Patel Deven V, Shah Preeti B, Kotdawala Aditi P, Herrero Javier, Rubio Irene, Banker Manish R
Nova IVI Fertility Centre, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.
Nova IVI Fertility Centre, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
J Hum Reprod Sci. 2016 Apr-Jun;9(2):112-8. doi: 10.4103/0974-1208.183511.
Embryonic aneuploidy may result in miscarriage, implantation failure, or birth defects. Thus, it is clinically necessary to avoid the selection of aneuploid embryos during in vitro fertilization treatment.
The aim of this study was to identify the morphokinetic differences by analyzing the development of euploid and aneuploid embryos using a time-lapse technology. We also checked the accuracy of a previously described model for selection of euploid embryos based on morphokinetics in our study population.
It is a retrospective study of 29 cycles undergoing preimplantation genetic screening from October 2013 to April 2015 at our center. Of 253 embryos, 167 suitable for biopsy embryos were analyzed for their chromosomal status using array-comparative genome hybridization (CGH). The morphokinetic behavior of these embryos was further analyzed in embryoscope using time-lapse technology.
Among the analyzed embryos, 41 had normal and 126 had abnormal chromosome content. No significant difference in morphokinetics was found between euploid and aneuploid embryos. The percentage of embryos with blastulation was similar in the euploid (65.85%, 27/41) and aneuploid (60.31%, 76/126) embryos (P = 0.76). Although hard to define, majority of the chromosomal defects might be due to meiotic errors. On applying embryo selection model from Basile et al., embryos falling within optimal ranges for time to division to 5 cells (t5), time period of the third cell cycle (CC3), and time from 2 cell division to 5 cell division (t5-t2) exhibited greater proportion of normal embryos than those falling outside the optimal ranges (28.6%, 25.9%, and 26.7% vs. 17.5%, 20.8%, and 14.3%).
Keeping a track of time interval between two stages can help us recognize aneuploid embryos at an earlier stage and prevent their selection of transfer. However, it cannot be used as a substitute for array CGH to select euploid embryos for transfer.
胚胎非整倍体可能导致流产、着床失败或出生缺陷。因此,在体外受精治疗过程中,临床上有必要避免选择非整倍体胚胎。
本研究的目的是通过使用延时技术分析整倍体和非整倍体胚胎的发育情况,来识别形态动力学差异。我们还在我们的研究人群中检查了先前描述的基于形态动力学选择整倍体胚胎模型的准确性。
这是一项对2013年10月至2015年4月在我们中心接受植入前基因筛查的29个周期进行的回顾性研究。在253个胚胎中,167个适合活检的胚胎使用阵列比较基因组杂交(CGH)分析其染色体状态。使用延时技术在胚胎观察镜中进一步分析这些胚胎的形态动力学行为。
在分析的胚胎中,41个染色体含量正常,126个异常。整倍体和非整倍体胚胎之间在形态动力学上未发现显著差异。整倍体胚胎(65.85%,27/41)和非整倍体胚胎(60.31%,76/126)中囊胚形成的胚胎百分比相似(P = 0.76)。虽然难以确定,但大多数染色体缺陷可能是由于减数分裂错误。应用Basile等人的胚胎选择模型时,处于分裂至5细胞时间(t5)、第三个细胞周期时长(CC3)以及从2细胞分裂至5细胞分裂时间(t5 - t2)最佳范围的胚胎,其正常胚胎的比例高于超出最佳范围的胚胎(分别为28.6%、25.9%和26.7%,对比17.5%、20.8%和14.3%)。
跟踪两个阶段之间的时间间隔可以帮助我们在更早阶段识别非整倍体胚胎并防止其被选择用于移植。然而,它不能替代阵列CGH来选择整倍体胚胎进行移植。