Jingye Zhang1,2,3, Wenrong Tao1,2,3, Hui Liu1,2,3, Guanling Yu1,2,3, Mei Li1,2,3, Shuiying Ma1,2,3, Keliang Wu4,5,6. 1. Center for Reproductive Medicine, Shandong University, 157 Jingliu Road, Jinan, 250021, China. 2. National Research Center for Assisted Reproductive Technology and Reproductive Genetics, Jinan, China. 3. The Key laboratory for Reproductive Endocrinology (Shandong University), Ministry of Education, Jinan, China. 4. Center for Reproductive Medicine, Shandong University, 157 Jingliu Road, Jinan, 250021, China. wukeliang_527@163.com. 5. National Research Center for Assisted Reproductive Technology and Reproductive Genetics, Jinan, China. wukeliang_527@163.com. 6. The Key laboratory for Reproductive Endocrinology (Shandong University), Ministry of Education, Jinan, China. wukeliang_527@163.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to test whether there is an association between embryo morphokinetic parameters and ploidy status. METHODS: Patients with high risk of aneuploidy were analyzed by time-lapse microscopy combined with preimplantation genetic screening (PGS). Accordingly, 256 blastocysts from 75 patients were subjected to trophectoderm biopsy and microarray comparative genomic hybridization (array-CGH). Blastocyst development process was analyzed using time-lapse images. RESULTS: Morphokinetic parameters: tPNf, t2, t3, t4, t5, t8, t9, tcom, tM, tSB, tB, tEB, CC1, CC2, CC3, S2, S3, t5-t2, and tB-tSB showed no significant difference in euploid embryos compared to aneuploid counterparts. In addition, two risk models based on previously published morphokinetic parameters failed to segregate euploid from aneuploid embryos. CONCLUSIONS: Morphokinetic parameters subjected to investigation in the present study failed to improve the chance of selecting euploid embryos.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to test whether there is an association between embryo morphokinetic parameters and ploidy status. METHODS:Patients with high risk of aneuploidy were analyzed by time-lapse microscopy combined with preimplantation genetic screening (PGS). Accordingly, 256 blastocysts from 75 patients were subjected to trophectoderm biopsy and microarray comparative genomic hybridization (array-CGH). Blastocyst development process was analyzed using time-lapse images. RESULTS: Morphokinetic parameters: tPNf, t2, t3, t4, t5, t8, t9, tcom, tM, tSB, tB, tEB, CC1, CC2, CC3, S2, S3, t5-t2, and tB-tSB showed no significant difference in euploid embryos compared to aneuploid counterparts. In addition, two risk models based on previously published morphokinetic parameters failed to segregate euploid from aneuploid embryos. CONCLUSIONS: Morphokinetic parameters subjected to investigation in the present study failed to improve the chance of selecting euploid embryos.
Entities:
Keywords:
Morphokinetic parameters; PGS; Ploidy; Time-lapse monitoring system
Authors: Yael G Kramer; Jason D Kofinas; Katherine Melzer; Nicole Noyes; Caroline McCaffrey; Julia Buldo-Licciardi; David H McCulloh; James A Grifo Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2014-06-25 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: Neelke De Munck; Aşina Bayram; Ibrahim Elkhatib; Andrea Abdala; Ahmed El-Damen; Ana Arnanz; Laura Melado; Barbara Lawrenz; Human Mousavi Fatemi Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-04-25 Impact factor: 3.752