Analysis and quantification of female and male contributions to the first stages of embryonic kinetics: study from a time-lapse system.
Embryo development
Maternal contribution
Morphokinetics
Paternal contribution
Time lapse
Journal
Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics
ISSN: 1573-7330
Titre abrégé: J Assist Reprod Genet
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9206495
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2022
Jan 2022
Historique:
received:
27
07
2021
accepted:
28
09
2021
pubmed:
22
10
2021
medline:
29
3
2022
entrez:
21
10
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The few studies that examined the effect of male and/or female features on early embryo development, notably using the time-lapse system (TL), reported conflicting results. This can be explained by the small number of studies using an adapted model. We used two original designs to study the female and male effects on embryo development: (1) based on embryos from donor oocytes (TL-DO), and (2) from donor sperm (TL-DS). Firstly, we analyzed the female and male similarities using an ad hoc intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), then we completed the analysis with a multivariable model to assess the association between both male and female factors, and early embryo kinetics. A total of 572 mature oocytes (TL-DO: 293; TL-DS: 279), fertilized by intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and incubated in a TL (Embryoscope®) were included from March 2013 to April 2019; 429 fertilized oocytes (TL-DO: 212; TL-DS: 217) were assessed. The timings of the first 48 h have been analyzed. The similarities in the timings thought to be related to the female component were significant: (ICC in both DO-DS designs respectively: tPB2: 9-18%; tPNa: 16-21%; tPNf: 40-26%; t2: 38-24%; t3: 15-20%; t4: 21-32%). Comparatively, those related to male were lower. Surprisingly after multivariable analyses, no intrinsic female factors were clearly identified. However, in TL-DO design, oligozoospermia was associated with a tendency to longer timings, notably for tPB2 (p = 0.026). This study quantifies the role of the oocyte in the first embryo cleavages, but without identified specific female factors. However, it also highlights that sperm may have an early embryonic effect.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34674102
doi: 10.1007/s10815-021-02336-5
pii: 10.1007/s10815-021-02336-5
pmc: PMC8866590
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
85-95Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Hum Reprod. 2015 Jan;30(1):122-32
pubmed: 25391239
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012 Sep;29(9):891-900
pubmed: 22714134
Reprod Med Biol. 2015 May 09;14(4):159-169
pubmed: 29259413
Nature. 2004 May 13;429(6988):154
pubmed: 15141202
Cell Mol Biol (Noisy-le-grand). 2017 Aug 30;63(8):84-92
pubmed: 28886319
Hum Reprod. 2011 Dec;26(12):3401-12
pubmed: 21989093
Hum Mol Genet. 2007 Nov 1;16(21):2542-51
pubmed: 17636251
Andrology. 2017 Jul;5(4):695-703
pubmed: 28718528
Fertil Steril. 2013 Nov;100(5):1241-7
pubmed: 23916795
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019 Jun;36(6):1109-1116
pubmed: 31062218
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018 Nov;35(11):1953-1968
pubmed: 30206748
Clin Exp Reprod Med. 2019 Sep;46(3):119-124
pubmed: 31220913
Fertil Steril. 2015 Nov;104(5):1175-81.e1-2
pubmed: 26307686
Fertil Steril. 1993 Nov;60(5):888-92
pubmed: 8224276
Hum Reprod. 2020 Jan 1;35(1):24-31
pubmed: 31960907
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018 Jul;35(7):1339-1348
pubmed: 29785530
Hum Reprod Update. 2018 May 1;24(3):245-266
pubmed: 29432538
Hum Reprod. 2007 Dec;22(12):3237-40
pubmed: 17921133
Mol Hum Reprod. 2010 Jan;16(1):37-47
pubmed: 19906823
Mol Reprod Dev. 2018 Mar;85(3):271-280
pubmed: 29392876
Andrology. 2018 Sep;6(5):697-706
pubmed: 30259705
Dev Cell. 2017 Aug 21;42(4):316-332
pubmed: 28829942
Hum Reprod Update. 2010 May-Jun;16(3):231-45
pubmed: 19934213
Hum Reprod. 2013 Mar;28(3):794-800
pubmed: 23293223
Fertil Steril. 2004 Aug;82(2):378-83
pubmed: 15302287
Int J Androl. 2010 Aug 1;33(4):642-9
pubmed: 19878521
Reprod Biomed Online. 2005 Mar;10(3):370-5
pubmed: 15820045
Clin Epigenetics. 2018 Oct 19;10(1):125
pubmed: 30340650
Hum Reprod. 2021 Jan 1;36(1):107-115
pubmed: 33164068
Fertil Steril. 2018 Feb;109(2):302-309.e1
pubmed: 29175066
J Ovarian Res. 2016 Apr 08;9:22
pubmed: 27059823
Andrology. 2015 Mar;3(2):235-40
pubmed: 25755112
Hum Reprod Open. 2020 Mar 19;2020(2):hoaa008
pubmed: 32206731
Gynecol Endocrinol. 2014 Oct;30 Suppl 1:6-8
pubmed: 25200818
Reprod Biomed Online. 2013 Oct;27(4):367-75
pubmed: 23953584
Lancet. 2004 May 22;363(9422):1700-2
pubmed: 15158633
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2019 Oct 25;10:686
pubmed: 31708867
Fertil Steril. 2011 Jan;95(1):129-34, 134.e1-4
pubmed: 20655520
Mol Reprod Dev. 1994 May;38(1):36-42
pubmed: 8049063
Nature. 1988 Mar 31;332(6163):459-61
pubmed: 3352746
Andrologia. 2018 Oct;50(8):e13061
pubmed: 29882361
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2018 Jun 29;9:327
pubmed: 30008696
Fertil Steril. 2010 Oct;94(5):1728-33
pubmed: 19880108
Hum Reprod. 2014 Nov;29(11):2402-12
pubmed: 25205757
Andrologia. 2019 May;51(4):e13217
pubmed: 30569603
Hum Reprod. 2016 Feb;31(2):324-31
pubmed: 26637491
PLoS One. 2007 Dec 12;2(12):e1289
pubmed: 18074014
Hum Mol Genet. 2015 Mar 1;24(5):1295-304
pubmed: 25336341
Andrology. 2020 Sep;8(5):1107-1116
pubmed: 32119189
Hum Reprod Update. 2018 Sep 1;24(5):535-555
pubmed: 29800303
Gynecol Endocrinol. 2010 Dec;26(12):855-60
pubmed: 20642380
Mol Hum Reprod. 2008 Feb;14(2):67-74
pubmed: 18178607
Eur J Hum Genet. 2010 Jan;18(1):73-80
pubmed: 19584898
Front Cell Dev Biol. 2019 Oct 01;7:188
pubmed: 31632960
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013 Jun;168(2):167-72
pubmed: 23351671