Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 49–57 | Cite as

Quantitative and qualitative trophectoderm grading allows for prediction of live birth and gender

  • Thomas Ebner
  • Katja Tritscher
  • Richard B. Mayer
  • Peter Oppelt
  • Hans-Christoph Duba
  • Maria Maurer
  • Gudrun Schappacher-Tilp
  • Erwin Petek
  • Omar Shebl
Assisted Reproduction Technologies



Prolonged in vitro culture is thought to affect pre- and postnatal development of the embryo. This prospective study was set up to determine whether quality/size of inner cell mass (ICM) (from which the fetus ultimately develops) and trophectoderm (TE) (from which the placenta ultimately develops) is reflected in birth and placental weight, healthy live-birth rate, and gender after fresh and frozen single blastocyst transfer.


In 225 patients, qualitative scoring of blastocysts was done according to the criteria expansion, ICM, and TE appearance. In parallel, all three parameters were quantified semi-automatically.


TE quality and cell number were the only parameters that predicted treatment outcome. In detail, pregnancies that continued on to a live birth could be distinguished from those pregnancies that aborted on the basis of TE grade and cell number. Male blastocysts had a 2.53 higher chance of showing TE of quality A compared to female ones. There was no correlation between the appearance of both cell lineages and birth or placental weight, respectively.


The presented correlation of TE with outcome indicates that TE scoring could replace ICM scoring in terms of priority. This would automatically require a rethinking process in terms of blastocyst selection and cryopreservation strategy.


Blastocyst Inner cell mass Live-birth Neonatal outcome Trophectoderm 



The authors wish to thank MSc Lisa Dite for language correction.


  1. 1.
    Van Langendonckt A, Demylle D, Wyns C, Nisolle M, Donnez J. Comparison of G1.2/G2.2 and Sydney IVF cleavage/blastocyst sequential media for the culture of human embryos: a prospective, randomized, comparative study. Fertil Steril. 2001;76:1023–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Perin PM, Maluf M, Nicolosi Foltran Januário DA, Nascimento Saldiva PH. Comparison of the efficacy of two commercially available media for culturing one-cell embryos in the in vitro fertilization mouse model. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:1503–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Meintjes M, Chantilis SJ, Douglas JD, Rodriguez AJ, Guerami AR, Bookout DM, et al. A controlled randomized trial evaluating the effect of lowered incubator oxygen tension on live births in a predominantly blastocyst transfer program. Hum Reprod. 2009;24:300–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ebner T, Shebl O, Moser M, Mayer RB, Arzt W, Tews G. Groupculture of human zygotes is superior to individual culture in terms of blastulation, implantation and life birth. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;21:762–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gardner DK, Lane M, Calderon I, Leeton J. Environment of the preimplantation human embryo in vivo: metabolite analysis of oviduct and uterine fluids and metabolism of cumulus cells. Fertil Steril. 1996;65:349–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fanchin R, Ayoubi JM, Righini C, Olivennes F, Schönauer LM, Frydman R. Uterine contractility decreases at the time of blastocyst transfers. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:1115–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Evsikov S, Verlinsky Y. Mosaicism in the inner cell mass of human blastocysts. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:3151–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Magli MC, Jones GM, Gras L, Gianaroli L, Korman I, Trounson AO. Chromosome mosaicism in day 3 aneuploid embryos that develop to morphologically normal blastocysts in vitro. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:1781–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Blastocyst culture and transfer in clinical-assisted reproduction: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:667–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gardner DK, Lane M, Stevens J, Schlenker T, Schoolcraft WB. Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: towards a single blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril. 2000;73:1155–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Santos Filho E, Noble JA, Poli M, Griffiths T, Emerson G, Wells D. A method for semi-automatic grading of human blastocyst microscope images. Hum Reprod. 2012;27:2641–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nakasuji T, Saito H, Araki R, Nakaza A, Nakashima A, Kuwahara A, et al. The incidence of monozygotic twinning in assisted reproductive technology: analysis based on results from the 2010 Japanese ART national registry. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31:803–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dar S, Librach CL, Gunby J, Bissonnette F, Cowan L, IVF Directors Group of Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society, et al. Increased risk of pretermbirth in singleton pregnancies after blastocyst versus Day 3 embryo transfer: Canadian ART Register (CARTR) analysis. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:924–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Källén B, Finnström O, Lindam A, Nilsson E, Nygren KG, Olausson PO. Blastocyst versus cleavage stage transfer in in vitro fertilization: differences in neonatal outcome? Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1680–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhu J, Lin S, Li M, Chen L, Lian Y, Liu P, et al. Effect of in vitro culture period on birthweight of singleton newborns. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:448–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nelissen EC, Van Montfoort AP, Smits LJ, Menheere PP, Evers JL, Coonen E, et al. IVF culture medium affects human intrauterine growth as early as the second trimester of pregnancy. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:2067–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dumoulin JC, Land JA, Van Montfoort AP, Nelissen EC, Coonen E, Derhaag JG, et al. Effect of in vitro culture of human embryos on birthweight of newborns. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:605–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kleijkers SH, van Montfoort AP, Smits LJ, Viechtbauer W, Roseboom TJ, Nelissen EC, et al. IVF culture medium affects post-natal weight in humans during the first 2 years of life. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:661–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bendus AEB, Mayer JF, Shipley SK, Catherino WH. Interobserver and intraobserver variation in day 3 embryo grading. Fertil Steril. 2006;86:1608–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ebner T, Shebl O, Moser M, Mayer RB, Arzt W, Tews G. Easy sperm processing technique allowing exclusive accumulation and later usage of DNA-strandbreak-free spermatozoa. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;22:37–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine and ESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology. The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;22:632–46.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ebner T, Vanderzwalmen P, Shebl O, Urdl W, Moser M, Zech NH, et al. Morphology of vitrified/warmed day-5 embryos predicts rates of implantation, pregnancy and live birth. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;19:72–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ahlström 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;26:3289–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ebner T, Shebl O, Moser M, Sommergruber M, Tews G. Developmental fate of ovoid oocytes. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:62–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Richter KS, Harris DC, Daneshmand ST, Shapiro BS. Quantitative grading of a human blastocyst: optimal inner cell mass size and shape. Fertil Steril. 2001;76:1157–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Salafia CM, Zhang J, Charles AK, Bresnahan M, Shrout P, Sun W, et al. Placental characteristics and birthweight. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2008;22:229–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schwartz N, Quant HS, Sammel MD, Parry S. Macrosomia has its roots in early placental development. Placenta. 2014;35:684–90.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Haavaldsen C, Tanbo T, Eskild A. Placental weight in singleton pregnancies with and without assisted reproductive technology: a population study of 536,567 pregnancies. Hum Reprod. 2012;27:576–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Iwasa Y, Kikuchi H, Suzuki A, Yamada K, Kanno H, Murakawa H, et al. Comparison of blastocyst grade and the new-born baby’s body weight. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(3):e333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Van den Abbeel E, Balaban B, Ziebe S, Lundin K, Cuesta MJ, Klein BM, et al. Association between blastocyst morphology and outcome of single-blastocyst transfer. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;27:353–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ahlström A, Westin C, Wikland M, Hardarson T. Prediction of live birth in frozen-thawed single blastocyst transfer cycles by pre-freeze and post-thaw morphology. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:1199–209.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Thompson SM, Onwubalili N, Brown K, Jindal SK, McGovern PG. Blastocyst expansion score and trophectoderm morphology strongly predict successful clinical pregnancy and live birth following elective single embryo blastocyst transfer (eSET): a national study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2013;30:1577–81.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chen X, Zhang J, Wu X, Cao S, Zhou L, Wang Y, et al. Trophectoderm morphology predicts outcomes of pregnancy in vitrified-warmed single-blastocyst transfer cycle in a Chinese population. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31:1475–81.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gardner DK, Wale PL. Analysis of metabolism to select viable human embryos for transfer. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:1062–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Epstein CJ, Smith S, Travis B, Tucker G. Both X chromosomes function before visible X-chromosome inactivation in female mouse embryos. Nature. 1978;274:500–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Peippo J, Kurkilahti M, Bredbacka P. Developmental kinetics of in vitro produced bovine embryos: the effect of sex, glucose and exposure to time-lapse environment. Zygote. 2001;9:105–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kobayashi S, Isotani A, Mise N, Yamamoto M, Fujihara Y, Kaseda K, et al. Comparison of gene expression in male and female mouse blastocysts revealed imprinting of the X-linkedgene, Rhox5/Pem, at preimplantation stages. Curr Biol. 2006;16:166–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bermejo-Alvarez P, Rizos D, Rath D, Lonergan P, Gutierrez-Adan A. Sex determines the expression level of one third of the actively expressed genes in bovine blastocysts. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2010;23:3394–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Csokmay JM, Hill MJ, Cioppettini FV, Miller KA, Scott Jr RT, Frattarelli JL. Live birth sex ratios are not influenced by blastocyst-stage embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:913–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bu Z, Chen ZJ, Huang G, Zhang H, Wu Q, Ma Y, et al. Live birth sex ratio after in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer in China—an analysis of 121,247 babies from 18 centers. PLoS One. 2014;9:e113522.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kato O, Kawasaki N, Bodri D, Kuroda T, Kawachiya S, Kato K, et al. Neonatal outcome and birth defects in 6623 singletons born following minimal ovarian stimulation and vitrified versus fresh single embryo transfer. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012;161:46–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Roy TK, Bradley CK, Bowman MC, McArthur SJ. Single-embryo transfer of vitrified-warmed blastocysts yields equivalent live-birth rates and improved neonatal outcomes compared with fresh transfers. Fertil Steril. 2014;101:1294–301.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Li Z, Wang YA, Ledger W, Edgar DH, Sullivan EA. Clinical outcomes following cryopreservation of blastocysts by vitrification or slow freezing: a population-based cohort study. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:2794–801.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hardy K, Handyside AH, Winston RM. The human blastocyst: cell number, death, and allocation during late preimplantation development in vitro. Development. 1989;107:597–604.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ebner T, Vanderzwalmen P, Shebl O, Mayer RB, Moser M, Tews G. Morphology aspects of human blastocysts and the impact of vitrification. J Reprodmed Endokrinol. 2011;8:13–20.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Licciardi F, McCaffrey C, Oh C, Schmidt-Sarosi C, McCulloh DH, Licciardi F, et al. Birth weight is associated with inner cell mass grade of blastocysts. Fertil Steril. 2014;103:382–7.e2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Ebner
    • 1
    • 2
  • Katja Tritscher
    • 3
  • Richard B. Mayer
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  • Peter Oppelt
    • 1
    • 2
  • Hans-Christoph Duba
    • 4
  • Maria Maurer
    • 4
  • Gudrun Schappacher-Tilp
    • 5
  • Erwin Petek
    • 3
  • Omar Shebl
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Gynecological Endocrinology and Kinderwunsch ZentrumLandes- Frauen- und KinderklinikLinzAustria
  2. 2.Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsKepler University HospitalLinzAustria
  3. 3.Institute of Human GeneticsMedical UniversityGrazAustria
  4. 4.Department of Human GeneticsLandes- Frauen- und KinderklinikLinzAustria
  5. 5.Department for Mathematics and Scientific ComputingKarl-Franzens-University GrazGrazAustria

Personalised recommendations