Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Dulioust, E.
Right arrow Articles by Auroux, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Dulioust, E.
Right arrow Articles by Auroux, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Human Reproduction, Vol. 14, No. 5, 1141-1145, May 1999
© 1999 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology

Debates Continued

Embryo cryopreservation and development: facts, questions and responsibility

Emmanuel Dulioust1,3, Marie-Claire Busnel2, Michele Carlier2, Pierre Roubertoux2 and Maurice Auroux1

1 Biologie de la Reproduction et du Développement, CHU de Bicêtre, Universite Paris-Sud, 94275 Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, and 2 Genétique, Neurogenétique, Comportement, CNRS UPR 9074, Institut de Transgénose, 3B rue de la Férollerie, 45071 Orleans Cedex 02, France

Four years ago, the results of an experimental study led us to conclude that in the mouse, cryopreservation of preimplantation embryo induced post-natal effects and thus could not be considered as neutral for the long-term development (Dulioust et al., 1995Go). This raised some concern in the scientific community and in the public about the safety of embryo cryopreservation in human assisted procreation. It has even been said that we had withdrawn our conclusions (Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, 1996Go); this was unfounded. Since then, only few studies have focused on this issue. Recently, a severe attack of our work was published (Testart, 1998Go). Here, we examine these criticisms and discuss the state of the art in the light of recent clinical and experimental studies.

Methodological criticisms

Principles of the study
According to Testart (1998), our research was limited to some kind of statistical fishing, lacking rational hypotheses, since `it appears that the . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Statistical analysis
No report of some negative results
Discussion of the results

Maternal factor as a possible source of bias
Variability of the observed differences
Size of the differences
Selective bias
Evaluation of embryo cryopreservation and other assisted reproductive technologies, today and future

Transmission of information to the couples
Conclusions

Notes

References


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
J. Testart
Facts of artefacts—epigenetic or episcientific?
Hum. Reprod., June 1, 1999; 14(6): 1665 - 1665.
[Full Text] [PDF]