Book contents
- Manual of Embryo Culture in Human Assisted Reproduction
- Cambridge Laboratory Manuals in Assisted Reproductive Technology
- Manual of Embryo Culture in Human Assisted Reproduction
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Chapter 1 Facilities for Embryo Culture
- Chapter 2 Incubators for Embryo Culture
- Chapter 3 Consumables for the IVF Laboratory
- Chapter 4 Embryo Metabolism and What Does the Embryo Need?
- Chapter 5 Culture Media and Embryo Culture
- Chapter 6 Optimal Handling Techniques for Culture of Human Embryos
- Chapter 7 From Identification to Witnessing
- Chapter 8 Timing of Embryo Culture
- Chapter 9 Time-Lapse Technology
- Chapter 10 Laboratory Monitoring for Embryo Culture
- Chapter 11 Embryo Culture and IVF Offspring Outcome
- Chapter 12 The Changing Culture of Embryo Culture
- Index
- Plate Section (PDF Only)
- References
Chapter 8 - Timing of Embryo Culture
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 April 2021
Book contents
- Manual of Embryo Culture in Human Assisted Reproduction
- Cambridge Laboratory Manuals in Assisted Reproductive Technology
- Manual of Embryo Culture in Human Assisted Reproduction
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Chapter 1 Facilities for Embryo Culture
- Chapter 2 Incubators for Embryo Culture
- Chapter 3 Consumables for the IVF Laboratory
- Chapter 4 Embryo Metabolism and What Does the Embryo Need?
- Chapter 5 Culture Media and Embryo Culture
- Chapter 6 Optimal Handling Techniques for Culture of Human Embryos
- Chapter 7 From Identification to Witnessing
- Chapter 8 Timing of Embryo Culture
- Chapter 9 Time-Lapse Technology
- Chapter 10 Laboratory Monitoring for Embryo Culture
- Chapter 11 Embryo Culture and IVF Offspring Outcome
- Chapter 12 The Changing Culture of Embryo Culture
- Index
- Plate Section (PDF Only)
- References
Summary
Following the fusion of the oocyte and spermatozoon and successful oocyte activation, preimplantation development begins with the formation of the zygote, displaying two pronuclei and two polar bodies if correctly fertilized (Figure 8.1). Embryo development continues with the onset of cleavage, i.e., consecutive mitotic divisions, leading to a major wave of embryonic genome activation between the 4- and 8-cell stages on Day 3 of development.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Manual of Embryo Culture in Human Assisted Reproduction , pp. 66 - 74Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Niakan, KK, Han, J, Pedersen, RA, Simon, C, Pera, RA. Human pre-implantation embryo development. Development. 2012;139:829–841.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Royen, E, Mangelschots, K, De Neubourg, D, et al. Characterization of a top quality embryo, a step towards single-embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 1999;14: 2345–2349.Google Scholar
Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine and ESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology. The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:1270–1283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magli, MC, Gianaroli, L, Ferraretti, AP, Lappi, M, Ruberti, A, Farfalli, V. Embryo morphology and development are dependent on the chromosomal complement. Fertil Steril. 2007;87:534–541.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McLaren, A, Biggers, JD. Successful development and birth of mice cultivated in vitro as early as early embryos. Nature. 1958;182:877–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, P. Culture systems: Sequential. In: Smith, GD, Swain, JE, Pool, TB. (eds) Methods in Molecular Biology, 912. Totawa, NJ: Humana Press; 2012: 211–230.Google Scholar
Gardner, DK, Lane, M. Culture and selection of viable blastocysts: a feasible proposition for human IVF? Hum Reprod Update. 1997;3: 367–382.Google Scholar
Machtinger, R, Racowsky, C. Culture systems: Single step. In: Smith, GD, Swain, JE, Pool, TB. (eds) Methods in Molecular Biology, 912. Totawa, NJ: Humana Press;2012:199–209.Google Scholar
Sfontouris, IA, Martins, WP, Nastri, CO, Viana, IG, et al. Blastocyst culture using single versus sequential media in clinical IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;33: 1261–1272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bourdon, M, Pocate-Cheriet, K, Finet de Bantel, A, et al. Day 5 versus Day 6 blastocyst transfers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes. Hum Reprod. 2019;34:1948–1964.Google Scholar
Tannus, S, Cohen, Y, Henderson, S, et al. Fresh transfer of Day 5 slow-growing embryos versus deferred transfer of vitrified, fully expanded Day 6 blastocysts: which is the optimal approach? Hum Reprod. 2019;34:44–51.Google Scholar
Arce, JC, Ziebe, S, Lundin, K, Janssens, R, Helmgaard, L, Sørensen, P. Interobserver agreement and intraobserver reproducibility of embryo quality assessments. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:2141–2148.Google Scholar
Rijnders, PM, Jansen, CA. The predictive value of day 3 embryo morphology regarding blastocyst formation, pregnancy and implantation rate after day 5 transfer following in-vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod. 1998;13: 2869–2873.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Minasi, MG, Colasante, A, Riccio, T, et al. Correlation between aneuploidy, standard morphology evaluation and morphokinetic development in 1730 biopsied blastocysts: a consecutive case series study. Hum Reprod. 2016;31: 2245–2254.Google Scholar
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Blastocyst culture and transfer in clinically assisted reproduction: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2018;110: 1246–1252.Google Scholar
Berntsen, S, Soderstrom-Anttila, V, Wennerholm, UB, et al. The health of children conceived by ART: ‘the chicken or the egg?’. Hum Reprod Update. 2019; 25 : 137–158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ESHRE PGT Consortium and SIG-Embryology Biopsy Working Group, Kokkali, G, Coticchio, G, Bronet, F, Celebi, C, Cimadomo, D, Goossens, V, Liss, J, Nunes, S, Sfontouris, I, Vermeulen, N, Zakharova, E, De Rycke, M. Hum Reprod Open. 2020; 29: 2020(3).Google Scholar
Scott, RT Jr, Upham, KM, Forman, EJ, Zhao, T, Treff, NR. Cleavage-stage biopsy significantly impairs human embryonic implantation potential while blastocyst biopsy does not: a randomized and paired clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;100: 624–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, H, De Vos, A, Sermon, K, et al. Embryo implantation after biopsy of one or two cells from cleavage-stage embryos with a view to preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Prenat Diagn. 2000;20: 1030–1037.Google Scholar
Geraedts, J, Sermon, K. Preimplantation genetic screening 2.0: the theory. Mol Hum Reprod. 2016;22:839–844.Google Scholar
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;(6):CD002118. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002118.pub5.Google Scholar
Cobo, A, de los Santos, MJ, Castello, D, Gamiz, P, Campos, P, Remohi, J. Outcomes of vitrified early cleavage-stage and blastocyst-stage embryos in a cryopreservation program: evaluation of 3,150 warming cycles. Fertil Steril. 2012;98: 1138–1146 e1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez-Shaw, S, Cercas, R, Brana, C, Villas, C, Pons, I. Ongoing and cumulative pregnancy rate after cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfer using vitrification for cryopreservation: impact of age on the results. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32: 177–184.Google Scholar
Morbeck, DE. Blastocyst culture in the Era of PGS and FreezeAlls: Is a ‘C’ a failing grade? Human Reprod Open. 2017;2017:hox017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devroey, P, Polyzos, NP, Blockeel, C. An OHSS-free clinic by segmentation of IVF treatment. Human Reprod. 2011;26: 2593–2597.Google Scholar
Nastri, CO, Teixeira, DM, Moroni, RM, Leitao, VM, Martins, WP. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: pathophysiology, staging, prediction and prevention. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;45:377–393.Google Scholar
Lainas, G, Kolibianakis, E, Sfontouris, I, et al. Outpatient management of severe early OHSS by administration of GnRH antagonist in the luteal phase: an observational cohort study. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2012;10:69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martins, WP, Nastri, CO, Rienzi, L, van der Poel, SZ, Gracia, C, Racowsky, C. Blastocyst vs cleavage-stage embryo transfer: systematic review and meta-analysis of reproductive outcomes. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;49: 583–591.Google Scholar
Maheshwari, A, Hamilton, M, Bhattacharya, S. Should we be promoting embryo transfer at blastocyst stage? Reprod Biomed Online. 2016;32:142–146.Google Scholar
Xiao, JS, Healey, M, Talmor, A, Vollenhoven, B. When only one embryo is available, is it better to transfer on Day 3 or to grow on? Reprod BioMedicine Online. 2019;39: 916–923.Google Scholar
Papanikolaou, EG, Kolibianakis, EM, Tournaye, H, et al. Live birth rates after transfer of equal number of blastocysts or cleavage-stage embryos in IVF. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Human Reprod. 2007;23: 91–99.Google Scholar
De Vos, A, Van Landuyt, L, Santos-Ribeiro, S, et al. Cumulative live birth rates after fresh and vitrified cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfer in the first treatment cycle. Hum Reprod. 2016;31: 2442–2449.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardner, DK. The impact of physiological oxygen during culture, and vitrification for cryopreservation, on the outcome of extended culture in human IVF. Reprod Biomed Online. 2016;32: 137–141.Google Scholar
Marconi, N, Raja, EA, Bhattacharya, S, Maheshwari, A. Perinatal outcomes in singleton live births after fresh blastocyst-stage embryo transfer: a retrospective analysis of 67 147 IVF/ICSI cycles. Hum Reprod. 2019;34:1716–1725.Google Scholar
Busnelli, A, Dallagiovanna, C, Reschini, M, Paffoni, A, Fedele, L, Somigliana, E. Risk factors for monozygotic twinning after in vitro fertilization: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2019;111: 302–317.Google Scholar
Coticchio, G, Lagalla, C, Sturmey, R, Pennetta, F, Borini, A. The enigmatic morula: mechanisms of development, cell fate determination, self-correction and implications for ART. Hum Reprod Update. 2019;25: 422–438.Google Scholar
Simopoulou, M, Sfakianoudis, K, Tsioulou, P, et al. Should the flexibility enabled by performing a day-4 embryo transfer remain as a valid option in the IVF laboratory? A systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36:1049–1061.Google Scholar
Zakharova, EE, Zaletova, VV, Krivokharchenko, AS. Biopsy of human morula-stage embryos: outcome of 215 IVF/ICSI cycles with PGS. PLoS One 2014;9:e106433.Google Scholar
Hammond, ER, Cree, LM, Morbeck, DE. Should extended blastocyst culture include Day 7? Human Reprod. 2018;33:991–997.Google Scholar
Hernandez-Nieto, C, Lee, JA, Slifkin, R, Sandler, B, Copperman, AB, Flisser, E. What is the reproductive potential of day 7 euploid embryos? Human Reprod. 2019;34:1697–1706.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Irani, M, Zaninovic, N, Canon, C, et al. A rationale for biopsying embryos reaching the morula stage on Day 6 in women undergoing preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy. Human Reprod. 2018;33:935–941.Google Scholar