Advertisement

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

, Volume 35, Issue 8, pp 1509–1517 | Cite as

Contraction behaviour reduces embryo competence in high-quality euploid blastocysts

  • Xavier Viñals Gonzalez
  • Rabi Odia
  • Suzanne Cawood
  • Matthew Gaunt
  • Wael Saab
  • Srividya Seshadri
  • Paul Serhal
Embryo Biology
  • 154 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of the study is to investigate how blastocyst contraction behaviour affects the reproductive competence in high-quality euploid embryos.

Methods

Eight hundred ninety-six high-quality blastocysts derived from 190 patients (mean age 38.05 (SD = 2.9) years) who underwent preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A) from January 2016 to October 2017 were included in this study. PGT-A results were reported as euploid or aneuploid. Aneuploid embryos were sub-classified into three categories: monosomy, trisomy and complex aneuploid. Retrospective studies of time-lapse monitoring (TLM) of those embryos were analysed and reproductive outcome of transferred embryos was collected.

Results

A total of 234/896 were euploid (26.1%) whilst 662/896 (73.9%) blastocysts were proven to be aneuploid from which 116 (17.6%) presented monosomies, 136 (20.5%) trisomies and 410 (61.9%) were complex aneuploid. The most frequent chromosomal complements were trisomies affecting chromosome 21 and monosomies involving chromosomes 16 and 22. Data analysis showed a statistical difference in the number of contractions being reported greater in aneuploid when compared to euploid embryos (0.6 vs 1.57; p < 0.001). Analysis of the aneuploid embryos showed that monosomies present less number of contractions when compared to embryos affected with trisomies or complex aneuploidies (1.23 vs 1.53 and 1.40; p < 0.05). No difference was observed when comparing the latter two groups. Euploid embryos presenting at least one contraction resulted in lower implantation and clinical pregnancy rates when compared to blastocysts that do not display this event (47.6 vs 78.5% and 40.0 vs 59.0% respectively).

Conclusions

Most aneuploid blastocysts diagnosed by PGT-A have complex aneuploidies, showing that aneuploid embryos can develop after genomic activation and reaching high morphological scores. It becomes clear that embryo contraction, despite being a physiological feature during blastulation, is conditioned by the ploidy status of the embryo. Furthermore, the presence of contractions may compromise implantation rates.

Keywords

Blastocyst contraction Next-generation sequencing Time-lapse monitoring Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies Ploidy 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors want to thank Professor Joy Delhanty for her valuable help and expertise revising the final manuscript.

Supplementary material

10815_2018_1246_MOESM1_ESM.pptx (217 kb)
ESM 1 (PPTX 217 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Aparicio-Ruiz B, Basile N, Perez Albala S, Bronet F, Remohi J, Meseguer M. Automatic time-lapse instrument is superior to single-point morphology observation for selecting viable embryos: retrospective study in oocyte donation. FertilSteril. 2016 Nov;106(6):1379,1385.e10.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Armstrong S, Arroll N, Cree LM, Jordan V, Farquhar C. Time-lapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted Reproduction. Cochrane DatabaseSyst Rev. 2015;27(2):CD011320.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kirkegaard K, Ahlstrom A, Ingerslev HJ, Hardarson T. Choosing the best embryo by time lapse versus standard morphology. FertilSteril. 2015;103(2):323–32.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Meseguer M, Rubio I, Cruz M, Basile N, Marcos J, Requena A. Embryo incubation and selection in a time-lapse monitoring system improves pregnancy outcome compared with a standard incubator: a retrospective cohort study. FertilSteril. 2012;98(6):1481,9.e10.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fiorentino F, Biricik A, Bono S, Spizzichino L, Cotroneo E, Cottone G, et al. Development and validation of a next-generation sequencing-based protocol for 24-chromosome aneuploidy screening of embryos. FertilSteril. 2014;101(5):1375–82.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kung A, Munne S, Bankowski B, Coates A, Wells D. Validation of next-generation sequencing for comprehensive chromosome screening of embryos. Reprod BioMed Online. 2015;31(6):760–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yang Z, Liu J, Collins GS, Salem SA, Liu X, Lyle SS, et al. Selection of single blastocysts for fresh transfer via standard morphology assessment alone and with array CGH for good prognosis IVF patients: results from a randomized pilot study. MolCytogenet 2012;5(1):24,8166–5-24.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vaiarelli A, Cimadomo D, Capalbo A, Orlando G, Sapienza F, Colamaria S, et al. Pre-implantation genetic testing in ART: who will benefit and what is the evidence? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016 Aug 5;33:1273–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wu MY, Chao KH, Chen CD, Chang LJ, Chen SU, Yang YS. Current status of comprehensive chromosome screening for elective single-embryo transfer. ObstetGynecol Int 2014;2014:581783.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rienzi L, Capalbo A, Stoppa M, Romano S, Maggiulli R, Albricci L, et al. No evidence of association between blastocyst aneuploidy and morphokinetic assessment in a selected population of poor-prognosis patients: a longitudinal cohort study. Reprod BioMed Online. 2015 Jan;30(1):57–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Minasi MG, Colasante A, Riccio T, Ruberti A, Casciani V, Scarselli F, et al. Correlation between aneuploidy, standard morphology evaluation and morphokinetic development in 1730 biopsied blastocysts: a consecutive case series study. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(10):2245–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Campbell A, Fishel S, Bowman N, Duffy S, Sedler M, Hickman CF. Modelling a risk classification of aneuploidy in human embryos using non-invasive morphokinetics. Reprod BioMed Online. 2013;26(5):477–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lewis WH, Gregory PW. Cinematographs of living developing rabbit-eggs. Science (New York, NY). 1929;69(1782):226–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Niimura S. Time-lapse videomicrographic analyses of contractions in mouse blastocysts. J Reprod Dev. 2003;49(6):413–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marcos J, Perez-Albala S, Mifsud A, Molla M, Landeras J, Meseguer M. Collapse of blastocysts is strongly related to lower implantation success: a time-lapse study. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(11):2501–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Huang TT, Chinn K, Kosasa T, Ahn HJ, Kessel B. Morphokinetics of human blastocyst expansion in vitro. Reprod BioMed Online. 2016;33(6):659–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bodri D, Sugimoto T, Yao Serna J, Kawachiya S, Kato R, Matsumoto T. Blastocyst collapse is not an independent predictor of reduced live birth: a time-lapse study. FertilSteril. 2016;105(6):1476,1483.e3.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gardner (2006) In vitro fertilisation: a practical approach. Informa Health, New York. First Edition: pg 212.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Veek and Zaninovic. An atlas of human blastocysts. Spain: The Parthenon Publishing Group; 2003.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Veiga A, Sandalinas M, Benkhalifa M, Boada M, Carrera M, Santalo J, et al. Laser blastocyst biopsy for preimplantation diagnosis in the human. Zygote. 1997;5(4):351–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ciray HN, Campbell A, Agerholm IE, Aguilar J, Chamayou S, Esbert M, et al. Proposed guidelines on the nomenclature and annotation of dynamic human embryo monitoring by a time-lapse user group. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(12):2650–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stojanov T. The latest product from the Sydney IVF multi-stage media development program. Cook, 2009.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Scott L, Finn A, O'Leary T, McLellan S, Hill J. Morphologic parameters of early cleavage-stage embryos that correlate with fetal development and delivery: prospective and applied data for increased pregnancy rates. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(1):230–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Taylor TH, Patrick JL, Gitlin SA, Wilson JM, Crain JL, Griffin DK. Comparison of aneuploidy, pregnancy and live birth rates between day 5 and day 6 blastocysts. Reprod BioMed Online. 2014;29(3):305–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kaing A, Kroener LL, Tassin R, Li M, Liu L, Buyalos R, et al. Earlier day of blastocyst development is predictive of embryonic euploidy across all ages: essential data for physician decision-making and counseling patients. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35(1):119–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Alfarawati S, Fragouli E, Colls P, Stevens J, Gutierrez-Mateo C, Schoolcraft WB, et al. The relationship between blastocyst morphology, chromosomal abnormality, and embryo gender. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(2):520–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Baltaci V, Satiroglu H, Kabukcu C, Unsal E, Aydinuraz B, Uner O, et al. Relationship between embryo quality and aneuploidies. Reprod BioMed Online. 2006;12(1):77–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Qi ST, Liang LF, Xian YX, Liu JQ, Wang W. Arrested human embryos are more likely to have abnormal chromosomes than developing embryos from women of advanced maternal age. J Ovarian Res. 2014;7:65–2215–7-65. eCollection 2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Maurer M, Ebner T, Puchner M, Mayer RB, Shebl O, Oppelt P, et al. Chromosomal aneuploidies and early embryonic developmental arrest. Int J Fertil Steril. 2015;9(3):346–53.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Haddad G, Deng M, Wang CT, Witz C, Williams D, Griffith J, et al. Assessment of aneuploidy formation in human blastocysts resulting from donated eggs and the necessity of the embryos for aneuploidy screening. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32(6):999–1006.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Esbert M, Marconetto A, Soares SR, Quera M, Molina J, Florensa BA, et al. Does the blastocyst collapse respond to a biological need? The analysis of 1,952 enbryos by time-lapse can give an answer. Unpublished FertilSteril. 2017;108(157)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018
corrected publication [July/2018]

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Embryology Department, The Centre For Reproductive and Genetic HealthLondonUK
  2. 2.Clinical Department, The Centre For Reproductive and Genetic HealthLondonUK

Personalised recommendations