Lee-Sarose Orevich1, Kate Watson2, Kee Ong2, Irving Korman2, Ross Turner3, David Shaker4,5, Yanhe Liu2,3,4,6,7,8. 1. Monash IVF Gold Coast, 2 Short Street, Southport, QLD, L34215, Australia. lorevich@monashivf.com. 2. Monash IVF Gold Coast, 2 Short Street, Southport, QLD, L34215, Australia. 3. Monash IVF Auchenflower, Auchenflower, QLD, Australia. 4. Monash IVF Rockhampton, Rockhampton, QLD, Australia. 5. Rural Clinical School, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. 6. School of Human Sciences, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia. 7. School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA, Australia. 8. School of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Robina, QLD, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To study the morphometric and morphokinetic profiles of pronuclei (PN) between male and female human zygotes. METHOD(S): This retrospective cohort study included 94 consecutive autologous single day 5 transfer cycles leading to a singleton live birth. All oocytes were placed in the EmbryoScope + incubator post-sperm injection with all annotations performed retrospectively by one embryologist (L-SO). Timing parameters included 2nd polar body extrusion (tPB2), sperm-originated PN (tSPNa) or oocyte-originated PN (tOPNa) appearance, and PN fading (tPNF). Morphometrics were evaluated at 8 (stage 1), 4 (stage 2), and 0 h before PNF (stage 3), measuring PN area (um2), PN juxtaposition, and nucleolar precursor bodies (NPB) arrangement. RESULTS: Male zygotes had longer time intervals of tPB2_tSPNa than female zygotes (4.8 ± 0.2 vs 4.2 ± 0.1 h, OR = 1.442, 95% CI 1.009-2.061, p = 0.044). SPN increased in size from stage 1 through 2 to 3 (435.3 ± 7.2, 506.7 ± 8.0, and 556.3 ± 8.9 um2, p = 0.000) and OPN did similarly (399.0 ± 6.1, 464.3 ± 6.7, and 513.8 ± 6.5 um2, p = 0.000), with SPN being significantly larger than OPN at each stage (p < 0.05 respectively). More male than female zygotes reached central PN juxtaposition at stage 1 (76.7% vs 51.0%, p = 0.010), stage 2 (97.7% vs 86.3%, p = 0.048), and stage 3 (97.7% vs 86.3%, p = 0.048). More OPN showed aligned NPBs than in SPN at stage 1 only (44.7% vs 28.7%, p = 0.023). CONCLUSION(S): Embryos with different sexes display different morphokinetic and morphometric features at the zygotic stage. Embryo selection using such parameters may lead to unbalanced sex ratio in resulting offspring.
PURPOSE: To study the morphometric and morphokinetic profiles of pronuclei (PN) between male and female human zygotes. METHOD(S): This retrospective cohort study included 94 consecutive autologous single day 5 transfer cycles leading to a singleton live birth. All oocytes were placed in the EmbryoScope + incubator post-sperm injection with all annotations performed retrospectively by one embryologist (L-SO). Timing parameters included 2nd polar body extrusion (tPB2), sperm-originated PN (tSPNa) or oocyte-originated PN (tOPNa) appearance, and PN fading (tPNF). Morphometrics were evaluated at 8 (stage 1), 4 (stage 2), and 0 h before PNF (stage 3), measuring PN area (um2), PN juxtaposition, and nucleolar precursor bodies (NPB) arrangement. RESULTS: Male zygotes had longer time intervals of tPB2_tSPNa than female zygotes (4.8 ± 0.2 vs 4.2 ± 0.1 h, OR = 1.442, 95% CI 1.009-2.061, p = 0.044). SPN increased in size from stage 1 through 2 to 3 (435.3 ± 7.2, 506.7 ± 8.0, and 556.3 ± 8.9 um2, p = 0.000) and OPN did similarly (399.0 ± 6.1, 464.3 ± 6.7, and 513.8 ± 6.5 um2, p = 0.000), with SPN being significantly larger than OPN at each stage (p < 0.05 respectively). More male than female zygotes reached central PN juxtaposition at stage 1 (76.7% vs 51.0%, p = 0.010), stage 2 (97.7% vs 86.3%, p = 0.048), and stage 3 (97.7% vs 86.3%, p = 0.048). More OPN showed aligned NPBs than in SPN at stage 1 only (44.7% vs 28.7%, p = 0.023). CONCLUSION(S): Embryos with different sexes display different morphokinetic and morphometric features at the zygotic stage. Embryo selection using such parameters may lead to unbalanced sex ratio in resulting offspring.
Authors: W P Martins; C O Nastri; L Rienzi; S Z van der Poel; C Gracia; C Racowsky Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2017-04-10 Impact factor: 7.299
Authors: G Coticchio; M Mignini Renzini; P V Novara; M Lain; E De Ponti; D Turchi; R Fadini; M Dal Canto Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2018-01-01 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: J Barberet; C Bruno; E Valot; C Antunes-Nunes; L Jonval; J Chammas; C Choux; P Ginod; P Sagot; A Soudry-Faure; P Fauque Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 6.918