Journal of Reproduction & Infertility

Journal of Reproduction & Infertility

The Association of Kinetic Variables with Blastocyst Development and Ploidy Status

Authors
Francesca Pennetta 1
Cristina Lagalla 2
Raffaella Sciajno 2
Nicoletta Tarozzi 2
Marco Nadalini 2
Carlotta Zacà 2
Giovanni Coticchio 2
Andrea Borini 2
1 Baby Family and Fertility Center, Bologna, Italy; UOC Laboratory Medicine AULSS 5 Polesana, Rovigo, Italy
2 Baby Family and Fertility Center, Bologna, Italy
10.18502/jri.v22i3.6716
Abstract
Background: Despite a plethora of studies conducted so far, a debate is still unresolved as to whether TLM can identify predictive kinetic biomarkers or algorithms universally applicable. Therefore, this study aimed to elucidate if there is a relationship between kinetic variables and ploidy status of human embryos or blastocyst developmental potential. Methods: For conducting this retrospective cohort study, the normal distribution of data was verified using Kolmogorov-Smirnov test with the Lilliefors’ amendment and the Shapiro-Wilk test. Kinetic variables were expressed as median and quartiles (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4). Mann-Whitney U-test was used to compare the median values of parameters. Univariate and multiple logistic regression models were used to assess relationship between blastocyst developmental potential or ploidy status and kinetics. Several confounding factors were also assessed. Results: Blastocyst developmental potential was positively correlated with the t4-t3 interval (s2) (OR=1.417, 95% CI of 1.288-1.560). s2 median value was significantly different between high- and low-quality blastocysts (0.50 and 1.33 hours post-insemination, hpi, respectively; p=0.003). In addition, timing of pronuclear appearance (tPNa) (OR=1.287; 95% CI of 1.131-1.463) had a significant relationship with ploidy changes. The median value of tPNa was statistically different (p=0.03) between euploid and aneuploid blastocysts (Euploid blastocysts=8.9 hpi; aneuploid blastocysts=10.3 hpi). Conclusion: The present findings are in line with the study hypothesis that kinetic analysis may reveal associations between cleavage patterns and embryo development to the blastocyst stage and ploidy status.
Keywords
Aneuploidy
Blastocyst
embryo
Embryonic development
microscopy
Munné S, Wells D. Detection of mosaicism at blastocyst stage with the use of high-resolution next-generation sequencing. Fertil Steril. 2017;107(5):1085-91.
Macklon NS, Geraedts JPM, Fauser BCJM. Conception to ongoing pregnancy: The “black box” of early pregnancy loss. Hum Reprod Update. 2002;8(4):333-43.
Munné S, Sandalinas M, Escudero T, Velilla E, Walmsley R, Sadowy S, et al. Improved implantation after preimplantation genetic diagnosis of aneuploidy. Reprod Biomed Online. 2003;791):91-7.
Scott KL, Hong KH, Scott RT. Selecting the optimal time to perform biopsy for preimplantation genetic testing. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(3):608-14.
Findikli N, Oral E. Time-lapse embryo imaging technology: does it improve the clinical results? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2014;26(3):138-44.
Lagalla C, Barberi M, Orlando G, Sciajno R, Bonu MA, Borini A. A quantitative approach to blastocyst quality evaluation: morphometric analysis and related IVF outcomes. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32(5):705-12.
Coticchio G, Lagalla C, Sturmey R, Pennetta F, Borini A. The enigmatic morula: mechanisms of development, cell fate determination, self-correction and implications for ART. Hum Reprod Update. 2019;25(4):422-38.
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(10):2658-71.
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(10):1115-21.
Milewski R, Kuć P, Kuczyńska A, Stankiewicz B, Łukaszuk K, Kuczyński W. A predictive model for blastocyst formation based on morphokinetic parameters in time-lapse monitoring of embryo development. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32(4):571-9.
Kirkegaard K, Ahlström A, Ingerslev HJ, Hardarson T. Choosing the best embryo by time lapse versus standard morphology. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(2):323-32.
Pennetta F, Lagalla C, Borini A. Embryo morphokinetic characteristics and euploidy. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2018;30(3):185-96.
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(12):2650-60.
Basile N, Nogales MDC, 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(3):699-704.
Veeck LL, Zaninoviae N. An atlas of human blastocysts. 1st ed. New York: The Parthenon Publishing Group; 2003. 367 p.
Oda M, Kanoh Y, Watanabe Y, Masai H. Regulation of DNA replication timing on human chromosome by a cell-type specific DNA binding protein SATB1. PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e42375.
Balakier H, MacLusky NJ, Casper RF. Characterization of the first cell cycle in human zygotes: implications for cryopreservation. Fertil Steril. 1993;59(2):359-65.
Ahlstrm A, Westin C, Reismer E, Wikland M, Hardarson T. Trophectoderm morphology: an important parameter for predicting live birth after single blastocyst transfer. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(12):3289-96.
Hill MJ, Richter KS, Heitmann RJ, Graham JR, Tucker MJ, DeCherney AH, et al. Trophectoderm grade predicts outcomes of single-blastocyst transfers. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(5):1283-9.e1.
Pribenszky C, Losonczi E, Molnár M, Lang Z, Mátyás S, Rajczy K, et al. Prediction of in-vitro developmental competence of early cleavage-stage mouse embryos with compact time-lapse equipment. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;20(3):371-9.
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(2):412-9.e5.
Cruz M, Garrido N, Herrero J, Pérez-Cano I, Muñoz M, Meseguer M. Timing of cell division in human cleavage-stage embryos is linked with blastocyst formation and quality. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012;25(4):371-81.
Desai N, Ploskonka S, Goodman LR, Austin C, Goldberg J, Falcone T. Analysis of embryo morphokinetics, multinucleation and cleavage anomalies using continuous time-lapse monitoring in blastocyst transfer cycles. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2014;12:54.
Coticchio G, Mignini Renzini M, Novara PV, Lain M, De Ponti E, Turchi D, et al. Focused time-lapse analysis reveals novel aspects of human fertilization and suggests new parameters of embryo viability. Hum Reprod. 2018;33(1):23-31.
Journal of Reproduction & Infertility
Volume 22, Issue 3
Summer 2021
Pages 159-164