4.7 Article

Is there a relationship between time-lapse parameters and embryo sex?

Journal

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
Volume 103, Issue 2, Pages 396-401

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.10.050

Keywords

Growth; preimplantation; sex; time-lapse; embryo development

Funding

  1. Ferring
  2. Merck Serono

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To study if it is possible to identify embryo sex from embryo cleavage timings. Design: Retrospective and observational study. Setting: University-affiliated private fertility center. Patient(s): Women undergoing preimplantion genetic diagnosis. Intervention(s): All biopsied embryos were cultured in an Embryoscope incubator with time-lapse technology. Main Outcome Measure(s): Cleavage timing from insemination to day 3 and all kinetic parameters that have been described in previous studies by our group. Result(s): The study included 421 embryos from our Compressive Chromosome Screening program, conducted from January 2012 to December 2012. Embryos were grouped according to their sex: male (176 embryos) and female (161 embryos). Chromosomal abnormal rate was similar for the two groups (male 62.5%, female 58.4%). When morphokinetic parameters were separated in different quartiles and grouped, we found statistical differences between male or female embryos. By logistic regression analysis we found that two specific kinetic variables were relevant: second synchrony (>2 hours) and timing of morula formation (80.8-90.9 hours). With the use of these parameters, we propose an algorithm with four different categories reflecting the range from 71% to 42% in the likelihood of an embryo being female. Conclusion(s): Embryo development was affected by embryo sex, and the sex ratio could be affected by the embryo selection method for transfer based on kinetic parameters. (C) 2015 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available