Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing morphokinetic parameters via time lapse microscopy (TLM) to predict euploidy: are aneuploidy risk classification models universal?

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

Abstract

Purpose

To determine if Aneuploidy Risk Classification Models are predictive of euploidy/aneuploidy amongst IVF facilities.

Methods

We retrospectively applied key time lapse imaging events of embryos (Campbell et al.[5, 6]) to stratify embryos into 3 groups: low, medium and high risk of aneuploidy. The actual ploidy results (from array comparative genomic hybridization) were compared with expectations [5, 6]. Sources of variability in morphokinetic parameters were determined using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).

Results

The model failed to segregate euploid embryos from aneuploid embryos cultured at our facility. Further analysis indicated that the variability of embryos among patients was too great to allow selection of euploid embryos based on simple morphokinetic thresholds. Clinical selection of embryos based on morphokinetics alone is unlikely to identify euploid embryos accurately for transfer or yield higher rates of live delivery.

Conclusions

The use of non-invasive morphokinetics is unlikely to discriminate aneuploid from euploid embryos. Further, it does not approach the accuracy of preimplantation genetic screening with array comparative genomic hybridization.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Grifo J, Hodes-Wertz B, Hsiao-Ling L, Amperloquio E, Clarke-Williams M, Adler A. Single thawed euploid embryo transfer improves IVF pregnancy, miscarriage and multiple gesation outcomes and has similar implantation rates as egg donation. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics. 2013. doi:10.1007/s10815-012-9929-1.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Harton G, Munne S, Surrey M, Grifo J, Kaplan B, McCulloh D, Griffin D, Wells D. Dimished effect of maternal age on implantation after preimplantation genetic diagnosis with array comparative genomic hybridization.

  3. 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. Fertility and Sterility. 2013;100(2):412–9.e5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chamayou S, Patrizio P, Storaci G, Tomaselli V, Alecci C, Ragolia C, et al. The use of morphokinetic parameters to select all embryos with full capacity to implant. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics. 2013;30:703–10.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Campbell A, Fishel S, Bowman N, Duffy S, Sedler M, Hickman C. Modelling a risk classification of aneuploidy in human embryos using non-invasive morphokinetics. Reproductive biomedicine online. 2013;26:477–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Campbell A, Fishel S, Bowman N, Duffy S, Sedler M, Thornton S. Retrospective analysis of outcomes after IVF using an aneuploidy risk model derived from time-lapse imaging without PGS. Reproductive Biomedicine Online. 2013;27:140–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rubio C, Buendía P, Rodrigo L, Mercader A, Mateu E, Peinado V, et al. Prognostic Factors for preimplantantion genetic screening in repeated pregnancy loss. Reproductive Biomedicine Online. 2009;18(5):687–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Huang CC, Chang LJ, Tsai YY, Hung CC, Fang MY, Su YN, Chen HF, Chen SU. A feasible strategy of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for carriers with chromosomal translocation: Using blastocyst biopsy and array comparative genomic hybridization.

  9. Gardner DK, Lane M. Culture and selection of viable blastocysts: a feasible proposition for human IVF? In: Human reproduction update. 3rd ed. 1997. p. 367–82.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gutierrez-Mateo C, Colls P, Sanchez-Garcia J, Escudero T, Prates R, Ketterson K, et al. Validation of microarray comparative genomic hybridization for comprehensive chromosome analysis of embryos. Fertility and sterility. 2011;95:953–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hodes-Wertz B, Grifo J, Ghadir S, Kaplan B, Laskin CA, Glassner M, et al. Idiopathic recurrent miscarriage is caused mostly by aneuploid embryos. Fertility and Sterility. 2012;98(3):675–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wong C, 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. Nature biotechnology. 2010;28:1115–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kirkegaard K, Agerholm IE, Ingerslev HJ. Time-lapse monitoring as a tool for clinical embryo assessment. Human reproduction. 2012;27:1277–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Meseguer M, Rubio I, Cruz M, Basile N, Marcos J, Requena A. Embryo incubation and selection in a time-lapse monitoring system improves pregnancy outcome compared with a standard incubator: a retrospective cohort study. Fertility and sterility. 2012;98(6):1481–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kirkegaard K, Hindkjaer J, Ingerslev HJ. Human embryonic development after blastomere removal: a time-lapse analysis. Human reproduction. 2012;27:97–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB. Human embryo viability: what determines developmental potential, and can it be assessed? Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics. 1998;15(8):455–58.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Paternot G, Devroe J, Debrock S, D'Hooghe TM, Spiessens C. Intra- and inter- observer analysis in the morphological assessment of early stage embryos. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology. 2009;7:105.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Herrero J, Meseguer M. Selection of high potential embryos using time-lapse imaging: the era of morphokinetics. Fertility and Sterility. 2013;99(4):1030–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Braude P, Bolton V, Moore S. Human gene expression first occurs between the four- and eight-cell stages of preimplantation development. Nature. 1988;332:459–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Levy R. Genetic regulation of preimplantation embryo survival. International Review of Cytology. 2001;210:1–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Warner CM, Newmark JA, Comiskey M, De Fazio SR, O'Malley DM, Rajadhyaksha M, et al. Genetics and imaging to assess oocyte and preimplantation embryo health. Reproduction Fertility and Development. 2004;16(7):729–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Cao W, Brenner CA, Alikani M, Cohen J, Warner CM. Search for a human homologue of the mouse Ped gene. Molecular Human Reproduction. 1999;5(6):541–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Colls P, Escudero T, Fischer J, Cekleniak NA, Ben-Ozer S, Meyer B, et al. Validation of array comparative genome hybridization for diagnosis of translocations in preimplantation human embryos. Reproductive BioMedicine Online. 2012;24(6):621–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Forman EJ, Hong KH, Ferry KM, Tao X, Taylor D, Levy B, et al. In vitro fertilization with single euploid blastocyst transfer: a randomized controlled trial. Fertility and Sterility. 2013;100(1):100–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Katherine Melzer

    Present address: Genesis Fertility and Reproductive Medicine, 1355 84th Street, Brooklyn, NY, 11228, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. NYU Fertility Center, NYU Langone School of Medicine, 660 First Avenue, 5th floor, New York, NY, 10016, USA

    Yael G. Kramer, Jason D. Kofinas, Katherine Melzer, Nicole Noyes, Caroline McCaffrey, Julia Buldo-Licciardi, David H. McCulloh & James A. Grifo

Authors
  1. Yael G. Kramer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jason D. Kofinas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Katherine Melzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nicole Noyes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Caroline McCaffrey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Julia Buldo-Licciardi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. David H. McCulloh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. James A. Grifo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yael G. Kramer.

Additional information

Capsule Morphokinetic parameters are insufficient to universally distinguish euploid from aneuploid embryos, predominantly due to the high degree of patient-to-patient variability and small intrapatient variability for parameters previously associated with blastocyst development or embryo ploidy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kramer, Y.G., Kofinas, J.D., Melzer, K. et al. Assessing morphokinetic parameters via time lapse microscopy (TLM) to predict euploidy: are aneuploidy risk classification models universal?. J Assist Reprod Genet 31, 1231–1242 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-014-0285-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-014-0285-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation