Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:53:45.228Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Morphological assessment on day 4 and its prognostic power in selecting viable embryos for transfer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2015

Gemma Fabozzi ,
Alessandra Alteri ,
Emilia Rega ,
Maria Flavia Starita ,
Claudio Piscitelli ,
Pierluigi Giannini  and
Antonio Colicchia
Gemma Fabozzi*
Affiliation:
FertiClinic, Casa di Cura Villa Margherita, Viale di Villa Massimo 48, 00161 Rome, Italy.
Alessandra Alteri
Affiliation:
FertiClinic, Villa Margherita, Viale di Villa Massimo 48, 00161 Rome, Italy.
Emilia Rega
Affiliation:
FertiClinic, Villa Margherita, Viale di Villa Massimo 48, 00161 Rome, Italy.
Maria Flavia Starita
Affiliation:
FertiClinic, Villa Margherita, Viale di Villa Massimo 48, 00161 Rome, Italy.
Claudio Piscitelli
Affiliation:
FertiClinic, Villa Margherita, Viale di Villa Massimo 48, 00161 Rome, Italy.
Pierluigi Giannini
Affiliation:
FertiClinic, Villa Margherita, Viale di Villa Massimo 48, 00161 Rome, Italy.
Antonio Colicchia
Affiliation:
FertiClinic, Villa Margherita, Viale di Villa Massimo 48, 00161 Rome, Italy.
*
All correspondence to: Gemma Fabozzi, FertiClinic, Casa di Cura Villa Margherita, Viale di Villa Massimo 48, 00161 Rome, Italy. Tel: +39 06 94443140. Fax: +39 06 86275838. E-mail: gemmafabozzi@hotmail.it
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The aim of this study was to describe a system for embryo morphology scoring at the morula stage and to determine the efficiency of this model in selecting viable embryos for transfer. In total, 519 embryos from 122 patients undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) were scored retrospectively on day 4 according to the grading system proposed in this article. Two separate quality scores were assigned to each embryo in relation to the grade of compaction and fragmentation and their developmental fate was then observed on days 5 and 6. Secondly, the prediction value of this scoring system was compared with the prediction value of the traditional scoring system adopted on day 3. Morulas classified as grade A showed a significant higher blastocyst formation rate (87.2%) compared with grades B, C and D (63.8, 41.3 and 15.0%, respectively), (P < 0.001). Furthermore, the ability to form top quality blastocysts was significantly higher for grade A morulas with respect to grades B, and C and D (37.8% vs. 22.4% vs. 11.1%), (P < 0.001). Finally, the morula scoring system showed more prediction power with respect to the embryo scoring a value of 1 [Akaike information criterion (AIC) index 16.4 vs. 635.3 and Bayesian information criterion (BIC) index −68.8 vs. −30.0 for morulas and embryos respectively]. In conclusion, results demonstrated that the presented scoring system allows for the evaluation of eligible embryos for transfer as a significant correlation between the grade of morula, blastulation rate and blastocyst quality was observed. Furthermore, the morula scoring system was shown to be the best predictive model when compared with the traditional scoring system performed on day 3.

Keywords

Blastocyst developmentDay 4 embryo scoringEmbryo selectionMorula
Type
Research Article
Information
Zygote , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , August 2016 , pp. 477 - 484
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alikani, M., Cohen, J., Tomkin, G., Garrisi, G.J., Mack, C. & Scott, R.T. (1999). Human embryo fragmentation in vitro and its implications for pregnancy and implantation. Fertil. Steril. 71, 836–42.Google Scholar
Balaban, B., Urman, B., Alatas, C., Mercan, R., Aksoy, S. & Isiklar, A. (2001). Blastocyst-stage transfer of poor-quality cleavage-stage embryos results in higher implantation rates. Fertil. Steril. 75, 514–8.Google Scholar
Braude, P., Bolton, V. & Moore, S. (1988). Human gene expression first occurs between the four- and eight-cell stages of preimplantation development. Nature 332, 459–61.Google Scholar
Buster, J.E., Bustillo, M., Rodi, I.A., Cohen, S.W., Hamilton, M., Simon, J.A., Thorneycroft, I.H. & Marshall, J.R. (1985). Biologic and morphologic development of donated human ova recovered by nonsurgical uterine lavage. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 153, 211–7.Google Scholar
De Placido, G., Wilding, M., Strina, I., Alviggi, E., Alviggi, C., Mollo, A., Varicchio, M.T., Tolino, A., Schiattarella, C. & Dale, B. (2002). High outcome predictability after IVF using a combined score for zygote and embryo morphology and growth rate. Hum. Reprod. 17, 2402–9.Google Scholar
Ebner, T., Moser, M., Shebl, O., Sommergruber, M., Gaiswinkler, U. & Tews, G. (2009). Morphological analysis at compacting stage is a valuable prognostic tool for ICSI patients. Reprod. Biomed. Online 18, 61–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feil, D., Henshaw, R.C. & Lane, M. (2008). Day 4 embryo selection is equal to day 5 using a new embryo scoring system validated in single embryo transfers. Hum. Reprod. 23, 1505–10.Google Scholar
Gardner, D.K. & Schoolcraft, W.B (1999). Culture and transfer of human blastocysts. Curr. Opin. Obstet. Gynecol. 11, 307–11.Google Scholar
Gardner, D.K., Schoolcraft, W.B., Wagley, L., Schlenker, T., Stevens, J. & Hesla, J. (1998a). A prospective randomized trial of blastocyst culture and transfer in in-vitro fertilization. Hum. Reprod. 13, 3434–40.Google Scholar
Gardner, D.K., Vella, P., Lane, M., Wagley, L., Schlenker, T. & Schoolcraft, W.B. (1998b). Culture and transfer of human blastocysts increases implantation rates and reduces the need for multiple embryo transfers. Fertil. Steril. 69, 84–8.Google Scholar
Gianaroli, L., Magli, M.C., Munne, S., Fortini, D. & Ferraretti, A.P. (1999). Advantages of day 4 embryo transfer in patients undergoing preimplantation genetic diagnosis of aneuploidy. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 16, 170–175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giorgetti, L., Vergara, M.R., Evangelista, M., Lo Schiavo, F., Terzi, M. & Nuti Ronchi, V. (1995). On the occurrence of somatic meiosis in embryogenic carrot cell cultures. Mol. Gen. Genet. 246, 657–62.Google Scholar
Goto, Y., Kanzaki, H., Nakayama, T., Takabatake, K., Himeno, T., Mori, T. & Noda, Y. (1994). Relationship between the day of embryo transfer and the outcome in human in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 11, 401–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grifo, J.A., Giatras, K., Tang, Y.X. & Krey, L.C. (1998). Successful outcome with day 4 embryo transfer after preimplantation diagnosis for genetically transmitted diseases. Hum. Reprod. 13, 1656–9.Google Scholar
Huisman, G.J., Alberda, A.T., Leerentveld, R.A., Verhoeff, A. & Zeilmaker, G.H. (1994). A comparison of in vitro fertilization results after embryo transfer after 2, 3, and 4 days of embryo culture. Fertil. Steril. 61, 970–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huntriss, J. & Picton, H.M. (2008). Epigenetic consequences of assisted reproduction and infertility on the human preimplantation embryo. Hum. Fertil. (Camb.) 11, 85–94.Google Scholar
Ivec, M., Kovacic, B. & Vlaisavljevic, V. (2011). Prediction of human blastocyst development from morulas with delayed and/or incomplete compaction. Fertil. Steril. 96, 1473–8.Google Scholar
Janny, L. & Menezo, Y.J. (1994). Evidence for a strong paternal effect on human preimplantation embryo development and blastocyst formation. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 38, 36–42.Google Scholar
Lan, K.C., Huang, F.J., Lin, Y.C., Kung, F.T., Hsieh, CH., Huang, H.W., Tan, P.H. & Chang, S.Y. (2003). The predictive value of using a combined z-score and day 3 embryo morphology score in the assessment of embryo survival on day 5. Hum. Reprod. 18, 1299–306.Google Scholar
Maher, E.R., Afnan, M. & Barratt, C.L. (2003). Epigenetic risks related to assisted reproductive technologies: epigenetics, imprinting, ART and icebergs? Hum. Reprod. 18, 2508–11.Google Scholar
Mann, M.R., Lee, S.S., Doherty, A.S., Verona, R.I., Nolen, L.D., Schultz, R.M. & Bartolomei, M.S. (2004). Selective loss of imprinting in the placenta following preimplantation development in culture. Development 131, 3727–35.Google Scholar
Market-Velker, B.A., Fernandes, A.D. & Mann, M.R. (2010). Side-by-side comparison of five commercial media systems in a mouse model: suboptimal in vitro culture interferes with imprint maintenance. Biol. Reprod. 83, 938–50.Google Scholar
Olivennes, F., Hazout, A., Lelaidier, C., Freitas, S., Franchin, R., de Ziegler, D. & Frydman, R. (1994). Four indications for transfer at the blastocyst stage. Hum. Reprod. 9, 2367–73.Google Scholar
Rienzi, L, Ubaldi, F., Anniballo, R., Cerulo, G. & Greco, E. (1998). Preincubation of human oocytes may improve fertilization and embryo quality after intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum. Reprod. 13, 1014–9.Google Scholar
Rienzi, L., Ubaldi, F., Iacobelli, M., Romano, S., Minasi, M.G., Ferrero, S., Sapienza, F., Baroni, E. & Greco, E. (2005). Significance of morphological attributes of the early embryo. Reprod. Biomed. Online 10, 669–81.Google Scholar
Shoukir, Y., Chardonnens, D., Campana, A. & Sakkas, D. (1998). Blastocyst development from supernumerary embryos after intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a paternal influence? Hum. Reprod. 13, 1632–7.Google Scholar
Scott, L.A. & Smith, S (1998). The successful use of pronuclear embryo transfers the day following oocyte retrieval. Hum. Reprod. 13, 1003–13.Google Scholar
Tao, J., Tamis, R., Fink, K., Williams, B., Nelson-White, T. & Craig, R. (2002). The neglected morula/compact stage embryo transfer. Hum. Reprod. 17, 1513–8.Google Scholar
Taylor, D.M., Ray, P.F., Ao, A., Winston, R.M. & Handyside, A.H. (1997). Paternal transcripts for glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase and adenosine deaminase are first detectable in the human preimplantation embryo at the three-to four-cell stage. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 48, 442–8.Google Scholar
Tesarik, J. & Greco, E. (1999). The probability of abnormal preimplantation development can be predicted by a single static observation on pronuclear stage morphology. Hum. Reprod. 14, 1318–23.Google Scholar
Tesarik, J., Kopecny, V., Plachot, M. & Mandelbaum, J. (1986). Activation of nucleolar and extranucleolar RNA synthesis and changes in the ribosomal content of human embryos developing in vitro . J. Reprod. Fertil. 78, 463–70.Google Scholar
Tesarik, J., Kopecny, V., Plachot, M. & Mandelbaum, J. (1988). Early morphological signs of embryonic genome expression in human preimplantation development as revealed by quantitative electron microscopy. Dev. Biol. 128, 15–20.Google Scholar
Tesarik, J., Greco, E. & Mendoza, C. (2004). Late, but not early, paternal effect on human embryo development is related to sperm DNA fragmentation. Hum. Reprod. 19, 611–5.Google Scholar
Tesarik, J. (2005). Paternal effects on cell division in the human preimplantation embryo. Reprod. Biomed. Online 10, 370–5.Google Scholar
Vanderzwalmen, P., Bertin-Segal, G., Geerts, L., Debauche, C. & Schoysman, R. (1991). Sperm morphology and IVF pregnancy rate: comparison between Percoll gradient centrifugation and swim-up procedures. Hum. Reprod. 6, 581–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vilska, S., Tiitinen, A., Hyden-Granskog, C. et al. (1999). Elective transfer of one embryo results in an acceptable pregnancy rate and eliminates the risk of multiple birth. Hum. Reprod. 14, 2392–5.Google Scholar
Ziebe, S., Petersen, K., Lindenberg, S., Andersen, A.G., Gabrielsen, A. & Andersen, A.N. (1997). Embryo morphology or cleavage stage: how to select the best embryos for transfer after in-vitro fertilization. Hum. Reprod. 12, 1545–9.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Fabozzi supplementary material

Fabozzi supplementary material 1

Download Fabozzi supplementary material(File)
File 694.3 KB