (3) 584-589
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 85 Guerif F, Le Gouge A, Giraudeau B , et al. Limited value of morphological assessment at days 1 and 2 to predict blastocyst development potential: a prospective study based on 4042 embryos. Hum Reprod 2007; 22 (7) 1973-1981
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 86 Guerif F, Lemseffer M, Leger J , et al. Does early morphology provide additional selection power to blastocyst selection for transfer?. Reprod Biomed Online 2010; 21 (4) 510-519
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 87 Ziebe S, Petersen K, Lindenberg S, Andersen AG, Gabrielsen A, Andersen AN. Embryo morphology or cleavage stage: how to select the best embryos for transfer after in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1997; 12 (7) 1545-1549
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 88 Holte J, Berglund L, Milton K , et al. Construction of an evidence-based integrated morphology cleavage embryo score for implantation potential of embryos scored and transferred on day 2 after oocyte retrieval. Hum Reprod 2007; 22 (2) 548-557
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 89 Scott L, Finn A, O'Leary T, McLellan S, Hill J. Morphologic parameters of early cleavage-stage embryos that correlate with fetal development and delivery: prospective and applied data for increased pregnancy rates. Hum Reprod 2007; 22 (1) 230-240
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 90 Cummins JM, Breen TM, Harrison KL, Shaw JM, Wilson LM, Hennessey JF. A formula for scoring human embryo growth rates in in vitro fertilization: its value in predicting pregnancy and in comparison with visual estimates of embryo quality. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf 1986; 3 (5) 284-295
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 91 Claman P, Armant DR, Seibel MM, Wang TA, Oskowitz SP, Taymor ML. The impact of embryo quality and quantity on implantation and the establishment of viable pregnancies. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf 1987; 4 (4) 218-222
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 92 Staessen C, Camus M, Bollen N, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem AC. The relationship between embryo quality and the occurrence of multiple pregnancies. Fertil Steril 1992; 57 (3) 626-630
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 93 Giorgetti C, Terriou P, Auquier P , et al. Embryo score to predict implantation after in-vitro fertilization: based on 957 single embryo transfers. Hum Reprod 1995; 10 (9) 2427-2431
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 94 Van Royen E, Mangelschots K, De Neubourg D , et al. Characterization of a top quality embryo, a step towards single-embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 1999; 14 (9) 2345-2349
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 95 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) 1115-1121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 96 Cruz M, Garrido N, Herrero J, Pérez-Cano I, Muñoz M, Meseguer M. Timing of cell division in human cleavage-stage embryos is linked with blastocyst formation and quality. Reprod Biomed Online 2012; 25 (4) 371-381
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 97 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) 385-391
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 98 Lassalle B, Testart J, Renard JP. Human embryo features that influence the success of cryopreservation with the use of 1,2 propanediol. Fertil Steril 1985; 44 (5) 645-651
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 99 Alikani M, Calderon G, Tomkin G, Garrisi J, Kokot M, Cohen J. Cleavage anomalies in early human embryos and survival after prolonged culture in-vitro. Hum Reprod 2000; 15 (12) 2634-2643
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 100 Racowsky C, Combelles CM, Nureddin A , et al. Day 3 and day 5 morphological predictors of embryo viability. Reprod Biomed Online 2003; 6 (3) 323-331
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 101 Steer CV, Mills CL, Tan SL, Campbell S, Edwards RG. The cumulative embryo score: a predictive embryo scoring technique to select the optimal number of embryos to transfer in an in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer programme. Hum Reprod 1992; 7 (1) 117-119
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 102 Desai NN, Goldstein J, Rowland DY, Goldfarb JM. Morphological evaluation of human embryos and derivation of an embryo quality scoring system specific for day 3 embryos: a preliminary study. Hum Reprod 2000; 15 (10) 2190-2196
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 103 Hnida C, Ziebe S. Total cytoplasmic volume as biomarker of fragmentation in human embryos. J Assist Reprod Genet 2004; 21 (9) 335-340
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 104 Scott L. The biological basis of non-invasive strategies for selection of human oocytes and embryos. Hum Reprod Update 2003; 9 (3) 237-249
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 105 Sela R, Samuelov L, Almog B , et al. An embryo cleavage pattern based on the relative blastomere size as a function of cell number for predicting implantation outcome. Fertil Steril 2012; 98 (3) 650-656 , e4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 106 Roux C, Joanne C, Agnani G, Fromm M, Clavequin MC, Bresson JL. Morphometric parameters of living human in-vitro fertilization embryos; importance of the asynchronous division process. Hum Reprod 1995; 10 (5) 1201-1207
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 107 Van Royen E, Mangelschots K, De Neubourg D, Laureys I, Ryckaert G, Gerris J. Calculating the implantation potential of day 3 embryos in women younger than 38 years of age: a new model. Hum Reprod 2001; 16 (2) 326-332
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 108 Rienzi L, Ubaldi F, Iacobelli M , et al. Significance of morphological attributes of the early embryo. Reprod Biomed Online 2005; 10 (5) 669-681
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 109 Hardarson T, Hanson C, Sjögren A, Lundin K. Human embryos with unevenly sized blastomeres have lower pregnancy and implantation rates: indications for aneuploidy and multinucleation. Hum Reprod 2001; 16 (2) 313-318
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 110 Magli MC, Gianaroli L, Ferraretti AP, Lappi M, Ruberti A, Farfalli V. Embryo morphology and development are dependent on the chromosomal complement. Fertil Steril 2007; 87 (3) 534-541
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 111 Ziebe S, Lundin K, Loft A , et al; CEMAS II and Study Group. 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) 2575-2581
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 112 Munné S. Chromosome abnormalities and their relationship to morphology and development of human embryos. Reprod Biomed Online 2006; 12 (2) 234-253
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 113 Puissant F, Van Rysselberge M, Barlow P, Deweze J, Leroy F. Embryo scoring as a prognostic tool in IVF treatment. Hum Reprod 1987; 2 (8) 705-708
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 114 Alikani M, Cohen J, Tomkin G, Garrisi GJ, Mack C, Scott RT. Human embryo fragmentation in vitro and its implications for pregnancy and implantation. Fertil Steril 1999; 71 (5) 836-842
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 115 Plachot M, Junca AM, Mandelbaum J, de Grouchy J, Salat-Baroux J, Cohen J. Chromosome investigations in early life. II. Human preimplantation embryos. Hum Reprod 1987; 2 (1) 29-35
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 116 Pellestor F, Sèle B. Assessment of aneuploidy in the human female by using cytogenetics of IVF failures. Am J Hum Genet 1988; 42 (2) 274-283
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 117 Munné S, Cohen J. Chromosome abnormalities in human embryos. Hum Reprod Update 1998; 4 (6) 842-855
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 118 Magli MC, Gianaroli L, Ferraretti AP. Chromosomal abnormalities in embryos. Mol Cell Endocrinol 2001; 183: 29-34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 119 Racowsky C, Ohno-Machado L, Kim J, Biggers JD. Is there an advantage in scoring early embryos on more than one day?. Hum Reprod 2009; 24 (9) 2104-2113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 120 Kashyap S, Cedars M, Shen S, Rosen M, Grady D, Wells G. Real data mathematical modeling to predict successful embryo implantation. Fertil Steril 2008; 90: S224
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 121 Pelinck MJ, Hoek A, Simons AH, Heineman MJ, van Echten-Arends J, Arts EG. Embryo quality and impact of specific embryo characteristics on ongoing implantation in unselected embryos derived from modified natural cycle in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2010; 94 (2) 527-534
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 122 Fisch JD, Sher G, Adamowicz M, Keskintepe L. The graduated embryo score predicts the outcome of assisted reproductive technologies better than a single day 3 evaluation and achieves results associated with blastocyst transfer from day 3 embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2003; 80 (6) 1352-1358
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 123 Wilding M, Dale B, Marino M , et al. Mitochondrial aggregation patterns and activity in human oocytes and preimplantation embryos. Hum Reprod 2001; 16 (5) 909-917
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 124 Lin DP, Huang CC, Wu HM, Cheng TC, Chen CI, Lee MS. Comparison of mitochondrial DNA contents in human embryos with good or poor morphology at the 8-cell stage. Fertil Steril 2004; 81 (1) 73-79
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 125 Zamah AM, Browne RW, Conti G, Jaggavarapu SR, Sridhar V, Fujimoto VY. High density lipoprotein (HDL) particle size and composition predicts embryo fragmentation. Fertil Steril 2009; 92: S96-S97
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 126 Browne RW, Bloom MS, Shelly WB, Ocque AJ, Huddleston HG, Fujimoto VY. Follicular fluid high density lipoprotein-associated micronutrient levels are associated with embryo fragmentation during IVF. J Assist Reprod Genet 2009; 26 (11-12) 557-560
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 127 Fujimoto VY, Kane JP, Ishida BY, Bloom MS, Browne RW. High-density lipoprotein metabolism and the human embryo. Hum Reprod Update 2010; 16 (1) 20-38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 128 Alikani M. Epithelial cadherin distribution in abnormal human pre-implantation embryos. Hum Reprod 2005; 20 (12) 3369-3375
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 129 Liu L, Trimarchi JR, Smith PJS, Keefe DL. Mitochondrial dysfunction leads to telomere attrition and genomic instability. Aging Cell 2002; 1 (1) 40-46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 130 Kalmbach KH, Fontes Antunes DM, Dracxler RC , et al. Telomeres and human reproduction. Fertil Steril 2013; 99 (1) 23-29
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 131 Liu L, Blasco MA, Keefe DL. Requirement of functional telomeres for metaphase chromosome alignments and integrity of meiotic spindles. EMBO Rep 2002; 3 (3) 230-234
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 132 Jurisicova A, Varmuza S, Casper RF. Programmed cell death and human embryo fragmentation. Mol Hum Reprod 1996; 2 (2) 93-98
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 133 Liu L, Blasco M, Trimarchi J, Keefe D. An essential role for functional telomeres in mouse germ cells during fertilization and early development. Dev Biol 2002; 249 (1) 74-84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 134 Keefe DL, Franco S, Liu L , et al. Telomere length predicts embryo fragmentation after in vitro fertilization in women—toward a telomere theory of reproductive aging in women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192 (4) 1256-1260 , discussion 1260–1261
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 135 Alikani M, Schimmel T, Willadsen SM. Cytoplasmic fragmentation in activated eggs occurs in the cytokinetic phase of the cell cycle, in lieu of normal cytokinesis, and in response to cytoskeletal disorder. Mol Hum Reprod 2005; 11 (5) 335-344
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 136 Liu L, Trimarchi JR, Smith PJ, Keefe DL. Checkpoint for DNA integrity at the first mitosis after oocyte activation. Mol Reprod Dev 2002; 62 (2) 277-288
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 137 Hardarson T, Löfman C, Coull G, Sjögren A, Hamberger L, Edwards RG. Internalization of cellular fragments in a human embryo: time-lapse recordings. Reprod Biomed Online 2002; 5 (1) 36-38
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 138 Dozortsev D, Ermilov A, El-Mowafi DM, Diamond M. The impact of cellular fragmentation induced experimentally at different stages of mouse preimplantation development. Hum Reprod 1998; 13 (5) 1307-1311
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 139 Eftekhari-Yazdi P, Valojerdi MR, Ashtiani SK, Eslaminejad MB, Karimian L. Effect of fragment removal on blastocyst formation and quality of human embryos. Reprod Biomed Online 2006; 13 (6) 823-832
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 140 Buster JE, Bustillo M, Rodi IA , et al. Biologic and morphologic development of donated human ova recovered by nonsurgical uterine lavage. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 153 (2) 211-217
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 141 Skiadas CC, Jackson KV, Racowsky C. Early compaction on day 3 may be associated with increased implantation potential. Fertil Steril 2006; 86 (5) 1386-1391
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 142 Tao J, Tamis R, Fink K, Williams B, Nelson-White T, Craig R. The neglected morula/compact stage embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 2002; 17 (6) 1513-1518
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 143 Feil D, Henshaw RC, Lane M. Day 4 embryo selection is equal to Day 5 using a new embryo scoring system validated in single embryo transfers. Hum Reprod 2008; 23 (7) 1505-1510
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 144 Pantos K, Makrakis E, Chronopoulou M, Biba M, Perdikaris A, Dafereras A. Day 4 versus day 3 embryo transfer: a prospective study of clinical outcomes. Fertil Steril 2008; 89 (3) 573-577
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 145 Ebner T, Moser M, Shebl O, Sommergruber M, Gaiswinkler U, Tews G. Morphological analysis at compacting stage is a valuable prognostic tool for ICSI patients. Reprod Biomed Online 2009; 18 (1) 61-66
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 146 Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB. In vitro culture of human blastocyst. In: Jansen R, Mortimer D, , eds. Towards Reproductive Certainty: Infertility and Genetics Beyond 1999. Carnforth: Parthenon Press; 1999: 378-388
    Google Scholar
  • 147 Ivec M, Kovacic B, Vlaisavljevic V. Prediction of human blastocyst development from morulas with delayed and/or incomplete compaction. Fertil Steril 2011; 96 (6) 1473-1478 , e2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 148 Dokras A, Sargent IL, Barlow DH. Human blastocyst grading: an indicator of developmental potential?. Hum Reprod 1993; 8 (12) 2119-2127
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 149 Balaban B, Yakin K, Urman B. Randomized comparison of two different blastocyst grading systems. Fertil Steril 2006; 85 (3) 559-563
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 150 Ahlström A, Westin C, Reismer E, Wikland M, Hardarson T. Trophectoderm morphology: an important parameter for predicting live birth after single blastocyst transfer. Hum Reprod 2011; 26 (12) 3289-3296
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 151 Guerif F, Lemseffer M, Bidault R , et al. Single Day 2 embryo versus blastocyst-stage transfer: a prospective study integrating fresh and frozen embryo transfers. Hum Reprod 2009; 24 (5) 1051-1058
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 152 Papanikolaou EG, Kolibianakis EM, Tournaye H , et al. Live birth rates after transfer of equal number of blastocysts or cleavage-stage embryos in IVF. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 2008; 23 (1) 91-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 153 Richter KS, Harris DC, Daneshmand ST, Shapiro BS. Quantitative grading of a human blastocyst: optimal inner cell mass size and shape. Fertil Steril 2001; 76 (6) 1157-1167
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 154 Hill MJ, Richter KS, Heitmann RJ , et al. Trophectoderm grade predicts outcomes of single-blastocyst transfers. Fertil Steril 2013; 99 (5) 1283-1289 , e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 155 Dean JH, Chapman MG, Sullivan EA. The effect on human sex ratio at birth by assisted reproductive technology (ART) procedures—an assessment of babies born following single embryo transfers, Australia and New Zealand, 2002-2006. BJOG 2010; 117 (13) 1628-1634
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 156 Alfarawati S, Fragouli E, Colls P , et al. The relationship between blastocyst morphology, chromosomal abnormality, and embryo gender. Fertil Steril 2011; 95 (2) 520-524
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 157 Kroener L, Ambartsumyan G, Briton-Jones C , et al. The effect of timing of embryonic progression on chromosomal abnormality. Fertil Steril 2012; 98 (4) 876-880
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 158 Levens ED, Whitcomb BW, Hennessy S, James AN, Yauger BJ, Larsen FW. Blastocyst development rate impacts outcome in cryopreserved blastocyst transfer cycles. Fertil Steril 2008; 90 (6) 2138-2143
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 159 El-Toukhy T, Wharf E, Walavalkar R , et al. Delayed blastocyst development does not influence the outcome of frozen-thawed transfer cycles. BJOG 2011; 118 (13) 1551-1556
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 160 Hashimoto S, Amo A, Hama S, Ito K, Nakaoka Y, Morimoto Y. Growth retardation in human blastocysts increases the incidence of abnormal spindles and decreases implantation potential after vitrification. Hum Reprod 2013; 28 (6) 1528-1535
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 161 Fisch JD, Rodriguez H, Ross R, Overby G, Sher G. The Graduated Embryo Score (GES) predicts blastocyst formation and pregnancy rate from cleavage-stage embryos. Hum Reprod 2001; 16 (9) 1970-1975
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 162 Neuber E, Rinaudo P, Trimarchi JR, Sakkas D. Sequential assessment of individually cultured human embryos as an indicator of subsequent good quality blastocyst development. Hum Reprod 2003; 18 (6) 1307-1312
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 163 Neuber E, Mahutte NG, Arici A, Sakkas D. Sequential embryo assessment outperforms investigator-driven morphological assessment at selecting a good quality blastocyst. Fertil Steril 2006; 85 (3) 794-796
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 164 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 (7) 1852-1855
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 165 Racowsky C, Stern JE, Gibbons WE, Behr B, Pomeroy KO, Biggers JD. National collection of embryo morphology data into Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcomes Reporting System: associations among day 3 cell number, fragmentation and blastomere asymmetry, and live birth rate. Fertil Steril 2011; 95 (6) 1985-1989
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 166 Vernon M, Stern JE, Ball GD, Wininger D, Mayer J, Racowsky C. Utility of the national embryo morphology data collection by the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technologies (SART): correlation between day-3 morphology grade and live-birth outcome. Fertil Steril 2011; 95 (8) 2761-2763
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 167 Newmark JA, Warger II WC, Chang C , et al. Determination of the number of cells in preimplantation embryos by using noninvasive optical quadrature microscopy in conjunction with differential interference contrast microscopy. Microsc Microanal 2007; 13 (2) 118-127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 168 Nagy ZP, Janssenswillen C, Janssens R , et al. Timing of oocyte activation, pronucleus formation and cleavage in humans after intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) with testicular spermatozoa and after ICSI or in-vitro fertilization on sibling oocytes with ejaculated spermatozoa. Hum Reprod 1998; 13 (6) 1606-1612
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar