The inclusion of blastomeres into the inner cell mass in early-stage human embryos depends on the sequence of cell cleavages during the fourth division.

The fate of the ICM in humans is still unknown, due to the ethical difficulties surrounding experimentation in this field. In this study we have explored the existing time-lapse recording data of embryos in the early stages of development, taking advantage of the large refractile bodies (RBs) within blastomeres as cellular markers. Our study found that the cellular composition of the ICM in humans is largely determined at the time of the fourth division and blastomeres which cleave first to fourth, during the fourth division from 8 cells to 16 cells, have the potential to be incorporated in the ICM.

Introduction

In mouse embryos, the fate of the inner cell mass (ICM) has been known to be determined during divisions that occur from 8–16 cells [1, 2]. The outer cells give rise mainly to trophectoderm (TE). In contrast, cells positioned inside the embryo give rise to ICM. Recent paper has reported that depleting Sox21 levels leads to upregulation of Cdx2 and trophectoderm fate in mice [3]. They also reported heterogeneous gene expression of Sox21 in 4-cell and 8 cell mouse embryos from the highest to the lowest in blastomeres and speculated that heterogeneous gene expression in 4-cell stage in mouse embryos contributes to cell-fate decisions. This was consistent with previous studies showing gene heterogeneity in 4-cell stage mouse embryos [4-6]. However, how this heterogeneity in gene expression patterns occur and the mechanism(s) initiating these cell-fate remain unknown.

Long time ago, Sutherland et al. performed time-lapse observation and found that ICM is not associated with lineage from second and third division, but has a slight association with fourth cleavage division order in mouse embryos [7]. However, there is no information on the order of incorporation of blastomeres into the ICM in human embryos and cell-fate decisions.

In human oocytes, several types of morphological abnormality, such as smooth endoplasmic reticulum clusters and refractile bodies (RBs) are frequently observed. RBs consist of a mixture of lipids and dense granular material and exhibit yellow autofluorescence [8].

Only 1 or 2 large refractile bodies (> 5μm in diameter) are present in low proportion oocytes, while several small refractile bodies are commonly seen in almost all patients' oocytes. They are only formed in oocytes and never develop in the cells of an embryo during development from 1 cell to the blastocyst stage. While another dysmorphic phenotype, smooth endoplasmic reticulum clusters, disappears after fertilization, RBs remain present and almost unchanged in size at least until embryos reach the blastocyst stage. Although our recent study found that oocytes with RBs have a slightly lower potential for blastocyst development and implantation [9], more than 20% of high quality blastocysts with large RBs can result in healthy births and therefore these embryos can be good models for embryo development. Thus, our aim was to examine these early developmental stages using time-lapse recorded data, taking advantage of the large RBs within blastomeres as cellular markers.

Materials and methods

This is a retrospective observational study based on existing data obtained during ART (assisted reproductive technology) treatment for patients. Time lapse recordings of embryo development are a regular part of the treatment and we merely took advantage of these pre-existing recordings. The informed consent regarding the use of this data was obtained from all patients concerned. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Hanabusa Women’s Clinic (approval number: 2019–02).

Time-lapse monitoring

Embryos which had large RBs larger than 5μm in diameter observed by a time-lapse system (EmbryoScope and EmbryoScope plus, Vitrolife, Japan) from June 2013 to December 2018 were reviewed. The time lapse images were captured automatically every 15 minutes, at 7 focal planes, which allowed us to track the position of the RBs in the embryos. A total of 201 large RBs in 143 fertilized oocytes progressing through normal 2-cell to 8-cell stages, which were from 111 patients, were traced until they developed into a blastocyst.

Statistical analyses

Cluster analysis was conducted to group the blastomeres according to the order of cell division. Simple and multiple logistic regression analysis were both used to estimate the order in which the cells divided from the second to the fourth division, with the attainment of ICM defined as the endpoint. A chi-square test was also performed where appropriate. All statistical analyses were performed with EXCEL (2016, Microsoft) and EZR (Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University, Saitama, Japan), which is a graphical user interface for R (The R Foundation for statistical Computing). Differences were considered statistically significant when the P‐value was < .05.

Results

Following the second division, from 2 cells to 4 cells, the rates of RBs that were distributed to the ICM of blastomeres which cleaved first and second were 20.0% (20/100) and 18.8% (19/101) respectively. During the third division from 4 cells to 8 cells, the rates of RBs that were distributed to the ICM of blastomeres which cleaved first to fourth were 24.1% (13/54), 28.1% (16/57), 10.3% (4/39) and 11.8% (6/51) respectively. During the fourth division from 8 cells to 16 cells, the rates of RBs that were distributed to the ICM of blastomeres which cleaved first to eighth were 35.1% (13/37), 30.8% (8/26), 26.9% (7/26), 30.4% (7/23), 5.3% (1/19), 4.8% (1/21), 4.0% (1/25) and 0% (0/24) respectively. The first 50% of cleaved blastomeres during the fourth division had a significantly higher rate of being incorporated in the ICM (p<0.001) (Fig 1). The complete data is shown in S1 Table.

Fig 1

The different rates of cells containing refractile bodies that were distributed to the ICM.

The relationship between the order of cell division and ICM allocation is shown. The first 50% of cleaved blastomeres during the fourth division had significantly higher rates of being incorporated in the ICM (p<0.001).

The rate of high quality blastocysts from embryos that had ICM from the RB(+) blastomeres which cleaved first to fourth was 92.9% (104/112). The rate of blastomeres which cleaved fifth to eighth was 89.9% (80/89). Among the embryos which were chosen for transfer, 30.6% (11/36) resulted in live births when they cleaved first to fourth, while 39.4% (13/33) resulted in live births when they cleaved fifth to eighth. There were no significant differences between the two order categories in the incidence of high quality blastocysts or live birth rates.

The order in which the cells cleaved during both the third and fourth divisions was identified by univariate logistic regression analysis as a significant predictor of which cells with RBs ultimately contributed to the ICM. However, multiple logistic regression analysis was only applied to the fourth cleavage. The third division was thereby eliminated as a confounding factor and the fourth division was found to be a predictor for ICM (OR:16, CI:4.1–63, p<0.001) (Table 1).

Table 1

Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses with the attainment of ICM defined as the endpoint.

	Univariate logistic regression analysis			Multivariate logistic regression analysis
	OR	95%Cl	P-value	OR	95%Cl	P-value
The 2nd division	0.93	0.46–1.9	0.83
(2-4cells)
(1st vs 2nd)
The 3rd division	2.83	1.3–6.2	<0.001	0.74	0.28–1.9	0.54
(4-8cells)
(1st, 2nd vs 3rd, 4th)
The 4th division	13.2	3.9–45	<0.001	16	4.1–63	<0.001
(8-16cells)
(1st-4th vs 5th-8th)

The dendrogram was obtained by hierarchical clustering analysis, which is based on the order of division, using the Ward’s minimum variance method. The dendrogram revealed that samples can be divided into two clusters according to the order of cell division. The average order of the cells with RBs which cleaved during the third (4-8cell) and fourth (8–16 cells) divisions were 1.69 and 2.23 in cluster 1 (n = 107) and 3.28 and 6.41 in cluster 2 (n = 94) respectively. The ratio of the cells with RBs, which were allocated to the ICM/TE were 0.32 in cluster 1 and 0.05 in cluster 2 respectively (Fig 2).

Fig 2

Dendrogram and the average order in which the cells cleaved during the 3rd and 4th divisions in each cluster.

The dendrogram revealed that samples can be divided into two clusters, according to the order of cell division. Cluster analysis showed that blastomeres which cleaved earlier tended to reach the ICM.

Examples of the tracking RBs, which went to ICM and TE were shown in Fig 3 and Fig 4 respectively.

Fig 3

Example of blastomere distribution to the ICM or TE obtained by tracking the position of refractile bodies.

In these sequential photographs, the refractile bodies were distributed to the ICM (Fig 3) or the TE (Fig 4). The white arrows indicate the large refractile bodies in 2PN zygotes and 2-cell, 4-cell, 8-cell, morula, and blastocyst stage embryos. The numbers indicate the time in hours from ICSI.

Fig 4

Example of blastomere distribution to the ICM or TE obtained by tracking the position of refractile bodies.

In these sequential photographs, the refractile bodies were distributed to the ICM (Fig 3) or the TE (Fig 4). The white arrows indicate the large refractile bodies in 2PN zygotes and 2-cell, 4-cell, 8-cell, morula, and blastocyst stage embryos. The numbers indicate the time in hours from ICSI.

Discussion

This study found that the cellular composition of the ICM in human embryos is largely determined at the time of the fourth division. Moreover, it was shown that blastomeres which cleaved first to fourth, during the fourth division from 8 cells to 16 cells, had a higher chance of ICM allocation. As there was no significant difference regarding the incidence of high quality blastocysts nor birth rates between embryos with blastomeres which cleaved first to fourth and those cleaved fifth to eighth, it can be considered that the presence of RBs themselves did not hinder the results in this study.

In mouse embryos, the majority of blastomeres appearing at the 16-cell stage, formed from the 8-cell stage, are reported to be asymmetrically divided [2, 10, 11]. They are polar-apolar pairs or polar-polar pairs [1, 12–14]. However, in contrast to this, Samarage et al [15] found that asymmetric division was uncommon and unnecessary for positioning the first inner cells of the embryo. They also reported that the occurrence of asymmetric divisions in 2-Dimensions (2D) was found to be more than 2 times higher than that in 3-Dimensions (3D).

The polar cells are found to be in peripheral positions and mainly give rise to TE, whereas apolar cells are centrally positioned and give rise to ICM. Interestingly, transcriptome analysis of the isolated blastomers in mouse embryos at or before the 32-cell stage showed no significant variation between TE and ICM [16, 17]. In 5- to 8-cell stage human embryos, global single-cell cDNA amplification microarray analysis found that blastomere fate was not committed to ICM or TE [18]. This could be due to a loss of gene expression in isolated blastomeres as opposed to the hetelogeneous gene expression appearing in non-isolated embryonic blastomeres. In fact, comparing Oct4 and Cdx2 expression levels between intact 32-cell stage embryos and isolated blastomeres from 32-cell stage embryos revealed that cell-cell interaction is required to maintain gene expression levels in embryonic blastomeres [17]. Therefore, time lapse observation of blastomeres with RBs can accurately provide necessary data. The resolution of time-lapse observation systems for human embryo cultures has improved, making it possible to track large RBs as cellular markers in human oocytes. This study shows for the first time that the cellular composition of the ICM is largely determined at the time of the fourth division. However, the use of time-lapse observation systems continues to have certain limitations. Due to ethical issues with using human oocytes and embryos for experiment such as immunostaining and transcriptome analysis, there has been no such experimental data to study the fate of the ICM and TE in human embryos.

Recently, Yi et al. reported that only a subset of the blastomeres of 8-cell mouse and human embryos express keratins and that this biases their fate during trophectoderm differentiation [19]. As keratins stabilize the cortex, which may prevent cell internalization and also delay cell division, blastomeres devoid of keratin expression are able to cleave earlier. Thus, during the fourth division, from 8 cells to 16 cells, blastomeres which have cleaved first to fourth have the potential to be incorporated in the ICM. Noninvasive methods such as 3D time lapse observation systems are required to detect the exact position of blastomeres and will have the capacity to reveal the fate of ICM and TE in human embryos in the future.

Data set of cleavage division order and cell fate.

The first, second and third columns indicate the cleavage division order of blastomeres with refractile bodies during the 2–4 cell division, 4–8 cell division and 8–16 cell division.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

3 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-14274

The inclusion of blastomeres into the inner cell mass in early-stage human embryos depends on the sequence of cell cleavages during the fourth division

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Otsuki,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 18 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Qiang Wu, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for including your funding statemennt; "No"

At this time, please address the following queries:

Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this observational study, authors used large refractile bodies (RBs) within blastomeres as cellular markers to follow fate of the cells within preimplantation human embryos. They found that the inclusion of blastomeres into the inner cell mass in early-stage human embryos depends on the sequence of cell cleavages during the fourth division; the blastomeres which cleave first to fourth, during the fourth division from 8 cells to 16 cells, have a higher potential to be incorporated in the ICM. The conclusion is based on an analysis of 143 time-lapse recordings from 111 patients.

The observation is interesting, however, the mechanism or biological relevance remained elusive.

Can authors comment on blastocyst quality and pregnancy outcome from embryos that had ICM from the blastomeres which cleaved first to fourth vs. the blastomeres which cleaved fifth to eight?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

3 Oct 2020

Response to Reviewer 1

We appreciate the positive feedback and comments.

Comment 1: The observation is interesting, however, the mechanism or biological relevance remained elusive.

Answer to comment 1:

As a very recent paper published from Nature provided significant insight into our findings, we discussed the possible mechanism. This mechanism can be considered in the context in the light of both the Nature publication and our findings in this manuscript. The mechanism is explained in the revised manuscript (Page11-12 Line189-195 ).

Comment 2: Can authors comment on blastocyst quality and pregnancy outcome from embryos that had ICM from the blastomeres which cleaved first to fourth vs. the blastomeres which cleaved fifth to eight?

Answer to the comment 2:

We have calculated the blastocyst quality and pregnancy outcomes of embryos that had ICM from the blastomeres which cleaved first to fourth vs. the blastomeres which cleaved fifth to eighth. This data has been explained and discussed in the revised manuscript (Page7 Line 116-122, Page10 Line159-162 ).

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 20200928.docx

Click here for additional data file.

6 Oct 2020

The inclusion of blastomeres into the inner cell mass in early-stage human embryos depends on the sequence of cell cleavages during the fourth division

PONE-D-20-14274R1

Dear Dr. Otsuki,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Qiang Wu, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

8 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-14274R1

The inclusion of blastomeres into the inner cell mass in early-stage human embryos depends on the sequence of cell cleavages during the fourth division

Dear Dr. Otsuki:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Qiang Wu

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE