Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Could time-lapse embryo imaging reduce the need for biopsy and PGS?

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

Abstract

Purpose

To review relevant studies examining the relationship between embryo morpho-kinetics and aneuploidy.

Methods

Search of Pubmed and Medline using relevant keywords pertaining to morphology, morphokinetics and embryonic aneuploidy, as well as examination of various reference lists and conference proceedings.

Results

An abundance of publications, both preliminary and peer-reviewed, have emerged regarding the usefulness of time-lapse imaging in tracking embryo development and improving embryo selection. Recently, these publications have explored ability to not only predict blastocyst formation and implantation, but also the ability to detect embryonic chromosomal aneuploidy. Of the two peer-reviewed retrospective studies on morpho-kinetics and embryonic aneuploidy, one demonstrates that early cleavage timings can indicate chromosomal complement, while the other demonstrates that key events following the maternal-zygotic transition can be markers of aneuploidy. A recent paper also demonstrates improved outcomes following IVF using a selection algorithm to identify embryos at “low risk” of chromosomal abnormalities. However, the predictive nature of these events and timings is far from ideal. Additionally, results may be dependent upon the day of biopsy and method utilized for chromosomal assessment.

Conclusion

With continued effort, the combination of multiple morphologic endpoint assessments and developmental timings and refinement of modeling systems may improve the predictive ability to determine embryonic aneuploidy. This may help select a subset of embryos that are less likely to carry chromosomal abnormalities and improve assisted reproductive outcomes. However, embryo biopsy, followed by preimplantation genetic screening/comprehensive chromosomal screening still remains the most reliable method to assess chromosomal complement of preimplantation 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

References

  1. Alfarawati S, Fragouli E, Colls P, et al. The relationship between blastocyst morphology, chromosomal abnormality, and embryo gender. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(2):520–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Alikani M, Calderon G, Tomkin G, et al. Cleavage anomalies in early human embryos and survival after prolonged culture in-vitro. Hum Reprod. 2000;15(12):2634–43.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Alikani M, Cohen J, Tomkin G, et al. Human embryo fragmentation in vitro and its implications for pregnancy and implantation. Fertil Steril. 1999;71(5):836–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Ambroggio J, Gindoff PR, Dayal MB, et al. Multinucleation of a sibling blastomere on day 2 suggests unsuitability for embryo transfer in IVF-preimplantation genetic screening cycles. Fertil Steril. 2011;96(4):856–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Arav A, Aroyo A, Yavin S, Roth Z. Prediction of embryonic developmental competence by time-lapse observation and ‘shortest-half’ analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;17(5):669–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Azzarello A, Hoest T, Mikkelsen A. The impact of time-lapse assessment on nuclearity: is multinucleation a proper character for embryo selection. Hum Reprod. 2012;27 suppl 2:ii103–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Balaban B, Yakin K, Urman B, et al. Pronuclear morphology predicts embryo development and chromosome constitution. Reprod Biomed Online. 2004;8(6):695–700.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Baltaci V, Satiroglu H, Kabukcu C, et al. Relationship between embryo quality and aneuploidies. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;12(1):77–82.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Barlow P, Puissant F, Van der Zwalmen P, et al. In vitro fertilization, development, and implantation after exposure of mature mouse oocytes to visible light. Mol Reprod Dev. 1992;33(3):297–302.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Basile N, Bronet F, Nogales M del C, Martinez E, Ariza M, Mesequer M. Time lapse technology reveals no difference between embryo quality and the chromosomal status of day 3 embryos. Fertil Steril 2012;98(35 (suppl 3)):s142.

  11. Bavister BD. A minichamber device for maintaining a constant carbon dioxide in air atmosphere during prolonged culture of cells on the stage of an inverted microscope. Vitro Cell Dev Biol. 1988;24(8):759–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Bayram A, Ciray H, Sahin O, et al. Comparison of morphokinetic parameters between euploid and aneuploid embryos by time-lapse monitoring. Hum Reprod. 2012;27 suppl 2:ii103–5.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Campbell A, Fishel S, Bowman N, et al. Modelling a risk classification of aneuploidy in human embryos using non-invasive morphokinetics. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;26(5):477–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Campbell A, Fishel S, Bowman N, et al. Retrospective analysis of outcomes after IVF using an aneuploidy risk model derived from time lapse imaging without PGS. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;in press.

  15. Chavez SL, Loewke KE, Han J, et al. Dynamic blastomere behaviour reflects human embryo ploidy by the four-cell stage. Nat Commun. 2012;3:1251.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cruz M, Gadea B, Garrido N, et al. Embryo quality, blastocyst and ongoing pregnancy rates in oocyte donation patients whose embryos were monitored by time-lapse imaging. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2011;28(7):569–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cruz M, Garrido N, Herrero J, et al. Timing of cell division in human cleavage-stage embryos is linked with blastocyst formation and quality. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012;25(4):371–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Dal Canto M, Coticchio G, Mignini Renzini M, et al. Cleavage kinetics analysis of human embryos predicts development to blastocyst and implantation. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012;25(5):474–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Daniel Jr JC. Clevage of mammalian ova inhibited by visible light. Nature. 1964;201:316–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Eaton JL, Hacker MR, Barrett CB, et al. Influence of patient age on the association between euploidy and day-3 embryo morphology. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(1):365–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Eaton JL, Hacker MR, Harris D, et al. Assessment of day-3 morphology and euploidy for individual chromosomes in embryos that develop to the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(6):2432–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Edirisinghe WR, Jemmott R, Smith C, Allan J. Association of pronuclear Z score with rates of aneuploidy in in vitro-fertilised embryos. Reprod Fertil Dev. 2005;17(5):529–34.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Feenan K, Herbert M. Can ‘abnormally’ fertilized zygotes give rise to viable embryos? Hum Fertil (Camb). 2006;9(3):157–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Figueira R, Setti A, Braga D, et al. Blastocyst morphology holds clues concerning the chromosomal status of the embryo. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(35(supple 3)):s141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Finn A, Scott L, O'Leary T, et al. Sequential embryo scoring as a predictor of aneuploidy in poor-prognosis patients. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;21(3):381–90.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Forman E, Ferry K, Hong KH, et al. Morphology plus ploidy: a prospective study comparing traditional morphology based selection for single embryo transfer (SET) with comprehensive chromosomal screening. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(35 (suppl 3)):s18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Forman EJ, Tao X, Ferry KM, et al. Single embryo transfer with comprehensive chromosome screening results in improved ongoing pregnancy rates and decreased miscarriage rates. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(4):1217–22.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Fragouli E, Wells D. Aneuploidy screening for embryo selection. Semin Reprod Med. 2012;30(4):289–301.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Friedman B, Chavez S, Behr B, et al. Non invasive imaging for the detection of human embryonic aneuploidy at the balstocyst stage. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(35 (suppl 3)):s38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Gamiz P, Rubio C, de los Santos MJ, et al. The effect of pronuclear morphology on early development and chromosomal abnormalities in cleavage-stage embryos. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(11):2413–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Gianaroli L, Magli MC, Ferraretti AP, et al. Pronuclear morphology and chromosomal abnormalities as scoring criteria for embryo selection. Fertil Steril. 2003;80(2):341–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Gianaroli L, Magli MC, Ferraretti AP, et al. Oocyte euploidy, pronuclear zygote morphology and embryo chromosomal complement. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(1):241–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Gonzales DS, Boatman DE, Bavister BD. Kinematics of trophectoderm projections and locomotion in the peri-implantation hamster blastocyst. Dev Dyn. 1996;205(4):435–44.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Hardarson T, Caisander G, Sjogren A, et al. A morphological and chromosomal study of blastocysts developing from morphologically suboptimal human pre-embryos compared with control blastocysts. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(2):399–407.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Hashimoto S, Kato N, Saeki K, Morimoto Y. Selection of high-potential embryos by culture in poly(dimethylsiloxane) microwells and time-lapse imaging. Fertil Steril. 2012;97(2):332–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Hirao Y, Yanagimachi R. Detrimental effect of visible light on meiosis of mammalian eggs in vitro. J Exp Zool. 1978;206(3):365–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Hodes-Wertz B, Ampeloquin E, Morin S, et al. Does day 5 embryo morphology better predict euploidy compared to day 6? Fertil Steril. 2012;98(35):s55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Holm P, Shukri NN, Vajta G, et al. Developmental kinetics of the first cell cycles of bovine in vitro produced embryos in relation to their in vitro viability and sex. Theriogenology. 1998;50(8):1285–99.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Jaroudi S, Alfarawati S, Poli M, et al. The effect of aneuploidy of embryo morphology and preimplantation development from the cleavage to blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(35):s164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kahraman S, Kumtepe Y, Sertyel S, et al. Pronuclear morphology scoring and chromosomal status of embryos in severe male infertility. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(12):3193–200.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Kirkegaard K, Agerholm IE, Ingerslev HJ. Time-lapse monitoring as a tool for clinical embryo assessment. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(5):1277–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Kirkegaard K, Hindkjaer JJ, Grondahl ML, et al. A randomized clinical trial comparing embryo culture in a conventional incubator with a time-lapse incubator. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29(6):565–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Kirkegaard K, Hindkjaer JJ, Ingerslev HJ. Human embryonic development after blastomere removal: a time-lapse analysis. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(1):97–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Kligman I, Benadiva C, Alikani M, Munne S. The presence of multinucleated blastomeres in human embryos is correlated with chromosomal abnormalities. Hum Reprod. 1996;11(7):1492–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Kroener L, Ambartsumyan G, Hill D, et al. Increased blastomere numbers in cleavage stage embryos are associated with higher aneuploidy rates determined by comparative genomic hybridization. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(35 suppl 3):s14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Kulesa PM, Kasemeier-Kulesa JC. Construction of a heated incubation chamber around a microscope stage for time-lapse imaging. CSH Protoc. 2007;pdb prot4792. 2007.

  47. Lemmen JG, Agerholm I, Ziebe S. Kinetic markers of human embryo quality using time-lapse recordings of IVF/ICSI-fertilized oocytes. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;17(3):385–91.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Li G, Jin H, Xin Z, et al. Impact of abnormal embryonic molecular karyotype determined by single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) microarray preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) on embryo development and blastocyst formation. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(35):s162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Littman E, Harris D, Lopez C, La A. Correlation between embryo morphology and development and chromosomal complement. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(5):s140.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Magli MC, Gianaroli L, Ferraretti AP, et al. Embryo morphology and development are dependent on the chromosomal complement. Fertil Steril. 2007;87(3):534–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Massip A, Mulnard J, Vanderzwalmen P, et al. The behaviour of cow blastocyst in vitro: cinematographic and morphometric analysis. J Anat. 1982;134(Pt 2):399–405.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Melzer K, McCaffrey C, Adler A, et al. Developmental morphology and continous timelapse microscopy (TLM) of human embryos: can we predict euploidy. Fertil Steril. 2012;98 suppl 3:s136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Meseguer M, Herrero J, Tejera A, et al. The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of embryo implantation. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(10):2658–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Mio Y, Maeda K. Time-lapse cinematography of dynamic changes occurring during in vitro development of human embryos. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(6):660 e1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Moayeri SE, Allen RB, Brewster WR, et al. Day-3 embryo morphology predicts euploidy among older subjects. Fertil Steril. 2008;89(1):118–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Montgomery S, S D, Bowman N, et al. Does the timing and degree of cleavage stage embryo fragmentation differ in euploid and aneuploid embryos? Fertility. 2013;Liverpool, UK. 2013.

  57. Munne S, Chen S, Colls P, et al. Maternal age, morphology, development and chromosome abnormalities in over 6000 cleavage-stage embryos. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007;14(5):628–34.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Nematollahi-mahani SN, Pahang H, Moshkdanian G, Nematollahi-mahani A. Effect of embryonic fibroblast cell co-culture on development of mouse embryos following exposure to visible light. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009;26(2–3):129–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Ottosen LD, Hindkjaer J, Ingerslev J. Light exposure of the ovum and preimplantation embryo during ART procedures. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2007;24(2–3):99–103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Palini S, Galluzzi L, De Stefani S, et al. Genomic DNA in human blastocoele fluid. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;26(6):603–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Payne D, Flaherty SP, Barry MF, Matthews CD. Preliminary observations on polar body extrusion and pronuclear formation in human oocytes using time-lapse video cinematography. Hum Reprod. 1997;12(3):532–41.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Pribenszky C, Matyas S, Kovacs P, et al. Pregnancy achieved by transfer of a single blastocyst selected by time-lapse monitoring. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;21(4):533–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Rubino P, Rocio C, Fiorentino F, et al. Correlation between embryo morphology and chromosomal arrangement: preliminary data. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(35s162).

  64. Scott Jr RT, Ferry K, Su J, et al. Comprehensive chromosome screening is highly predictive of the reproductive potential of human embryos: a prospective, blinded, nonselection study. Fertil Steril. 2012;97(4):870–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Semeniuk L, Mazur P, Mikitenko D, et al. Time lapse and aCGH, is there any connection between ploidy and embryo cleavage timing on early stages of embryo development. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(35):s6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Smith GD, Takayama S, Swain JE. Rethinking in vitro embryo culture: new developments in culture platforms and potential to improve assisted reproductive technologies. Biol Reprod. 2012;86(3):62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Staessen C, Van Steirteghem A. The genetic constitution of multinuclear blastomeres and their derivative daughter blastomeres. Hum Reprod. 1998;13(6):1625–31.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Stevens J, Rawlins M, Janesch J, et al. Time lapse observation of embryo development identifies later stage morphology based parameters associated with blastocyst quality, but not chromosome constitute. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(35):s30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Swain JE, Smith GD. Advances in embryo culture platforms: novel approaches to improve preimplantation embryo development through modifications of the microenvironment. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17(4):541–57.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Takahashi M, Saka N, Takahashi H, et al. Assessment of DNA damage in individual hamster embryos by comet assay. Mol Reprod Dev. 1999;54(1):1–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Takenaka M, Horiuchi T, Yanagimachi R. Effects of light on development of mammalian zygotes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104(36):14289–93.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Terada Y, Ugajin T, Hasegawa H, et al. Different embryonic development after blastomere biopsy for preimplantation genetic diagnosis, observed by time-lapse imaging. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(4):1470–1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Treff NR. Genome-wide analysis of human preimplantation aneuploidy. Semin Reprod Med. 2012;30(4):283–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Ugajin T, Terada Y, Hasegawa H, et al. Aberrant behavior of mouse embryo development after blastomere biopsy as observed through time-lapse cinematography. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(8):2723–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Umaoka Y, Noda Y, Nakayama T, et al. Effect of visual light on in vitro embryonic development in the hamster. Theriogenology. 1992;38(6):1043–54.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Van Blerkom J, Chavez DJ. Morphodynamics of outgrowths of mouse trophoblast in the presence and absence of a monolayer of uterine epithelium. Am J Anat. 1981;162(2):143–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Van Blerkom J, Davis P, Alexander S. A microscopic and biochemical study of fragmentation phenotypes in stage-appropriate human embryos. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(4):719–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Vanneste E, Voet T, Le Caignec C, et al. Chromosome instability is common in human cleavage-stage embryos. Nat Med. 2009;15(5):577–83.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Vera M, Rodrigo I, Mercader A, et al. Blastocyst rates according to embryo fragmentation and aneuploidy assessed by array CGH. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(35):s139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Wells D. Embryo aneuploidy and the role of morphological and genetic screening. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;21(3)274–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Wong C, Chen AA, Behr B, Shen S. Time-lapse microscopy and image analysis in basic and clinical embryo development research. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;26(2):120–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Wong CC, Loewke KE, Bossert NL, et al. Non-invasive imaging of human embryos before embryonic genome activation predicts development to the blastocyst stage. Nat Biotechnol. 2010;28(10):1115–21.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Ziebe S, Lundin K, Loft A, et al. FISH analysis for chromosomes 13, 16, 18, 21, 22, X and Y in all blastomeres of IVF pre-embryos from 144 randomly selected donated human oocytes and impact on pre-embryo morphology. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(12):2575–81.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Thomas “Rusty” Pool for his critical review of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Center for Reproductive Medicine, University of Michigan, 475 Market Place Bldg 1 Ste B, Ann Arbor, MI, 48108, USA

    Jason E. Swain

Authors
  1. Jason E. Swain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jason E. Swain.

Additional information

Capsule Time-lapse imaging of embryos may provide insight into chromosomal status.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Swain, J.E. Could time-lapse embryo imaging reduce the need for biopsy and PGS?. J Assist Reprod Genet 30, 1081–1090 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-013-0048-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-013-0048-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation