2. Ebner T, Moser M, Sommergruber M, et al. Selection based on morphological assessment of oocytes and embryos at different stages of preimplantation development. Hum Reprod Update 2003; 9:251-262.
3. Lane M, Gardner DK. Selection of viable mouse blastocysts prior to transfer using a metabolic criterion. Hum Reprod 1996; 11:1975-1978.
4. Van Blerkom J, Antczak M, Schrader R. The developmental potential of the human oocyte is related to the dissolved oxygen content of follicular fluid: association with vascular endothelial growth factor levels and perifollicular blood flow characteristics. Hum Reprod 1997; 12:1047-1055.
5. Huey S, Abuhamad A, Barroso G, et al. Perifollicular blood flow Doppler indices but not follicular pO2, pCO2, or pH, predict oocyte developmental competence in in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1999; 72:707-712.
6. Scott L. The biological basis of non-invasive strategies for selection of human oocytes and embryos. Hum Reprod Update 2003; 9:237-249.
7. Barroso G, Barrionuevo M, Rao P, et al. Vascular endothelial growth factor, nitric oxide, and leptin follicular fluid levels correlate negatively with embryo quality in IVF patients. Fertil Steril 1999; 72:1024-1026.
8. Van Blerkom J. The influence of intrinsic an extrinsic factors on the developmental potential of chromosomal normality of the human oocyte. J Soc Gyn Invest 1996; 3:3-11.
9. Gaulden M. Maternal age effect: the enigma of down syndrome and other tri-somic conditions. Mutat Res 1992; 296:69-88.
11. Wang WH, Meng L, Hackett RJ, et al. The spindle observation and its relationship with fertilization after intracytoplasmic sperm injection in living human oocytes. Fertil Steril 2001; 75:348-353.
12. Wang WH, Meng L, Hackett RJ, et al. Developmental ability of human oocytes with or without birefringent spindles imaged by polyscope before insemination. Hum Reprod 2001; 16:1464-1468.
13. Moon JH, Hyum CS, Lee SW, et al. Visualization of the metaphase II meiotic spindle in living human oocytes using the polyscope enables the prediction of embryonic developmental competence after ICSI. Hum Reprod 2003; 18:817-820.
14. Rienzi L, Ubaldi F, Martinez F, et al. Relationship between meiotic spindle location with regard to the polar body position and oocyte developmental potential after ICSI. Hum Reprod 2003; 18:1289-1293.
15. Eichenlaub-Ritter U, Shen Y, Tinneberg HR. Manipulation of the oocyte: possible damage to the spindle apparatus. Reprod Biomed Online 2002; 5:117-124.
16. Cooke S, Tyler JP, Driscoll GL. Meiotic spindle location and identification and its effect on embryonic cleavage plane and early development. Hum Reprod 2003; 18:2397-2405.
17. Cohen Y, Malcov M, Schwartz T, et al. Spindle imaging: a new marker for optimal timing of ICSI. Hum Reprod 2004; 19:649-654.
18. Eichenlaub-Ritter U, et al. Manipulation of the oocyte: possible damage to the spindle apparatus. Reprod Biomed Online 2002; 5:117.
18a. Ebner T, Moser M, Sommer gruber M, et al. Die Bedeutung der Analyse der Metaphase-II-Spindel in der assistierten Reproduktion. J Reproduktions med Endokrinol 2005; 2:78.
19. Choi T, Fukasawa K, Zhou R, et al. The Mos/mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway regulates the size and degradation of the first polar body in maturing mouse oocytes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1996; 93:7032-7035.
20. Xia P. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection: correlation of oocyte grade based on polar body, perivitelline space and cytoplasmic inclusions with fertilization rate and embryo quality. Hum Reprod 1997; 12:1750-1755.
21. Ebner T, Moser M, Yaman C, et al. Elective transfer of embryos selected on the basis of first polar body morphology is associated with increased rates of implantation and pregnancy. Fertil Steril 1999; 72:599-603.
22. Ebner T, Yaman C, Moser M, et al. Prognostic value of first polar body morphology on fertilization rate and embryo quality in intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod 2000; 15:427-430.
23. Ebner T, Moser M, Sommergruber M, et al. First polar body morphology and blastocyst formation rate in ICSI patients. Hum Reprod 2002; 17:2415-2418.
24. Ciotti PM, Notarangelo L, Morselli-Labate AM, et al. First polar body morphology before ICSI is not related to embryo quality or pregnancy rate. Hum Reprod 2004; 19:2334-2339.
25. Verlinsky Y, Lerner S, Illkevitch N, et al. Is there any predictive value of first polar body morphology for embryo genotype or developmental potential. Reprod Biomed Online 2003; 7:336-341.
26. Balakier H, Bouman D, Sojecki A, et al. Morphological and cytogenetic analysis of human giant oocytes and giant embryos. Hum Reprod 2002; 17: 2394-2401.
27. Rosenbusch B, Schneider M, Glaser B, et al. Cytogenetic analysis of giant oocytes and zygotes to assess their relevance for the development of digynic triploidy. Hum Reprod 2002; 17:2388-2393.
28. Ebner T, Moser M, Tews G. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection in zona-free oocytes. J Turkish German Gynecol Assoc 2004; 5:294-298.
29. Alikani M, Palermo G, Adler A, et al. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection in dysmorphic human oocytes. Zygote 1995; 3:283-288.
30. De Sutter P, Dozortsev D, Qian C, et al. Oocyte morphology does not correlate with fertilization rate and embryo quality after intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod 1996; 11:595-597.
31. Balaban B, Urman B, Sertac A, et al. Oocyte morphology does not affect fertilization rate, embryo quality and implantation rate after intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod 1998; 13:3431-3433.
32. Loutradis D, Drakakis B, Kallianidis K, et al. Oocyte morphology correlates with embryo quality and pregnancy rate after intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril 1999; 72:240-244.
33. Van Blerkom J, Henry G. Oocyte dysmorphism and aneuploidy in meiotically mature oocytes after ovarian stimulation. Hum Reprod 1992; 7:379-390.
34. Otsuki J, Okada A, Morimoto K, et al. The relationship between pregnancy outcome and smooth endoplasmic reticulum clusters in MII human oocytes. Hum Reprod 2004; 19:1591-1597.
35. Van Blerkom J. Occurrence and developmental consequences of aberrant cellular organization in meiotically mature human oocytes after exogenous ovarian hyperstimulation. J Electron Microsc Tech 1990; 16:324-346.
36. El.Shafie M, Windt ML, Kitshoff M, et al. Ultrastructure of human oocytes: a transmission electron microscopic view. In: El.Shafie M, Sousa M, Windt ML, et al., eds. An Atlas of the Ultrastructure of Human Oocytes. New York: Parthenon Publishing, 2000.
37. Ebner T, Moser M, Sommergruber M, et al. Occurrence and developmental consequences of vacuoles throughout preimplantation development. Fertil Steril 2005; 83:1635-1640.
38. Ebner T, Moser M, Sommergruber M, et al. Developmental competence of oocytes showing increased cytoplasmic viscosity. Hum Reprod 2003; 18:1294-1298.
39. Kahraman S, Yakin K, Donmez E, et al. Relationship between granular cytoplasm of oocytes and pregnancy outcome following intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod 2000; 15:2390-2393.
Payne D, Flaherty SP, Barry MF, et al. Preliminary observations on polar body extrusion and pronuclear formation in human oocytes using time-lapse video cinematography. Hum Reprod 1997; 12:532-541.
Garello C, Baker H, Rai J, et al. Pronuclear orientation, polar body placement, and embryo quality after intracytoplasmic sperm injection and in-vitro fertilization: further evidence for polarity in human oocytes. Hum Reprod 1999; 14:2588-2595.
Edwards RG, Beard H. Oocyte polarity and cell determination in early mammalian embryos. Mol Hum Reprod 1997; 3:863-905.
Gianaroli L, Magli MC, Ferraretti AP, et al. Pronuclear morphology and chromosomal abnormalities as scoring criteria for embryo selection. Fertil Steril 2003; 80:341-349.
Scott LA, Smith S. The successful use of pronuclear embryo transfers the day following oocyte retrieval. Hum Reprod 1998; 13:1003-1013. Van Blekom J, Davis P, Merriam J, et al. Nuclear and cytoplasmic dynamics of sperm penetration, pronuclear formation, and microtubule organization during fertilization and early preimplantation development in the human. Hum Reprod Update 1995; 1:429-461.
Tesarik J, Greco E. The probability of abnormal preimplantation development can be predicted by a single static observation on pronuclear stage morphology. Hum. Reprod 1999; 14:1318-1323.
Goud P, Goud A, Diamond MP, et al. Fertilization abnormalities und pronu-cleus size asynchrony after intracytoplasmic sperm injection is related to oocyte post maturity. Fertil Steril 1999; 72:245-252.
Sadowy S, Tomkin G, Munne S, et al. Impaired development of zygotes with uneven pronuclear size. Zygote 1998; 6:137-141.
Manor D, Drugan A, Stein D, et al. Unequal pronuclear size—a powerful predictor of embryonic chromosome anomalies. J Assist Reprod Genetics 1999; 16:385-389.
Wright G, Wiker S, Elsner C, et al. Observations on the morphology of pronu-clei und nucleoli in human zygotes und implications for cryopreservation. Hum Reprod 1990; 5:109-115.
Wittemer C, Bettahar-Lebugle K, Ohl J, et al. Zygote evaluation: an efficient tool for embryo selection. Hum Reprod 2000; 15:2591-2597. Balaban B, Urman B, Isiklar A, et al. The effect of pronuclear morphology on embryo quality parameters und blastocyst transfer outcome. Hum Reprod 2001; 16:2357-2361.
Montag M, van der Ven H. Evaluation of pronuclear morphology as the only selection criterion for further embryo culture und transfer: results of a prospective multicentre study. Hum Reprod 2001; 16:2384-2389. Ebner T, Moser M, Sommergruber M, et al. Presence, but not type or degree of extension, of a cytoplasmic halo has a significant influence on preimplantation development and implantation behaviour. Hum Reprod 2003; 18:2406-2412. Salumets A, Hyden-Granskog C, Suikkari AM, et al. The predictive value of pronuclear morphology of zygotes in the assessment of human embryo quality. Hum Reprod 2001; 16:2177-2181.
57. Stalf T, Herrero J, Mehnert C, et al. Influence of polarization effects und pronuclei on embryo quality und implantation in an IVF program. J Assist Reprod Genet 2002; 19:355-362.
58. Zollner U, Zollner KP, Hartl G, et al. The use of a detailed zygote score after IVF/ICSI to obtain good quality blastocysts: the German experience. Hum Reprod 2002; 17:1327-1333.
59. Scott LA. Pronuclear scoring as a predictor of embryo development. Reprod Biomed Online 2003; 6:201-214.
60. Nagy ZP, Janssenswillen C, Janssens R, et al. Timing of oocyte activation, pronucleus formation, and cleavage in humans after intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) with testicular spermatozoa and after ICSI or in-vitro fertilization on sibling oocytes with ejaculated spermatozoa. Hum Reprod 1998; 13:16061612.
61. Fancsovits P, Toth L, Murber A, et al. Early pronuclear breakdown is a good indicator of embryo quality and viability. Fertil Steril 2005; 84:881-887.
62. Manor D, Kol S, Lewit N, et al. Undocumented embryos: do not trash them FISH them. Hum Reprod 1996; 11:2502-2506.
63. Munne S, Cohen J. Chromosome abnormalities in human embryos. Hum Reprod Update 1998; 4:842-855.
64. Shoukir Y, Campana A, Farley T, et al. Early cleavage of in-vitro fertilized human embryos to the 2-cell stage: a novel indicator of embryo quality und viability. Hum Reprod 1997; 12:1531-1536.
65. Sakkas D, Shoukir Y, Chardonnens D, et al. Early cleavage of human embryos to the two-cell stage after intracytoplasmic sperm injection as an indicator of embryo viability. Hum Reprod 1998; 13:182-187.
66. Sakkas D, Percival G, D'Arcy Y, et al. Assessment of early cleaving in in vitro fertilized human embryos at the 2-cell stage before transfer improves embryo selection. Fertil Steril 2001; 76:1150-1156.
67. Lundin K, Bergh C, Hardarson T. Early embryo cleavage is a strong indicator of embryo quality in human IVF. Hum Reprod 2001; 16:2652-2657.
68. Bos-Mikich A, Mattos AL, Ferrari AN. Early cleavage of human embryos: an effective method for predicting successful IVF/ICSI outcome. Hum Reprod 2001; 16:2658-2661.
69. Fenwick J, Platteau P, Murdoch AP, et al. Time from insemination to first cleavage predicts developmental competence of human preimplantation embryos in vitro. Hum Reprod 2002; 17:407-412.
70. Salumets A, Hyden-Granskog C, Makinen S, et al. Early cleavage predicts the viability of human embryos in elective single embryo transfer procedures. Hum Reprod 2003; 18:821-825.
71. Windt ML, Kruger TF, Coetzee K, et al. Comparative analysis of pregnancy rates after the transfer of early dividing embryos versus slower dividing embryos. Hum Reprod 2004; 19:1155-1162.
72. Van Montfoort APA, Dumoulin JC, Kester AD, et al. Early cleavage is a valuable addition to existing embryo selection parameters: a study using single embryo transfers, Hum Reprod 2004; 19:2103-2108.
72a. Ebner T, Moser M, Sommergruber M, et al. Neue Aspekte der Zygoten evaluierung. J Reproduktions med Endokrinol 2004; 2:71.
73. Jurisicova A, Casper RF, MacLusky NJ, et al. HLA-G expression during preimplantation human embryo development. Proc Natl Acad Sci 1996; 93: 161-165.
74. Grisart B, Massip A, Dessy F. Cinematographic analysis of bovine embryo development in serum-free oviduct-conditioned medium. J Reprod Fertil 1994; 101:257-264.
75. Gardner RL. Experimental analysis of second cleavage in the mouse. Hum Reprod 2002; 17:3178-3189.
76. Suzuki H, Togashi M, Adachi J, et al. Developmental ability of zona-free mouse embryos is influences by cell association at the 4-cell stage. Biol Reprod 1995; 53:78-83.
77. Johansson M, Hardarson T, Lundin K. There is a cut-off limit in diameter between a blastomere and a small anucleate fragment. J Assist Reprod Genet 2003; 20:309-313.
78. Ziebe S, Petersen K, Lindenberg S, et al. Embryo morphology or cleavage stage: how to select the best embryos for transfer after in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1997; 12:1545-1549.
79. Van Royen E, Mangelschots K, De Neubourg D, et al. Characterization of a top quality embryo, a step towards single embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 1999; 14:2345-2349.
80. Hardarson T, Hanson C, Sjogren A, et al. Human embryos with unevenly sized blastomeres have lower pregnancy and implantation rates: indications for aneu-ploidy and multinucleation. Hum Reprod 2001; 16:313-318.
81. Van Blerkom J, Davis P, Alexander S. A microscopic and biochemical study of fragmentation phenotypes in stage appropriate human embryos. Hum Reprod 2001; 16:719-729.
82. Alikani M, Cohen J, Tomkin G, et al. Human embryo fragmentation in vitro and its implications for pregnancy and implantation. Fertil Steril 1999; 71:836-842.
83. Ebner T, Yaman C, Moser M, et al. Embryo fragmentation in vitro and its impact on treatment and pregnancy outcome. Fertil Steril 2001; 76:281-285.
84. Hnida C, Engenheiro E, Ziebe S. Computer-controlled, multilevel, morpho-metric analysis of blastomere size as biomarker of fragmentation and multinu-clearity in human embryos. Hum Reprod 2004; 19:288-293.
85. Warner CM, Cao W, Exley GE, et al. Genetic regulations of egg and embryo survival. Hum Reprod 1998; 13(suppl 3):178-190.
86. Jurisicova A, Varmuza S, Casper RF. Programmed cell death and human embryo fragmentation. Mol Hum Reprod 1996; 2:93-98.
87. Antczak M, Van Blerkom J. Temporal and spatial aspects of fragmentation in early human embryos: possible effects on developmental competence and association with the differential elimination of regulatory proteins from polarized domains. Hum Reprod 1999; 14:429-447.
88. Van Royen E, Mangelschots K, Vercruyssen M, et al. Multinucleation in cleavage stage embryos. Hum Reprod 2003; 18:1062-1069.
89. Pelinck MJ, De Vos M, Dekens M, et al. Embryos cultured in vitro with9mul-tinucleated blastomeres have poor implantation potential in human in-vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod 1998; 13:960-963.
90. Kligman I, Benadiva C, Alikani M, et al. The presence of multinucleated blas-tomeres in human embryos correlates with chromosomal abnormalities. Hum Reprod 1996; 11:1492-1498.
91. Hardy K, Winston RM, Handyside AH. Binucleate blastomeres in preimplan-tation human embryos in vitro: failure of cytokinesis during early cleavage. J Reprod Fertil 1993; 98:549-558.
92. Balakier H, Cadesky K. The frequency and developmental capability of human embryos containing multinucleated blastomeres. Hum Reprod 1997; 12: 800-804.
93. Biggers JD, Racowsky C. The development of fertilized human ova to the blastocyst stage in KSOMAA medium: is a two-step protocol necessary. Reprod BioMed Online 2002; 5:133-140.
94. Cooke S, Quinn P, Kime L, et al. Improvement in early human embryo development using new formulation sequential stage-specific culture media. Fertil Steril 2002; 78:1254-1260.
95. Braude PR, Bolton VN, Moore S. Human gene expression first occurs between the four- and eight-cell stages of preimplantation development. Nature 1988; 332:459-461.
96. Rienzi L, Ubaldi F, Minasi MG, et al. Blastomere cytoplasmic granularity is unrelated to developmental potential of day 3 human embryos. J Assist Reprod Genet 2003; 20:314-317.
97. Ebner T, Tews G, Sommergruber M, et al. Cytoplasmic pitting has a negative impact on implantation outcome. J Assist Reprod Genet 2005; 22:239-244.
98. Gardner DK, Lane M. Culture and selection of viable blastocysts: a feasible proposition for human IVF. Hum Reprod Update 1997; 3:367-382.
99. Veeck LL, Zaninovic N. Human morulae in vitro. In: Veeck LL, Zaninovic N, eds. An Atlas of Human Blastocysts. Boca Raton: Parthenon Publishing, 2003.
100. Tao J, Tamis R, Fink K, et al. The neglected morula/compact stage embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 2002; 17:1513-1518.
101. Rijnders PM, Jansen CAM. The predictive value of day 3 embryo morphology regarding blastocyst formation, pregnancy and implantation rate after day 5 transfer following in-vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod 1998; 13:2869-2873.
102. Graham J, Han T, Porter R, et al. Day 3 morphology is a poor predictor of blastocyst quality in extended culture. Fertil Steril 2000; 74:495-497.
103. Milki AA, Hinckley MD, Genhardt J, et al. Accuracy of day 3 criteria for selecting the best embryo. Fertil Steril 2002; 77:1191-1195.
104. Gardner DK, Lane M, Stevens J, et al. Noninvasive assessment of human embryo nutrient consumption as a measure of developmental potential. Fertil Steril 2001; 76:1175-1180.
105. Houghton FD, Hawkhead JA, Humpherson PG, et al. Non-invasive amino acid turnover predicts human embryo developmental capacity. Hum Reprod 2002; 17:999-1005.
106. Brison DR, Houghton FD, Falconer D, et al. Identification of viable embryos in IVF by non-invasive measurement of amino acid turnover. Hum Reprod 2004; 19:2319-2324.
Hardy K, Handyside AH, Winston RM. The human blastocyst: cell number, death and allocation during late preimplantation development in vitro. Development 1989; 107:597-604.
Fong CY, Bongso A. Comparison of human blastulation rates and total cell number in sequential culture media with and without co-colture. Hum Reprod 1999; 14:774-781.
Magli MC, Jones MG, Gras L, et al. Chromosome mosaicism in day 3 aneu-ploid embryos that develop to morphologically normal blastocysts in vitro. Hum Reprod 2000; 15:1781-1786.
Sandalinas M, Sadowy S, Alikani M, et al. Developmental ability of chromosomal abnormal human embryos to develop to the blastocyst stage. Hum Reprod 2001; 16:1954-1958.
Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB. In vitro culture of human blastocyst. In: Jansen R, Mortimer D, eds. Towards Reproductive Certainty: Infertility and Genetics Beyond 1999. Carnforth: Parthenon Press, :378.
Gardner DK, Lane M, Stevens J, et al. Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: towards a single blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril 2000; 73:1155-1158.
Balaban B, Urman B, Sertac A, et al. Blastocyst quality affects the success of blastocyst-stage embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2000; 74:282-287.
Richter KS, Harris DC, Daneshmand ST, et al. Quantitative grading of a human blastocyst: optimal inner cell mass size and shape. Fertil Steril 2001;
Kovacic B, Vlaisavljevic V, Reljic M, et al. Developmental capacity of different morphological types of day 5 human morulae and blastocysts. Reprod Biomed Online 2004; 8:687-694.
Racowsky C, Combelles CM, Nureddin A, et al. Day 3 and day 5 morphological predictors of embryo viability. Reprod Biomed Online 2003; 6:323-331. Hardarson T, Caisander G, Sjogren A, et al. A morphological and chromosomal study of blastocysts developing from morphologically suboptimal human pre-embryos compared with control blastocysts. Hum Reprod 2003; 18:399-407. Gardner R. Flow of cells from polar to mural trophectoderm is polarized in the mouse blastocyst. Hum Reprod 2000; 15:694-701.
Scott L. Oocyte and embryo polarity. Sem Reprod Med 2000; 18:171-183. Neuber E, Rinaudo P, Trimarchi JR, et al. Sequential assessment of individually cultured human embryos as an indicator of subsequent good quality blastocyst development. Hum Reprod 2003; 18:1307-1312. De Placido G, Wilding M, Strina I, et al. High outcome predictability after IVF using a combined score for zygote und embryo morphology und growth rate. Hum Reprod 2002; 17:2402-2409.
Nagy ZP, Dozortsev D, Diamond M, et al. Pronuclear morphology evaluation of embryo morphology significantly increases implantation rates. Fertil Steril 2003; 80:67-74.
Lan KC, Huang FJ, Lin YC, et al. The predictive value of using a combined Z-score and day 3 embryo morphology score in the assessment of embryo survival on day 5. Hum Reprod 2003; 18:1299-1306.
Was this article helpful?
Prior to planning pregnancy, you should learn more about the things involved in getting pregnant. It involves carrying a baby inside you for nine months, caring for a child for a number of years, and many more. Consider these things, so that you can properly assess if you are ready for pregnancy. Get all these very important tips about pregnancy that you need to know.