Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Embryo quality, ploidy, and transfer outcomes in male versus female blastocysts

  • Embryo Biology
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The goal is to determine if variations exist between male and female blastocysts in preimplantation measurements of quality and ploidy and in vitro fertilization elective single-embryo transfer (eSET) outcomes.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was conducted from a private fertility center’s database of blastocysts undergoing preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy, along with details of eSET from this screened cohort. Main outcomes included preimplantation embryo quality and sex-specific eSET outcomes.

Results

A total of 3708 embryos from 578 women were evaluated, with 45.9% male and 54.1% female. The majority were High grade. No difference existed between embryo sex and overall morphological grade, inner cell mass or trophectoderm grade, or blastocyst transformation day. Female blastocysts had a higher aneuploidy rate than male blastocysts (P < 0.001). Five hundred thirty-nine eSETs from 392 women were evaluated, with High grade embryos more likely to have implantation (P < 0.001), clinical pregnancy (P < 0.001), and ongoing pregnancy (P = 0.018) than Mid or Low grade embryos. Day 5 blastocysts were more likely to have implantation (P = 0.018), clinical pregnancy (P = 0.005), and ongoing pregnancy (P = 0.018) than day 6 blastocysts. Male and female embryos had similar transfer outcomes, although female day 5 blastocysts were more likely to result in clinical pregnancy (P = 0.012), but not ongoing pregnancy, than female day 6 blastocysts. Male eSET outcomes did not differ by blastocyst transformation day.

Conclusion

Male and female embryos have comparable grade and quality; however, female embryos were more likely to be aneuploid. Ongoing pregnancy rates did not differ by embryo sex. Day 5 embryos had more favorable transfer outcomes than day 6 embryos.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data will be made available upon request to the corresponding author.

Code availability

N/A

References

  1. Dmowski WP, Gaynor L, Rao R, Lawrence M, Scommegna A. Use of albumin gradients for X and Y sperm separation and clinical experience with male sex preselection. Fertil Steril. 1979;31:52–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Beernink FJ, Dmowski WP, Ericsson RJ. Sex preselection through albumin separation of sperm. Fertil Steril. 1993;59:382–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Chang J, Boulet SL, Jeng G, Flowers L, Kissin DM. Outcomes of in vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic diagnosis: an analysis of the United States Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance Data, 2011-2012. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:394–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ginsburg ES, Baker VL, Racowsky C, Wantman E, Goldfarb J, Stern JE. Use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis and preimplantation genetic screening in the United States: a Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Writing Group paper. Fertil Steril. 2011;96:865–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Use of reproductive technology for sex selection for nonmedical reasons. Fertil Steril. 2015;103:1418–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Capelouto SM, Archer SR, Morris JR, Kawwass JF, Hipp HS. Sex selection for non-medical indications: a survey of current pre-implantation genetic screening practices among U.S. ART clinics. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35:409–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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;30:CD002118.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Glujovsky D, Farquhar C. Cleavage-stage or blastocyst transfer: what are the benefits and harms? Fertil Steril. 2016;106:244–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sotiroska V, Petanovski Z, Dimitrov G, Hadji-Lega M, Shushleski D, Saltirovski S, et al. The day of embryo transfer affects delivery rate, birth weights, female-to-male ratio, and monozygotic twin rate. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;54:716–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Munné S, Kaplan B, Frattarelli JL, Child T, Nakhuda G, Shamma FN, et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy versus morphology as selection criteria for single frozen-thawed embryo transfer in good-prognosis patients: a multicenter randomized clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2019;112:1071–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Milki AA, Jun SH, Hinckley MD, Westphal LW, Giudice LC, Behr B. Comparison of the sex ratio with blastocyst transfer and cleavage stage transfer. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2003;20:323–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Ménézo YJ, Chouteau J, Torelló J, Girard A, Veiga A. Birth weight and sex ratio after transfer at the blastocyst stage in humans. Fertil Steril. 1999;72:221–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Alfarawati S, Fragouli E, Colls P, Stevens J, Gutiérrez-Mateo C, Schoolcraft WB, et al. The relationship between blastocyst morphology, chromosomal abnormality, and embryo gender. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:520–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bronet F, Nogales MC, Martínez E, Ariza M, Rubio C, García-Velasco JA, et al. Is there a relationship between time-lapse parameters and embryo sex? Fertil Steril. 2015;103:396–401.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gardner DK, Wale PL. Analysis of metabolism to select viable human embryos for transfer. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:1062–72.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Ebner T, Tritscher K, Mayer RB, Oppelt P, Duba HC, Maurer M, et al. Quantitative and qualitative trophectoderm grading allows for prediction of live birth and gender. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;33:49–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gardner DK, Wale PL, Collins R, Lane M. Glucose consumption of single post-compaction human embryos is predictive of embryo sex and live birth outcome. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:1981–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Gardner DK, Larman MG, Thouas GA. Sex-related physiology of the preimplantation embryo. Mol Hum Reprod. 2010;16:539–47.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Tarín JJ, García-Pérez MA, Hermenegildo C, Cano A. Changes in sex ratio from fertilization to birth in assisted-reproductive-treatment cycles. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2014;12:56.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Csokmay JM, Hill MJ, Cioppettini FV, Miller KA, Scott RT Jr, Frattarelli JL. Live birth sex ratios are not influenced by blastocyst-stage embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:913–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Richter KS, Anderson M, Osborn BH. Selection for faster development does not bias sex ratios resulting from blastocyst embryo transfer. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;12:460–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Eaton JL, Hacker MR, Barrett CB, Thornton KL, Penzias AS. Influence of embryo sex on development to the blastocyst stage and euploidy. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:936–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wang A, Kort J, Behr B, Westphal LM. Euploidy in relation to blastocyst sex and morphology. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35:1565–72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Haas J, Meriano J, Laskin C, Bentov Y, Barzilay E, Casper RF, et al. Clinical pregnancy rate following frozen embryo transfer is higher with blastocysts vitrified on day 5 than on day 6. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;33:1553–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Tubbing A, Shaw-Jackson C, Ameye L, Colin J, Rozenberg S, Autin C. Increased live births after day 5 versus day 6 transfers of vitrified-warmed blastocysts. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35:417–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Poulsen V, Ingerslev HJ, Kirkegaard K. Elective embryo transfers on Day 6 reduce implantation compared with transfers on Day 5. Hum Reprod. 2017;32:1238–43.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. 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;99:1283–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Richter KS, Ginsburg DK, Shipley SK, Lim J, Tucker MJ, Graham JR, et al. Factors associated with birth outcomes from cryopreserved blastocysts: experience from 4,597 autologous transfers of 7,597 cryopreserved blastocysts. Fertil Steril. 2016;106:354–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Chang HJ, Lee JR, Jee BC, Suh CS, Kim SH. Impact of blastocyst transfer on offspring sex ratio and the monozygotic twinning rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:2381–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kausche A, Jones GM, Trounson AO, Figueiredo F, MacLachlan V, Lolatgis N. Sex ratio and birth weights of infants born as a result of blastocyst transfers compared with early cleavage stage embryo transfers. Fertil Steril. 2001;76:688–93.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Klimczak AM, Pacheco LE, Lewis KE, Massahi N, Richards JP, Kearns WG, et al. Embryonal mitochondrial DNA: relationship to embryo quality and transfer outcomes. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35:871–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB. In vitro culture of human blastocyst. In: Jansen R, Mortimer D, editors. Towards Reproductive Certainty: Infertility and Genetics Beyond. Carnforth: Parthenon Press; 1999. p. 377–88.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Graffelman J, Fugger EF, Keyvanfar K, Schulman JD. Human live birth and sperm-sex ratios compared. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:2917–20.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Shaia K, Truong T, Pieper C, Steiner A. Pre-implantation genetic testing alters the sex ratio: an analysis of 91,805 embryo transfer cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020;37:1117–22.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Luna M, Duke M, Copperman A, Grunfeld L, Sandler B, Barritt J. Blastocyst embryo transfer is associated with a sex-ratio imbalance in favor of male offspring. Fertil Steril. 2007;87:519–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Dean JH, Chapman MG, Sullivan EA. The effect on human sex ratio at birth by assisted reproductive technology (ART) procedures—an assessment of babies born following single embryo transfers, Australia and New Zealand, 2002-2006. BJOG. 2010;117:1628–34.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Supramaniam PR, Mittal M, Ohuma EO, et al. Secondary sex ratio in assisted reproduction: an analysis of 1 376 454 treatment cycles performed in the UK. Hum Reprod Open. 2019;1–9.

  38. Chen M, Du J, Zhao J, et al. The sex ratio of singleton and twin delivery offspring in assisted reproductive technology in China. Sci Rep. 2017;7:7754.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Barash OO, Ivani KA, Willman SP, Rosenbluth EM, Wachs DS, Hinckley MD, et al. Association between growth dynamics, morphological parameters, the chromosomal status of the blastocysts, and clinical outcomes in IVF PGS cycles with single embryo transfer. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017;34:1007–16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Shapiro BS, Richter KS, Harris DC, Daneshmand ST. A comparison of day 5 and day 6 blastocyst transfers. Fertil Steril. 2001;75:1126–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Barrenetxea G, López de Larruzea A, Ganzabal T, Jiménez R, Carbonero K, Mandiola M. Blastocyst culture after repeated failure of cleavage-stage embryo transfers: a comparison of day 5 and day 6 transfers. Fertil Steril. 2005;83:49–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Lou H, Li N, Zhang X, Sun L, Wang X, Hao D, et al. Does the sex ratio of singleton births after frozen single blastocyst transfer differ in relation to blastocyst development? Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2020;18:72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. McCoy RC. Mosaicism in preimplantation human embryos: when chromosomal abnormalities are the norm. Trends Genet. 2017;33:448–63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Fragouli E, Alfarawati S, Spath K, Wells D. Morphological and cytogenetic assessment of cleavage and blastocyst stage embryos. Mol Hum Reprod. 2014;20:117–26.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Capalbo A, Rienzi L. Mosaicism between trophectoderm and inner cell mass. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:1098–106.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Rosenwaks Z, Handyside AH, Fiorentino F, Gleicher N, Paulson RJ, Schattman GL, et al. The pros and cons of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: clinical and laboratory perspectives. Fertil Steril. 2018;110:353–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, 301 University Boulevard, Galveston, TX, 77555, USA

    Christopher P. Moutos, Antonio F. Saad & John R. Crochet

  2. AdvaGenix, 9430 Key West Ave. Suite 130, Rockville, MD, 20850, USA

    William G. Kearns

  3. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA

    William G. Kearns

  4. Center of Reproductive Medicine, 7400 Fannin St. #1180, Houston, TX, 77054, USA

    Sarah E. Farmer, Jon P. Richards & John R. Crochet

Authors
  1. Christopher P. Moutos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. William G. Kearns
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sarah E. Farmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jon P. Richards
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Antonio F. Saad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. John R. Crochet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study concept and design. CPM, SEF, JPR, and JRC collected the data. Data was analyzed by CPM, AFS, and JRC. The first draft of the manuscript was written by CPM, and all authors contributed to and approved the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher P. Moutos.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

This study was deemed exempt by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Texas Medical Branch Galveston.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moutos, C.P., Kearns, W.G., Farmer, S.E. et al. Embryo quality, ploidy, and transfer outcomes in male versus female blastocysts. J Assist Reprod Genet 38, 2363–2370 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-021-02250-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-021-02250-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation