Two types of cleavage, from zygote to three cells, result in different clinical outcomes and should be treated differently.
Z-score
blastocyst
direct cleavage
embryo
zygote
Journal
Frontiers in cell and developmental biology
ISSN: 2296-634X
Titre abrégé: Front Cell Dev Biol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101630250
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2024
2024
Historique:
received:
10
03
2024
accepted:
13
05
2024
medline:
18
6
2024
pubmed:
18
6
2024
entrez:
18
6
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
What is the utilization rate of embryos that exert inadequate zygote cleavage into three daughter cells? This study used a retrospective dataset from a single IVF Unit. A total of 3,060 embryos from 1,811 fresh IVF cycles were analyzed. The cleavage pattern, morphokinetics, and outcome were recorded. Only 2pn embryos, fertilized by ejaculated sperm, and cultured in a time-lapse system for at least 5 days were included. We generated three study groups according to the embryo's cleavage pattern: (I) Control, normal cleavage ( The rate of usable fast cleavage blastocysts was 108/1,587 (6.81%) and usable control blastocysts was 180/551 (32.67%). The time of PN fading and from fading to first cleavage differed significantly between the three groups. Although the pregnancy rate of control and fast cleavage blastocysts were comparable (40.35% and 42.55%, respectively), the amount of instant direct cleavage embryos that reached blastocyst stage was neglectable (only four embryos out of 922 analyzed IDC embryos) and unsuitable for statistical comparison of pregnancy rates. Our results indicate the need to culture instant direct cleavage embryos for 5 days, up to the blastocyst stage, and avoid transfer of embryos that are fated to arrest even when their morphological grade on day 3 is acceptable, whereas fast cleavage embryos could be transferred on day 3 when there is no alternative.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38887513
doi: 10.3389/fcell.2024.1398684
pii: 1398684
pmc: PMC11180787
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1398684Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024 Nemerovsky, Ghetler, Wiser and Levi.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Reprod Biomed Online. 2003 Mar;6(2):201-14
pubmed: 12676001
Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Jun;11(3):307-11
pubmed: 10369209
J Ovarian Res. 2013 Sep 12;6(1):64
pubmed: 24028277
Nat Commun. 2015 Jul 07;6:7601
pubmed: 26151134
Hum Reprod. 2005 Mar;20(3):672-82
pubmed: 15689349
Nature. 1988 Mar 31;332(6163):459-61
pubmed: 3352746
Sci Rep. 2017 Aug 29;7(1):9744
pubmed: 28851957
J Clin Med. 2021 Sep 12;10(18):
pubmed: 34575222
Hum Reprod. 2022 Jul 30;37(8):1704-1711
pubmed: 35640036
Am J Hum Genet. 2021 Dec 2;108(12):2238-2247
pubmed: 34798051
Fertil Steril. 2014 Jun;101(6):1637-48.e1-5
pubmed: 24726214
Nat Commun. 2022 Nov 8;13(1):6755
pubmed: 36347869
Fertil Steril. 2012 Dec;98(6):1458-63
pubmed: 22925687
Acta Histochem. 2015 Jan;117(1):111-25
pubmed: 25554607
Hum Reprod Update. 2022 Aug 25;28(5):656-686
pubmed: 35613016
Nat Biotechnol. 2010 Oct;28(10):1115-21
pubmed: 20890283
Panminerva Med. 2022 Jun;64(2):171-184
pubmed: 35179016
PLoS One. 2016 Dec 1;11(12):e0166398
pubmed: 27907016
Reprod Biomed Online. 2015 Jun;30(6):625-34
pubmed: 25892500
Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2020 Oct 6;18(1):98
pubmed: 33023576
Reprod Med Biol. 2017 Apr 12;16(2):200-205
pubmed: 29259470
Hum Reprod Update. 2021 Aug 20;27(5):848-865
pubmed: 34131722
Hum Reprod. 2014 Dec;29(12):2650-60
pubmed: 25344070
Cell. 2021 May 27;184(11):2860-2877.e22
pubmed: 33964210
Reproduction. 2017 Aug;154(2):R37-R53
pubmed: 28408705