Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T16:17:26.284Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Blastomere movement correlates with ploidy and mosaicism in early-stage human embryos after in vitro fertilization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2021

Xiaodong Zhang ,
Jingwei Yang ,
Wei Han ,
Chong Li  and
Guoning Huang Open the ORCID record for Guoning Huang [Opens in a new window]
Xiaodong Zhang
Affiliation:
Chongqing Key Laboratory of Human Embryo Engineering, Chongqing, China Reproductive and Genetic Institute, Chongqing Health Center for Women and Children, Chongqing, China
Jingwei Yang
Affiliation:
Chongqing Key Laboratory of Human Embryo Engineering, Chongqing, China Chongqing Clinical Research Center for Reproductive Medicine, Chongqing, China
Wei Han
Affiliation:
Reproductive and Genetic Institute, Chongqing Health Center for Women and Children, Chongqing, China
Chong Li
Affiliation:
Chongqing Key Laboratory of Human Embryo Engineering, Chongqing, China Chongqing Clinical Research Center for Reproductive Medicine, Chongqing, China
Guoning Huang*
Affiliation:
Chongqing Key Laboratory of Human Embryo Engineering, Chongqing, China Chongqing Clinical Research Center for Reproductive Medicine, Chongqing, China Reproductive and Genetic Institute, Chongqing Health Center for Women and Children, Chongqing, China
*
Author for correspondence: Guoning Huang. Chongqing Health Center for Women and Children, No. 64 Jin Tang Street, Yu Zhong District, Chongqing400013, China. Tel: +86 02363839850. E-mail: gnhuang217@sina.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Embryos undergo chaotic division and decrease in quality on day 3 with a reduction in the rates of subsequent blastocyst formation. Disordered cleavage causes a deterioration in embryonic quality, here we assessed the relationship between an cleavage model in first mitosis and the chromosomal status of human embryos, and discuss the potential biological and clinical implications for the cleavage model as a single parameter that can be used to assess embryonic quality. Thirty-two infertile couples, with normal karyotypes and who underwent their first IVF cycle were recruited to donate one normal two-cell-stage embryo each for this study between 2019 and 2020. Twenty-eight two-cell embryos underwent preimplantation genetic testing of each blastomere, and four chaotic-division embryos were stained with Hoechst and cultured in a confocal laser-scanning microscopy incubator system. This system showed high specificity and PPV but low sensitivity and NPV using the CM in the prediction of euploidy, indicating that CM could be considered a screening method for embryo selection; additional observational studies using the CM to select transferable embryos are needed before it can be used in clinical practice.

Keywords

Blastomere movementChromosomal segregationEntangled cleavageEuploidyZygotes
Type
Research Article
Information
Zygote , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , February 2022 , pp. 25 - 39
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Footnotes

*

These authors contributed equally to this work.

References

Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine and ESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology (2011). The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Hum Reprod 26, 1270–83.10.1093/humrep/der037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aguilar, J, Rubio, I, Muñoz, E, Pellicer, A and Meseguer, M (2016). Study of nucleation status in the second cell cycle of human embryo and its impact on implantation rate. Fertil Steril 106, 291–9.e2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Athayde Wirka, K, Chen, AA, Conaghan, J, Ivani, K, Gvakharia, M, Behr, B, Suraj, V, Tan, L and Shen, S (2014). Atypical embryo phenotypes identified by time-lapse microscopy: high prevalence and association with embryo development. Fertil Steril 101, 1637–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chavez, SL, Loewke, KE, Han, J, Moussavi, F, Colls, P, Munne, S, Behr, B and Reijo Pera, RA (2012). Dynamic blastomere behaviour reflects human embryo ploidy by the four-cell stage. Nat Commun 3, 1251.10.1038/ncomms2249CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coonen, E, Derhaag, JG, Dumoulin, JC, van Wissen, LC, Bras, M, Janssen, M, Evers, JL and Geraedts, JP (2004). Anaphase lagging mainly explains chromosomal mosaicism in human preimplantation embryos. Hum Reprod 19, 316–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coticchio, G, Lagalla, L, Sturmey, R, Pennetta, F and Borini, A (2019). The enigmatic morula: mechanisms of development, cell fate determination, self-correction and implications for ART. Hum Reprod Update 4, 422–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desai, N, Goldberg, JM, Austin, C and Falcone, T (2018). Are cleavage anomalies, multinucleation, or specific cell cycle kinetics observed with time-lapse imaging predictive of embryo developmental capacity or ploidy? Fertil Steril 109, 665–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fragouli, E, Alfarawati, S, Spath, K, Jaroudi, S, Sarasa, J, Enciso, M and Wells, D (2013). The origin and impact of embryonic aneuploidy. Hum Genet 132, 1001–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardner, DK and Lane, M (2003). Towards a single embryo transfer. Reprod Biomed Online 6, 470–81.10.1016/S1472-6483(10)62170-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardner, DK, Lane, M, Stevens, J, Schlenker, T and Schoolcraft, WB (2000). Blastocyst score affects implantation an pregnancy outcome: towards a single blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril 73, 1155–8.10.1016/S0015-0282(00)00518-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardner, DK, Surrey, E, Minjarez, D, Leitz, A, Stevens, J and Schoolcraft, WB (2004). Single blastocyst transfer: a prospective randomized trial. Fertil Steril 81, 551–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffin, DK and Ogur, C (2018). Chromosomal analysis in IVF: just how useful is it? Reproduction 156, F29–50 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruhn, JR, Zielinska, AP, Shukla, V, Blanshard, R, Capalbo, A, Cimadomo, D, Nikiforov, D, Chan, AC, Newnham, LJ, Vogel, I, Scarica, C, Krapchev, M, Taylor, D, Kristensen, SG, Cheng, J, Ernst, E, Bjørn, AB, Colmorn, LB, Blayney, M, Elder, K, Liss, J, Hartshorne, G, Grøndahl, ML, Rienzi, L, Ubaldi, F, McCoy, R, Lukaszuk, K, Andersen, CY, Schuh, M and Hoffmann, ER (2019). Chromosome errors in human eggs shape natural fertility over reproductive life span. Science 365, 1466–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guerif, F, Le Gouge, A, Giraudeau, B, Poindron, J, Bidault, R, Gasnier, O and Royere, D (2007). Limited value of morphological assessment at days 1 and 2 to predict blastocyst development potential: a prospective study based on 4042 embryos. Hum Reprod 22, 1973–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harton, GL, Cinnioglu, C and Fiorentino, F (2017). Current experience concerning mosaic embryos diagnosed during preimplantation genetic screening. Fertil Steril 107, 1113–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horsthemke, B and Ludwig, M (2005). Assisted reproduction: the epigenetic perspective. Hum Reprod Update 11, 473–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuliev, A, Zlatopolsky, Z, Kirillova, I, Spivakova, J and Cieslak Janzen, J (2011). Meiosis errors in over 20,000 oocytes studied in the practice of preimplantation aneuploidy testing. Reprod Biomed Online 22, 2–8.10.1016/j.rbmo.2010.08.014CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lamb, NE, Freeman, SB, Savage-Austin, A, Pettay, D, Taft, L, Hersey, J, Gu, Y, Shen, J, Saker, D, May, KM, Avramopoulos, D, Petersen, MB, Hallberg, A, Mikkelsen, M, Hassold, TJ and Sherman, SL (1996). Susceptible chiasmate configurations of chromosome 21 predispose to non-disjunction in both maternal meiosis I and meiosis II. Nat Genet 14, 400–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manipalviratn, S, DeCherney, A and Segars, J (2009). Imprinting disorders and assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril 91, 305–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Milki, AA, Hinckley, MD, Fisch, JD, Dasig, D and Behr, B (2000). Comparison of blastocyst transfer with day 3 embryo transfer in similar patient populations. Fertil Steril 73, 126–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Niemitz, EL and Feinberg, AP (2004). Epigenetics and assisted reproductive technology: a call for investigation. Am J Hum Genet 74, 599–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohata, K, Ezoe, K, Miki, T, Morita, H, Tsuchiya, R, Kaneko, S, Okimura, T, Uchiyama, K, Yabuuchi, A, Kobayashi, T, Montag, M and Kato, K (2019). Blastomere movement post first cell division correlates with embryonic compaction and subsequent blastocyst formation. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 17, 44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Orr, B, Godek, KM and Compton, D (2015). Aneuploidy. Curr Biol 25, R538–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rocafort, E, Enciso, M, Leza, A, Sarasa, J and Aizpurua, J (2018). Euploid embryos selected by an automated time-lapse system have superior SET outcomes than selected solely by conventional morphology assessment. J Assist Reprod Genet 35, 1573–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rubio, I, Galán, A, Larreategui, Z, Ayerdi, F, Bellver, J, Herrero, J and Meseguer, M (2014). Clinical validation of embryo culture and selection by morphokinetic analysis: a randomized, controlled trial of the EmbryoScope. Fertil Steril 102, 1287–94, e5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tran, D, Cooke, S, Illingworth, PJ and Gardner, DK (2019). Deep learning as a predictive tool for fetal heart pregnancy following time-lapse incubation and blastocyst transfer. Hum Reprod 34, 1011–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wong, CC, Loewke, KE, Bossert, NL, Behr, B, De Jonge, CJ, Baer, TM and Reijo Pera, RA (2010). Non-invasive imaging of human embryos before embryonic genome activation predicts development to the blastocyst stage. Nat Biotechnol 28, 1115–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yan, L, Yang, M, Guo, H, Yang, L, Wu, J, Li, R, Liu, P, Lian, Y, Zheng, X, Yan, J, Huang, J, Li, M, Wu, X, Wen, L, Lao, K, Li, R, Qiao, J and Tang, F (2013). Single-cell RNA-seq profiling of human preimplantation embryos and embryonic stem cells. Nat Struct Mol Biol 20, 1131–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, ST, Shi, JX, Gong, F, Zhang, SP, Lu, CF, Tan, K, Leng, LZ, Hao, M, He, H, Gu, YF, Lu, GX and Lin, G (2015). Cleavage pattern predicts developmental potential of day 3 human embryos produced by IVF. Reprod BioMed Online 30, 625–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ye, H, Huang, GN, Zeng, PH and Pei, L (2009). IVF/ICSI outcomes between cycles with luteal estradiol (E2) pre-treatment before GnRH antagonist protocol and standard long GnRH agonist protocol: a prospective and randomized study. J Assist Reprod Genet 26, 105–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed