Book contents
- Principles of IVF Laboratory Practice
- Principles of IVF Laboratory Practice
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Preface
- Section 1 Starting a New Laboratory and Training Protocols
- Section 2 Pre-Procedure Protocols
- Section 3 Gametes
- Section 4 Insemination/ICSI
- Section 5 Fertilization Assessment
- Section 6 Embryo Assessment
- Section 7 Embryo Cryopreservation
- Section 8 Embryo Biopsy
- Section 9 Embryo Transfer
- Section 10 Quality Management
- Index
- PDF Only
- References
Section 5 - Fertilization Assessment
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 May 2017
Book contents
- Principles of IVF Laboratory Practice
- Principles of IVF Laboratory Practice
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Preface
- Section 1 Starting a New Laboratory and Training Protocols
- Section 2 Pre-Procedure Protocols
- Section 3 Gametes
- Section 4 Insemination/ICSI
- Section 5 Fertilization Assessment
- Section 6 Embryo Assessment
- Section 7 Embryo Cryopreservation
- Section 8 Embryo Biopsy
- Section 9 Embryo Transfer
- Section 10 Quality Management
- Index
- PDF Only
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Principles of IVF Laboratory PracticeOptimizing Performance and Outcomes, pp. 181 - 200Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
References
Elder, K. and Dale, B. In-Vitro Fertilization (3rd edn.) (p. 277) (Cambridge University Press, 2011).Google Scholar
Nasiri, N. and Eftekhari-Yazdi, P. An overview of the available methods for morphological scoring of pre-implantation embryos in in vitro fertilization. Cell J 2015; 16(4):392–405.Google Scholar
Nicoli, A. et al. Pronuclear morphology evaluation for fresh in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles: a systematic review. J Ovarian Res 2013; 6(1):64.Google Scholar
Scott, L. Pronuclear scoring as a predictor of embryo development. Reprod Biomed Online 2003; 6(2):201–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tesarik, J. and Greco, E. The probability of abnormal preimplantation development can be predicted by a single static observation on pronuclear stage morphology. Hum Reprod 1999; 14(5):1318–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine and European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Reprod Biomed Online 2011; 22(6):632–46.Google Scholar
Plachot, M. et al. Co-culture with granulosa cells does not increase the fertilization rate in couples with previous fertilization failures. Hum Reprod 1993; 8(9):1455–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Verlinsky, Y., Ginsberg, N., Lifchez, A. et al. Analysis of the first polar body: preconception genetic diagnosis. Hum Reprod 1990; 5:826–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munne, S., Dailey, T., Sultan, K. M. et al. The use of first polar bodies for preimplantation diagnosis of aneuploidy. Mol Hum Reprod 1995; 10:1014–20.Google ScholarPubMed
Handyside, A. H., Montag, M., Magli, M. C. et al. Multiple meiotic errors caused by predivision of chromatids in woman of advanced maternal age undergoing in vitro fertilisation. Eur J Hum Genet 2012; 20:742–7.Google Scholar
Montag, M., van der Ven, K., Delacrétaz, G. et al. Laser assisted microdissection of zona pellucida facilitates polar body biopsy. Fertil Steril 1998; 69:539–42.Google Scholar
Harton, G. L., Magli, M. C., Lundin, K. et al. ESHRE PGD Consortium/Embryology Special Interest Group: best practice guidelines for polar body and embryo biopsy for preimplantation genetic diagnosis/screening (PGD/PGS). Hum Reprod 2011; 26:41–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magli, C., Montag, M., Köster, M. et al. Polar body array CGH for prediction of the status of the corresponding oocyte: I. Technical aspects. Hum Reprod 2011; 26:3181–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geraedts, J., Montag, M., Magli, M. C. et al. Polar body array CGH for prediction of the status of the corresponding oocyte: I. Clinical results. Hum Reprod 2011; 26:3173–80.Google Scholar
Montag, M., Köster, M.. Strowitzki, T. and Toth, B. Polar body biopsy. Fertil Steril 2013; 100:603–7.Google Scholar
Capalbo, A., Bono, S., Spizzichino, L., Biricik, A., Baldi, M. et al. Sequential comprehensive chromosome analysis on polar bodies, blastomeres and trophoblast: insight into female meiotic errors and chromosomal segregation in the preimplantation window of embryo development. Hum Reprod 2013; 28:509–18.Google Scholar
Cieslak, J., Ivakhenko, V., Wolf, G. et al. Three-dimensional partial zona dissection for preimplantation genetic diagnosis and assisted hatching. Fertil Steril 1999; 71:308–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
References
Testart, J., Lassalle, B., Belaisch-Allart, J., Hazout, A., Forman, R. et al. High pregnancy rate after early human embryo freezing. Fertil Steril 1986; 46:268–72.Google Scholar
Demoulin, A., Jouan, C., Gerday, C. and Dubois, M. Pregnancy rates after transfer of embryos obtained from different stimulation protocols and frozen at either pronucleate or multicellular stages. Hum Reprod 1991; 6:799–804.Google Scholar
Veeck, L. L., Amundson, C. H., Brothman, L. J., DeScisciolo, C., Maloney, M. K. et al. Significantly enhanced pregnancy rates per cycle through cryopreservation and thaw of pronuclear stage oocytes. Fertil Steril 1993; 59:1202–7.Google Scholar
Damario, M., Hammitt, D., Session, D. and Dumesic, D. Embryo cryopreservation at the pronuclear stage and efficient embryo use optimizes the chance for a liveborn infant from a single oocyte retrieval. Fertil Steril 2000; 73:767–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Damario, M. A., Hammitt, D. G., Galanits, T. M., Session, D. R. and Dumesic, D. A. Pronuclear stage cryopreservation after intracytoplasmic sperm injection and conventional IVF: implications for timing of the freeze. Fertil Steril 1999; 72:1049–54.Google Scholar
Edgar, D. H. and Gook, D. A. A critical appraisal of cryopreservation (slow cooling versus vitrification) of human oocytes and embryos. Hum Reprod Update 2012; 18:536–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shapiro, B. S., Daneshmand, S. T., Garner, F. C., Aguirre, M., Hudson, C. et al. Similar ongoing pregnancy rates after blastocyst transfer in fresh donor cycles and autologous cycles using cryopreserved bipronuclear oocytes suggest similar viability of transferred blastocysts. Fertil Steril 2010; 93:319–21.Google Scholar
Glujovsky, D., Blake, D., Farquhar, C. and Bardach, A. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 7:CD002118.Google Scholar
Morbeck, D. E. Importance of supply integrity for in vitro fertilization and embryo culture. Semin Reprod Med 2012; 30:182–90.Google Scholar
Wolff, H. S., Fredrickson, J. R., Walker, D. L. and Morbeck, D. E. Advances in quality control: mouse embryo morphokinetics are sensitive markers of in vitro stress. Hum Reprod 2013; 28:1776–82.Google Scholar
Wright, G., Wiker, S., Elsner, C., Kort, H., Massey, J. et al. Observations on the morphology of pronuclei and nucleoli in human zygotes and implications for cryopreservation. Hum Reprod 1990; 5:109–15.Google Scholar