Background: The importance of oocyte/embryo ploidy to achieve implantation and a subsequent pregnancy. Aim: To correlate first and second polar bodies and day-3 blastomere ploidy, embryo morphology and biochemical (sHLA-G) characteristics with blastocyst development and in vitro pregnancy outcome. Materials and Methods: All oocytes/zygotes and embryos were individually cultured to the blastocyst stage. PB-I, PB-II and blastomeres underwent complete karyotyping and sHLA-G expression was measured on day 2. Results: 57 mature (MII) donor oocytes were obtained, 33/57 (57.9%) were aneuploid, 21/57 (36.8%) were euploid, and 3/57 (5%) were ‘inconclusive’. No correlation was found between comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) status of PB-I, PB-II and the graduated embryo score. Furthermore, no correlation was established between PB-I CGH results and blastocyst morphology grade. There was a significant correlation between PB-I CGH and blastomere CGH results. Euploid and aneuploid PB-I developed into 58 and 67% blastocysts, respectively. ĸ statistics (>0.7) revealed a positive correlation between the ploidy of PB-I, PB-II and the blastomeres. Conclusion: Following ICSI and sequential genetic karyotyping of the oocyte/zygote and subsequent blastomeres, the majority of oocytes fertilized and subsequent zygotes developed into blastocysts, despite their ploidy status. We therefore conclude that blastocyst development is not associated with ploidy.

Keywords:
Polar body, Blastomere, Whole genome amplification, Comparative genome hybridization, Aneuploidy
1.
Alikani M, Cohen J, Tomkin G, Garrisi J, Mack C, Scott RT: Human embryo fragmentation in vitro and its implications for pregnancy and implantation. Fertil Steril 1999;71:836–842.
2.
Schoolcraft WB, Surrey ES, Gardner DK: Embryo transfer: techniques and variables affecting success. Fertil Steril 2001;76:863–870.
3.
Sher G, Fisch JD, Maassarani G, Matzner W: Antibodies to phosphatidylethanolamine and phosphatidylserine are associated with increased natural killer cell activity in non-male factor infertility patients. Hum Reprod 2000;15:1932–1936.
4.
Pehlivan T, Rubio C, Rodrigo L, Romero J, Remohi J, Simon C, Pellicer A: Impact of preimplantaion genetic diagnosis on IVF outcome in implantation failure patients. Reprod Biomed Online 2003;6:232–237.
5.
Munné S, Lee A, Rosenwaks Z, Grifo J, Cohen J: Diagnosis of major chromosome aneuploidies in human preimplantation embryos. Hum Reprod 1993;8:2185–2191.
6.
Harton GL, Magli MC, Lundin K, Montag M, Lemmen J, Harper JC: European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) PGD Consortium/Embryology Special Interest Group. Hum Reprod 2011;26:41–46.
7.
Verlinsky Y, Ginsberg N, Lifchez A, Valle J, Moise J, Strom CM: Analysis of the first polar body: preconception genetic diagnosis. Hum Reprod 1990;5:826–828.
8.
Kuliev A, Cieslak J, Ilkevitch Y, Verlinsky Y: Chromosomal abnormalities in a series of 6,733 human oocytes in preimplantation diagnosis for age-related aneuploidies. Reprod Biomed Online 2003;6:54–59.
9.
Wells D, Escudero T, Levy B, Hirschhorn K, Delhanty JD, Munné S: First clinical application of comparative genomic hybridization and polar body testing for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of aneuploidy. Fertil Steril 2002;78:543–549.
10.
Gutiérrez-Mateo C, Wells D, Benet J, Sánchez-García JF, Bermúdez MG, Belil I, Egozcue J, Munné S, Navarro J: Reliability of comparative genomic hybridization to detect chromosome abnormalities in first polar bodies and metaphase II oocytes. Hum Reprod 2004;19:2118–2125.
11.
Fragouli E, Wells D, Thornhill A, Serhal P, Faed MJ, Harper JC, Delhanty JD: Comparative genomic hybridization analysis of human oocytes and polar bodies. Hum Reprod 2006;21:2319–2328.
12.
Sher G, Keskintepe L, Keskintepe M, Ginsburg M, Maassarani G, Yakut T, Baltaci V, Kotze D, Unsal E: Oocyte karyotyping by comparative genomic hybridization provides a highly reliable method for selecting ‘competent’ embryos, markedly improving in vitro fertilization outcome: a multiphase study. Fertil Steril 2007;87:1033–1040.
13.
Sher G, Keskintepe L, Keskintepe M, Maassarani G, Tortoriello D, Brody S: Genetic analysis of human embryos by metaphase comparative genomic hybridization improves efficiency of IVF by increasing embryo implantation rate and reducing multiple pregnancies and spontaneous miscarriages. Fertil Steril 2009;92:1886–1894.
14.
Kallioniemi A, Kallioniemi OP, Sudar D, Rutovitz D, Gray JW, Waldman F, Pinkel D: Comparative genomic hybridization for molecular cytogeneic analysis of solid tumors. Science 1992;258:818–821.
15.
Kirchhoff M, Rose Lundstee C: High-resolution comparative genomic hybridization in clinical cytogenetics. J Med Genet 2001;38:740–744.
16.
Xia P: Intracyctoplasmic sperm injection: correlation of oocyte grade based on polar body, perivitelline space and cytoplasmic inclusions with fertilization rates and embryo quality. Hum Reprod 1997;12:1750–1755.
17.
Fisch J, Rodriguez H, Ross R, Overby G, Sher G: The graduate embryo scoring system (GES) predicts blastocyst formation and pregnancy rates from cleaved-stage embryos. Hum Reprod 2001;16:1970–1975.
18.
Dokras A, Sargent IL, Barlow DH: Human blastocyst grading: an indicator of developmental potential? Hum Reprod 1993;8:2119–2127.
19.
Mukaida T, Nakamura S, Tomiyama T, Wada S, Oka C, Kasai M, Takahashi K: Vitrification of human blastocysts using cryoloops: clinical outcome of 223 cycles. Hum Reprod 2003;18:384–391.
20.
Mukaida T, Nakamura S, Tomiyama T, Wada S, Kasai M, Takahashi K: Successful birth after transfer of vitrified human blastocysts with use of a cryoloop containerless technique. Fertil Steril 2001;76:618–620.
21.
Keskintepe L, Sher G, Keskintepe M: Reproductive oocyte/embryo genetic analysis: comparison between fluorescence in-situ hybridization and comparative genomic hybridization. Reprod Biomed Online 2007;15:303–309.
22.
Schmerler S, Wessel GM: Polar bodies – more a lack of understanding than a lack of respect. Mol Reprod Dev 2011;78:3–8.
23.
Vialard F, Petit C, Bergere M, Gomes DM, Martel-Petit V, Lombroso R, Ville Y, Gerard H, Selva J: Evidence of a high proportion of premature unbalanced separation of sister chromatids in the first polar bodies of women of advanced age. Hum Reprod 2006;21:1172–1178.
24.
Kuliev A, Zlatopolsky Z, Kirillova I, Spivakova J, Cieslak Janzen J: Meiosis errors in over 20,000 oocytes studied in the practice of preimplantation aneuploidy testing. Reprod Biomed Online 2011;22:2–8.
25.
Fragouli E, Escalona A, Gutiérrez-Mateo C, Tormasi S, Alfarawati S, Sepulveda S, Noriega L, Garcia J, Wells D, Munné S: Comparative genomic hybridization of oocytes and first polar bodies from young donors. Reprod Biomed Online 2009;19:228–237.
26.
Fragouli E, Katz-Jaffe M, Alfarawati S, Stevens J, Colls P, Goodall NN, Tormasi S, Gutierrez-Mateo C, Prates R, Schoolcraft WB, Munné S, Wells D: Comprehensive chromosome screening of polar bodies and blastocysts from couples experiencing repeated implantation failure. Fertil Steril 2010;94:875–887.
27.
Baltaci V, Satiroglu H, Kabukgu C, Onsal E, Aydinuraz B, Oner O, Aktas Y, Qetinkaya E, Turhan F, Aktan A: Relationship between embryo quality and aneuploidies. Reprod Biomed Online 2006;12;77–82.
28.
Munné S, Chen S, Colls P, Garrisi J, Zheng X, Cekleniak N, et al: Maternal age, morphology, development and chromosome abnormalities in over 6,000 cleavage-stage embryos. Reprod Biomed Online 2007;14:628–634.
29.
Magli MC, Gianaroli L, Ferraretti AP, Toschi M, Esposito F, Fasolino MC: The combination of polar body biopsy does not affect embryo viability. Hum Reprod 2004;19:1163–1169.
30.
Li M, DeUgarte CM, Surrey M, Danzer H, DeCherney A, Hill DL: Fluorescence in situ hybridization reanalysis of day-6 human blastocysts diagnosed with aneuploidy on day 3. Fertil Steril 2005;84:1395–400.
31.
Hassold T, Jacobs P: Trisomy in man. Annu Rev Genet 1984;18:69–97.
32.
Veiga A, Calderón G, Santaló J, Barri PN, Egozcue J: Chromosome studies in oocytes and zygotes from an IVF programme. Hum Reprod 1987;2:425.
33.
Sandalinas M, Márquez C, Munné S: Spectral karyotyping of fresh, noninseminated oocytes. Mol Hum Reprod 2002;8:580–585.
34.
Hassold T, Hall H, Hunt P: The origin of human aneuploidy: where we have been, where we are going. Hum Mol Genet 2007;16:203–208.
35.
Gutiérrez-Mateo C, Benet J, Wells D, Colls P, Bermúdez MG, Sánchez-García JF, Egozcue J, Navarro J, Munné S: Aneuploidy study of human oocytes first polar body comparative genomic hybridization and metaphase II fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis. Hum Reprod 2004;19:2859–2868.
36.
Montag M, van der Ven K, Rösing B, van der Ven H: Polar body biopsy: a viable alternative to preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening. Reprod Biomed Online 2009;18(suppl 1):6–11.
37.
Magli MC, Grugnetti C, Castelletti E, Paviglianiti B, Gianaroli L: The study of aneuploidy on polar bodies predicts efficiently the chromosomal status of the corresponding oocyte. ESHRE 2011. Poster presentation (P413).
38.
Geraedts J, Collins J, Gianaroli L, Goosens V, Handyside A, Harper J, Montang M, Repping S, Schmutzler A: What next for preimplantation genetic screening? A polar body approach. Hum Reprod 2010;25:575–577.
39.
ESHRE PGD Consortium: Best practice guidelines for polar body and embryo biopsy for preimplantation genetic diagnosis/screening (PGD/PGS). Hum Reprod 2011;26:41–46.
40.
Geraedts J, Montag M, Magli MC, Repping S, Handyside A, Staessen C, Harper J, Schmutzler A, Collins J, Goossens V, van der Ven H, Vesela K, Gianaroli L: Polar body array CGH for prediction of the status of the corresponding oocyte. Part I: Clinical results. Hum Reprod 2011;26:3173–3180.
41.
Magli MC, Montag M, Köster M, Muzi L, Geraedts J, Collins J, Goossens V, Handyside AH, Harper J, Repping S, Schmutzler A, Vesela K, Gianaroli L: Polar body array CGH for prediction of the status of the corresponding oocyte. Part II: Technical aspects. Hum Reprod 2011;26:3181–3185.
© 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel
2012
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.