Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The impact of paternal factors on cleavage stage and blastocyst development analyzed by time-lapse imaging—a retrospective observational study

  • Assisted Reproduction Technologies
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Various time-lapse studies have postulated embryo selection criteria based on early morphokinetic markers. However, late paternal effects are mostly not visible before embryonic genome activation. The primary objective of this retrospective study was to investigate whether those early morphokinetic algorithms investigated by time-lapse imaging are reliable enough to allow for the accurate selection of those embryos that develop into blastocysts, while of course taking into account the correlation with the type of injected spermatozoa.

Methods

During a period of 18 months, a total of 461 MII oocytes from 43 couples with severe male factor infertility and previous “external” IVF failures after cleavage-stage embryo transfer (ET) were fertilized by intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection (IMSI). Thereof, 373 embryos were monitored in a time-lapse incubator until ET on day 5. Blastocyst outcome in combination with three previously postulated MKc (cc2: t3–t2, 5–12 h; t3, 35–40 h; t5, 48–56 h) and the morphology of the selected sperm were analyzed.

Results

A significant increase in the rate of blastocysts (54.0 vs. 36.3 %; P < 0.01) and top blastocysts (25.3 vs. 10.8 %; P < 0.001) was observed in the group of those meeting all three morphokinetic criteria (MKc3). However, MKc3 were only met in 23.3 % of all embryos. Moreover, TBR was influenced by the type of injected spermatozoa. In both groups, TBR decreased dramatically (MKc3, 35.0 vs. 17.0 %; MKc < 3, 14.2 vs. 8.4 %) when class II/III sperm instead of class I were injected.

Conclusion

Early morphokinetic parameters might give some predictive information but fail to serve as a feasible selective tool for the prediction of blastocyst development given the influence of the type of spermatozoa injected.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gardner DK, Lane M, Stevens J, Schlenker T, Schoolcraft WB. Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: towards a single blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril. 2000;73:1155–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kovacic B, Vlaisavljevic V, Reljic M, Cizek-Sajko M. Developmental capacity of different morphological types of day 5 human morulae and blastocysts. Reprod Biomed Online. 2004;8:687–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wilson M, Hartke K, Kiehl M, Rodgers J, Brabec C, Lyles R. Integration of blastocyst transfer for all patients. Fertil Steril. 2002;77:693–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Papanikolaou EG, Camus M, Kolibianakis EM, Van Landuyt L, Van Steirteghem A, Devroey P. In vitro fertilization with single blastocyst-stage versus single cleavage-stage embryos. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:1139–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Zech NH, Lejeune B, Puissant F, Vanderzwalmen S, Zech H, Vanderzwalmen P. Prospective evaluation of the optimal time for selecting a single embryo for transfer: day 3 versus day 5. Fertil Steril. 2007;88:244–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Källén B, Finnström O, Lindam A, Nilsson E, Nygren KG, Olausson PO. Blastocyst versus cleavage stage transfer in in vitro fertilization: differences in neonatal outcome? Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1680–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Oron G, Sokal-Arnon T, Son WY, Demirtas E, Buckett W, Zeadna A, et al. Extended embryo culture is not associated with increased adverse obstetric or perinatal outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211:165.e1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Maxwell SM, Melzer-Ross K, McCulloh DH, Grifo JA. A comparison of pregnancy outcomes between day 3 and day 5/6 embryo transfers: does day of embryo transfer really make a difference? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32:249–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Graham J, Han T, Porter R, Levy M, Stillman R, Tucker MJ. Day 3 morphology is a poor predictor of blastocyst quality in extended culture. Fertil Steril. 2000;74:495–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Guerif F, Le Gouge A, Giraudeau B, Poindron J, Bidault R, Gasnier O, et al. Limited value of morphological assessment at days 1 and 2 to predict blastocyst development potential: a prospective study based on 4042 embryos. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:1973–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Van der Zwalmen P, Bertin-Segal G, Geerts L, Debauche C, Schoysman R. Sperm morphology and IVF pregnancy rate: comparison between Percoll gradient centrifugation and swim-up procedures. Hum Reprod. 1991;6:581–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tesarik J, Greco E, Mendoza C. Late, but not early, paternal effect on human embryo development is related to sperm DNA fragmentation. Hum Reprod. 2004;19:611–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Meseguer M, Herrero J, Tejera A, Hilligsøe KM, Ramsing NB, Remohí J. The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of embryo implantation. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:2658–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Meseguer M. Morphokinetic analysis of human embryos; an update. In: Alpha 2012- 9th Biennial Conference Church House Conference Centre Westminster - London UK. 2012. http://www.alphaconference.org/media/London_2012/Presentations_Speakers/Presentations_28.4/09_00_MeseguerM_Morphokinetics%20analysis%20of%20human%20embryos;%20an%20update.pdf [Internet] [cited 2015 April 21].

  15. Wong CC, Loewke KE, Bossert NL, Behr B, de Jonge CJ, Baer TM, et al. Noninvasive imaging of human embryos before embryonic genome activation predicts development to the blastocyst stage. Nat Biotechnol. 2010;28:1115–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Conaghan J, Chen AA, Willman SP, Ivani K, Chenette PE, Boostanfar R, et al. Improving embryo selection using a computer-automated time-lapse image analysis test plus day 3 morphology: results from a prospective multicenter trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:412–9. e5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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;26:477–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Knez K, Tomazevic T, Vrtacnik-Bokal E, Virant-Klun I. Developmental dynamics of IMSI-derived embryos: a time-lapse prospective study. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;27:161–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bartoov B, Berkovitz A, Eltes F. Selection of spermatozoa with normal nuclei to improve the pregnancy rate with intracytoplasmic sperm injection. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:1067–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gopalkrishnan K, Padwal V, Meherji PK, Gokral JS, Shah R, Juneja HS. Poor quality of sperm as it affects repeated early pregnancy loss. Arch Androl. 2000;45:111–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Berkovitz A, Eltes F, Yaari S, Katz N, Barr I, Fishman A, et al. The morphological normalcy of the sperm nucleus and pregnancy rate of intracytoplasmic injection with morphologically selected sperm. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:185–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hazout A, Dumont-Hassan M, Junca AM, Cohen Bacrie P, Tesarik J. High-magnification ICSI overcomes paternal effect resistant to conventional ICSI. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;12:19–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Garolla A, Fortini D, Menegazzo M, De Toni L, Nicoletti V, Moretti A, et al. High-power microscopy for selecting spermatozoa for ICSI by physiological status. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;17:610–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Perdrix A, Travers A, Chelli MH, Escalier D, Do Rego JL, Milazzo JP, et al. Assessment of acrosome and nuclear abnormalities in human spermatozoa with large vacuoles. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:47–58.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Boitrelle F, Ferfouri F, Petit JM, Segretain D, Tourain C, Bergere M, et al. Large human sperm vacuoles observed in motile spermatozoa under high magnification: nuclear thumbprints linked to failure of chromatin condensation. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:1650–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Franco Jr JG, Mauri AL, Petersen CG, Massaro FC, Silva LF, Felipe V, et al. Large nuclear vacuoles are indicative of abnormal chromatin packaging in human spermatozoa. Int J Androl. 2012;35:46–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Utsuno H, Miyamoto T, Oka K, Shiozawa T. Morphological alterations in protamine-deficient spermatozoa. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:2374–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Vanderzwalmen P, Hiemer A, Rubner P, Bach M, Neyer A, Stecher A, et al. Blastocyst development after sperm selection at high magnification is associated with size and number of nuclear vacuoles. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;17:617–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Cassuto NG, Bouret D, Plouchart JM, Jellad S, Vanderzwalmen P, Balet R, et al. A new real-time morphology classification for human spermatozoa: a link for fertilization and improved embryo quality. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:1616–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Knez K, Zorn B, Tomazevic T, Vrtacnik-Bokal E, Virant-Klun I. The IMSI procedure improves poor embryo development in the same infertile couples with poor semen quality: a comparative prospective randomized study. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2011;9:123.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Setti AS, Braga DP, Vingris L, Serzedello T, Figueira Rde C, Iaconelli Jr A, et al. Sperm morphological abnormalities visualised at high magnification predict embryonic development, from fertilisation to the blastocyst stage, in couples undergoing ICSI. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31:1533–139.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bartoov B, Berkovitz A, Eltes F, Kogosowski A, Menezo Y, Barak Y. Real-time fine morphology of motile human sperm cells is associated with IVF-ICSI outcome. J Androl. 2002;23:1–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Bartoov B, Berkovitz A, Eltes F, Kogosovsky A, Yagoda A, Lederman H, et al. Pregnancy rates are higher with intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection than with conventional intracytoplasmic injection. Fertil Steril. 2003;80:1413–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kim HJ, Yoon HJ, Jang JM, Oh HS, Lee YJ, Lee WD, et al. Comparison between intracytoplasmic sperm injection and intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection in oligo-astheno-teratozoospermia patients. Clin Exp Reprod Med. 2014;41:9–14.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Berkovitz A, Eltes F, Ellenbogen A, Peer S, Feldberg D, Bartoov B. Does the presence of nuclear vacuoles in human sperm selected for ICSI affect pregnancy outcome? Hum Reprod. 2006;21:1787–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Berkovitz A, Eltes F, Lederman H, Peer S, Ellenbogen A, Feldberg B, et al. How to improve IVF-ICSI outcome by sperm selection. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;12:634–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Antinori M, Licata E, Dani G, Cerusico F, Versaci C, d’Angelo D, et al. Intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection: a prospective randomized trial. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;16:835–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Berkovitz A, Eltes F, Paul M, Adrian E, Benjamin B. The chance of having a healthy normal child following intracytoplasmic morphologically-selected sperm injection (IMSI) treatment is higher compared to conventional IVF-ICSI treatment. Fertil Steril. 2007;88:20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Cassuto NG, Hazout A, Bouret D, Balet R, Larue L, Benifla JL, et al. Low birth defects by deselecting abnormal spermatozoa before ICSI. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;28:47–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. World Health Organisation. Department of Reproductive Health and Research WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. 5. 2010. p. 287p.

  41. Vanderzwalmen P, Bach M, Gaspard O, Lejeune B, Neyer A, Puissant F, et al. Morphological selection of gametes and embryos: sperm. In: A practical guide to selecting gametes and embryos. Edited by Markus Montag Chapter IV. Sperm. CRC Press 2014. pp. 59–79.

  42. Kirkegaard K, Ahlström A, Ingerslev HJ, Hardarson T. Choosing the best embryo by time lapse versus standard morphology. Fertil Steril. 2015;103:323–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Cruz M, Garrido N, Herrero J, Perez-Cano I, Munoz M, Meseguer M. Timing of cell division in human cleavage-stage embryos is linked with blastocyst formation and quality. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012;25:371–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Dal Canto M, Coticchio G, Mignini Renzini M, de Ponti E, Novara PV, Brambillasca F, et al. Cleavage kinetics analysis of human embryos predicts development to blastocyst and implantation. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012;25:474–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Hashimoto S, Kato N, Saeki K, Morimoto Y. Selection of high-potential embryos by culture in poly(dimethylsiloxane) microwells and time-lapse imaging. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:332–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Hlinka D, Kalatova B, Uhrinova I, Dolinska S, Rutarova J, Rezacova J, et al. Time-lapse cleavage rating predicts human embryo viability. Physiol Res. 2012;61:513–25.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Kirkegaard K, Kesmodel US, Hindkjaer JJ, Ingerslev HJ. Time-lapse parameters as predictors of blastocyst development and pregnancy outcome in embryos from good prognosis patients: a prospective cohort study. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:2643–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Stecher A, Vanderzwalmen P, Zintz M, Wirleitner B, Schuff M, Spitzer D, et al. Transfer of blastocysts with deviant morphological and morphokinetic parameters at early stages of in-vitro development: a case series. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;28:424–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Shaw-Jackson C, Bertrand E, Becker B, Colin J, Beaudoin-Chabot C, Rozenberg S, et al. Vitrification of blastocysts derived from fair to poor quality cleavage stage embryos can produce high pregnancy rates after warming. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2013;30:1035–42.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Kaartinen N, Das P, Kananen K, Huhtala H, Tinkanen H. Can repeated IVF-ICSI-cycles be avoided by using blastocysts developing from poor-quality cleavage stage embryos? Reprod Biomed Online. 2015;30:241–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Barroso G, Valdespin C, Vega E, Kershenovich R, Avila R, Avendaño C, et al. Developmental sperm contributions: fertilization and beyond. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:835–48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Simon L, Murphy K, Shamsi MB, Liu L, Emery B, Aston KI, et al. Paternal influence of sperm DNA integrity on early embryonic development. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:2402–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Armstrong S, Vail A, Mastenbroek S, Jordan V, Farquhar C. Time-lapse in the IVF-lab: how should we assess potential benefit? Hum Reprod. 2015;30:3–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Kaser DJ, Racowsky C. Clinical outcomes following selection of human preimplantation embryos with time-lapse monitoring: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20:617–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Oliveira JB, Cavagna M, Petersen CG, Mauri AL, Massaro FC, Silva LF, et al. Pregnancy outcomes in women with repeated implantation failures after intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection (IMSI). Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2011;9:99.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IVF Centers Prof. Zech—Bregenz, Römerstrasse 2, 6900, Bregenz, Austria

    Anton Neyer, Martin Zintz, Astrid Stecher, Magnus Bach, Barbara Wirleitner, Nicolas H. Zech & Pierre Vanderzwalmen

  2. Centre Hospitalier Interrégional Edith Cavell (CHIREC), Braine-l’Alleud, Brussels, Belgium

    Pierre Vanderzwalmen

Authors
  1. Anton Neyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martin Zintz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Astrid Stecher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Magnus Bach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Barbara Wirleitner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nicolas H. Zech
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Pierre Vanderzwalmen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anton Neyer.

Additional information

Capsule Time-lapse imaging allows the detailed recording of embryonal morphokinetics until the day of transfer. However, by the use of time-lapse imaging, we were able to demonstrate that blastocyst development cannot be predicted accurately by a recently postulated time-lapse-based selection model in OAT patients with poor sperm morphology. Optimal sperm selection by IMSI and embryo selection at the blastocyst stage take into account the late paternal effect and, most probably, have a higher predictive value for the IVF outcome.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Neyer, A., Zintz, M., Stecher, A. et al. The impact of paternal factors on cleavage stage and blastocyst development analyzed by time-lapse imaging—a retrospective observational study. J Assist Reprod Genet 32, 1607–1614 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-015-0558-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-015-0558-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation