Advertisement

Embryo Selection Using Metabolomics

  • D. Sakkas
Protocol
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 1154)

Abstract

Faced with an increasing demand to select one embryo to transfer back to patients, a number of techniques are being developed to assist in discriminating differences within the cohort of a patient’s embryos. A new and emerging technology which allows us to measure the profile of different metabolites in embryo culture media and formulate a viability score correlated to implantation potential is metabolomics.

Key words

Metabolomics Embryo selection Near infra red spectrometry Algorithm Embryo viability 

References

  1. 1.
    Steptoe PC, Edwards RG (1978) Birth after the reimplantation of a human embryo [letter]. Lancet 2(8085):366PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Trounson A, Mohr L (1983) Human pregnancy following cryopreservation, thawing and transfer of an eight-cell embryo. Nature 305(5936):707–709PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lutjen P, Trounson A, Leeton J, Findlay J, Wood C, Renou P (1984) The establishment and maintenance of pregnancy using in vitro fertilization and embryo donation in a patient with primary ovarian failure. Nature 307(5947):174–175PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Society for Assisted Reproduction Technology (SART) 2009 data. https://www.sartcorsonline.com/rptCSR_PublicMultYear.aspx?ClinicPKID=0
  5. 5.
    De MJ, Goossens V, Bhattacharya S, Castilla JA, Ferraretti AP, Korsak V et al (2010) Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2006: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 25(8):1851–1862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Adashi EY, Barri PN, Berkowitz R, Braude P, Bryan E, Carr J et al (2003) Infertility therapy-associated multiple pregnancies (births): an ongoing epidemic. Reprod Biomed Online 7(5):515–542PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ledger WL, Anumba D, Marlow N, Thomas CM, Wilson EC (2006) The costs to the NHS of multiple births after IVF treatment in the UK. BJOG 113(1):21–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cummins J, Breen T, Harrison K, Shaw J, Wilson L, Hennessey J (1986) A formula for scoring human embryo growth rates in in vitro fertilization: its value in predicting pregnancy and in comparison with visual estimates of embryo quality. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf 3:284–295PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Edwards R, Fishel S, Cohen J (1984) Factors influencing the success of in vitro fertilization for alleviating human infertility. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf 1:3–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    De Neubourg D, Gerris J (2003) Single embryo transfer—state of the art. Reprod Biomed Online 7(6):615–622PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sakkas D, Gardner DK (2004) Evaluation of embryo quality. In: Gardner DK, Weissman A, Howles C, Shoham Z (eds) Assisted reproduction technology laboratory and clinical perspectives, 2nd edn. Martin Dunitz Press, London, pp 211–234Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sakkas D, Gardner DK (2005) Noninvasive methods to assess embryo quality. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 17(3):283–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gardner DK, Surrey E, Minjarez D, Leitz A, Stevens J, Schoolcraft WB (2004) Single blastocyst transfer: a prospective randomized trial. Fertil Steril 81(3):551–555PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Inge GB, Brinsden PR, Elder KT (2005) Oocyte number per live birth in IVF: were Steptoe and Edwards less wasteful? Hum Reprod 20(3):588–592PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Patrizio P, Sakkas D (2009) From oocyte to baby: a clinical evaluation of the biological efficiency of in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 91(4):1061–1066PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Renard JP, Philippon A, Menezo Y (1980) In-vitro uptake of glucose by bovine blastocysts. J Reprod Fertil 58(1):161–164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gardner DK, Leese HJ (1987) Assessment of embryo viability prior to transfer by the noninvasive measurement of glucose uptake. J Exp Zool 242(1):103–105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lane M, Gardner DK (1996) Selection of viable mouse blastocysts prior to transfer using a metabolic criterion. Hum Reprod 11(9):1975–1978PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Botros L, Sakkas D, Seli E (2008) Metabolomics and its application for non-invasive embryo assessment in IVF. Mol Hum Reprod 14(12):679–690PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Oliver SG, Winson MK, Kell DB, Baganz F (1998) Systematic functional analysis of the yeast genome. Trends Biotechnol 16(9):373–378PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ellis DI, Goodacre R (2006) Metabolic fingerprinting in disease diagnosis: biomedical applications of infrared and Raman spectroscopy. Analyst 131(8):875–885PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Seli E, Sakkas D, Scott R, Kwok SH, Rosendahl S, Burns DH (2007) Non-invasive metabolomic profiling of embryo culture media using Raman and near infrared spectroscopy correlates with reproductive potential of embryos in women undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 88(5):1350–1357PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Katz-Jaffe MG, Schoolcraft WB, Gardner DK (2006) Analysis of protein expression (secretome) by human and mouse preimplantation embryos. Fertil Steril 86(3):678–685PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Katz-Jaffe MG, Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB (2006) Proteomic analysis of individual human embryos to identify novel biomarkers of development and viability. Fertil Steril 85(1):101–107PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Scott R, Seli E, Miller K, Sakkas D, Scott K, Burns DH (2008) Noninvasive metabolomic profiling of human embryo culture media using Raman spectroscopy predicts embryonic reproductive potential: a prospective blinded pilot study. Fertil Steril 90(1):77–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Seli E, Vergouw CG, Morita H, Botros L, Roos P, Lambalk CB et al (2010) Noninvasive metabolomic profiling as an adjunct to morphology for noninvasive embryo assessment in women undergoing single embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 94(2):535–542PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ahlstrom A, Wikland M, Rogberg L, Barnett JS, Tucker M, Hardarson T (2011) Cross-validation and predictive value of near-infrared spectroscopy algorithms for day-5 blastocyst transfer. Reprod Biomed Online 22(5):477–484Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vergouw CG, Botros LL, Roos P, Lens JW, Schats R, Hompes PG et al (2008) Metabolomic profiling by near-infrared spectroscopy as a tool to assess embryo viability: a novel, non-invasive method for embryo selection. Hum Reprod 23(7):1499–1504PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Seli E, Bruce C, Botros L, Henson M, Roos P, Judge K et al (2011) Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis of day 5 morphology grading and metabolomic Viability Score on predicting implantation outcome. J Assist Reprod Genet 28(2):137–144PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hardarson T, Ahlstrom A, Rogberg L, Botros L, Hillensjo T, Westlander G et al (2012) Non-invasive metabolomic profiling of Day 2 and 5 embryo culture media: a prospective randomized trial. Hum Reprod 27:89–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Blake DA, Farquhar CM, Johnson N, Proctor M (2007) Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted conception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (4):CD002118Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Vergouw CG. Metabolomic profiling of culture media by NIR spectroscopy as an adjunct to morphology for selection of a single Day 3 embryo to transfer: a double blind randomised trial (unpublished data)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sfontouris IA, Lainas GT, Sakkas D, Zorzovilis IZ, Petsas GK, Lainas TG (2013) Non-invasive metabolomic analysis using a commercial NIR instrument for embryo selection. J Hum Reprod Sci 6(2):133–139PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van Echten-Arends J, Sikkema-Raddatz B, Korevaar JC, Verhoeve HR et al (2007) In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N Engl J Med 357(1):9–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wells D, Alfarawati S, Fragouli E (2008) Use of comprehensive chromosomal screening for embryo assessment: microarrays and CGH. Mol Hum Reprod 14(12):703–710PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Boston IVFWalthamUSA
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive SciencesYale University School of MedicineNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations