Time lapse observations

30
Time lapse observations of pre-implantation embryos Giles Palmer, Mitera ACU, Athens [email protected]

description

time lapse and embryo morphokinetics

Transcript of Time lapse observations

Page 1: Time lapse observations

Time lapse observations of pre-implantation embryos

Giles Palmer, Mitera ACU, [email protected]

Page 2: Time lapse observations

There are no commercial relationships or other activities that might be perceived as a

potential conflict of interest

Page 3: Time lapse observations

Time lapse in the IVF Laboratory

• Continuous viewing of embryo development• Embryo monitored from inside incubator• Creates archives of embryo development used to select

embryo(s) for embryo transfer

Page 4: Time lapse observations

Embryo selection

• Embryo selection- subjective assessment

• Call for consensus of embryo grading

• Early cleavage, pronuclear morphology & orientation limited

• Trend to reduce multiple births after ART

Page 5: Time lapse observations

Embryo selection• Invasive techniques

Euploid selection (PGS) not fulfilled expectationsCGH replacing FISHRCT underway

• Non-invasive techniques-”omics” search for biomarkers: metabolomics-not implemented at present. Promising developments but time consuming/ technically challenging

Page 6: Time lapse observations

The (Short) History of Time lapse monitoring

• Payne (1997) Preliminary observations on polar body extrusion and pronuclear formation in human oocytes using time lapse cinematography

• Pribenszky (2010) Pregnancy achieved by transfer of a single blastocyst selected by time lapse monitoring

• Wong (2010) Non-invasive imaging of human embryos before embryonic genome activation predicts development to blastocyst stage

• Meseguer (2011) The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of embryo implantation

Page 7: Time lapse observations

Time lapse 2013

• Primo Vision (Bright field)• Embryoscope (Bright field-self contained incubation) • Eeva (Dark field, automatic embryo prediction software)

Conventional incubator Time lapse microscope Microwell embryo culture dish with the developing embryos

Page 8: Time lapse observations

Static observations are misleading!

Fragmentation:•Pribenszky (2010)12% embryos fragmenting89% reabsorbedAverage time for fragments to appear/disappear 9.1 h ( +/- 442) Chance for NOT noticing fragments at bi-daily monitoring: 72% !!!

Blastocyst contractions:

Page 9: Time lapse observations

videos

Which embryo would you transfer?

Static observations are misleading!

Page 10: Time lapse observations

Ww

26:32 29:52 30:02

35:12 42:02 42:32

Page 11: Time lapse observations
Page 12: Time lapse observations
Page 13: Time lapse observations
Page 14: Time lapse observations
Page 15: Time lapse observations

Implantation is linked to exact timing events

Event PN appear PN fading* 1st division* 2nd division* 3rd division*

Range (h)

7.8-11.1 Out of range

22.3-25.8

Out of range

24.4-28.2

Out of range

35.3-40.6

Out of range

36.0-41.6

Out of range

100% Implanted

N (%)

15(54%)

13(46%)

23(66%)

12(34%)

23(66%)

12(34%)

13(72%)

5(28%)

19(73%)

7(27%)

0% Implanted

N (%)

60(49%)

62(51%)

55(45%)

67(55%)

57(46%)

67(54%)

43(45%)

52(55%)

45(45%)

56(55%)

Herrero, 2010

Page 16: Time lapse observations

5-8cc30-50 min

9-16cc40-70

min

3-4cc10-20min

8-9cc22-24

hrs

4-5cc14-16

hrs

2-3cc10-12

hrs

Interphase 1-2cc

20-26 hrs

Exact timing of interphases

1st cycle 2nd cycle 3rd cycle 4th cycle

Hlinka 2010

Page 17: Time lapse observations

Cell CycleCellular organization Nuclear organization and MitosisCell divisionCell synchronicity

Karyokinetics and cytokinetics

Page 18: Time lapse observations

Karyokinetics and cytokinetics

Page 19: Time lapse observations

Karyokinetics and cytokinetics

Second cell cycle

Third cell cycle

3-4 cell

5-8 cell

Page 20: Time lapse observations

t2 t3 t4 t5

cc2 cc3s2

t: exact timet2: time to 2-cellt3: time to 4-cellt4: time to 4-cellt5: time to 5-cell

cc: cell cyclecc2 = t3-t2cc3 = t5-t4

S:synchronys2 = t4-t3

cc2=11,8h s2 = <0.76h

t2=25,6h (24,3-25,8h)t3=37,4h (35,4-37,8h)t4=38h (36,4-38,9h)t5=52,3h (48,8-56,6,h)

Proposed a multivariable model to classify embryos into implantation potential

Page 21: Time lapse observations

t5

Hierarchical classificationDiscard?

Exclude?

s2s2

cc2cc2cc2cc2

A+ A- B+ B- C+ C- D+ D- E F

Accept Discard

ExcludeInclude

Within range Outside range

Outside range

Outside range

Within range

Within range

Page 22: Time lapse observations

t5

Hierarchical classification Discard?

Exclude?

s2s2

cc2cc2cc2cc2

66%

36%

29%

24%

25%

10%

10%

15%

8% F

Accept Discard

ExcludeInclude

Within range Outside range

Outside range

Outside range

Within range

Within range

Implantation

Page 23: Time lapse observations

HDHDGHGDGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

Page 24: Time lapse observations

Abnormal cell division & aneuploidy

Page 25: Time lapse observations

Time line profile

e

Time line profile

e

eCGH profile- molecular karyotype

3-4 CellsAbnormal cell division & aneuploidy

Page 26: Time lapse observations

Time line profile

e

Time line profile

e

e

3-4 Cells

Davies (ESHRE 2012) Delayed cleavage divisions and prolonged transition between 2-4-cell stages identified as aneuploid at 8-cell by array CGHThe timing of first and second divisions were delayed in aneuploidy and more marked in those with multiple aneuploidy2-4 cell transition: euploidy<single aneuploidy<multiple aneuploidy

Basile (2013) Increasing the probability of selecting chromosomally normal embryos by studying their kineticsClassification system based on time parameters relates to selection of euploid embryos Normal embryos A+: 36,3%, A: 33,9%;B+: 32,0%, B:19,5%;C+:14,3%, C:11,5%;D+: 10,0%, D: 9,0%

Campbell (2013) Retrospective analysis of outcomes after IVF using an aneuploidy risk model derived from time-lapse imaging without PGSAneuploidy risk model

Abnormal cell division linked to aneuploidy

Page 27: Time lapse observations

The era of morphokinetics

Chen 2013

Page 28: Time lapse observations

Conclusions

• Improves knowledge of in vitro embryo development

• Potential to standardize embryo assessment• Easily incorporated into IVF lab• Exclude embryos with direct/ abnormal

cleavage, sub-optimum development, fragmentation, multinucleation

• Improved embryo selection may increase pregnancy rates

Page 29: Time lapse observations

Cell CycleNuclear organization and MitosisCellular organization Cell divisionCell synchronicity

Zygotic ClockMaternal to zygotic

Fertilization

Maternal control Zygotic control

Karyokinetics and cytokinetics

Page 30: Time lapse observations

Implantation is linked to exact timing events

Herrero, 2010

Event PN appear PN fading* 1st division* 2nd division* 3rd division*

Range (h)

7.8-11.1 Out of range

22.3-25.8

Out of range

24.4-28.2

Out of range

35.3-40.6

Out of range

36.0-41.6

Out of range

100% Implanted

N (%)

15(54%)

13(46%)

23(66%)

12(34%)

23(66%)

12(34%)

13(72%)

5(28%)

19(73%)

7(27%)

0% Implanted

N (%)

60(49%)

62(51%)

55(45%)

67(55%)

57(46%)

67(54%)

43(45%)

52(55%)

45(45%)

56(55%)