Comparison of growth rates of fresh and frozen-thawed embryos according to chromosomal status

  • Rohini Edirisinghe
  • Rodney Jemmott
  • John Allan


Purpose: To report a comparison of growth rates between fresh and frozen-thawed embryos on day 3 and 4 according to chromosomal status during PGD.

Methods: Embryos were biopsied on day 3, fluorescent in situ hybridization performed for aneuploidy detection and growth rates monitored.

Results: Based on 241 egg pick up-PGD and 133 frozen embryo transfer-PGD cycles. The development rate of embryos despite their chromosomal status was similar on day 3, however, overall, fresh embryos showed a significantly improved development (≥6 cell stage; 85.7%) compared to frozen embryos (77.0%; p < 0.003). On day 4 fresh embryos showed accelerated development and further developmental improvements were associated with chromosomal normality (56.1% normal vs. 42.2% aneuploid; p < 0.004).

Conclusions: Cryopreservation slows embryo development regardless of the chromosomal status. However, chromosomal status did not influence the chance of embryo implantation which was the same for fresh and thawed embryos.

Key Words

Chromosomal status fresh embryos frozen embryos growth rates 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Puissant F, Van Rysselberge M, Barlow P, Deweze J, Leroy F: Embryo scoring as a prognostic tool in IVF treatment. Hum Reprod 1987;2:705–708PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Claman P, Armant DR, Seibel MM, Wang TA, Oskowitz SP, Taymor ML: The impact of embryo quality and quantity on implantation and the establishment of viable pregnancies. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf 1987;4:218–222PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eranus M, Zouves C, Rajamahendran M, Lueng S, Fluker M, Gomel V: The effect of embryo quality on subsequent pregnancy rates after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1991;56:707–710Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Steer CV, Mills CL, Tan SL, Campbell S, Edwards RG: The cumulative embryo score: A predictive embryo scoring technique to select the optimal number of embryos to transfer in an in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer programme. Hum Reprod 1992;7:117–119PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Giorgetti C, Terriou P, Auquier P, Hans E, Spach JL, Salzmann J, Roulier R: Embryo score to predict implantation after in-vitro fertilization: Based on 957 single embryo transfers. Hum Reprod 1995;10:2427–2431PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ziebe S, Petersen K, Lindenberg S, Andersen AG, Gabrielsen A, Andersen AN: Embryo morphology or cleavage stage: How to select the best embryos for transfer after in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1997;12:1545–1549CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Van der Elst J, Van den Abbeel E, Vitrier S, Camus M, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem AC: Selective transfer of cryopreserved human embryos with further cleavage after thawing increases delivery and implantation rates. Hum Reprod 1997;12:1513–1521CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ziebe S, Bech B, Petersen K, Mikkelsen AL, Gabrielsen A, Andersen AN: Resumption of mitosis during post-thaw culture: A key parameter in selecting the right embryos for transfer. Hum Reprod 1998;13:178–181CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Edgar DH, Bourne H, Speirs AL, McBain JC: A quantitative analysis of the impact of cryopreservation on the implantation potential of human early cleavage stage embryos. Hum Reprod 2000;15:175–179CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gardner DK, Lane M: Culture and selection of viable blastocysts: A feasible proposition for human IVF. Hum Reprod Update 1997;3:367–382CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Neuber E, Rinaudo P, Trimarchi JR, Sakkas D: Sequential assessment of individually cultured human embryos as an indicator of subsequent good quality blastocyst development. Hum Reprod 2003;18:1307–1312CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ebner T, Moser M, Sommergruber M, Tews G: Selection based on morphological assessment of oocytes and embryos at different stages of preimplantation development: A review. Hum Reprod Update 2003;9:251–262CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Magli MC, Jones GM, Grass L, Gianaroli L, Korman I, Trounson AO: Chromosome mosaicism in day 3 aneuploid embryos that develop to morphologically normal blastocysts in vitro. Hum Reprod 2000;15:1781–1786CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sandalinas M, Sadowy S, Alikani M, Calderon G, Cohen J, Munne S: Developmental ability of chromosomally abnormal human embryos to develop to the blastocyst stage. Hum Reprod 2001;16:1954–1958CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Munne S, Alikani M, Tomkin G, Grifo J, Cohen J: Embryo morphology, developmental rates and maternal age are related with chromosome abnormalities. Fertil Steril 1995;64:382–391PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Allan J, Edirisinghe R, Anderson J, Jemmott R, Nandini AV, Gattas M: Dilemmas encountered with preimplantation diagnosis of aneuploidy in human embryos. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol 2004;44:117–123Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bielanska M, Tan SL, Ao A: Chromosomal mosaicism throughout human preimplantation development in vitro: Incidence, type, and relevance to embryo outcome. Hum Reprod 2002;17:413–419CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Los FJ, Van Opstal D, Van den Berg C: The development of cytogenetically normal, abnormal and mosaic embryos: A theoretical model. Hum Reprod Update 2004;10:79–94CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tao J, Tamis R, Fink K, Williams B, Nelson-White T, Craig R: The neglected morula/compact stage embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 2002;17:1513–1518CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Archer J, Gook DA, Edgar DH: Blastocyst formation and cell numbers in human frozen-thawed embryos following extended culture. Hum Reprod 2003;18:1669–1673CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    ESHRE PGD Consotium Steering Committee. ESHRE preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) consortium: Data collection II (May 2000). Hum Reprod 2000;15:2673–2683Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sher G, Keskintepe L, Nouriani M, Roussev R, Batzofin, J: Expression of sHLA-G in supernatants of individually cultured 46-h embryos: A potentially valuable indicator of “embryo competency” and IVF outcome. Reprod Biomed Online 2004;9:74–78PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rohini Edirisinghe
    • 1
  • Rodney Jemmott
    • 1
  • John Allan
    • 1
  1. 1.The Wesley IVF ServiceThe Wesley HospitalQueenslandAustralia

Personalised recommendations