Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-558cb97cc8-kfd6t Total loading time: 0.863 Render date: 2022-10-07T09:33:01.920Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": true, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Chapter 8 - Timing of Embryo Culture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2021

Kersti Lundin
Affiliation:
Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg
Aisling Ahlström
Affiliation:
Livio Fertility Center, Gothenburg
Get access

Summary

Following the fusion of the oocyte and spermatozoon and successful oocyte activation, preimplantation development begins with the formation of the zygote, displaying two pronuclei and two polar bodies if correctly fertilized (Figure 8.1). Embryo development continues with the onset of cleavage, i.e., consecutive mitotic divisions, leading to a major wave of embryonic genome activation between the 4- and 8-cell stages on Day 3 of development.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Niakan, KK, Han, J, Pedersen, RA, Simon, C, Pera, RA. Human pre-implantation embryo development. Development. 2012;139:829841.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Royen, E, Mangelschots, K, De Neubourg, D, et al. Characterization of a top quality embryo, a step towards single-embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 1999;14: 23452349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine and ESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology. The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:12701283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magli, MC, Gianaroli, L, Ferraretti, AP, Lappi, M, Ruberti, A, Farfalli, V. Embryo morphology and development are dependent on the chromosomal complement. Fertil Steril. 2007;87:534541.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whitten, WK. Culture of tubal mouse ova. Nature. 1956;177:96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McLaren, A, Biggers, JD. Successful development and birth of mice cultivated in vitro as early as early embryos. Nature. 1958;182:877878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, P. Culture systems: Sequential. In: Smith, GD, Swain, JE, Pool, TB. (eds) Methods in Molecular Biology, 912. Totawa, NJ: Humana Press; 2012: 211230.Google Scholar
Gardner, DK, Lane, M. Culture and selection of viable blastocysts: a feasible proposition for human IVF? Hum Reprod Update. 1997;3: 367382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Machtinger, R, Racowsky, C. Culture systems: Single step. In: Smith, GD, Swain, JE, Pool, TB. (eds) Methods in Molecular Biology, 912. Totawa, NJ: Humana Press;2012:199209.Google Scholar
Sfontouris, IA, Martins, WP, Nastri, CO, Viana, IG, et al. Blastocyst culture using single versus sequential media in clinical IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;33: 12611272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bourdon, M, Pocate-Cheriet, K, Finet de Bantel, A, et al. Day 5 versus Day 6 blastocyst transfers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes. Hum Reprod. 2019;34:19481964.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tannus, S, Cohen, Y, Henderson, S, et al. Fresh transfer of Day 5 slow-growing embryos versus deferred transfer of vitrified, fully expanded Day 6 blastocysts: which is the optimal approach? Hum Reprod. 2019;34:4451.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arce, JC, Ziebe, S, Lundin, K, Janssens, R, Helmgaard, L, Sørensen, P. Interobserver agreement and intraobserver reproducibility of embryo quality assessments. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:21412148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rijnders, PM, Jansen, CA. The predictive value of day 3 embryo morphology regarding blastocyst formation, pregnancy and implantation rate after day 5 transfer following in-vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod. 1998;13: 28692873.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Minasi, MG, Colasante, A, Riccio, T, et al. Correlation between aneuploidy, standard morphology evaluation and morphokinetic development in 1730 biopsied blastocysts: a consecutive case series study. Hum Reprod. 2016;31: 22452254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Blastocyst culture and transfer in clinically assisted reproduction: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2018;110: 12461252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berntsen, S, Soderstrom-Anttila, V, Wennerholm, UB, et al. The health of children conceived by ART: ‘the chicken or the egg?’. Hum Reprod Update. 2019; 25 : 137158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ESHRE PGT Consortium and SIG-Embryology Biopsy Working Group, Kokkali, G, Coticchio, G, Bronet, F, Celebi, C, Cimadomo, D, Goossens, V, Liss, J, Nunes, S, Sfontouris, I, Vermeulen, N, Zakharova, E, De Rycke, M. Hum Reprod Open. 2020; 29: 2020(3).Google Scholar
Scott, RT Jr, Upham, KM, Forman, EJ, Zhao, T, Treff, NR. Cleavage-stage biopsy significantly impairs human embryonic implantation potential while blastocyst biopsy does not: a randomized and paired clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;100: 624630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, H, De Vos, A, Sermon, K, et al. Embryo implantation after biopsy of one or two cells from cleavage-stage embryos with a view to preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Prenat Diagn. 2000;20: 10301037.3.0.CO;2-D>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geraedts, J, Sermon, K. Preimplantation genetic screening 2.0: the theory. Mol Hum Reprod. 2016;22:839844.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glujovsky, D, Farquhar, C, Quinteiro Retamar, AM, Alvarez Sedo, CR, Blake, D. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;(6):CD002118. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002118.pub5.Google Scholar
Cobo, A, de los Santos, MJ, Castello, D, Gamiz, P, Campos, P, Remohi, J. Outcomes of vitrified early cleavage-stage and blastocyst-stage embryos in a cryopreservation program: evaluation of 3,150 warming cycles. Fertil Steril. 2012;98: 11381146 e1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez-Shaw, S, Cercas, R, Brana, C, Villas, C, Pons, I. Ongoing and cumulative pregnancy rate after cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfer using vitrification for cryopreservation: impact of age on the results. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32: 177184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morbeck, DE. Blastocyst culture in the Era of PGS and FreezeAlls: Is a ‘C’ a failing grade? Human Reprod Open. 2017;2017:hox017.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Devroey, P, Polyzos, NP, Blockeel, C. An OHSS-free clinic by segmentation of IVF treatment. Human Reprod. 2011;26: 25932597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nastri, CO, Teixeira, DM, Moroni, RM, Leitao, VM, Martins, WP. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: pathophysiology, staging, prediction and prevention. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;45:377393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lainas, G, Kolibianakis, E, Sfontouris, I, et al. Outpatient management of severe early OHSS by administration of GnRH antagonist in the luteal phase: an observational cohort study. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2012;10:69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martins, WP, Nastri, CO, Rienzi, L, van der Poel, SZ, Gracia, C, Racowsky, C. Blastocyst vs cleavage-stage embryo transfer: systematic review and meta-analysis of reproductive outcomes. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;49: 583591.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maheshwari, A, Hamilton, M, Bhattacharya, S. Should we be promoting embryo transfer at blastocyst stage? Reprod Biomed Online. 2016;32:142146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xiao, JS, Healey, M, Talmor, A, Vollenhoven, B. When only one embryo is available, is it better to transfer on Day 3 or to grow on? Reprod BioMedicine Online. 2019;39: 916923.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papanikolaou, EG, Kolibianakis, EM, Tournaye, H, et al. Live birth rates after transfer of equal number of blastocysts or cleavage-stage embryos in IVF. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Human Reprod. 2007;23: 9199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Vos, A, Van Landuyt, L, Santos-Ribeiro, S, et al. Cumulative live birth rates after fresh and vitrified cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfer in the first treatment cycle. Hum Reprod. 2016;31: 24422449.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardner, DK. The impact of physiological oxygen during culture, and vitrification for cryopreservation, on the outcome of extended culture in human IVF. Reprod Biomed Online. 2016;32: 137141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marconi, N, Raja, EA, Bhattacharya, S, Maheshwari, A. Perinatal outcomes in singleton live births after fresh blastocyst-stage embryo transfer: a retrospective analysis of 67 147 IVF/ICSI cycles. Hum Reprod. 2019;34:17161725.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Busnelli, A, Dallagiovanna, C, Reschini, M, Paffoni, A, Fedele, L, Somigliana, E. Risk factors for monozygotic twinning after in vitro fertilization: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2019;111: 302317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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: 422438.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simopoulou, M, Sfakianoudis, K, Tsioulou, P, et al. Should the flexibility enabled by performing a day-4 embryo transfer remain as a valid option in the IVF laboratory? A systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36:10491061.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zakharova, EE, Zaletova, VV, Krivokharchenko, AS. Biopsy of human morula-stage embryos: outcome of 215 IVF/ICSI cycles with PGS. PLoS One 2014;9:e106433.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hammond, ER, Cree, LM, Morbeck, DE. Should extended blastocyst culture include Day 7? Human Reprod. 2018;33:991997.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hernandez-Nieto, C, Lee, JA, Slifkin, R, Sandler, B, Copperman, AB, Flisser, E. What is the reproductive potential of day 7 euploid embryos? Human Reprod. 2019;34:16971706.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Irani, M, Zaninovic, N, Canon, C, et al. A rationale for biopsying embryos reaching the morula stage on Day 6 in women undergoing preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy. Human Reprod. 2018;33:935941.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×