covid
Buscar en
Medicina Reproductiva y Embriología Clínica
Toda la web
Inicio Medicina Reproductiva y Embriología Clínica The Embryology Interest Group: updating ASEBIR's morphological scoring system fo...
Información de la revista
Vol. 5. Núm. 1.
Páginas 42-54 (enero - abril 2018)
Compartir
Compartir
Descargar PDF
Más opciones de artículo
Visitas
631
Vol. 5. Núm. 1.
Páginas 42-54 (enero - abril 2018)
Consensus document
Acceso a texto completo
The Embryology Interest Group: updating ASEBIR's morphological scoring system for early embryos, morulae and blastocysts
Grupo de interés de embriología: actualización del sistema de clasificación morfológica ASEBIR para embriones tempranos, mórulas y blastocistos
Visitas
631
Irene Cuevas Saiza,
Autor para correspondencia
icuevassaiz@yahoo.es

Corresponding author.
, Maria Carme Pons Gatellb, Muriel Cuadros Vargasc, Arantzazu Delgado Mendived, Natalia Rives Enedáguilae, Marta Moragas Solanesf, Beatriz Carrasco Canalb, José Teruel Lópezg, Ana Busquets Boneth, Mª Victoria Hurtado de Mendoza Acostai
a Hospital General Universitario, Valencia, Spain
b Institut Universitari Dexeus, Barcelona, Spain
c Segrelles IVF, A Coruña, Spain
d Institut Universitari IVI Valencia, Valencia, Spain
e Barcelona IVF, Barcelona, Spain
f Hospital Quirón Salud, Barcelona, Spain
g Clínica Equipo Juana Crespo, Valencia, Spain
h Centro Médico Teknon, Barcelona, Spain
i External advisor, Sevilla, Spain
Ver más
Este artículo ha recibido
Información del artículo
Resumen
Texto completo
Bibliografía
Descargar PDF
Estadísticas
Figuras (1)
Tablas (5)
Table 1. Data multicentre cleavage rate between D+2 and D+3 and implantation rate. Year 2017. Cleavage rate D+2–D+3: increase in number of blastomeres between both days of development. IR: implantation rate. p: p-value; significance p<0.05. LBR: recent live birth rate. Transferred: number of embryos transferred of each type. Implanted: number of embryos implanted of each type. Born: number of children born of each type.
Table 2. Embryo categorisation diagram according to presence of vacuoles.
Table 3. ASEBIR grading system for early embryos.
Table 4. ASEBIR scoring for morulae stage.
Table 5. ASEBIR scoring for blastocyst stage.
Mostrar másMostrar menos
Abstract

The Embryology Interest Group of the Association for the Study of Reproductive Biology has established a system of embryo scoring based on the bibliography published to date and the experience of the members of the group. This article sets out the morphological characteristics evaluated at each stage, as well as updating previous editions, from oocyte to blastocyst, and their influence on the potential for embryo development and implantation. Four categories are proposed with the purpose of standardising criteria and making it easier to run multicentre studies.

Keywords:
Embryo scoring
Blastocyst
Implantation
Embryo morphology
Resumen

Desde el Grupo de Interés de Embriología (GIE) de la Asociación para el Estudio de la Biología de la Reproducción (ASEBIR) se ha establecido un sistema de clasificación embrionaria basado tanto en la bibliografía publicada hasta la fecha como en la propia experiencia de los miembros del grupo. En el presente artículo se detallan las características morfológicas evaluadas en cada estadio, desde oocito hasta blastocisto y su influencia en el potencial de desarrollo e implantación embrionario. Se proponen 4 categorías con el propósito de unificar criterios y facilitar la realización de estudios multicéntricos.

Palabras clave:
Clasificación embrionaria
Blastocisto
Implantación
Morfología embrionaria
Texto completo
Introduction

Since the birth of the first baby resulting from in vitro fertilisation there have been great changes in clinical practice and technology but, in spite of years of research, embryo selection continues to be based mainly on morphology criteria.

Regrettably, the lack of consensus in embryo morphology assessment and selection leads to a series of problems such as the impossibility of generating multicentre studies with common assessment of embryo quality, correct interpretation of clinical reports from other laboratories, and the impossibility of comparing the results among different centres.

In an attempt to respond to this situation, the Embryology Interest Group (GIE in its Spanish initials) of the Spanish Association for the Study of Reproductive Biology (ASEBIR in its Spanish initials) classified embryos in categories based on the sequential evaluation of the embryo in the different stages of development titled “Criterios ASEBIR de valoración morfológica de oocitos, embriones tempranos y blastocistos humanos” (ASEBIR criteria for morphological assessment and selection of early embryos and human blastocysts) (Ardoy et al., 2007, 2008; Hurtado de Mendoza et al., 2015).

The 2015 update included proposals agreed by the scientific societies (Balaban et al., 2011; Magli et al., 2012) as well as several works dealing with scoring: a survey on the use of the ASEBIR criteria (Hurtado de Mendoza, 2011), the results obtained in external quality controls (Castilla et al., 2010) and, finally, the first work on validation of the ASEBIR criteria, a multicentre study that proved its predictive validity in Day 3 (D+3) stage (Pons et al., 2014).

The current scoring system includes all the parameters that are clearly related to embryo implantation chances. Some parameters that were not included in the scoring system have been proposed as additional criteria to help in selecting embryos of the same category. Finally, certain morphological parameters need greater study in order to form a relevant part of the decision chart. It must be made clear that the morphology assessment, selection criteria and their categorisation have been described exclusively for fresh oocytes and embryos.

ASEBIR's GIE is aware that new technologies have been introduced in recent years, especially the evaluation of embryo morphokinetics using time-lapse technology (Wong et al., 2010; Meseguer et al., 2011; Basile et al., 2015). This has made it possible to become aware of events that cannot be assessed using static sequential observation, for example direct cleavage or blastomere fusion. The morphokinetic parameters will produce greater knowledge that will make it possible for us to modify some of the established criteria. Because the ASEBIR scoring system is dynamic, its future updates will continually incorporate the parameters that show a clinical improvement in the results.

The aim of this work is to review the morphological parameters at each stage of the embryo development included in the proposed system of scoring by categories and their relationship with embryo implantation potential.

Day 0: oocyte assessment and selection

It is estimated that 60–70% of the oocytes retrieved in ovarian stimulation cycles present morphological alterations, both cytoplasmic and extracytoplasmic, that could affect the future development of the embryo.

With regard to alterations in the cytoplasm, the clustering of organelles and their granularity are among the most frequent. When it is central, it is associated with low implantation potential and high miscarriage rate (Rita de Cássia et al., 2010; Rienzi et al., 2012). The aggregates of smooth endoplasmic reticulum are considered to be a severe anomaly associated with abnormal embryo development, low rate of blastocyst formation, high percentage of biochemical pregnancies and obstetric complications in the pregnancies derived from these embryos (Meriano et al., 2001; Sá et al., 2011; Rienzi et al., 2011). Despite births of healthy children have been reported (Shaw-Jackson et al., 2014; Balaban et al., 2011) it is recommended not to inseminate oocytes with these characteristics, although the final decision must be taken case by case. Vacuoles are another frequent dysmorphism which, when they persist, can interfere with the cleavage planes of the embryo, leading to low blastocyst formation rates (Ebner et al., 2005). Lastly, there is no agreement in the bibliography about the influence of cytoplasmic inclusions on fertilisation, cleavage and embryo quality, or blastocysts formation rate (Otsuki et al., 2007; Rienzi et al., 2011, 2012).

As for extracytoplasmic alterations, the cellular debris in the perivitelline space may be due to an excessive administration of gonadotropins in the ovarian stimulation cycles (Balaban and Urman, 2006). However, there is not sufficient evidence to support a prognosis associated with this observation. The presence of a large perivitelline space is associated with over-maturation of the oocyte (Miao et al., 2009; Hassa et al., 2014), being related to a low fertilisation rate, though it does not seem to affect embryo quality (Ten et al., 2007; Setti et al., 2011; Rienzi et al., 2012).

The size of the oocyte reflects genetic anomalies. It is advisable not to inseminate giant oocytes (>200μm) as they often contain an additional chromosomes set (Rosenbusch et al., 2002).

Nor should oocytes with a large polar body (PB) (>30μm) be inseminated due to their risk of being aneuploid (Balaban et al., 2011).

The appearance of cumulus corona radiata has not been shown to have any direct relationship with later embryo development.

Although the oocyte is not included as of now as a relevant parameter in embryo scoring, it is recommended to take into consideration these intra- and extracytoplasmic morphological characteristics, which could compromise future embryo development.

Day 1: zygote and early cleavage

In the zygote stage, between 16 and 18h post-insemination (hpi), the pronuclei (PN) and PB can be observed. This is an essential evaluation for assessing fertilisation properly (2PN2PB) as well as for identifying alterations in it (Balaban et al., 2011).

It is recommended to discard the fertilised oocytes coming from ICSI cycles that present 1PN2PB (Ardoy et al., 2008; Azevedo et al., 2014), as it is a pattern related with aneuploidies (Mateo et al., 2013) or parthenogenetic activation (Staessen and Van Steirteghem, 1997). In case this zygote comes from conventional IVF, each laboratory should decide for itself whether or not to continue with its culture (Hurtado de Mendoza et al., 2015). Zygotes with more than 2PN should also be discarded as approximately 50% will be triploid, as well as those that present 2PN and one or more micronuclei, with higher aneuploidy rates (Palermo et al., 1995; Boada and Ponsá, 2008).

Additionally, the symmetry, position and location of the PN in the cytoplasm could be assessed; as well as the number, symmetry and location of the nucleolar precursor bodies (NPBs) (Tesarik and Greco, 1999; Scott, 2003; Nicoli et al., 2013). Despite the lack of consensus about the value of the different pronuclear patterns, there is agreement about the lesser potential of the zygotes that present a single NPB in one PN, separated PN or PN of different sizes (Balaban et al., 2011).

The number of PBs is also an important parameter in evaluating ploidy. The embryos with a single PB must be discarded. However, there is no evidence that the appearance or location of PB with respect to the PN (Gianaroli et al., 2003; Nicoli et al., 2013) should be included in the morphological assessment and selection.

The presence of a cytoplasmic halo is considered as a positive characteristic, provided that it is not excessive (Zollner et al., 2002; Balaban and Urman, 2006).

In the interval between 25 and 27 hpi the early cleavage is assessed. In this observation it is evaluated whether the first mitotic cleavage has occurred, as well as size similarity of the blastomeres, multinucleation and fragmentation. The relationship between early cleavage (2 blastomeres) and clinical outcomes in implantation and pregnancy rates is controversial (Emiliani et al., 2006; de los Santos et al., 2014), as with embryo quality (Rienzi et al., 2005; Çiray et al., 2006), development to blastocyst stage (Guerif et al., 2007) or chromosomal anomalies (Arroyo et al., 2015).

If the embryo has 3 blastomeres at the early cleavage assessment (25–27 hpi), it could come from fast or direct cleavage (1–3 cells). In these cases, its implantation potential will be decreased (Rubio et al., 2012). As it is impossible to ascertain this situation without time-lapse equipment, this information could only be used to select among embryos of the same quality.

Time-lapse technology has been used to relate morphokinetic parameters of the zygote with clinical outcomes. Thus, the time of the 2nd PB extrusion, the PN fading and the duration of these have been associated with implantation rates (Aguilar et al., 2014). According to some authors, the duration of the presence of the PN is crucial; the zygotes that develop to competent blastocysts, have their 2PN visible between 7.7 and 22.9 hpi (Chamayou et al., 2013) whereas the early breakdown of the PN (before 20h 45min), compromises the possibility of generating a live birth (Azzarello et al., 2012).

It is advisable to use early cleavage as a secondary parameter to decide among embryos of similar quality (Balaban et al., 2011).

Days 2 and 3: early embryos

Embryo scoring is established in early embryos. This can only be applied to those that come from 2PN2PB zygotes, and four categories are defined related to the implantation potential of the embryo, A being the category with highest implantation potential, B and C intermediate and D the lowest.

Number of blastomeres and cleavage rate

The number of blastomeres is one of the most important indicators of embryo development potential.

On day 2 of culture (D+2) the observation must be made between 43 and 45 hpi and on day 3 (D+3), between 67 and 69 hpi (Balaban et al., 2011). It is widely agreed that the embryos with high implantation potential and live birth rates are those that have 8 cells on D+3 and come from embryos that have 4 cells on D+2 (Racowsky et al., 2011).

On the other hand, many works have observed that both the embryos that divide more slowly (<4 cells on D+2 or ≤6 cells on D+3) and those that divide faster (>4 cells on D+2 or >9 cells on D+3), present a lower implantation potential and a higher aneuploidy rate compared to embryos with an optimal cleavage rate (Magli et al., 2007; Racowsky et al., 2011). According to some published data (Holte et al., 2007; Luna et al., 2008) and the results of the multicentre study performed by the GIE (data not published), the embryos that divide faster have higher implantation rates than those that divide more slowly.

On D+3, the morphological scoring of the embryo will depend on the cleavage rate compared to D+2. Table 1 shows the results obtained in the multicenter study for validation of the ASEBIR criteria (Pons et al., 2014). It compares the embryos cleavage rate with their implantation and live birth rates. The later extension of the study, in which 550 embryos have been added, confirms the tendency already observed initially that embryos with 4 blastomeres on D+2 and 7 blastomeres on D+3 have lower implantation potential than those that have 8 or 9 blastomeres.

Table 1.

Data multicentre cleavage rate between D+2 and D+3 and implantation rate. Year 2017. Cleavage rate D+2–D+3: increase in number of blastomeres between both days of development. IR: implantation rate. p: p-value; significance p<0.05. LBR: recent live birth rate. Transferred: number of embryos transferred of each type. Implanted: number of embryos implanted of each type. Born: number of children born of each type.

Rate  IR (%)  p  LBR (%)  p  Transferred  Implanted  Born 
48–9  29.2%  <0.001  25.1%  <0.001  1289  376  324 
47; 4>9; 5>6  16.4%  <0.001  13.9%  <0.001  541  89  75 
24–9  10.9%  <0.001  9.2%  <0.001  239  26  22 
47.3%  <0.001  7.3%  <0.001  96 
3>4  7.6%  <0.001  5.9%  <0.001  118 
Increase of 1 cell
From D+2 to D+3 
9.8%  <0.001  9.8%  0.003  71 
No cleavage  <6.2%        16 

As a consequence, this new revision of the scoring criteria of early embryos modifies the scoring of embryos that develop from 4 blastomeres on D+2 to 7 blastomeres on D+3 according to current evidence on their implantation potential. These embryos, which were classified in category A in the previous update (Hurtado de Mendoza et al., 2015), will now be classified in category B.

This modification is in line with the Istanbul Consensus (Balaban et al., 2011) and with the data provided by time-lapse technology which, although the predictive value for the highest implantation potential is still questioned, is very useful. It has been seen that embryos that reach 8 cells earlier have greater implantation potential (Dal Canto et al., 2012), as do embryos where the second cell cycle is more synchronic (Kirkegaard et al., 2013; Chamayou et al., 2013).

As always, it must be mentioned that due to the nature of the study, with a relatively low sample size in some cleavage rates groups, these results may change in the future as a result of new evidence.

Continuing with the data provided by time-lapse technology on the cleavage rate, kinetic markers have been identified as having prognostic value for blastocyst formation rate (Wong et al., 2010; Motato et al., 2016). Moreover, the identification of atypical phenotypes such as abnormal syngamy, abnormal first cytokinesis, anomalous development or chaotic development, are related to the prognosis for embryo development (Wirka et al., 2014). Direct cleavage from 1–3 cells has also been linked to poor embryo quality and low implantation rate (Cruz et al., 2012; Rubio et al., 2012; Kirkegaard et al., 2013).

Size of the stage-specific blastomeres

The ASEBIR's GIE recommends using the term “stage-specific” (SS) to unify and define the cellular symmetry of the embryos (Prados et al., 2012). An embryo is considered stage-specific when the size of the blastomeres is consistent with their cleavage cycle, while in non-stage-specific embryos the sizes of the blastomeres are incompatible with their cleavage cycle (Fig. 1).

Figure 1.

Stage-specific cleavage patterns. Diagram illustrating the concept of “stage-specific” cleavage patterns (coloured dark green) versus “non-stage-specific” cleavage patterns (coloured light green) starting from 3 cells. As can be seen, the proper relationship of cell sizes coincides with equality of blastomere size only in the cases of 4 and 8 cells (image provided by the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology). This image appears in the chapter: “The cleavage stage embryo” (Prados et al., 2012) of the “Atlas of human embryology: from oocytes to preimplantation embryos” (Magli et al., 2012).

(0.28MB).

Thus, we should only observe blastomeres of similar sizes in the stage-specific embryos of 2, 4, 8 and 16 cells, in which all the blastomeres have completed the same cleavage cycle. On the other hand, in stage-specific embryos in intermediate stages (3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 cells) we should expect cells of different sizes because the blastomeres are not dividing synchronically and they are in different cell cycles.

The concept of unequal blastomere size is connected exclusively with uneven cleavage and is defined as asymmetrical division in a 4-cell embryo, where the difference between the diameter of the largest and smallest blastomeres exceeds 20% of the diameter of the largest (Hardarson et al., 2001).

According to some authors, uneven cleavage is associated with a decreased implantation potential (Steer et al., 1992; Veeck, 1999; Van Blerkom et al., 2000; De Placido et al., 2002; Hnida et al., 2004), with an uneven distribution of the genetic material (Ebner et al., 2003), and with increased multinucleation (Hardarson et al., 2001).

A retrospective study (Sela et al., 2012) reported that SS embryo ratio is higher in the group of successful embryo implantation compared to the group of non-successful implantation (80% vs 70%).

Cell fragmentation: degree and type

Fragmentation is defined as the presence of anucleated structures of blastomeric origin, formed of portions of cytoplasm delimited by a cell membrane (Johansson et al., 2003).

The assessment and selection of this parameter is applicable both to D+2 and to D+3 and four quality groups are established according to the degree of fragmentation: ≤10%, >10% to 25%, >25% to 35% and >35%.

As well as the degree of fragments, it is important to consider their size and distribution. When they are large and predominate in the embryo, they can be confused with small blastomeres (Johansson et al., 2003) and compromise both the blastocyst formation and the implantation rate (Alikani et al., 2000; Racowsky et al., 2003). Likewise, the type of fragmentation, its percentage and its distribution can compromise the chromosome complement of the embryo (Munné, 2006; Magli et al., 2007). According to their distribution, chromosomal anomalies increase in embryos that present scattered fragmentation, compared with those in which it is concentrated (Magli et al., 2007).

More recently, transmission electron microscopy (TEM) has shown that the mitochondria are the most abundant cell organelle in the fragments (Halvaei et al., 2016), which could be an argument against their extraction in moderately fragmented embryos.

Currently, with the use of time-lapse technology, phenomena such as fragments reabsorption have been observed (Hardarson et al., 2002), which could directly affect the embryo scoring. Other authors have also found a correlation between fragmentation degree and the appearance of the meiotic spindle and first mitotic cycles (Stensen et al., 2015).

ASEBIR's GIE recommends that embryos with over 50% of fragmentation should not be transferred or frozen, since their implantation rate is practically zero.

Visualisation of nuclei and multinucleation

Multinucleation is defined as the presence of more than one nucleus in at least one blastomere of an embryo. It can be assessed both on D+2 and on D+3 (Van Royen et al., 2003; Elder and Cohen, 2007). Two types of multinucleation can be observed: binucleation (BN) when there are 2 nuclei per blastomere and multi/micronucleation (MN) when there are more than 2 nuclei per blastomere.

The presence of multinucleation is frequent; however, its incidence varies widely in the different studies, there being significant variations between observers (Paternot et al., 2009).

Numerous studies show that the assessment of nucleation is a parameter with high predictive value for the viability of an embryo (Pelinck et al., 1998; Meriano et al., 2004). Recent studies carried out with time-lapse technology show that this event is particularly frequent in the 2-cell stage (Meseguer et al., 2011; Hashimoto et al., 2016; Balakier et al., 2016).

Thus, the visualisation of a single nucleus per blastomere is considered a good prognosis factor (Moriwaki et al., 2004), whereas the presence of MN has been linked to an increase in chromosomal abnormalities (Hardarson et al., 2001; Munné, 2006; Parriego i Beltran et al., 2016) and a higher miscarriage rate (Scott et al., 2007; Fauque et al., 2013). Also, the type of multinucleation can change the prognosis: according to Meriano et al. (2004), the implantation rate of embryos with micronucleated cells is lower than that of embryos with BN cells.

Despite the poor prognosis, live births from MN embryos have been reported (Fauque et al., 2013; Yilmaz et al., 2014; Hashimoto et al., 2016; Parriego i Beltran et al., 2016) and more recently it has been shown that they can generate euploid embryos (Yilmaz et al., 2014; Balakier et al., 2016; Hashimoto et al., 2016).

In the multicentre study carried out by ASEBIR's GIE (data not published) it was observed that when MN embryos have the characteristics of an optimal quality embryo (categories A and B), the implantation rate was not affected. Despite these data, because the sample size was too small to refute the previously published studies, it was decided to make an exception for those embryos that show all the parameters of an A score but have one BN blastomere on D+2 or 1/2 BN blastomeres on D+3, assigning them to category C. The MN embryos that did not meet these requirements were classified in category D, because of the proven relationship of multinucleated embryos with chromosomal abnormalities and high miscarriage rates (Hardarson et al., 2001; Munné, 2006; Agerholm et al., 2008).

For this reason, in accordance with the Istanbul Consensus (Balaban et al., 2011) ASEBIR recommends transferring MN embryos only when no other embryos are available. Also, it is convenient to culture these embryos till D+5 in order to make a better selection.

Vacuolisation

The impact of the vacuoles on embryo development seems to depend on their size and number. The presence of small vacuoles (<5μm in diameter) does not seem to impair the development of the embryo (Veeck, 1999). On the other hand, the presence of extensive vacuolisation may be harmful especially for its spatial development (Prados et al., 2012).

With the aim of quantifying the impact of the presence of vacuoles, and after carrying out a pilot study, ASEBIR's GIE classifies embryos by size and number of vacuoles as can be seen in Table 2.

Table 2.

Embryo categorisation diagram according to presence of vacuoles.

* It is recommended that embryos with more than 50% of blastomeres with large vacuoles should not be transferred or frozen as their implantation rate is practically zero.

Zona pellucida

A healthy zona pellucida (ZP) has a round outline, an approximate thickness of 19.5±2.2μm (Pelletier et al., 2004), with no abnormalities, absence of internal partitioning or septum, and translucent (Goyanes et al., 1990; Veeck, 1999; Gabrielsen et al., 2001).

Abnormalities in the ZP are related to a low implantation rate, probably due to difficulties in hatching (Veeck, 1999; Gabrielsen et al., 2001; Calderón et al., 2002). The GIE emphasises that, while it is important to distinguish between anomalies and dysmorphisms (slight variations from normality), they do not seem to affect the implantation and live birth rates (data not published. Source: GIE multicentre study).

In conclusion, with respect to embryo scoring, slight dysmorphisms in the ZP do not penalise the category of the embryo. Only abnormalities such as excessive thickness, presence of septum, oval shape or dark colour assign the embryo to category B, in the absence of other morphological alterations.

Other anomalies

Pitting is characterised by the presence of small pits of approximately 1.5μm in the cortical area of the cytoplasm (Biggers and Racowsky, 2002), its orange-peel appearance must not be confused with extensive vacuolisation (Wiemer et al., 1996; Desai et al., 2000). There appears to be no correlation between pitting and embryo quality (Rienzi et al., 2003) or the possibility of pregnancy (Desai et al., 2000), though it has been linked to a higher incidence of early miscarriages (Ebner et al., 2005). Some studies suggest that culture conditions may be responsible for cytoplasmic pitting (Biggers and Racowsky, 2002; Ebner et al., 2005).

The cortical halo is a clear cortical area, a reflection of the retraction of the cytoplasm. It is linked to the loss of regulatory proteins and mitochondria eliminated through fragments, so their presence could compromise future embryo development (Veeck, 1999; Van Blerkom, 2007).

The irregular shape of the blastomere could be due to physiological alterations or to the process of embryo cleavage (Goyanes et al., 1990). Embryos with regular blastomeres achieve greater rates of blastocyst formation, though no differences have been found in live birth rates (Guerif et al., 2010).

There are not sufficient data to include compaction or early adhesion in the scoring diagram (Wiemer et al., 1996; Desai et al., 2000). The start of the adhesion on D+3, provided the embryo has 7 or 8 blastomeres, is considered as good prognosis. On the other hand, if adhesion starts on D+2 or compaction is very advanced on D+3, they are considered as poor prognosis factors.

After gathering together everything in the above section, the embryo-grading chart was established as seen in Table 3, depending on the expected implantation potential. Grade A being the highest implantation capacity and grade D the lowest (Table 3).

Table 3.

ASEBIR grading system for early embryos.

(1) “bn”=binucleated. (2) Ex: acytoplasmic ring on D+3.

Day 4: morula

Of all the cell stages, the morula, on day 4 (D+4) is the least studied. Embryo transfer is not being performed routinely on D+4 probably due to the lack of morphological criteria with predictive value for pregnancy in this stage. But compaction is a key point to take into account in embryo development (Gardner and Balaban, 2016) and for that reason the GIE decided to include the morula in the embryo scoring system.

The most relevant parameters evaluated on D+4 are the beginning of the 4th round of mitotic divisions, adhesion, cell compaction and the morphological anomalies of poor prognosis (fragmentation, vacuolisation and intracellular cavitation).

The observation interval for D+4 has been set, in accordance with the Istanbul Consensus, between 90 and 94 hpi (Balaban et al., 2011).

In this stage, the optimal quality embryo must have started the 4th round of mitotic divisions (>8 blastomeres) (Feil et al., 2008; Balaban et al., 2011).

Cell adhesion is the first step in the process of embryo compaction. Blastomeres have begun to compact tightly showing wide areas of intercellular contact, but individual blastomeres can still be identified.

At the complete compactation stage, the embryo appears as a compact mass of cells where the blastomeres are completely compacted but the nuclei could still be identified.

Tight junctions between blastomeres prevent the visualisation of each individual blastomere and bring the start of embryo polarisation (Gardner, 1989; Alikani, 2005; Cockburn and Rossant, 2010). The embryo genome activation is a prerequisite for correct compaction (Balaban et al., 2000; Behr et al., 2000; Alikani, 2005). According to Tao et al. (2002), the optimal compaction process must include all the blastomeres, whereas the exclusion of more than 50% of the embryo is correlated with poor prognosis.

Recently, an observational and qualitative study described that the cells excluded from the compacted morulae have a higher incidence of aneuploidy than the cells of the corresponding trophectoderm, and it has been postulated that there may be a self-correction mechanism of the aneuploidy in mosaic embryos. Also, this process seems to be less efficient in women of advanced age (Lagalla et al., 2016).

In D+4 stage it is common to find morulae that present vacuoles and/or cytoplasmic fragments. Both characteristics are indicative of the start of apoptosis. The fragments and cells that enter apoptosis do not compact and are excluded from the compaction.

Finally, based on the characteristics mentioned above, ASEBIR proposed a scoring for D+4 (Table 4).

Table 4.

ASEBIR scoring for morulae stage.

Days 5 and 6: morphological evaluation of the blastocyst

The observation interval for day 5 (D+5) is set between 114 and 118 hpi, and between 136 and 140 hpi for day 6 (D+6), in accordance with the recommendations of the Istanbul Consensus (Balaban et al., 2011).

Performing blastocyst culture and transfer in blastocyst stage, higher pregnancy and recent live birth rates are obtained than those observed in transfers in early stages (Papanikolaou et al., 2006; Styer et al., 2008).

According to the current bibliography, only between 40% and 60% of oocytes fertilised in vitro reach the blastocyst stage (Gardner et al., 1998; Behr et al., 1999; Costa-Borges et al., 2016). Most of the embryos reach it on D+5, although embryos that divide more slowly may reach blastocyst on D+6 or even day 7 (D+7), a situation that implies lower, but not negligible, implantation rates (Khorram et al., 2000; Richter et al., 2001; Shapiro et al., 2001; Kovalevsky et al., 2013).

ASEBIR proposes a scoring system very similar to Gardner's (Gardner et al., 1998), where the parameters taken into account are the degree of expansion of the blastocoel, the characteristics of the trophectoderm (TE) and of the inner cell mass (ICM) (Table 5).

Table 5.

ASEBIR scoring for blastocyst stage.

The observation of the blastocoel is related to good implantation rates (Shoukir et al., 1998); its formation could be related to a proper process of trophoblastic maturation (Wiley, 1984; Watson et al., 1992). With the expansion of the blastocoel there is a thinning of the ZP, reaching a minimum thickness when the blastocyst is totally expanded. Some authors associate this thinning with an improvement in implantation rates (Balaban et al., 2000; Yoon et al., 2001; Racowsky et al., 2003).

Regarding the TE, the number, shape and degree of cohesion of the layer of cells will help to score the blastocyst in the different categories, from a better prognosis with a homogeneous epithelium with elliptical cells to an irregular epithelium with few cells or with degenerative foci.

The ICM must be oval and its cells must be compacted. The favourable size varies between 1900 and 3800μm2 while lower sizes would imply lower implantation potential (Richter et al., 2001).

The presence of vacuoles and fragmentation is indicative of the start of apoptosis, but there are no bibliographical references to connect it directly with implantation failures.

Later, based on a retrospective validation study performed by the GIE (data not published), a scoring system was proposed that consists of 4 categories; A, B, C and D (Table 5), giving greater importance to the morphology of the TE than the ICM, in agreement with other published studies (Ahlstrom et al., 2011; Hill et al., 2013).

Blastocysts are classified according to the characteristics of the blastocyst itself without taking into account the assessment and selection of the embryo on previous days. It will only be taken into account in selection between various blastocysts of equal quality.

Discussion and conclusions

This work presents an updating of the embryo scoring system that is already implemented in most Spanish Assisted Reproduction Centres, and validated by retrospective studies. This makes it possible to unify criteria between centres and to perform multicentre studies with the same scoring criteria.

The ASEBIR scoring system, in early embryos, morulae and blastocysts, classifies the embryos in four categories: A, B, C and D.

In early embryos, D+3 score depends on the D+2 score while in blastocyst stage, its score is independent of the embryo evolution on earlier days.

The current ASEBIR scoring system is based exclusively on morphological parameters; however, being a dynamic scoring, the GIE continues working on updating criteria based on the scientific advances from different approaches.

Work is also being done on a scoring system of blastocysts on D+7 of culture, as the rapid expansion of blastocyst biopsy for preimplantational genetic diagnosis cycles is leading many laboratories to transfer and/or cryopreserve in this stage and it is considered beneficial to unify scoring criteria.

The GIE recommends the participation of IVF laboratories in external quality control programmes (Santos, 2007; Mantilla et al., 2015) that include morphological embryo assessment and selection, with the aim of ensuring minimum inter- and intralaboratory variability.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
[Agerholm et al., 2008]
I. Agerholm, C. Hnida, D. Crüger, C. Berg, G. Bruun-Petersen, S. Kølvraa, S. Ziebe.
Nuclei size in relation to nuclear status and aneuploidy rate for 13 chromosomes in donated four cells embryos.
J. Assist. Reprod. Genet., 25 (2008), pp. 95-102
[Aguilar et al., 2014]
J. Aguilar, Y. Motato, M.J. Escribá, M. Ojeda, E. Muñoz, M. Meseguer.
The human first cell cycle: impact on implantation”.
Reprod. Biomed. Online, 28 (2014), pp. 475-484
[Ahlstrom et al., 2011]
A. Ahlstrom, C. Westin, E. Reismer, M. Wikland, T. Hardarson.
Trophectoderm morphology: an important parameter for predicting live birth after single blastocyst transfer.
Hum. Reprod. (Oxford, England), 26 (2011), pp. 3289-3296
[Alikani, 2005]
M. Alikani.
Epithelial cadherin distribution in abnormal human pre-implantation embryos.
Hum. Reprod. (Oxford, England), 20 (2005), pp. 3369-3375
[Alikani et al., 2000]
M. Alikani, G. Calderon, G. Tomkin, J. Garrisi, M. Kokot, J. Cohen.
Cleavage anomalies in early human embryos and survival after prolonged culture in-vitro.
Hum. Reprod. (Oxford, England), 15 (2000), pp. 2634-2643
[Ardoy et al., 2008]
M. Ardoy, G. Calderón, J. Cuadros, M. Figueroa, R. Herrer, J. Moreno, A. Ortiz, F. Prados, L. Rodríguez, J. Santaló.
II Criterios ASEBIR de valoración morfológica de oocitos, embriones tempranos y blastocistos humanos.
Cuadernos de Embriologia Clínica, (2008), pp. 25-37
[Ardoy et al., 2007]
M. Ardoy, G. Calderón, J. Cuadros, M. Figueroa, R. Herrer, J. Moreno, A. Ortiz, F. Prados, L. Rodríguez, J. Santaló.
II Criterios ASEBIR de valoración morfológica de oocitos, embriones tempranos y blastocistos humanos.
Cuadernos de Embriologia Clínica, (2007),
[Arroyo et al., 2015]
G. Arroyo, J. Santaló, M. Boada, M. Parriego, I. Rodríguez, B. Coroleu, P.N. Barri, A. Veiga.
Does early cleavage correlate with chromosome constitution in human preimplantation embryos?.
Med. Reprod. Embriol. Clín., 2 (2015), pp. 31-39
[Azevedo et al., 2014]
A.R. Azevedo, M.J. Pinho, J. Silva, R. Sá, S. Thorsteinsdóttir, A. Barros, M. Sousa.
Molecular cytogenetics of human single pronucleated zygotes.
Reprod. Sci., 21 (2014), pp. 1472-1482
[Azzarello et al., 2012]
A. Azzarello, T. Hoest, A.L. Mikkelsen.
The impact of pronuclei morphology and dynamicity on live birth outcome after time-lapse culture.
Hum. Reprod. (Oxford, England), 27 (2012), pp. 2649-2657
[Balaban et al., 2011]
B. Balaban, D. Brison, G. Calderon, J. Catt, J. Conaghan, L. Cowan, T. Ebner, D. Gardner, T. Hardarson, K. Lundin.
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., 26 (2011), pp. 1270-1283
[Balaban and Urman, 2006]
B. Balaban, B. Urman.
Effect of oocyte morphology on embryo development and implantation.
Reprod. Biomed. Online, 12 (2006), pp. 608-615
[Balaban et al., 2000]
B. Balaban, B. Urman, A. Sertac, C. Alatas, S. Aksoy, R. Mercan.
Blastocyst quality affects the success of blastocyst-stage embryo transfer.
Fertil. Steril., 74 (2000), pp. 282-287
[Balakier et al., 2016]
H. Balakier, A. Sojecki, G. Motamedi, C. Librach.
Impact of multinucleated blastomeres on embryo developmental competence, morphokinetics, and aneuploidy.
Fertil. Steril., 106 (2016),
608–614.e2
[Basile et al., 2015]
N. Basile, P. Vime, M. Florensa, B. Aparicio Ruiz, J.A. Garcia Velasco, J. Remohi, M. Meseguer.
The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of implantation: a multicentric study to define and validate an algorithm for embryo selection.
Hum. Reprod. (Oxford, England), 30 (2015), pp. 276-283
[Behr et al., 2000]
B. Behr, J.D. Fisch, C. Racowsky, K. Miller, T.B. Pool, A.A. Milki.
Blastocyst-ET and monozygotic twinning.
J. Assist. Reprod. Genet., 7 (2000), pp. 349-351
[Behr et al., 1999]
B. Behr, T.B. Pool, A.A. Milki, D. Moore, J. Gebhardt, D. Dasig.
Preliminary clinical experience with human blastocyst development in vitro without co-culture.
Hum. Reprod. (Oxford, England), 14 (1999), pp. 454-457
[Biggers and Racowsky, 2002]
J.D. Biggers, C. Racowsky.
The development of fertilized human ova to the blastocyst stage in KSOMAA medium: is a two-step protocol necessary?.
Reprod. Biomed. Online, 5 (2002), pp. 133-140
[Boada and Ponsá, 2008]
M. Boada, M. Ponsá.
Características morfológicas y ultraestructurales de cigotos y embriones anormales tras FIV/ICSI.
Rev. Asoc. Est. Bio. Rep., 13 (2008), pp. 26-37
[Calderón et al., 2002]
Calderón G., Prados N., Caligara C., Mantrana E., Navarro J., Pellicer A., Simón C., Navarro J. Calidad embrionaria. Indicadores predictivos de vitalidad. J. editors. Reproducción Humana 2ª ed. Madrid: McGraw-Hill Interamericana;2002 p. 463-468.
[Castilla et al., 2010]
J.A. Castilla, R.R. de Assín, M.C. Gonzalvo, A. Clavero, J.P. Ramírez, F. Vergara, L. Martínez.
External quality control for embryology laboratories.
Reprod. Biomed. Online, 20 (2010), pp. 68-74
[Chamayou et al., 2013]
S. Chamayou, P. Patrizio, G. Storaci, V. Tomaselli, C. Alecci, C. Ragolia, C. Crescenzo, A. Guglielmino.
The use of morphokinetic parameters to select all embryos with full capacity to implant.
J. Assist. Reprod. Genet., 30 (2013), pp. 703-710
[Çiray et al., 2006]
H.N. Çiray, L. Karagenç, U. Ulug, F. Bener, M. Bahçeci.
Early cleavage morphology affects the quality and implantation potential of day 3 embryos.
Fertil. Steril., 85 (2006), pp. 358-365
[Cockburn and Rossant, 2010]
K. Cockburn, J. Rossant.
Making the blastocyst: lessons from the mouse.
J. Clin. Investig., 120 (2010), pp. 995-1003
[Costa-Borges et al., 2016]
N. Costa-Borges, M. Bellés, M. Meseguer, D. Galliano, A. Ballesteros, G. Calderón.
Blastocyst development in single medium with or without renewal on day 3: a prospective cohort study on sibling donor oocytes in a time-lapse incubator.
Fertil. Steril., 105 (2016), pp. 707-713
[Cruz et al., 2012]
M. Cruz, N. Garrido, J. Herrero, I. Pérez-Cano, M. Muñoz, M. Meseguer.
Timing of cell division in human cleavage-stage embryos is linked with blastocyst formation and quality.
Reprod. Biomed. Online, 25 (2012), pp. 371-381
[Dal Canto et al., 2012]
M. Dal Canto, G. Coticchio, M.M. Renzini, E. De Ponti, P.V. Novara, F. Brambillasca, R. Comi, R. Fadini.
Cleavage kinetics analysis of human embryos predicts development to blastocyst and implantation.
Reprod. Biomed. Online, 25 (2012), pp. 474-480
[de los Santos et al., 2014]
M.J. de los Santos, G. Arroyo, A. Busquet, G. Calderón, J. Cuadros, M.V.H. de Mendoza, M. Moragas, R. Herrer, A. Ortiz, C. Pons.
A multicenter prospective study to assess the effect of early cleavage on embryo quality, implantation, and live-birth rate.
Fertil. Steril., 101 (2014), pp. 981-987
[De Placido et al., 2002]
G. De Placido, M. Wilding, I. Strina, E. Alviggi, C. Alviggi, A. Mollo, M.T. Varicchio, A. Tolino, C. Schiattarella, B. Dale.
High outcome predictability after IVF using a combined score for zygote and embryo morphology and growth rate.
Hum. Reprod. (Oxford, England), 17 (2002), pp. 2402-2409
[Desai et al., 2000]
N.N. Desai, J. Goldstein, D.Y. Rowland, J.M. Goldfarb.
Morphological evaluation of human embryos and derivation of an embryo quality scoring system specific for day 3 embryos: a preliminary study.
Hum. Reprod. (Oxford, England), 15 (2000), pp. 2190-2196
[Ebner et al., 2005a]
T. Ebner, M. Moser, M. Sommergruber, U. Gaiswinkler, O. Shebl, K. Jesacher, G. Tews.
Occurrence and developmental consequences of vacuoles throughout preimplantation development.
Fertil. Steril., 83 (2005), pp. 1635-1640
[Ebner et al., 2005b]
T. Ebner, G. Tews, M. Sommergruber, M. Moser.
Cytoplasmic pitting has a negative influence on implantation outcome.
J. Assist. Reprod. Genet., 22 (2005), pp. 239-244
[Ebner et al., 2003]
T. Ebner, M. Moser, M. Sommergruber, G. Tews.
Selection based on morphological assessment of oocytes and embryos at different stages of preimplantation development: a review.
Hum. Reprod. Update, 9 (2003), pp. 251-262
[Elder and Cohen, 2007]
K. Elder, J. Cohen.
Human Preimplantation Embryo Selection.
CRC Press, (2007),
[Emiliani et al., 2006]
S. Emiliani, G. Fasano, B. Vandamme, A. Vannin, M. Verdoodt, J. Biramane, A. Delbaere, Y. Englert, F. Devreker.
Impact of the assessment of early cleavage in a single embryo transfer policy.
Reprod. Biomed. Online, 13 (2006), pp. 255-260
[Fauque et al., 2013]
P. Fauque, E. Audureau, R. Leandri, L. Delaroche, S. Assouline, S. Epelboin, P. Jouannet, C. Patrat.
Is the nuclear status of an embryo an independent factor to predict its ability to develop to term?.
Fertil. Steril., 99 (2013), pp. 1299-1304000
[Feil et al., 2008]
D. Feil, R.C. Henshaw, M. Lane.
Day 4 embryo selection is equal to day 5 using a new embryo scoring system validated in single embryo transfers.
Hum. Reprod. (Oxford, England), 23 (2008), pp. 1505-1510
[Gabrielsen et al., 2001]
A. Gabrielsen, S. Lindenberg, K. Petersen.
The impact of the zona pellucida thickness variation of human embryos on pregnancy outcome in relation to suboptimal embryo development. A prospective randomized controlled study.
Hum. Reprod. (Oxford, England), 16 (2001), pp. 2166-2170
[Gardner et al., 1998]
D.K. Gardner, P. Vella, M. Lane, L. Wagley, T. Schlenker, W.B. Schoolcraft.
Culture and transfer of human blastocysts increases implantation rates and reduces the need for multiple embryo transfers.
Fertil. Steril., 69 (1998), pp. 84-88
[Gardner, 1989]
R. Gardner.
Cell allocation and lineage in the early mouse embryo.
Cellular Basis of Morphogenesis, pp. 172
[Gardner and Balaban, 2016]
D.K. Gardner, B. Balaban.
Assessment of human embryo development using morphological criteria in an era of time-lapse, algorithms and ‘OMICS’: is looking good still important?.
Mol. Hum. Reprod., 22 (2016), pp. 704-718
[Gianaroli et al., 2003]
L. Gianaroli, M.C. Magli, A.P. Ferraretti, D. Fortini, N. Grieco.
Pronuclear morphology and chromosomal abnormalities as scoring criteria for embryo selection.
Fertil. Steril., 80 (2003), pp. 341-349
[Goyanes et al., 1990]
V.J. Goyanes, A. Ron-Corzo, E. Costas, E. Maneiro.
Morphometric categorization of the human oocyte and early conceptus.
Hum. Reprod. (Oxford, England), 5 (1990), pp. 613-618
[Guerif et al., 2010]
F. Guerif, M. Lemseffer, J. Leger, R. Bidault, V. Cadoret, C. Chavez, O. Gasnier, M. Saussereau, D. Royère.
Does early morphology provide additional selection power to blastocyst selection for transfer?.
Reprod. Biomed. Online, 21 (2010), pp. 510-519
[Guerif et al., 2007]
F. Guerif, A. Le Gouge, B. Giraudeau, J. Poindron, R. Bidault, O. Gasnier, D. Royere.
Limited value of morphological assessment at days 1 and 2 to predict blastocyst development potential: a prospective study based on 4042 embryos.
Hum. Reprod. (Oxford, England), 22 (2007), pp. 1973-1981
[Halvaei et al., 2016]
I. Halvaei, M.A. Khalili, S.A. Nottola.
A novel method for transmission electron microscopy study of cytoplasmic fragments from preimplantation human embryos.
Microsc. Res. Tech., 79 (2016), pp. 459-462
[Hardarson et al., 2002]
T. Hardarson, C. Löfman, G. Coull, A. Sjögren, L. Hamberger, R. Edwards.
Internalization of cellular fragments in a human embryo: time-lapse recordings.
Reprod. Biomed. Online, 5 (2002), pp. 36-38
[Hardarson et al., 2001]
T. Hardarson, C. Hanson, A. Sjogren, K. Lundin.
Human embryos with unevenly sized blastomeres have lower pregnancy and implantation rates: indications for aneuploidy and multinucleation.
Hum. Reprod. (Oxford, England), 16 (2001), pp. 313-318
[Hashimoto et al., 2016]
S. Hashimoto, T. Nakano, K. Yamagata, M. Inoue, Y. Morimoto, Y. Nakaoka.
Multinucleation per se is not always sufficient as a marker of abnormality to decide against transferring human embryos.
Fertil. Steril., 106 (2016),
133–139.e6
[Hassa et al., 2014]
H. Hassa, Y. Aydin, F. Taplamacioglu.
The role of perivitelline space abnormalities of oocytes in the developmental potential of embryos.
J. Turkish German Gynecol. Assoc., 15 (2014), pp. 161-163
[Hill et al., 2013]
M.J. Hill, K.S. Richter, R.J. Heitmann, J.R. Graham, M.J. Tucker, A.H. DeCherney, P.E. Browne, E.D. Levens.
Trophectoderm grade predicts outcomes of single-blastocyst transfers.
Fertil. Steril., 99 (2013), pp. 1283-12890
[Hnida et al., 2004]
C. Hnida, E. Engenheiro, S. Ziebe.
Computer-controlled, multilevel, morphometric analysis of blastomere size as biomarker of fragmentation and multinuclearity in human embryos.
Hum. Reprod. (Oxford, England), 19 (2004), pp. 288-293
[Holte et al., 2007]
J. Holte, L. Berglund, K. Milton, C. Garello, G. Gennarelli, A. Revelli, T. Bergh.
Construction of an evidence-based integrated morphology cleavage embryo score for implantation potential of embryos scored and transferred on day 2 after oocyte retrieval.
Hum. Reprod. (Oxford, England), 22 (2007), pp. 548-557
[Hurtado de Mendoza, 2011]
M. Hurtado de Mendoza.
Uso de la catalogación embrionaria de ASEBIR. Estado actual.
Rev. Asoc. Est. Bio. Rep., (2011), pp. 20-26
[Hurtado de Mendoza et al., 2015]
M. Hurtado de Mendoza, J. Cuadros, G. Arroyo, J. Ten, M. Pons, F. Prados, B. González, A. Múgica, N. Rives, I. Cuevas, M. Figueroa, M. Cuadros, G. Calderón, M. Moragas, M. Torelló, M. Vilches, A. Busquets, M. De los Santos.
II Criterios ASEBIR de valoración morfológica de oocitos, embriones tempranos y blastocistos humanos”.
Cuadernos de Embriologia Clínica, (2015),
[Johansson et al., 2003]
M. Johansson, T. Hardarson, K. Lundin.
There is a cutoff limit in diameter between a blastomere and a small anucleate fragment.
J. Assist. Reprod. Genet., 20 (2003), pp. 309-313
[Khorram et al., 2000]
O. Khorram, S.S. Shapiro, J.M. Jones.
Transfer of nonassisted hatched and hatching human blastocysts after in vitro fertilization.
Fertil. Steril., 74 (2000), pp. 163-165
[Kirkegaard et al., 2013]
K. Kirkegaard, U.S. Kesmodel, J.J. Hindkjaer, H.J. Ingerslev.
Time-lapse parameters as predictors of blastocyst development and pregnancy outcome in embryos from good prognosis patients: a prospective cohort study.
Hum. Reprod. (Oxford, England), 28 (2013), pp. 2643-2651
[Kovalevsky et al., 2013]
G. Kovalevsky, S.M. Carney, L.S. Morrison, C.F. Boylan, A.B. Neithardt, R.F. Feinberg.
Should embryos developing to blastocysts on day 7 be cryopreserved and transferred: an analysis of pregnancy and implantation rates.
Fertil. Steril., 100 (2013), pp. 1008-1012
[Lagalla et al., 2016]
C. Lagalla, N. Tarozzi, R. Sciajno, D. Wells, M. Di Santo, M. Nadalini, V. Distratis, A. Borini.
Embryos with morphokinetic abnormalities may develop into euploid blastocysts.
Reprod. Biomed. Online, (2016),
[Luna et al., 2008]
M. Luna, A.B. Copperman, M. Duke, D. Ezcurra, B. Sandler, J. Barritt.
Human blastocyst morphological quality is significantly improved in embryos classified as fast on day 3 (≥10 cells), bringing into question current embryological dogma.
Fertil. Steril., 89 (2008), pp. 358-363
[Magli et al., 2007]
M.C. Magli, L. Gianaroli, A.P. Ferraretti, M. Lappi, A. Ruberti, V. Farfalli.
Embryo morphology and development are dependent on the chromosomal complement.
Fertil. Steril., 87 (2007), pp. 534-541
[Magli et al., 2012]
M.C. Magli, G.M. Jones, K. Lundin, E. Van den Abbeel.
Atlas of human embryology: from oocytes to preimplantation embryos.
Hum. Reprod., 27 (2012), pp. 1-91
[Mantilla et al., 2015]
A. Mantilla, I. Orozco, S. Zamora, N. Ortiz, F. Prados, J.M. Moreno, M. Ardoy, M. Esbert, F. Marina, M.Á. Vilchez.
Grupo de interés de calidad de ASEBIR: Actualización de las especificaciones para los indicadores de calidad de la Asociación para el Estudio de la Biología de la Reproducción (ASEBIR).
Med. Reprod. Embriol. Clín., 2 (2015), pp. 46-54
[Mateo et al., 2013]
S. Mateo, M. Parriego, M. Boada, F. Vidal, B. Coroleu, A. Veiga.
In vitro development and chromosome constitution of embryos derived from monopronucleated zygotes after intracytoplasmic sperm injection.
Fertil. Steril., 99 (2013), pp. 897-9020
[Meriano et al., 2004]
J. Meriano, C. Clark, K. Cadesky, C.A. Laskin.
Binucleated and micronucleated blastomeres in embryos derived from human assisted reproduction cycles.
Reprod. Biomed. Online, 9 (2004), pp. 511-520
[Meriano et al., 2001]
J.S. Meriano, J. Alexis, S. Visram-Zaver, M. Cruz, R.F. Casper.
Tracking of oocyte dysmorphisms for ICSI patients may prove relevant to the outcome in subsequent patient cycles.
Hum. Reprod. (Oxford, England), 16 (2001), pp. 2118-2123
[Meseguer et al., 2011]
M. Meseguer, J. Herrero, A. Tejera, K.M. Hilligsoe, N.B. Ramsing, J. Remohi.
The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of embryo implantation.
Hum. Reprod. (Oxford, England), 26 (2011), pp. 2658-2671
[Miao et al., 2009]
Y.L. Miao, K. Kikuchi, Q.Y. Sun, H. Schatten.
Oocyte aging: cellular and molecular changes, developmental potential and reversal possibility.
Hum. Reprod. Update, 15 (2009), pp. 573-585
[Moriwaki et al., 2004]
T. Moriwaki, N. Suganuma, M. Hayakawa, H. Hibi, Y. Katsumata, H. Oguchi, M. Furuhashi.
Embryo evaluation by analysing blastomere nuclei.
Hum. Reprod. (Oxford, England), 19 (2004), pp. 152-156
[Motato et al., 2016]
Y. Motato, M.J. de los Santos, M.J. Escriba, B.A. Ruiz, J. Remohí, M. Meseguer.
Morphokinetic analysis and embryonic prediction for blastocyst formation through an integrated time-lapse system.
Fertil. Steril., 105 (2016),
376–384.e9
[Munné, 2006]
S. Munné.
Chromosome abnormalities and their relationship to morphology and development of human embryos.
Reprod. Biomed. Online, 12 (2006), pp. 234-253
[Nicoli et al., 2013]
A. Nicoli, S. Palomba, F. Capodanno, M. Fini, A. Falbo, G.B. La Sala.
Pronuclear morphology evaluation for fresh in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles: a systematic review.
J. Ovarian Res., 6 (2013), pp. 64
[Otsuki et al., 2007]
J. Otsuki, Y. Nagai, K. Chiba.
Lipofuscin bodies in human oocytes as an indicator of oocyte quality.
J. Assist. Reprod. Genet., 24 (2007), pp. 263-270
[Palermo et al., 1995]
G.D. Palermo, S. Munné, L.T. Colombero, J. Cohen, Z. Rosenwaks.
Genetics of abnormal human fertilization.
Hum. Reprod., 10 (1995), pp. 120-127
[Papanikolaou et al., 2006]
E.G. Papanikolaou, M. Camus, E.M. Kolibianakis, L. Van Landuyt, A. Van Steirteghem, P. Devroey.
In vitro fertilization with single blastocyst-stage versus single cleavage-stage embryos.
N. Engl. J. Med., 354 (2006), pp. 1139-1146
[Parriego i Beltran et al., 2016]
M. Parriego i Beltran, F. Vidal, A. Veiga.
Multinucleació en embrions humans preimplantacionals.
(2016),
[Paternot et al., 2009]
G. Paternot, J. Devroe, S. Debrock, T.M. D’Hooghe, C. Spiessens.
Intra-and inter-observer analysis in the morphological assessment of early-stage embryos.
Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol., 7 (2009), pp. 105
[Pelinck et al., 1998]
M.J. Pelinck, M. De Vos, M. Dekens, J. Van der Elst, P. De Sutter, M. Dhont.
Embryos cultured in vitro with multinucleated blastomeres have poor implantation potential in human in-vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection.
Hum. Reprod. (Oxford, England), 13 (1998), pp. 960-963
[Pelletier et al., 2004]
C. Pelletier, D.L. Keefe, J.R. Trimarchi.
Noninvasive polarized light microscopy quantitatively distinguishes the multilaminar structure of the zona pellucida of living human eggs and embryos.
Fertil. Steril., 81 (2004), pp. 850-856
[Pons et al., 2014]
M.C. Pons, M.J. de los Santos, A. Múgica, M.Á. Vilches, G. Arroyo, B. González, M. Moragas, E. García-Cerrudo, M.J. Figueroa, F. Prados.
Grupo de Interés de Embriología de ASEBIR: estudio multicéntrico para la validación del criterio ASEBIR de valoración morfológica de embriones tempranos en día 3 y su asociación con la tasa de nacido vivo.
Med. Reprod. Embriol. Clín., 1 (2014), pp. 50-55
[Prados et al., 2012]
F.J. Prados, S. Debrock, J.G. Lemmen, I. Agerholm.
The cleavage stage embryo.
Hum. Reprod. (Oxford, England), 27 (2012), pp. i50-i71
[Racowsky et al., 2003]
C. Racowsky, C.M. Combelles, A. Nureddin, Y. Pan, A. Finn, L. Miles, S. Gale, T. O’Leary, K.V. Jackson.
Day 3 and day 5 morphological predictors of embryo viability.
Reprod. Biomed. Online, 6 (2003), pp. 323-331
[Racowsky et al., 2011]
C. Racowsky, J.E. Stern, W.E. Gibbons, B. Behr, K.O. Pomeroy, J.D. Biggers.
National collection of embryo morphology data into Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcomes Reporting System: associations among day 3 cell number, fragmentation and blastomere asymmetry, and live birth rate.
Fertil. Steril., 95 (2011), pp. 1985-1989
[Richter et al., 2001]
K.S. Richter, D.C. Harris, S.T. Daneshmand, B.S. Shapiro.
Quantitative grading of a human blastocyst: optimal inner cell mass size and shape.
Fertil. Steril., 76 (2001), pp. 1157-1167
[Rienzi et al., 2005]
L. Rienzi, F. Ubaldi, M. Iacobelli, S. Romano, M.G. Minasi, S. Ferrero, F. Sapienza, E. Baroni, E. Greco.
Significance of morphological attributes of the early embryo.
Reprod. Biomed. Online, 10 (2005), pp. 669-681
[Rienzi et al., 2003]
L. Rienzi, F. Ubaldi, M.G. Minasi, M. Iacobelli, F. Martinez, J. Tesarik, E. Greco.
Blastomere cytoplasmic granularity is unrelated to developmental potential of day 3 human embryos.
J. Assist. Reprod. Genet., 20 (2003), pp. 314-317
[Rienzi et al., 2012]
L. Rienzi, B. Balaban, T. Ebner, J. Mandelbaum.
The oocyte.
Hum. Reprod. (Oxford, England), 27 (2012), pp. i2-i21
[Rienzi et al., 2011]
L. Rienzi, G. Vajta, F. Ubaldi.
Predictive value of oocyte morphology in human IVF: a systematic review of the literature.
Hum. Reprod. Update, 17 (2011), pp. 34-45
[Rita de Cássia et al., 2010]
F.R. Rita de Cássia, D.P. de Almeida Ferreira Braga, L. Semiao-Francisco, C. Madaschi, A. Iaconelli, E. Borges.
Metaphase II human oocyte morphology: contributing factors and effects on fertilization potential and embryo developmental ability in ICSI cycles.
Fertil. Steril., 94 (2010), pp. 1115-1117
[Rosenbusch et al., 2002]
B. Rosenbusch, M. Schneider, B. Glaser, C. Brucker.
Cytogenetic analysis of giant oocytes and zygotes to assess their relevance for the development of digynic triploidy.
Hum. Reprod. (Oxford, England), 17 (2002), pp. 388-2393
[Rubio et al., 2012]
I. Rubio, R. Kuhlmann, I. Agerholm, J. Kirk, J. Herrero, M. Escribá, J. Bellver, M. Meseguer.
Limited implantation success of direct-cleaved human zygotes: a time-lapse study.
Fertil. Steril., 98 (2012), pp. 1458-1463
[Sá et al., 2011]
R. Sá, M. Cunha, J. Silva, A. Luís, C. Oliveira, J.T. da Silva, A. Barros, M. Sousa.
Ultrastructure of tubular smooth endoplasmic reticulum aggregates in human metaphase II oocytes and clinical implications.
Fertil. Steril., 96 (2011),
143–149.e7
[Santos, 2007]
M. Santos.
Estandarización de los Indicadores de Resultados en el Laboratorio de Reproducción Asistida.
Rev. ASEBIR, 12 (2007), pp. 17-23
[Scott, 2003]
L. Scott.
Pronuclear scoring as a predictor of embryo development.
Reprod. Biomed. Online, 6 (2003), pp. 201-214
[Scott et al., 2007]
L. Scott, A. Finn, T. O’Leary, S. McLellan, J. Hill.
Morphologic parameters of early cleavage-stage embryos that correlate with fetal development and delivery: prospective and applied data for increased pregnancy rates.
Hum. Reprod. (Oxford, England), 22 (2007), pp. 230-240
[Sela et al., 2012]
R. Sela, L. Samuelov, B. Almog, T. Schwartz, T. Cohen, A. Amit, F. Azem, D. Ben-Yosef.
An embryo cleavage pattern based on the relative blastomere size as a function of cell number for predicting implantation outcome.
Fertil. Steril., 98 (2012),
650–656.e4
[Setti et al., 2011]
A.S. Setti, R.C. Figueira, D.P. Braga, S.S. Colturato, A. Iaconelli, E. Borges.
Relationship between oocyte abnormal morphology and intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcomes: a meta-analysis.
Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol., 159 (2011), pp. 364-370
[Shapiro et al., 2001]
B.S. Shapiro, K.S. Richter, D.C. Harris, S.T. Daneshmand.
A comparison of day 5 and day 6 blastocyst transfers.
Fertil. Steril., 75 (2001), pp. 1126-1130
[Shaw-Jackson et al., 2014]
C. Shaw-Jackson, N. Van Beirs, A.L. Thomas, S. Rozenberg, C. Autin.
Can healthy babies originate from oocytes with smooth endoplasmic reticulum aggregates? A systematic mini-review.
Hum. Reprod. (Oxford, England), 29 (2014), pp. 1380-1386
[Shoukir et al., 1998]
Y. Shoukir, D. Chardonnens, A. Campana, P. Bischof, D. Sakkas.
The rate of development and time of transfer play different roles in influencing the viability of human blastocysts.
Hum. Reprod. (Oxford, England), 13 (1998), pp. 676-681
[Staessen and Van Steirteghem, 1997]
C. Staessen, A.C. Van Steirteghem.
The chromosomal constitution of embryos developing from abnormally fertilized oocytes after intracytoplasmic sperm injection and conventional in-vitro fertilization.
Hum. Reprod. (Oxford, England), 12 (1997), pp. 321-327
[Steer et al., 1992]
C.V. Steer, C.L. Mills, S.L. Tan, S. Campbell, R.G. Edwards.
The cumulative embryo score: a predictive embryo scoring technique to select the optimal number of embryos to transfer in an in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer programme.
Hum. Reprod. (Oxford, England), 7 (1992), pp. 117-119
[Stensen et al., 2015]
M.H. Stensen, T.G. Tanbo, R. Storeng, T. AAbyholm, P. Fedorcsak.
Fragmentation of human cleavage-stage embryos is related to the progression through meiotic and mitotic cell cycles.
Fertil. Steril., 103 (2015),
374–381.e4
[Styer et al., 2008]
A.K. Styer, D.L. Wright, A.M. Wolkovich, C. Veiga, T.L. Toth.
Single-blastocyst transfer decreases twin gestation without affecting pregnancy outcome.
Fertil. Steril., 89 (2008), pp. 1702-1708
[Tao et al., 2002]
J. Tao, R. Tamis, K. Fink, B. Williams, T. Nelson-White, R. Craig.
The neglected morula/compact stage embryo transfer.
Hum. Reprod. (Oxford, England), 17 (2002), pp. 1513-1518
[Ten et al., 2007]
J. Ten, J. Mendiola, J. Vioque, J. de Juan, R. Bernabeu.
Donor oocyte dysmorphisms and their influence on fertilization and embryo quality.
Reprod. Biomed. Online, 14 (2007), pp. 40-48
[Tesarik and Greco, 1999]
J. Tesarik, E. Greco.
The probability of abnormal preimplantation development can be predicted by a single static observation on pronuclear stage morphology.
Hum. Reprod. (Oxford, England), 14 (1999), pp. 1318-1323
[Van Blerkom, 2007]
J. Van Blerkom.
Translocation of the subplasmalemmal cytoplasm in human blastomeres: possible effects on the distribution and inheritance of regulatory domains.
Reprod. Biomed. Online, 14 (2007), pp. 191-200
[Van Blerkom et al., 2000]
J. Van Blerkom, P. Davis, S. Alexander.
Differential mitochondrial distribution in human pronuclear embryos leads to disproportionate inheritance between blastomeres: relationship to microtubular organization, ATP content and competence.
Hum. Reprod. (Oxford, England), 15 (2000), pp. 2621-2633
[Van Royen et al., 2003]
E. Van Royen, K. Mangelschots, M. Vercruyssen, D. De Neubourg, M. Valkenburg, G. Ryckaert, J. Gerris.
Multinucleation in cleavage stage embryos.
Hum. Reprod. (Oxford, England), 18 (2003), pp. 1062-1069
[Veeck, 1999a]
L. Veeck.
Abnormal morphology of the human oocyte and conceptus.
IJT, (1999), pp. 57-68
[Veeck, 1999b]
L.L. Veeck.
An Atlas of Human gametes and Conceptuses: An Illustrated Reference for Assisted Reproductive Technology.
CRC Press, (1999),
[Watson et al., 1992]
A.J. Watson, G.M. Kidder, G.A. Schultz.
How to make a blastocyst.
Biochem. Cell Biol., 70 (1992), pp. 849-855
[Wiemer et al., 1996]
K.E. Wiemer, J. Garrisi, N. Steuerwald, M. Alikani, A.M. Reing, T.A. Ferrara, N. Noyes, J. Cohen.
Beneficial aspects of co-culture with assisted hatching when applied to multiple-failure in-vitro fertilization patients.
Hum. Reprod. (Oxford, England), 11 (1996), pp. 2429-2433
[Wiley, 1984]
L.M. Wiley.
Cavitation in the mouse preimplantation embryo: NaK-ATPase and the origin of nascent blastocoele fluid.
Dev. Biol., 105 (1984), pp. 330-342
[Wirka et al., 2014]
K.A. Wirka, A.A. Chen, J. Conaghan, K. Ivani, M. Gvakharia, B. Behr, V. Suraj, L. Tan, S. Shen.
Atypical embryo phenotypes identified by time-lapse microscopy: high prevalence and association with embryo development.
Fertil. Steril., 101 (2014),
1637–1648.e5
[Wong et al., 2010]
C.C. Wong, K.E. Loewke, N.L. Bossert, B. Behr, C.J. De Jonge, T.M. Baer, R.A.R. Pera.
Non-invasive imaging of human embryos before embryonic genome activation predicts development to the blastocyst stage.
Nat. Biotechnol., 28 (2010), pp. 1115-1121
[Yilmaz et al., 2014]
A. Yilmaz, L. Zhang, X.Y. Zhang, W. Son, H. Holzer, A. Ao.
Chromosomal complement and clinical relevance of multinucleated embryos in PGD and PGS cycles.
Reprod. Biomed. Online, 28 (2014), pp. 380-387
[Yoon et al., 2001]
H. Yoon, S. Yoon, W. Son, K. Im, J. Lim.
High implantation and pregnancy rates with transfer of human hatching day 6 blastocysts.
Fertil. Steril., 75 (2001), pp. 832-833
[Zollner et al., 2002]
U. Zollner, K.P. Zollner, G. Hartl, J. Dietl, T. Steck.
The use of a detailed zygote score after IVF/ICSI to obtain good quality blastocysts: the German experience.
Hum. Reprod. (Oxford, England), 17 (2002), pp. 1327-1333
Copyright © 2018. Asociación para el Estudio de la Biología de la Reproducción y Sociedad Española de Fertilidad
Descargar PDF
Opciones de artículo
es en pt

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

Você é um profissional de saúde habilitado a prescrever ou dispensar medicamentos