Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics logoLink to Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics
. 2003 Oct;20(10):413–420. doi: 10.1023/A:1026232625659

The Relationship of Pronuclear Stage Morphology and Chromosome Status at Cleavage Stage

Chun-Kai Chen 1, Guan-Yi Shen 1, Shang-Gwo Horng 1, Chia-Woei Wang 1, Hong-Yuan Huang 1, Hsin-Shin Wang 1, Yung-Kuei Soong 1
PMCID: PMC3455171  PMID: 14649381

Abstract

Purpose: Infertile couples undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) program were included to study the relationship of pronuclear stage morphology and chromosome status at cleavage stage.

Methods: Eighteen to twenty-one hours after fertilization, zygotes were checked for pronuclear morphology with modified Scott Z-score system. After embryo transfer on day 3, arrested or non-transferred 2 PN embryos were spread for fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) staining of probes to chromosomes 18, X and Y.

Results: Ninety-eight embryos were successfully fixed and stained. The chromosome status were recorded in each 2 PN score group: 7 (54%) of 13 embryos in Z2 group, 14 (35%) of 40 in Z3 group and 10 (36%) of 28 in Z4 group being normal diploid. Z1 group has 12 (71%) of 17 embryos being normal diploid, which is significantly more than Z3 (p=0.020) and Z4 group (p = 0.033).

Conclusion: Our results demonstrated a high probability to get normal diploid embryos if good morphology at pronuclear stage was used as selection criteria, especially for Z1 score embryos.

Keywords: Chromosome status, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), pronuclear morphology, zygote scoring

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (356.8 KB).

REFERENCES

  • 1.Edwards RG, Beard HK. Blastocyst stage transfer: Pitfalls and benefits: Is the success of human IVF more a matter of genetics and evolution than growing blastocysts? Hum Reprod. 1999;14:1–6. doi: 10.1093/humrep/14.1.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Scott LA, Smith S. The successful use of pronuclear embryo transfers the day following oocyte retrieval. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:1003–1013. doi: 10.1093/humrep/13.4.1003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.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;14:1318–1323. doi: 10.1093/humrep/14.5.1318. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Scott L, Alvero R, Leondires M, Miller B. The morphology of human pronuclear embryos is positively related to blastocyst development and implantation. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:2394–2403. doi: 10.1093/humrep/15.11.2394. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Wittemer C, Bettahar-Lebugle K, Ohl J, Rongieres C, Nisand I, Gerlinger P. Zygote evaluation: An efficient tool for embryo selection. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:2591–2597. doi: 10.1093/humrep/15.12.2591. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ludwig M, Schöpper B, Al-Hasani S, Diedrich K. Clinical use of a PN stage score following intracytoplasmic sperm injection: Impact on pregnancy rates under the condition of German embryo protection law. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:325–329. doi: 10.1093/humrep/15.2.325. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Montag M, van der Ven H. Evaluation of pronuclear morphology as the only selection criterion for further embryo culture and transfer: Results of a prospective multicentre study. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:2384–2389. doi: 10.1093/humrep/16.11.2384. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Salumets A, Hydén-Granskog C, Suikkari A-M, Tiitinen A, Tuuri T. The predictive value of pronuclear morphology of the zygotes in the assessment of human embryo quality. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:2177–2181. doi: 10.1093/humrep/16.10.2177. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Goessens G. Nucleolar structure. Int Rev Cytol. 1984;87:107–158. doi: 10.1016/s0074-7696(08)62441-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Dozortsev D, Coleman A, Nagy P, Diamond MP, Ermilov A, Weier U, Liyanage M, Reid T. Nucleoli in a pronuclei-stage mouse embryo are represented by major satellite DNA of interconnecting chromosomes. Fertil Steril. 2000;73:366–371. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(99)00491-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Kahraman S, Kumtepe Y, Sertyel S, D¨onmez E, Benkhalifa M, Fındıklı N, Vanderzwalmen P. Pronuclear morphology scoring and chromosomal status of embryos in severe male infertility. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:3193–3200. doi: 10.1093/humrep/17.12.3193. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Harper JC, Delhanty JDA. FISH in preimplantation diagnosis. In: Walker J, editor. Methods in Molecular Biology, Molecular Diagnosis of Genetic Disease. Clifton, NJ: Humana Press; 1996. pp. 259–268. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Harper JC, Delhanty JDA. Detection of chromosomal abnormalities in human preimplantation embryos using FISH. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1996;13:137–139. doi: 10.1007/BF02072535. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Harper JC, Coonen E, Handyside AH, Winston RM, Hopman AH, Delhanty JD. Mosaicism of autosomes and sex chromosomes in morphologically normal, monospermic, preimplantation human embryos. Prenat Diagn. 1995;15:41–49. doi: 10.1002/pd.1970150109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Hopman AH, Ramaekers FC, Raap AK, Beck JL, Devilee P, van der Ploeg M, Vooijs GP. In situ hybridization as a tool to study numerical chromosome aberrations in solid bladder tumors. Histochemistry. 1988;89:307–316. doi: 10.1007/BF00500631. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Munné S, Grifo J, Cohen J, Weier HUG. Chromosome abnormalities in human arrested pre-implantation embryos: A multiple-probe FISH study. Am J Hum Genet. 1994;55:150–159. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Plachot M. Fertilization. Hum Reprod. 2000;15(4):19–30. doi: 10.1093/humrep/15.suppl_4.19. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.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;12:532–541. doi: 10.1093/humrep/12.3.532. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Munné S, Magli C, Alder A. Treatment-related chromosome abnormalities in human embryos. Hum Reprod. 1997;12:780–784. doi: 10.1093/humrep/12.4.780. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Munné S, Cohen J. Chromosome abnormalities in human embryos. Hum Reprod Update. 1998;4:842–855. doi: 10.1093/humupd/4.6.842. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Munné S, Alikani M, Tomkin G, Grifo J, Cohen J. Embryo morphology, developmental rates and maternal age are correlated with chromosome abnormalities. Fertil Steril. 1995;64:382–391. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Bielanska M, Tan SL, Ao A. Chromosomal mosaicism throughout human pre-implantation development in vitro: Incidence, type and relevance to embryo outcome. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:413–419. doi: 10.1093/humrep/17.2.413. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Magli MC, Jones GM, Gras L, Gianaroli L, Korman I, Trounson AO. Chromosome mosaicism in day 3 aneuploid embryos that develop to morphologically normal blastocysts in vitro. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:1781–1786. doi: 10.1093/humrep/15.8.1781. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Sandalinas M, Sadowy S, Alikani M, Calderon G, Cohen J, Munné S. Developmental ability of chromosomally abnormal human embryos to develop to the blastocyst stage. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:1954–1958. doi: 10.1093/humrep/16.9.1954. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Wells D, Sherlock JK, Handyside AH, Delhanty JD. Detailed chromosomal and molecular genetic analysis of single cells by whole genome amplification and comparative genomic hybridization. Nucleic Acid Res. 1999;27:1214–1218. doi: 10.1093/nar/27.4.1214. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics are provided here courtesy of Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

RESOURCES