The impact of pronuclei morphology and dynamicity on live birth outcome after time-lapse culture.

STUDY QUESTION Can the pronuclei (PN) morphology and the time of PN breakdown (PNB) predict the potential of embryos to result in live birth? SUMMARY ANSWER In comparison to embryos resulting in no live birth, PNB occurred significantly later in embryos resulting in live birth and never earlier than 20 h 45 min. None of the tested scoring systems were shown to predict the live birth outcome in a time-lapse set-up. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY The PN morphology is supported as a prominent embryo selection parameter in single light microscopy observations, although controversial results have been reported. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This was a prospective study of 159 embryos, all of which were later transferred. The PN morphology of 46 embryos which resulted in live birth was compared with that of 113 embryos which resulted in no live birth. PARTICIPANTS, SETTING From 1 March 2010 to 30 August 2011, 130 couples underwent fertility treatment by ICSI. Embryo culture was performed in a time-lapse set-up from fertilization to intrauterine transfer. PN morphological assessment was performed on every embryo replaced, using six different scoring systems at different times. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE No embryo with PNB earlier than 20 h 45 min resulted in live birth. All six PN assessment models showed no significant distribution of scores (P = NS) between the live birth and no live birth groups at 16 h post-fertilization (PF), 18 h PF and 40 min before PNB. The outcomes of assessments changed significantly (P < 0.001) over time and the time of PNB was found to be the optimal stage to evaluate the PN morphology. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The study includes only embryos reaching the 4-cell stage after ICSI, and transferred at 44 h PF. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The PN morphology changes over time, indicating that the single light microscopy observation approach is deficient in comparison to time-lapse. Although the assessment of the PN morphology does not improve embryo selection, the timing of PNB should be included in embryo selection parameters.

[1]  Z. Shoham,et al.  Textbook of Assisted Reproductive Techniques: Laboratory and Clinical Perspectives , 2001 .

[2]  J. Lemmen,et al.  Kinetic markers of human embryo quality using time-lapse recordings of IVF/ICSI-fertilized oocytes. , 2008, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[3]  Donald Maier,et al.  Predictive value of embryo grading for embryos with known outcomes. , 2004, Fertility and sterility.

[4]  A. Thornhill,et al.  Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. , 2011, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[5]  F. Boisvert,et al.  The multifunctional nucleolus , 2007, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology.

[6]  M. Meseguer,et al.  Embryo quality, blastocyst and ongoing pregnancy rates in oocyte donation patients whose embryos were monitored by time-lapse imaging , 2011, Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics.

[7]  J. Tesarik,et al.  The probability of abnormal preimplantation development can be predicted by a single static observation on pronuclear stage morphology. , 1999, Human reproduction.

[8]  J. Fléchon,et al.  Nucleologenesis in the human embryo developing in vitro: ultrastructural and autoradiographic analysis. , 1986, Developmental biology.

[9]  Klaus Wiemer,et al.  The limited importance of pronuclear scoring of human zygotes. , 2006, Human reproduction.

[10]  A Finn,et al.  Morphologic parameters of early cleavage-stage embryos that correlate with fetal development and delivery: prospective and applied data for increased pregnancy rates. , 2007, Human reproduction.

[11]  A. Nuhoğlu,et al.  The effect of pronuclear morphology on embryo quality parameters and blastocyst transfer outcome. , 2001, Human reproduction.

[12]  J. Tesarik,et al.  Embryos with high implantation potential after intracytoplasmic sperm injection can be recognized by a simple, non-invasive examination of pronuclear morphology. , 2000, Human reproduction.

[13]  L A Scott,et al.  The successful use of pronuclear embryo transfers the day following oocyte retrieval. , 1998, Human reproduction.

[14]  D. Hernandez-Verdun,et al.  Nucleolus: the fascinating nuclear body , 2007, Histochemistry and Cell Biology.

[15]  D. Payne,et al.  Preliminary observations on polar body extrusion and pronuclear formation in human oocytes using time-lapse video cinematography. , 1997, Human reproduction.

[16]  A. Salumets,et al.  The predictive value of pronuclear morphology of zygotes in the assessment of human embryo quality. , 2001, Human reproduction.

[17]  G. Wright,et al.  Observations on the morphology of pronuclei and nucleoli in human zygotes and implications for cryopreservation. , 1990, Human reproduction.

[18]  P. Maddox-Hyttel,et al.  Nucleolar re‐activation is delayed in mouse embryos cloned from two different cell lines , 2009, Molecular reproduction and development.

[19]  Lynette Scott,et al.  Pronuclear scoring as a predictor of embryo development. , 2003, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[20]  W R Edirisinghe,et al.  Association of pronuclear Z score with rates of aneuploidy in in vitro-fertilised embryos. , 2005, Reproduction, fertility, and development.

[21]  F. Korobova,et al.  High Resolution Mapping of Ribosomal DNA in Early Mouse Embryos by Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization1 , 2006, Biology of reproduction.

[22]  J. Tesarik,et al.  Development of human male pronucleus: ultrastructure and timing. , 1989, Gamete research.

[23]  Markus Montag,et al.  Which morphological scoring system is relevant in human embryo development? , 2011, Placenta.

[24]  D. Hernandez-Verdun,et al.  Emerging concepts of nucleolar assembly. , 2002, Journal of cell science.

[25]  Laura Rienzi,et al.  Pronuclear morphology evaluation with subsequent evaluation of embryo morphology significantly increases implantation rates. , 2003, Fertility and sterility.

[26]  Stephen A. Roberts,et al.  Elective Single Embryo Transfer: Guidelines for Practice British Fertility Society and Association of Clinical Embryologists , 2008, Human fertility.

[27]  C. Baly,et al.  The step-wise assembly of a functional nucleolus in preimplantation mouse embryos involves the cajal (coiled) body. , 2003, Developmental biology.

[28]  E. Lunenfeld,et al.  Morphological embryo assessment: reevaluation. , 2011, Fertility and sterility.

[29]  J Cohen,et al.  Impaired development of zygotes with uneven pronuclear size , 1998, Zygote.

[30]  T. Baer,et al.  Non-invasive imaging of human embryos before embryonic genome activation predicts development to the blastocyst stage , 2010, Nature Biotechnology.

[31]  Lisa Cowan,et al.  The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. , 2011, Human reproduction.

[32]  R. Alvero,et al.  The morphology of human pronuclear embryos is positively related to blastocyst development and implantation. , 2000, Human reproduction.

[33]  M. Meseguer,et al.  The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of embryo implantation. , 2011, Human reproduction.

[34]  M. Montag,et al.  Evaluation of pronuclear morphology as the only selection criterion for further embryo culture and transfer: results of a prospective multicentre study. , 2001, Human reproduction.

[35]  D. Gardner,et al.  Glucose consumption of single post-compaction human embryos is predictive of embryo sex and live birth outcome. , 2011, Human reproduction.

[36]  D. Walmer,et al.  Relationship between pre-embryo pronuclear morphology (zygote score) and standard day 2 or 3 embryo morphology with regard to assisted reproductive technique outcomes. , 2005, Fertility and sterility.

[37]  J. D. De Mey,et al.  Nucleolar Assembly of the Rrna Processing Machinery in Living Cells , 2001, The Journal of cell biology.

[38]  Luca Gianaroli,et al.  Pronuclear morphology and chromosomal abnormalities as scoring criteria for embryo selection. , 2003, Fertility and sterility.