Table 2.
Embryo developmental potential of patient’s oocytes and PB1T-derived oocytes
| Patient’s oocytes | PB1T-derived oocytes | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oocyte/PB1 numbera | Fertilizationb | Day 3 embryo fragmentationc | Blastocyst formation | Fertilizationd | Day 3 embryo fragmentation | Blastocyst formatione | Blastocyst karyotype |
| 1 | 0PN/PB2 | C | No | 3PN/PB2 | D | No | |
| 2 | 2PN/PB2 | D | No | – | |||
| 3 | 2PN/PB2 | D | No | 2PN/PB2 | B | Yes (3CC) | 44,XY,-2,-15 |
| 4 | 2PN/PB2 | C | – | 2PN/PB2 | A | Yes (3BB) | 46,XY |
| 5 | 2PN/PB2 | C | No | Degenerated | – | ||
| 6 | 2PN/PB2 | C | No | 1PN/no PB2 | D | No | |
| 7 | 2PN/PB2 | D | No | 3PN/no PB2 | A | Yes (3CC) | Not determined |
| 8 | 2PN/PB2 | C | No | – | |||
| 9 | 2PN/PB2 | C | No | 2PN/PB2 | A | Yes (3BB) | 46,XX |
| 10 | 2PN/PB2 | D | No | 3PN/PB2 | B | Yes (3CB) | Not determined |
| 11 | 2PN/PB2 | D | No | 2PN/PB2 | C | No | |
| 12 | 2PN/PB2 | C | – | 2PN/PB2 | D | No | |
| 13 | 2PN/PB2 | D | No | 2PN/PB2 | D | No | |
| 14 | 2PN/PB2 | D | No | 2PN/PB2 | A | Yes (3BB) | 46,XX |
| 15 | 2PN/PB2 | D | No | Degenerated | – | ||
| 16 | 2PN/PB2 | C | No | 0PN/PB2 | C | No | |
| 17 | 2PN/PB2 | C | No | – | |||
| 18 | 0PN/no PB2 | – | – | 1PN/PB2 | Not cleaved | – | |
aThe developmental potential of each of the patient’s oocyte and its PB1-derived reconstructed oocyte was compared in the same row
bFertilization outcome was represented as pronucleus (PN) number/existing the second polar body (PB2)
cThe degrees of fragmentation in day 3 embryos were divided into four grades (A <10%; B 10–30%; C 30–50%; D >50%). Two embryos (nos. 4 and 12) were transferred on day 3 but no pregnancy was established
dThree PB1s (nos. 2, 8, and 17) have not survived after warming and had no fertilization outcome
eThe Gardner score of day 5 blastocysts was included in parentheses