Modern methods of evaluation of embryon’s quality

Close metadata

Despite the improvement of correction methods of fertility disorders and pre-conceptional preparation of the couple, the search for the new ways to enhance the efficiency of assisted reproductive technologies has recently become an urgent issue. The paper gives an overview of modern ways to assess the quality of embryos and their influence on the results of assisted reproductive technologies. The special attention is given to new-type incubators with built-in time-lapse-monitoring system (system of embryo development shot), which help embryologists analyze the embryo development dynamics from fertilization to blastocyst formation without extracting embryos from the incubator. In these studies, nowadays, there is no proof of the efficacy of time-lapse systems for practical applications in vitro fertilisation (IVF) laboratories, due to limited, varied and contradictory data. Therefore, the prospects for the development of this problem are to study and implement the efficacy indicators of time-lapse system to select the highest-quality embryo and to increase the pregnancy rate in IVF cycles.

Keywords:

embryo cultivation

time-lapse system (an embryo development snapshot system)

embryo incubators

embryo culturing

quality of embryos

embryo selection

embryo transfer

Authors:

Samoilova A.A.

Moscow Regional Scientific Research Institute of Obstetrics and Gynecology

ORCID: 0000-0002-2059-6425

Krasnopol’skaya K.V.

Moscow Regional Scientific Research Institute of Obstetrics and Gynecology;
M.F. Vladimirsky Moscow Regional Clinical Research Institute;
Prior Reproductive Health Clinic

ORCID: 0000-0002-1275-9220

Kulliev A.P.

Moscow Regional Scientific Research Institute of Obstetrics and Gynecology;
Prior Reproductive Health Clinic

ORCID: 0000-0002-3547-4041

Ershova I.Yu.

Moscow Regional Scientific Research Institute of Obstetrics and Gynecology

ORCID: 0000-0001-9327-0656

Received:

28.06.2022

Accepted:

26.07.2022

List of references:

Ma RCW, Ng NYH, Cheung LP. Assisted reproduction technology and long-term cardiometabolic health in the offspring. PLoS Med. 2021;18:9:e1003724. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003724
Chen M, Wu Y, Huang X, Li W, Sun C, Meng Z, Ai A, Hong L, Tang C, Li K, Fu Y, Chen Z, Kong P, Guo Y, Liu W, Mol BW, Teng X. Embryo incubation by time-lapse systems versus conventional incubators in Chinese women with diminished ovarian reserve undergoing IVF/ICSI: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2020;10:11:e038657. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038657
Salleh N, Giribabu N. Leukemia inhibitory factor: roles in embryo implantation and in nonhormonal contraception. Scientific World J. 2014;2014:201514. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/201514
Torky H, Ahmad A, Hussein A, El-Desouky ES, Aly R, Ragab M, Abo-Louz A. Comparing sequential vs day 3 vs day 5 embryo transfers in cases with recurrent implantation failure: randomized controlled trial. JBRA Assist Reprod. 2021;25:2:185-192. https://doi.org/10.5935/1518-0557.20200083
Marek D, Langley M, Gardner DK, Confer N, Doody KM, Doody KJ. Introduction of blastocyst culture and transfer for all patients in an in vitro fertilization program. Fertil Steril. 1999;72:1035-1040. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(99)00409-4
Gardner DK, Vella P, Lane M, Wagley L, Schlenker T, Schoolcraft WB. Culture and transfer of human blastocysts increases implantation rates and reduces the need for multiple embryo transfers. Fertil Steril. 1998;69:1:84-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(97)00438-X
Dalal R, Mishra A, Pai HD, Palshetkar N. A prospective trial comparing sequential day 3/day 5 transfer with cleavage stage transfer and blastocyst stage transfer. IVF Lite. 2015;2:30-36. https://doi.org/10.4103/2348-2907.151972
Laverge H, De Sutter P, Verschraegen-Spae MR, De Paepe A, Dhont M. Triple colour fluorescent in-situ hybridization for chromosomes X,Y and 1 on spare human embryos. Hum Reprod. 1997;12:4:809-814. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/12.4.809
Harper J, Coonen E, De Rycke M, Fiorentino F, Geraedts J, Goossens V, Harton G, Moutou C, Pehlivan Budak T, Renwick P, Sengupta S, Traeger-Synodinos J, Vesela K. What next for preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)? A position statement from the ESHRE PGD Consortium Steering Committee. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:4:821-823. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dep476
Harper JC. Preimplantation genetic screening. J Med Screen. 2018;25:1:1-5. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969141317691797
Løssl K, Bentzen JG, Petersen MR, Roos LS, Kjartansdóttir KR, Grøndahl ML, Troest B, Toft CLF, Pedersen IS, Diemer T, Ingerslev HJ. Preimplantation genetic testing. Ugeskr Laeger. 2021;183:48:V04210378.
Kerin JF, Warnes GM, Quinn PJ, Jeffrey R, Kirby C, Matthews CD, Seamark RF, Cox LW. Incidence of multiple pregnancy after in-vitro fertilisation and embryo transfer. Lancet. 1983;2:8349:537-540. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(83)90569-x
Gerris J, De Neubourg D, Mangelschots K, Van Royen E, Van de Meerssche M, Valkenburg M. Prevention of twin pregnancy after in-vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection based on strict embryo criteria: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:10:2581-2587. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/14.10.2581
Harrison RG, Greenman M, Mall F, Jackson CM. Observations of the living developing nerve fiber. Biology. 1907;1:116-128.
Développement in vitro de blastodermes et de jeunes embryons de Mammifères. Brachet A C R Acad Sci Paris. 1912;155:1191-1193.
Lewis WH, Hartmann CG. Early cleav-age stages of the egg of the monkey (Macacus rhesus). Contrib Embryol (Carnegie Inst Wash). 1933;24:187-201.
Alexandre H. A history of mammalian embryological research. Int J Dev Biol. 2001;45:457-467.
Pincus G. The eggs of mammals. New York: The MacMillan company. 1936.
Hammond J Jr. Recovery and culture of tubal mouse ova. Nature. 1949;163:4131:28. https://doi.org/10.1038/163028b0
Whitten WK. Culture of tubal ova. Nature. 1957;179:4569:1081-1082. https://doi.org/10.1038/1791081a0
Whittingham DG, Biggers JD. Fallopian tube and early cleavage in the mouse. Nature. 1967;213:5079:942-943. https://doi.org/10.1038/213942a0
Biggers JD, Whittingham DG, Donahue RP. The pattern of energy metabolism in the mouse oöcyte and zygote. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1967;58:2:560-567. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.58.2.560
Steptoe PC, Edwards RG, Purdy JM. Human blastocysts grown in culture. Nature. 1971;229:5280:132-133. https://doi.org/10.1038/229132a0
Quinn P, Kerin JF, Warnes GM. Improved pregnancy rate in human in vitro fertilization with the use of a medium based on the composition of human tubal fluid. Fertil Steril. 1985;44:4:493-498. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(16)48918-1
Ho Y, Wigglesworth K, Eppig JJ, Schultz RM. Preimplantation development of mouse embryos in KSOM: augmentation by amino acids and analysis of gene expression. Mol Reprod Dev. 1995;41:2:232-238. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrd.1080410214
McKiernan SH, Clayton MK, Bavister BD. Analysis of stimulatory and inhibitory amino acids for development of hamster one-cell embryos in vitro. Mol Reprod Dev. 1995;42:2:188-199. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrd.1080420208
Gardner DK, Lane M. Alleviation of the ‘2-cell block’ and development to the blastocyst of CF1 mouse embryos: role of amino acids, EDTA and physical parameters. Hum Reprod. 1996;11:12:2703-2712. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a019195
Mantikou E, Youssef MA, van Wely M, van der Veen F, Al-Inany HG, Repping S, Mastenbroek S. Embryo culture media and IVF/ICSI success rates: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2013;19:3:210-220. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dms061
Minasi MG, Greco P, Varricchio MT, Barillari P, Greco E. The clinical use of time-lapse in human-assisted reproduction. Ther Adv Reprod Health. 2020;14:2633494120976921. https://doi.org/10.1177/2633494120976921
ESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology and Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine. Electronic address: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.06.015
Swain JE. Decisions for the IVF laboratory: comparative analysis of embryo culture incubators. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;28:5:535-547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.01.004
Sciorio R, Smith GD. Embryo culture at a reduced oxygen concentration of 5%: a mini review. Zygote. 2019;27:6:355-361. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0967199419000522
Sciorio R, Meseguer M. Focus on time-lapse analysis: blastocyst collapse and morphometric assessment as new features of embryo viability. Reprod Biomed Online. 2021;43:5:821-832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2021.08.008
Meseguer M. Time-lapse: the remaining questions to be answered. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:2:295-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.12.126
Wang SXY. The past, present, and future of embryo selection in in vitro fertilization: Frontiers in Reproduction Conference. Yale J Biol Med. 2011;84:4:487-490.
Storr A, Venetis CA, Cooke S, Susetio D, Kilani S, Ledger W. Morphokinetic parameters using time-lapse technology and day 5 embryo quality: a prospective cohort study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32:7:1151-1160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-015-0534-y
Dimitar Parvanov, Dimitar Cvetkov, Rumiana Ganeva, Maria Handzhiyska, Kristina Nikolova, Ivka Ivanova, Magdalena Vasileva, Stefka Nikolova, Georgi Stamenov. Time-lapse variability of human embryos is associated with ivf outcome. Fertility and Sterility. 2021;116:3:136.
Mumusoglu S, Yarali I, Bozdag G, Ozdemir P, Polat M, Sokmensuer LK, Yarali H. Time-lapse morphokinetic assessment has low to moderate ability to predict euploidy when patient- and ovarian stimulation-related factors are taken into account with the use of clustered data analysis. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:2:413-421.e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.11.005
Insua MF, Cobo AC, Larreategui Z, Ferrando M, Serra V, Meseguer M. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes of pregnancies conceived with embryos cultured in a time-lapse monitoring system. Fertility and Sterility. 2017;108:3:498-504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.06.031
Nayar KD, Gahlot R, Kant G, Singh M, Sharma N, Nayar K. Time lapse a better option to improve clinical outcome over standard incubator- a case controlled study. Fertil Steril. 2018;110:4:223-224.
Kovacs P, Matyas S, Forgacs V, Sajgo A, Molnar L, Pribenszky C. Non-invasive embryo evaluation and selection using time-lapse monitoring: Results of a randomized controlled study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019;233:58-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2018.12.011
Boucret L, Tramon L, Saulnier P, Ferré-L’Hôtellier V, Bouet PE, May-Panloup P. Change in the Strategy of Embryo Selection with Time-Lapse System Implementation-Impact on Clinical Pregnancy Rates. J Clin Med. 2021;10:18:4111. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10184111
Brahmbhatt, Nancy Jit, Vineet V. Mishra, Ankita Anil Suthar, Hardik Jyotin Sheth, Kajal Kundan Patel. Most effective incubator to improve blastocyst formation rate and implantation rate timelapse benchtop or standard benchtop: a case referent study. Fertil Steril. 2021;116:3:133.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.06.017
Cunegatto Bibiana, Ricardo Azambuja, Marta Ribeiro Hentschke, Vanessa Devens Trindade, Isadora Badalotti Teloken, Natália Fontoura Vasconcelos, Victória Campos Dornelles, Letícia Auler Proença, Alvaro Petracco, Mariangela Badalotti. Evaluation of clinical and laboratory outcomes between two embryo incubator systems: conventional tri-gas versus time-lapse. Fertil Steril. 2021;116:3:147-148.

Close metadata