Assisted Reproductive Technologies and Pregnancy Outcomes: Mechanistic Insights from Animal Studies

Kevin D. Sinclair

doi:10.1055/s-2008-1042954

Seminars in Reproductive Medicine, Table of Contents

Semin Reprod Med 2008; 26(2): 153-161
DOI: 10.1055/s-2008-1042954

Assisted Reproductive Technologies and Pregnancy Outcomes: Mechanistic Insights from Animal Studies

Kevin D. Sinclair¹

¹Centre for Reproduction and Early Life, School of Biosciences, University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, Leicestershire, United Kingdom

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Modern techniques in assisted reproduction have become a common and accepted form of clinical care benefiting an estimated 1 in 10 people of reproductive age who are subfertile or infertile. The success of these technologies relies, to large extent, on the remarkable tolerance of mammalian gametes and the preimplantation embryo to physical manipulations and alterations to their chemical environment. Recent reports from both human and animal studies, however, suggest that our faith in the ability of these “germ cells” to accurately recapitulate the normal process of early development under such conditions may be misplaced. While acknowledging the recognized risk factors of increased maternal age and infertility in human assisted reproductive technology (ART) subjects and the transfer of supernumerary embryos, evidence from animal studies indicates that ART procedures can directly contribute to the variable perinatal outcomes observed and imprinting disorders recently recognized. Controversy surrounds the specific nature and extent of these contributions; however, ovarian stimulation, in vitro maturation and embryo culture, intracytoplasmic sperm injection, and gamete/embryo cryopreservation have all been implicated. These issues are considered in detail in this article, which evaluates the insights that can be gained from studies with animals.

KEYWORDS

Human - assisted reproduction - large offspring syndrome - genomic imprinting

Full Text

References

REFERENCES

1 Reddy U M, Wapner R J, Rebar R W, Tasca R J. Infertility, assisted reproductive technology, and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 109 967-977
2 El Toukhy T, Khalaf Y, Braude P. IVF results: optimize not maximize. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 322-331
3 Olivennes F, Fanchin R, Ledee N, Righini C, Kadoch I J, Frydman R. Perinatal outcome and developmental studies on children born after IVF. Hum Reprod Update. 2002; 8 117-128
4 Thibier M, Humblot P, Guerin B. Role of reproductive biotechnologies: global perspective, current methods and success rates. In: Simm G, Villanueva B, Sinclair KD, Townsend S Farm Animal Genetic Resources. BSAS publication no. 30. Nottingham, UK; Nottingham University Press 2004: 177-189
5 Young L E, Sinclair K D, Wilmut I. Large offspring syndrome in cattle and sheep. Rev Reprod. 1998; 3 155-163
6 Sinclair K D, Young L E, Wilmut I, McEvoy T G. In-utero overgrowth in ruminants following embryo culture: lessons from mice and a warning to men. Hum Reprod. 2000; 15(Suppl 5) 68-86
7 Young L E, Fernandes K, McEvoy T G et al.. Epigenetic change in IGF2R is associated with fetal overgrowth after sheep embryo culture. Nat Genet. 2001; 27 153-154
8 Edwards R G, Ludwig M. Are major defects in children conceived in vitro due to innate problems in patients or to induced genetic damage?. Reprod Biomed Online. 2003; 7 131-138
9 Niemitz E L, Feinberg A P. Epigenetics and assisted reproductive technology: a call for investigation. Am J Hum Genet. 2004; 74 599-609
10 Baird D T, Collins J, Egozcue J et al.. Fertility and ageing. ESHRE Capri Workshop Group. Hum Reprod Update. 2005; 11 261-276
11 Sauer M V. The impact of age on reproductive potential: lessons learned from oocyte donation. Maturitas. 1998; 30 221-225
12 Hassold T, Hunt P. To err (meiotically) is human: the genesis of human aneuploidy. Nat Rev Genet. 2001; 2 280-291
13 Hassold T, Chiu D. Maternal age-specific rates of numerical chromosome abnormalities with special reference to trisomy. Hum Genet. 1985; 70 11-17
14 Lamb N E, Freeman S B, Savage-Austin A et al.. Susceptible chiasmate configurations of chromosome 21 predispose to non-disjunction in both maternal meiosis I and meiosis II. Nat Genet. 1996; 14 400-405
15 Simon C, Rubio C, Vidal F et al.. Increased chromosome abnormalities in human preimplantation embryos after in-vitro fertilization in patients with recurrent miscarriage. Reprod Fertil Dev. 1998; 10 87-92
16 Ruangvutilert P, Delhanty J D, Serhal P, Simopoulou M, Rodeck C H, Harper J C. FISH analysis on day 5 post-insemination of human arrested and blastocyst stage embryos. Prenat Diagn. 2000; 20 552-560
17 Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van Echten-Arends J et al.. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N Engl J Med. 2007; 357 9-17
18 Braude P, Flinter F. Use and misuse of preimplantation genetic testing. BMJ. 2007; 335 752-754
19 Munné S, Sanalinas M, Escudero T, Marquez C, Cohen J. Chromosome mosaicism in cleavage-stage human embryos: evidence of a maternal age effect. Reprod Biomed Online. 2002; 4 223-232
20 Daphnis D D, Delhanty J DA, Jerkovic S, Geyer J, Craft I, Harper J C. Detailed FISH analysis of day 5 human embryos reveals the mechanisms leading to mosaic aneuploidy. Hum Reprod. 2005; 20 129-137
21 Bielanska M, Shaoguang J, Bernier M, Tan S L, Ao A. Diploid-aneuploid mosaicism in human embryos cultured to the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril. 2005; 84 336-342
22 Bean C J, Hunt P A, Millie E A, Hassold T J. Analysis of a malsegregating mouse Y chromosome: evidence that the earliest cleavage divisions of the mammalian embryo are non-disjunction-prone. Hum Mol Genet. 2001; 10 963-972
23 Viuff D, Hendriksen P J, Vos P L et al.. Chromosomal abnormalities and developmental kinetics in in vivo-developed cattle embryos at days 2 to 5 after ovulation. Biol Reprod. 2001; 65 204-208
24 Bean C J, Hassold T J, Judis L, Hunt P A. Fertilization in vitro increases non-disjunction during early cleavage divisions in a mouse model system. Hum Reprod. 2002; 17 2362-2367
25 Draper E S, Kurinczuk J J, Abrams K R, Clarke M. Assessment of separate contributions to perinatal mortality of infertility history and treatment: a case-control analysis. Lancet. 1999; 353 1746-1749
26 Gaudoin M, Dobbie R, Finlayson A, Chalmers J, Cameron I T, Fleming R. Ovulation induction/intrauterine insemination in infertile couples is associated with low-birth-weight infants. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 188 611-616
27 Pandian Z, Bhattacharya S, Templeton A. Review of unexplained infertility and obstetric outcome: a 10 year review. Hum Reprod. 2001; 16 2593-2597
28 Serafini P. Outcome and follow-up of children born after IVF-surrogacy. Hum Reprod Update. 2001; 7 23-27
29 Olivennes F, Rufat P, Andre B, Pourade A, Quiros M C, Frydman R. The increased risk of complication observed in singleton pregnancies resulting from in-vitro fertilization (IVF) does not seem to be related to the IVF method itself. Hum Reprod. 1993; 8 1297-1300
30 Brinton L A, Scoccia B, Moghissi K S et al.. Breast cancer risk associated with ovulation-stimulating drugs. Hum Reprod. 2004; 19 2005-2013
31 Källén B, Otterblad Olausson P, Nygren K G. Neonatal outcome in pregnancies from ovarian stimulation. Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 100 414-419
32 Kapiteijn K, de Bruijn C S, deBoer E et al.. Does subfertility explain the risk of poor perinatal outcome after IVF and ovarian hyperstimulation?. Hum Reprod. 2006; 21 3228-3234
33 Oktay K, Berkowitz P, Berkus M, Schenken R S, Brzyski R G. The re-incarnation of an old question-clomid effect on oocyte and embryo?. Fertil Steril. 2000; 74 422-423
34 London S N, Young D, Caldito G, Mailhes J B. Clomiphene citrate-induced perturbations during meiotic maturation and cytogenetic abnormalities in mouse oocytes in vivo and in vitro. Fertil Steril. 2000; 73 620-626
35 Van der Auwera I, Pijnenborg R, Koninckx P R. The influence of in-vitro culture versus stimulated and untreated oviductal environment on mouse embryo development and implantation. Hum Reprod. 1999; 14 2570-2574
36 Van der Auwera I, D'Hooghe T. Superovulation of female mice delays embryonic and fetal development. Hum Reprod. 2001; 16 1237-1243
37 Ertzeid G, Storeng R. The impact of ovarian stimulation on implantation and fetal development in mice. Hum Reprod. 2001; 16 221-225
38 Shi W, Haaf T. Aberrant methylation patterns at the two-cell stage as an indicator of early developmental failure. Mol Reprod Dev. 2002; 63 329-334
39 Sato A, Otsu E, Negishi H, Utsunnomiya T, Arima T. Aberrant DNA methylation of imprinted loci in superovulated oocytes. Hum Reprod. 2007; 22 26-35
40 Maxfield E K, Sinclair K D, Dunne L D et al.. Temporary exposure of ovine embryos to an advanced uterine environment does not affect fetal weight but alters fetal muscle development. Biol Reprod. 1998; 59 321-325
41 Jurema M W, Nogueira D. In vitro maturation of human oocytes for assisted reproduction. Fertil Steril. 2006; 86 1277-1291
42 Andersen A N, Goosens V, Gianaroli L, Felberbaum R, de Mouzon J, Nygren K G. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2003. Results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod. 2007; 22 1523-1525
43 Söderström-Anttila V, Salokorpi T, Pihlaja M, Sereniou-Sirve S, Suikkari A M. Obstetric and perinatal outcome and preliminary results of development of children born after in vitro maturation of oocytes. Hum Reprod. 2006; 21 1508-1513
44 Hardy K, Wright C S, Franks S, Winston R M. In vitro maturation of oocytes. Br Med Bull. 2000; 56 588-602
45 Merton J S, de Roos A P, Mullaart E et al.. Factors affecting oocyte quality and quantity in commercial application of embryo technologies in the cattle breeding industry. Theriogenology. 2003; 59 651-674
46 El Shourbagy S H, Spikings E C, Freitas M, St John J C. Mitochondria directly influence fertilisation outcome in the pig. Reproduction. 2006; 131 233-245
47 Spikings E C, Alderson J, St John J C. Regulated mitochondrial DNA replication during oocyte maturation is essential for successful porcine embryo development. Biol Reprod. 2007; 76 327-335
48 Wallace D C. Mitochondrial diseases in man and mouse. Science. 1999; 283 1482-1488
49 Keefe D L, Niven-Fairchild T, Buradagunta S. Mitochondrial deoxyribonucleic acid deletions in oocytes and reproductive ageing in women. Fertil Steril. 1995; 64 577-583
50 Barritt J, Willadsen S, Brenner C, Cohen J. Cytoplasmic transfer in assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod Update. 2001; 7 428-435
51 St. John J C. The need to investigate the transmission of mitochondrial DNA following cytoplasmic transfer. Hum Reprod. 2002; 17 1954-1958
52 Andersen A N, Gianaroli L, Felberbaum R, de Mouzon J, Nygren K G. for the European IVF-Monitoring Programme (EIM) for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2002. Results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod. 2006; 21 1680-1697
53 Yanagimachi R. Gamete manipulation for development: new methods for conception. Reprod Fertil Dev. 2001; 13 3-14
54 Hewitson L, Takahashi D, Dominko T, Simerly C, Schatten G. Fertilization and embryo development to blastocysts after intracytoplasmic sperm injection in the rhesus monkey. Hum Reprod. 1998; 13 3449-3455
55 Ramalho-Santos J, Sutovsky P, Simerly C et al.. ICSI choreography: fate of sperm structures after monospermic rhesus ICSI and first cell cycle implications. Hum Reprod. 2000; 15 2610-2620
56 Wall R J. New gene transfer methods. Theriogenology. 2002; 57 189-201
57 Bonduelle M, Liebaers I, Deketelaere V et al.. Neonatal data on a cohort of 2889 infants born after ICSI (1991-1999) and of 2995 infants born after IVF (1983-1999). Hum Reprod. 2002; 17 671-694
58 Egozcue S, Blanco J, Vendrell J M et al.. Human male infertility: chromosome anomalies, meiotic disorders, abnormal spermatozoa and recurrent abortion. Hum Reprod Update. 2000; 6 93-105
59 Rubio C, Gil-Salom M, Simon C et al.. Incidence of sperm chromosomal abnormalities in a risk population: relationship with sperm quality and ICSI outcome. Hum Reprod. 2001; 16 2084-2092
60 Vendrell J M, Aran B, Veiga A et al.. Spermatogenic patterns and early embryo development after intracytoplasmic sperm injection in severe oligoasthenozoospermia. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2003; 20 106-112
61 Menezo Y J, Hamamah S, Hazout A, Dale B. Time to switch from co-culture to sequential defined media for transfer at the blastocyst stage. Hum Reprod. 1998; 13 2043-2044
62 Quinn P. The development and impact of culture media for assisted reproductive technologies. Fertil Steril. 2004; 81 27-29
63 Khosla S, Dean W, Brown D, Reik W, Feil R. Culture of preimplantation mouse embryos affects fetal development and the expression of imprinted genes. Biol Reprod. 2001; 64 918-926
64 Fernandez-Gonzalez R, Moreira P, Bilbao A et al.. Long-term effect of in vitro culture of mouse embryos with serum on mRNA expression of imprinting genes, development, and behavior. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2004; 101 5880-5885
65 Powell K, Rooke J A, McEvoy T G et al.. Zygote donor nitrogen metabolism and in vitro embryo culture perturbs in utero development and IGF2R expression in ovine fetal tissues. Theriogenology. 2006; 66 1901-1912
66 Rooke J A, McEvoy T G, Ashworth C J et al.. Ovine fetal development is more sensitive to perturbation by presence of serum in embryo culture before rather than after compaction. Theriogenology. 2007; 67 639-647
67 Sinclair K D, McEvoy T G, Maxfield E K et al.. Aberrant fetal growth and development after in vitro culture of sheep zygotes. J Reprod Fertil. 1999; 116 177-186
68 Doherty A S, Mann M R, Tremblay K D, Bartolomei M S, Schultz R M. Differential effects of culture on imprinted H19 expression in the preimplantation mouse embryo. Biol Reprod. 2000; 62 1526-1535
69 Lane M, Gardner D K. Ammonium induces aberrant blastocyst differentiation, metabolism, pH regulation, gene expression and subsequently alters fetal development in the mouse. Biol Reprod. 2003; 69 1109-1117
70 Sinawat S, Hsaio W C, Flockhart J H, Kaufman M H, Keith J, West J D. Fetal abnormalities produced after preimplantation exposure of mouse embryos to ammonium chloride. Hum Reprod. 2003; 18 2157-2165
71 Luna M, Duke M, Copperman A, Grunfield L, Sandler B, Barritt J. Blastocyst embryo transfer is associated with a sex-ration imbalance in favor of male offspring. Fertil Steril. 2007; 87 519-523
72 Sills E S, Tucker M J, Palermo G D. Assisted reproductive technologies and monozygous twins: implications for future study and clinical practice. Twin Res. 2000; 3 217-223
73 da Costa A LA, Abdelmassih S, de Oliveira F G et al.. Monozygotic twins and transfer at the blastocyst stage after ICSI. Hum Reprod. 2001; 16 333-336
74 Milki A A, Jun S H, Hinckley M D, Behr B, Giudice L C, Westphal L M. Incidence of monozygotic twinning with blastocyst transfer compared to cleavage-stage transfer. Fertil Steril. 2003; 79 503-506
75 Gutiérrez-Adán A, Pintado J GB, De La Fuente J. Influence of glucose on the sex ratio of bovine IVM/IVF embryos cultured in vitro. Reprod Fertil Dev. 2001; 13 361-365
76 Tarlatzis B C, Qublan H S, Sanopoulou T, Zepiridis L, Grimbizis G, Bontis J. Increase in the monozygotic twinning rate after intracytoplasmic sperm injection and blastocyst stage embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2002; 77 196-198
77 Hershlag A, Paine T, Cooper G W, Scholl G M, Rawlinson K, Kvapil G. Monozygotic twinning associated with mechanical assisted hatching. Fertil Steril. 1999; 71 144-146
78 Gardner D K, Surrey E, Minjarez D, Leitz A, Stevens J, Schoolcraft W B. Single blastocyst transfer: a prospective randomized trial. Fertil Steril. 2004; 81 551-555
79 Jain J K, Boostanfar R, Slater C C, Francis M M, Paulson R J. Monozygotic twins and triplets in association with blastocyst transfer. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2004; 21 103-107
80 Botchan A, Hauser R, Gamzu R, Yogev L, Paz G, Yavetz H. Results of 6139 artificial insemination cycles with donor spermatozoa. Hum Reprod. 2001; 16 2298-2304
81 Gorrill M J, Burry K A, Patton P E. Pregnancy outcomes using donor sperm insemination after failed in vitro fertilization with intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles in couples with complex infertility disorders. Fertil Steril. 2003; 80 936-938
82 Lansac J, Royere D. Follow-up studies of children born after frozen sperm donation. Hum Reprod Update. 2001; 7 33-37
83 Holt W V, Watson P F. Role of new and current methods in semen technology for genetic resource conservation. In: Simm G, Villanueva B, Sinclair KD, Townsend S Farm Animal Genetic Resources. BSAS publication no. 30. Nottingham, UK; Nottingham University Press 2004: 191-205
84 Morris G J. A new development in the cryopreservation of sperm. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2002; 5 23-29
85 Seli E, Gardner D K, Schoolcraft W B, Moffatt O, Sakkas D. Extent of nuclear DNA damage in ejaculated spermatozoa impacts on blastocyst development after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2004; 82 378-383
86 Thompson-Cree M E, McClure N, Donnelly E T, Steele K E, Lewis S E. Effects of cryopreservation on testicular sperm nuclear DNA fragmentation and its relationship with assisted conception outcome following ICSI with testicular spermatozoa. Reprod Biomed Online. 2003; 7 449-455
87 Park Y S, Lee S H, Song S J, Jun J H, Koong M K, Seo J T. Influence of motility on the outcome of in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection with fresh vs. frozen testicular sperm from men with obstructive azoospermia. Fertil Steril. 2003; 80 526-530
88 Ramos L, De Boer P, Meuleman E J, Braat D D, Wetzels A M. Evaluation of ICSI-selected epididymal sperm samples of obstructive azoospermic males by the CKIA system. J Androl. 2004; 25 406-411
89 Wennerholm U B, Bergh C, Hamberger L, Westlander G, Wikland M, Wood M. Obstetric outcome of pregnancies following ICSI, classified according to sperm origin and quality. Hum Reprod. 2000; 15 1189-1194
90 Kolibianakis E M, Zikopoulos K, Devroey P. Implantation potential and clinical impact of cryopreservation-a review. Placenta. 2003; 24(Suppl B) S27-S33
91 Winston R M, Hardy K. Are we ignoring potential dangers of in vitro fertilization and related treatments?. Nat Cell Biol. 2002; 4(Suppl) s14-s18
92 Paynter S J. Current status of the cryopreservation of human unfertilized oocytes. Hum Reprod Update. 2000; 6 449-456
93 Mandelbaum J, Anastasiou O, Levy R, Guerin J F, de Larouzière V, Antoine J M. Effects of cryopreservation on the meiotic spindle of human oocytes. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004; 113(Suppl 1) S17-S23
94 Jones A, Van Blerkom J, Davis P, Toledo A A. Cryopreservation of metaphase II human oocytes effects mitochondrial membrane potential: implications for developmental competence. Hum Reprod. 2004; 19 1861-1866
95 Coticchio G, Bonu M A, Borini A, Flamigni C. Oocyte cryopreservation: a biological perspective. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004; 115(Suppl 1) S2-S7
96 Mavrides A, Morroll D. Cryopreservation of bovine oocytes: is cryoloop vitrification the future to preserving the female gamete?. Reprod Nutr Dev. 2002; 42 73-80
97 Liebermann J, Tucker M J, Sills E S. Cryoloop vitrification in assisted reproduction: analysis of survival rates in > 1000 human oocytes after ultra-rapid cooling with polymer augmented cryoprotectants. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 30 125-129
98 Auroux M. Long-term effects in progeny of paternal environment and of gamete/embryo cryopreservation. Hum Reprod Update. 2000; 6 550-556
99 Sinclair K D, Singh R. Modelling the developmental origins of adult disease in the early embryo. Theriogenology. 2007; 67 43-53

Kevin D SinclairPh.D.

School of Biosciences, University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus

Leicestershire LE12 5RD, UK

Email: kevin.sinclair@nottingham.ac.uk