Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T12:36:57.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of ambient light exposure of media and embryos on development and quality of porcine parthenogenetically activated embryos

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 February 2014

Rong Li ,
Ying Liu ,
Hanne Skovsgaard Pedersen  and
Henrik Callesen
Rong Li*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
Ying Liu
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
Hanne Skovsgaard Pedersen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
Henrik Callesen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
*
All correspondence to: Rong Li. Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark. Tel: +45 8715 4254. Fax: +45 8715 6000. e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Light exposure is a common stress factor during in vitro handling of oocytes and embryos that originates from both microscope and ambient light. In the current study, the effect of two types of ambient light (daylight and laboratory light) on porcine parthenogenetically activated (PA) embryos was tested in two experiments: (1) ambient light on medium subsequently used for embryo in vitro development; and (2) ambient light exposure on activated oocytes before in vitro development. The results from Experiment 1 showed that exposure of culture medium to both types of ambient light decreased the percentage of blastocysts that showed good morphology, only after 24 h exposure. The results from Experiment 2 revealed a reduction in both blastocyst formation and quality when activated oocytes were exposed to both types of ambient light. This effect was seen after only 1 h exposure and increased with time. In conclusion, exposure to ambient light can be harmful to embryo development, both when medium is exposed for a long period of time and, to a greater extent, when the embryo itself is exposed for >1 h. In practice, it is therefore recommended to protect both culture medium and porcine embryos against ambient light during in vitro handling in the laboratory.

Keywords

ApoptosisMedium stabilityParthenote embryosPig
Type
Research Article
Information
Zygote , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , June 2015 , pp. 378 - 383
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bedford, J.M. & Dobrenis, A. (1989). Light exposure of oocytes and pregnancy rates after their transfer in the rabbit. J. Reprod. Fertil. 85, 477–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blockeel, C., Mock, P., Verheyen, G., Bouche, N., Le Goff, P., Heyman, Y., Wrenzycki, C., Hoffmann, K., Niemann, H., Haentjens, P., de Los Santos, M.J., Fernandez-Sanchez, M., Velasco, M., Aebischer, P., Devroey, P. & Simon, C. (2009). An in vivo culture system for human embryos using an encapsulation technology: a pilot study. Hum. Reprod. 24, 790–6.Google Scholar
Fujihira, T., Kishida, R. & Fukui, Y. (2004). Developmental capacity of vitrified immature porcine oocytes following ICSL effects of cytochalasin B and cryoprotectants. Cryobiology 49, 286–90.Google Scholar
Gil, M.A., Maside, C., Cuello, C., Parrilla, I., Vazquez, J.M., Roca, J. & Martinez, E.A. (2012). Effects of Hoechst 33342 staining and ultraviolet irradiation on mitochondrial distribution and DNA copy number in porcine oocytes and preimplantation embryos. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 79, 651–63.Google Scholar
Heo, Y.S., Cabrera, L.M., Bormann, C.L., Shah, C.T., Takayama, S. & Smith, G.D. (2010). Dynamic microfunnel culture enhances mouse embryo development and pregnancy rates. Hum. Reprod. 25, 613–22.Google Scholar
Hnida, C., Engenheiro, E. & Ziebe, S. (2004). Computer-controlled, multilevel, morphometric analysis of blastomere size as biomarker of fragmentation and multinuclearity in human embryos. Hum. Reprod. 19, 288–93.Google Scholar
Korhonen, K., Sjovall, S., Viitanen, J., Ketoja, E., Makarevich, A. & Peippo, J. (2009). Viability of bovine embryos following exposure to the green filtered or wider bandwidth light during in vitro embryo production. Hum. Reprod. 24, 308–14.Google Scholar
Kulms, D. & Schwarz, T. (2002). Molecular mechanisms involved in UV-induced apoptotic cell death. Skin Pharmacol. Appl. Skin Physiol. 15, 342–7.Google Scholar
Li, R., Liu, Y., Pedersen, H., Kragh, P. & Callesen, H. (2013). Development and quality of porcine parthenogenetically activated embryos after removal of zona pellucida. Theriogenology. 80, 58–64.Google Scholar
Liu, R.H., Sun, Q.Y., Li, Y.H., Jiao, L.H. & Wang, W.H. (2003). Effects of cooling on meiotic spindle structure and chromosome alignment within in vitro matured porcine oocytes. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 65, 212–8.Google Scholar
Moshkdanian, G., Nematollahi-mahani, S.N., Pouya, F. & Nematollahi-mahani, A. (2011). Antioxidants rescue stressed embryos at a rate comparable with co-culturing of embryos with human umbilical cord mesenchymal cells. J. Assist. Reprod. Gen. 28, 343–9.Google Scholar
Nakayama, T., Noda, Y., Goto, Y. & Mori, T. (1994). Effects of visible-light and other environmental-factors on the production of oxygen radicals by hamster embryos. Theriogenology 41, 499–510.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oh, S.J., Gong, S.P., Lee, S.T., Lee, E.J. & Lim, J.M. (2007). Light intensity and wavelength during embryo manipulation are important factors for maintaining viability of preimplantation embryos in vitro . Fertil. Steril. 88, 1150–7.Google Scholar
Ottosen, L.D.M., Hindkjaer, J. & Ingerslev, J. (2007). Light exposure of the ovum and preimplantation embryo during ART procedures. J. Assist. Reprod. Gen. 24, 99–103.Google Scholar
Pollard, J.W. & Leibo, S.P. (1994). Chilling sensitivity of mammalian embryos. Theriogenology 41, 101–6.Google Scholar
Sela, R., Samuelov, L., Almog, B., Schwartz, T., Cohen, T., Amit, A., Azem, F. & Ben-Yosef, D. (2012). An embryo cleavage pattern based on the relative blastomere size as a function of cell number for predicting implantation outcome. Fertil. Steril. 98, 650–6.Google Scholar
Takahashi, M., Saka, N., Takahashi, H., Kanai, Y., Schultz, R. M. & Okano, A. (1999). Assessment of DNA damage in individual hamster embryos by comet assay. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 54, 1–7.Google Scholar
Takenaka, M., Horiuchi, T. & Yanagimachi, R. (2007). Effects of light on development of mammalian zygotes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 14289–93.Google Scholar
Vajta, G., Holm, P., Greve, T. & Callesen, H. (1997). The submarine incubation system, a new tool for in vitro embryo culture: A technique report. Theriogenology 48, 1379–85.Google Scholar
Zang, L., Frenkel, R., Simeone, J., Lanan, M., Byers, M. & Lyubarskaya, Y. (2011). Metabolomics profiling of cell culture media leading to the identification of riboflavin photosensitized degradation of tryptophan causing slow growth in cell culture. Anal. Chem. 83, 5422–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, J.Q., Li, X.L., Peng, Y.Z., Guo, X.R., Heng, B.C. & Tong, G.Q. (2010). Reduction in exposure of human embryos outside the incubator enhances embryo quality and blastulation rate. Reprod. Biomed. Online 20, 510–5.Google Scholar