Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Time-lapse imaging reveals delayed development of embryos carrying unbalanced chromosomal translocations

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

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of the study was to compare the morphokinetic parameters of embryos carrying balanced chromosomal translocations with those carrying unbalanced chromosomal translocations using time-lapse microscopy.

Methods

The study group included 270 embryos that underwent biopsies on day 3 for preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) for chromosomal translocations in our unit between 2013 and 2015. All embryos were incubated under time-lapse microscopy and evaluated for timing of developmental events up to day 5. The timing of these events was compared between balanced and unbalanced embryos, potentially viable and nonviable variants, and maternal versus paternal inheritance of the translocation.

Results

The PGD analysis found that 209 (77%) of the 270 biopsied embryos carried an unbalanced translocation. Embryos carrying unbalanced translocations, which are expected to lead to implantation failure or miscarriage, cleaved less synchronously and were delayed in time of cleavage to the 4-cell stage (t4) and in time of start of blastulation (tSB) compared with balanced embryos (P < 0.05). Furthermore, embryos carrying nonviable translocations demonstrated a significant delay at the time of pronuclei fading (tPNf) compared with those carrying potentially viable translocations (P < 0.05). Embryos whose unbalanced translocations were of maternal origin were significantly delayed in most of the morphokinetic parameters (including tPNf, t2, t3, t4, t6, t7, t8, cc2, s2, and tSB) compared with embryos carrying balanced translocations (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

Embryos carrying unbalanced chromosomal translocations mainly of maternal origin undergo delayed development and asynchronous cleavage that may lead to implantation failure or miscarriage.

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
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Liss J, Kiewisz J, Zabielska J, Kulwikowska P, Lukaszuk K. Application of FISH method for preimplantation genetic diagnostics of reciprocal and Robertsonian translocations. Folia Histochem Cytobiol. 2015;53:162–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Fischer J, Colls P, Escudero T, Munne S. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) improves pregnancy outcome for translocation carriers with a history of recurrent losses. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:283–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Chen CK, Wu D, Yu HT, Lin CY, Wang ML, Yeh HY, et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis by fluorescence in situ hybridization of reciprocal and Robertsonian translocations. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;53:48–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Loh SF, Wong PC, Jiang B, Yeo GH, Tan AS, Prasath EB, et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis of chromosome translocations by analysis of polymorphic short tandem repeats. Singap Med J. 2012;53:648–54.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Stern C, Pertile M, Norris H, Hale L, Baker HW. Chromosome translocations in couples with in-vitro fertilization implantation failure. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:2097–101.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lledo B, Ortiz JA, Morales R, Ten J, de la Fuente PE, Garcia-Ochoa C, et al. The paternal effect of chromosome translocation carriers observed from meiotic segregation in embryos. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:1843–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Escudero T, Abdelhadi I, Sandalinas M, Munne S. Predictive value of sperm fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis on the outcome of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for translocations. Fertil Steril. 2003;79(Suppl 3):1528–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Scriven PN, Kirby TL, Ogilvie CM. FISH for pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. J Vis Exp. 2011. https://doi.org/10.3791/2570

  9. Colls P, Escudero T, Fischer J, Cekleniak NA, Ben-Ozer S, Meyer B, et al. Validation of array comparative genome hybridization for diagnosis of translocations in preimplantation human embryos. Reprod BioMed Online. 2012;24:621–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kirkegaard K, Ahlstrom 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 

  11. 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;29:2650–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wong C, Chen AA, Behr B, Shen S. Time-lapse microscopy and image analysis in basic and clinical embryo development research. Reprod BioMed Online. 2013;26:120–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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. Fertil Steril. 2016;106:1379–85 e10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chen AA, Tan L, Suraj V, Reijo Pera R, Shen S. Biomarkers identified with time-lapse imaging: discovery, validation, and practical application. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:1035–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Herrero J, Meseguer M. Selection of high potential embryos using time-lapse imaging: the era of morphokinetics. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:1030–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Herrero J, Tejera A, Albert C, Vidal C, de los Santos MJ, Meseguer M. A time to look back: analysis of morphokinetic characteristics of human embryo development. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:1602–9 e1–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kirkegaard K, Agerholm IE, Ingerslev HJ. Time-lapse monitoring as a tool for clinical embryo assessment. Hum Reprod. 2012;27:1277–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Campbell A, Fishel S, Laegdsmand M. Aneuploidy is a key causal factor of delays in blastulation: author response to 'A cautionary note against aneuploidy risk assessment using time-lapse imaging'. Reprod BioMed Online. 2014;28:279–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 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 

  21. Campbell A, Fishel S, Bowman N, Duffy S, Sedler M, Thornton S. Retrospective analysis of outcomes after IVF using an aneuploidy risk model derived from time-lapse imaging without PGS. Reprod BioMed Online. 2013;27:140–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Coonen E, Dumoulin JC, Ramaekers FC, Hopman AH. Optimal preparation of preimplantation embryo interphase nuclei for analysis by fluorescence in-situ hybridization. Hum Reprod. 1994;9:533–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Barbash-Hazan S, Frumkin T, Malcov M, Yaron Y, Cohen T, Azem F, et al. Preimplantation aneuploid embryos undergo self-correction in correlation with their developmental potential. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:890–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kim HY. Statistical notes for clinical researchers: assessing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis. Restor Dent Endod. 2013;38:52–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Dutta UR, Rajitha P, Pidugu VK, Dalal AB. Cytogenetic abnormalities in 1162 couples with recurrent miscarriages in southern region of India: report and review. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2011;28:145–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Davies S, Christopikou D, Tsorva E, Karagianni A, Handyside AH, Mastrominas M. Delayed cleavage division and prolonged transition between 2 and 4 cell stages in embryos identified as aneuploidy at 8 cell stage in array CGH. Hum Reprod. 2012;27:ii84–i6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Chavez SL, Loewke KE, Han J, Moussavi F, Colls P, Munne S, et al. Dynamic blastomere behaviour reflects human embryo ploidy by the four-cell stage. Nat Commun. 2012;3:1251.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Basile N, Nogales Mdel C, Bronet F, Florensa M, Riqueiros M, Rodrigo L, et al. Increasing the probability of selecting chromosomally normal embryos by time-lapse morphokinetics analysis. Fertil Steril. 2014;101:699–704.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Patel DV, Shah PB, Kotdawala AP, Herrero J, Rubio I, Banker MR. Morphokinetic behavior of euploid and aneuploid embryos analyzed by time-lapse in embryoscope. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2016;9:112–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Yang Z, Zhang J, Salem SA, Liu X, Kuang Y, Salem RD, et al. Selection of competent blastocysts for transfer by combining time-lapse monitoring and array CGH testing for patients undergoing preimplantation genetic screening: a prospective study with sibling oocytes. BMC Med Genet. 2014;7:38.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Chawla M, Fakih M, Shunnar A, Bayram A, Hellani A, Perumal V, et al. Morphokinetic analysis of cleavage stage embryos and its relationship to aneuploidy in a retrospective time-lapse imaging study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32:69–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Wharf E, Dimitrakopoulos A, Khalaf Y, Pickering S. Early embryo development is an indicator of implantation potential. Reprod BioMed Online. 2004;8:212–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Fancsovits P, Toth L, Takacs ZF, Murber A, Papp Z, Urbancsek J. Early pronuclear breakdown is a good indicator of embryo quality and viability. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:881–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 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;18:1307–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Aguilar J, Motato Y, Escriba MJ, Ojeda M, Munoz E, Meseguer M. The human first cell cycle: impact on implantation. Reprod BioMed Online. 2014;28:475–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Lemmen JG, Agerholm I, Ziebe S. Kinetic markers of human embryo quality using time-lapse recordings of IVF/ICSI-fertilized oocytes. Reprod BioMed Online. 2008;17:385–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Wong CC, Loewke KE, Bossert NL, Behr B, De Jonge CJ, Baer TM, et al. Non-invasive 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 

  38. 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 

  39. Vozdova M, Oracova E, Kasikova K, Prinosilova P, Rybar R, Horinova V, et al. Balanced chromosomal translocations in men: relationships among semen parameters, chromatin integrity, sperm meiotic segregation and aneuploidy. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2013;30:391–405.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Dong Y, Du RC, Jiang YT, Wu J, Li LL, Liu RZ. Impact of chromosomal translocations on male infertility, semen quality, testicular volume and reproductive hormone levels. J Int Med Res. 2012;40:2274–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Zhang HG, Wang RX, Li LL, Sun WT, Zhang HY, Liu RZ. Male carriers of balanced reciprocal translocations in Northeast China: sperm count, reproductive performance, and genetic counseling. Genet Mol Res. 2015;14:18792–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Sobotka V, Vozdova M, Heracek J, Rubes J. A rare Robertsonian translocation rob(14;22) carrier with azoospermia, meiotic defects, and testicular sperm aneuploidy. Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2015;61:245–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Nishikawa N, Sato T, Suzumori N, Sonta S, Suzumori K. Meiotic segregation analysis in male translocation carriers by using fluorescent in situ hybridization. Int J Androl. 2008;31:60–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Ko DS, Cho JW, Lee HS, Kim JY, Kang IS, Yang KM, et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis outcomes and meiotic segregation analysis of robertsonian translocation carriers. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:1369–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Oliver-Bonet M, Benet J, Sun F, Navarro J, Abad C, Liehr T, et al. Meiotic studies in two human reciprocal translocations and their association with spermatogenic failure. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:683–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Bar-El, et al. Blastomere biopsy for PGD delays embryo compaction and blastulation: a time-lapse microscopic analysis. JARG. 2016;33:1449–57.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IVF Lab & Wolfe PGD-Stem Cell Lab, Racine IVF Unit, Lis Maternity Hospital, Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel, affiliated to the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, 6 Weizman Street, 6423906, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Hadar Amir, Shiri Barbash-Hazan, Yael Kalma, Tsvia Frumkin, Mira Malcov, Nivin Samara, Joseph Hasson, Adi Reches, Foad Azem & Dalit Ben-Yosef

  2. Department of Cell Biology and Development, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Dalit Ben-Yosef

Authors
  1. Hadar Amir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shiri Barbash-Hazan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yael Kalma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tsvia Frumkin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mira Malcov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nivin Samara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Joseph Hasson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Adi Reches
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Foad Azem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Dalit Ben-Yosef
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dalit Ben-Yosef.

Ethics declarations

The study was approved by the ethics committee of the Tel Aviv Medical Center and institutional review board approval for retrieving IVF data was obtained (748/15).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 21.7 kb)

Supplemental Fig. 1

Comparison between the distribution of time-lapse morphokinetic parameters of embryos carrying balanced translocations with maternal and paternal origin (marked as 1) and embryos carrying unbalanced translocations with maternal origin (marked as 2). Pronuclei fading (tPNf), t2, t3, t4, t6, t7, t8 = time (h) between ICSI and pronuclei fading, two-, three-, four-, six-, seven and eight-cell stage, respectively; cc2 = length (h) of the second cell cycle; s2 = synchrony (h) in the division from three to four cells. Initiation of blastulation (tSB) is defined by time (h) between ICSI and initiation of blastulation. The mean (for tPNf, t2, t3, t4, t6, t7, t8 and tSB) and median (for cc2 and s2) values are indicated by red dots. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. (PNG 35.4 kb)

High resolution image (TIF 2143 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Amir, H., Barbash-Hazan, S., Kalma, Y. et al. Time-lapse imaging reveals delayed development of embryos carrying unbalanced chromosomal translocations. J Assist Reprod Genet 36, 315–324 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-018-1361-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-018-1361-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation