Human Reproduction, Vol. 18, No. 2, 399-407,
February 2003
© 2003 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology
A morphological and chromosomal study of blastocysts developing from morphologically suboptimal human pre-embryos compared with control blastocysts
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Göteborg University, SU/Sahlgrenska, 413 45 Gothenburg, Sweden
1 To whom correspondence should be addressed. e-mail: thorir.hardarson{at}obgyn.gu.se
BACKGROUND: IVF laboratories performing embryo transfer at day 2 or 3 after fertilization are currently discarding pre-embryos considered suboptimal using morphological criteria. The objective of this study was to investigate whether blastocysts, cultured from such pre-embryos (surplus), were chromosomally and morphologically normal. As a control group we used morphologically good quality embryos (GQE), cultured to the blastocyst stage. METHODS: Human pre-embryos considered suboptimal were cultured to the blastocyst stage. As a control group, frozen–thawed pre-embryos of good quality were cultured under identical conditions. The chromosomal status of the blastocysts obtained was studied by multi-colour fluorescence in-situ hybridization for chromosomes 13, 16, 18, 21, 22, X and Y. RESULTS: There is, on average, a significantly higher degree of chromosomal aberrations in blastocysts derived from surplus pre-embryos compared to blastocysts derived from GQE, and the chromosomal aberrations are generally found in a higher number of blastomeres per blastocyst. In addition, blastocysts from surplus pre-embryos had significantly poorer morphology compared to GQE. Improvement in morphology and/or developmental rate in surplus pre-embryos between day 2 and day 3 did not predict a morphologically/chromosomally normal blastocyst. However, this study shows that close to half of the surplus pre-embryos that reach the blastocyst stage can be considered chromosomally normal when assessed for these seven chromosomes. Furthermore, we found that chromosomal aberrations were more concentrated in a particular cell population within blastocysts derived from GQE, compared with surplus blastocysts. CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that even if the IVF laboratory is on average making the correct decision about the potential of a pre-embryo, surplus pre-embryos that might become chromosomally normal blastocysts are still being discarded.
Key words: blastocyst/pre-embryo/aneuploidy/FISH/IVF
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  T. Hardarson, C. Hanson, K. Lundin, T. Hillensjo, L. Nilsson, J. Stevic, E. Reismer, K. Borg, M. Wikland, and C. Bergh Preimplantation genetic screening in women of advanced maternal age caused a decrease in clinical pregnancy rate: a randomized controlled trial Hum. Reprod., December 1, 2008; 23(12): 2806 - 2812. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Feki, O. Hovatta, and M. Jaconi Derivation of human embryonic stem cell lines from single cells of 4-cell stage embryos: be aware of the risks Hum. Reprod., December 1, 2008; 23(12): 2874 - 2874. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
X. Sun, X. Long, Y. Yin, Y. Jiang, X. Chen, W. Liu, W. Zhang, H. Du, S. Li, Y. Zheng, et al. Similar biological characteristics of human embryonic stem cell lines with normal and abnormal karyotypes Hum. Reprod., October 1, 2008; 23(10): 2185 - 2193. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. Allegrucci and L.E. Young Differences between human embryonic stem cell lines Hum. Reprod. Update, March 1, 2007; 13(2): 103 - 120. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N. Heins, M. C.O. Englund, C. Sjoblom, U. Dahl, A. Tonning, C. Bergh, A. Lindahl, C. Hanson, and H. Semb Derivation, Characterization, and Differentiation of Human Embryonic Stem Cells Stem Cells, May 1, 2004; 22(3): 367 - 376. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Coonen, J. G. Derhaag, J. C.M. Dumoulin, L. C.P. van Wissen, M. Bras, M. Janssen, J. L.H. Evers, and J. P.M. Geraedts Anaphase lagging mainly explains chromosomal mosaicism in human preimplantation embryos Hum. Reprod., February 1, 2004; 19(2): 316 - 324. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|