Abstract
Historically, the introduction of pronuclear scoring was observational and from two different perspectives, even if the morphological features score resulted in the same outcome and conclusions. Pronuclear scoring involves descriptions of the nucleolar precursor bodies (NPBs) which are clearly visible spherical structures observed in the nuclei of the fertilized oocyte, or for that matter, in the nuclei of any actively dividing cells. The two scoring systems looked at the same parameters of the NPBs, namely, their alignment, number, and relative size in the newly formed male and female nucleus. These parameters were shown to be predictive of continued development and resultant outcome. In the 1999 model from Tesarik et al., the NPBs and their pattern were used as an indicator of sperm decondensation and function during ICSI cases. The model of Scott et al. described patterns of NPBs in the fertilized oocyte and how these changed, how they were related to a halo seen in the oocyte and the dynamic nature of fertilization, and how the patterns correlated with continued embryo viability. Pronuclear scoring is descriptive and based on NPB and nuclear morphology and accomplished at the time of fertilization check, which should be between 16 and 18 h postinsemination. Although descriptive, the patterns have a biological basis and are predictive of development based on cell cycle and structure and function of the nucleus and nucleolus.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Scott LA, Smith S. The successful use of pronuclear embryo transfers the day following oocyte retrieval. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:1003–13.
Tesarik J, Greco E. The probability of abnormal preimplantation development can be predicted by a single static observation on pronuclear stage morphology. Hum Reprod. 1999;14(5):1318–23.
Scott L. Classification of pronuclei and polarity of the zygote: correlations with outcome. In: Patrizio P, Guelman V, Tucker M, editors. A color atlas for human assisted reproduction: laboratory and clinical insights. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2003.
Scott L. Morphological correlates of oocyte and embryo Âcompetence-identification. In: Van Blerkom J, editor. Hum Fertil. 2002;5:206–14.
Scott L. Pronuclear scoring as a predictor of embryo development. Biomed Online. 2003;6:57–70.
Scott L. The biological basis of non-invasive strategies for selection of human oocytes and embryos. Hum Reprod Update. 2003;9:237–49.
Scott L, Finn A, et al. Morphologic parameters of early cleavage-stage embryos that correlate with fetal development and delivery: prospective and applied data for increased pregnancy rates. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:230–40.
Ludwig M, Schopper B, et al. Clinical use of a pronuclear stage score following intracytoplasmic sperm injection: impact on pregnancy rates under the conditions of the German embryo protection law. Hum Reprod. 2000;15(2):325–9.
Scott L. The origin of monozygotic twinning. Reprod Biomed Online. 2002;5:276–84.
Zollner U, Steck T. Pronuclear scoring. Time for international standardization. J Reprod Med. 2003;48:365–9.
Borini A, Cattoli M, et al. Predictive factors for embryo Âimplantation potential. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;10:653–68.
Senn A, Urner F, et al. Morphological scoring of human pronuclear zygotes for prediction of pregnancy outcome. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:234–9.
Chen C, Kattera S. Comparison of pronuclear zygote morphology and early cleavage status of zygotes as additional criteria in the selection of day 3 embryos: a randomized study. Fertil Steril. 2006;85:347–52.
ALPHA Scientists In Reproductive Medicine; ESHRE Special Interest Group Embryology. Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;22(6):632–46.
Leugn A, Lamond A. The dynamics of the nucleolus. Crit Rev Eukaryot Gene Expr. 2003;13:39–54.
Hernandez-Verdun D, Roussel P. Regulators of nucleolar functions. Prog Cell Cycle Res. 2003;5:301–8.
Pedersen T. Growth factors in the nucleolus? J Cell Biol. 1998;143:279–81.
Goessens G. Nucleolar structure. Int Rev Cytol. 1984;87:107–58.
Schwarzacher H, Wachtler F. The nucleolus. Anat Embryol. 1993;188:515–36.
Dimitri P, Corradini N, et al. The paradox of functional heterochromatin. Bioessays. 2005;27:29–41.
Gianaroli L, Magli MC, et al. Pronuclear morphology and chromosomal abnormalities as scoring criteria for embryo selection. Fertil Steril. 2003;80(2):341–9.
Finn A, Scott L, et al. Sequential embryo scoring as a predictor of aneuploidy in poor-prognosis patients. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;21:381–90.
Schwartz P, Hinney B, et al. Oocyte-sperm interaction in the course of IVF: a scanning electron microscopy analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2003;7:192–8.
Guarente L. Link between aging and the nucleolus. Genes Dev. 1997;11:2449–55.
Laurincik J, Maddox-Hyttel P. Nucleolar remodeling in nuclear transfer embryos. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2007;591:84–92.
Svarcova O, Dinnyes A, et al. Nucleolar re-activation is delayed in mouse embryos cloned from two different cell lines. Mol Reprod Dev. 2009;76:132–41.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Scott, L. (2012). Pronuclear Scoring in Human In Vitro Fertilization. In: Nagy, Z., Varghese, A., Agarwal, A. (eds) Practical Manual of In Vitro Fertilization. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1780-5_42
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1780-5_42
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-1779-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-1780-5
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)