切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版) ›› 2018, Vol. 14 ›› Issue (05) : 612 -616. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1673-5250.2018.05.020

所属专题: 专题评论 文献

综述

胚胎质量评估方法的研究进展
耿蒙慧1, 张璨1, 邢阿英1, 王大琳2, 胡艳秋3,()   
  1. 1. 116044 辽宁,大连医科大学妇产科
    2. 225000 江苏,扬州大学医学院妇产科
    3. 225000 江苏扬州,苏北人民医院生殖中心
  • 收稿日期:2018-02-27 修回日期:2018-07-09 出版日期:2018-10-01
  • 通信作者: 胡艳秋

Research progress of methods on the assessment of embryonic quality

Menghui Geng1, Can Zhang1, Aying Xing1, Dalin Wang2, Yanqiu Hu3,()   

  1. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Dalian Medical University, Dalian 116044, Liaoning Province, China
    2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical College of Yangzhou University, Yangzhou 225000, Jiangsu Province, China
    3. Reproductive Medical Centre, Northern Jiangsu People’s Hospital, Yangzhou 225000, Jiangsu Province, China
  • Received:2018-02-27 Revised:2018-07-09 Published:2018-10-01
  • Corresponding author: Yanqiu Hu
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Hu Yanqiu, Email:
  • Supported by:
    Project of Jiangsu Provincial Commission of Health and Family Planning for Youth Medicine Key Talents(QNRC2016347)
引用本文:

耿蒙慧, 张璨, 邢阿英, 王大琳, 胡艳秋. 胚胎质量评估方法的研究进展[J/OL]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2018, 14(05): 612-616.

Menghui Geng, Can Zhang, Aying Xing, Dalin Wang, Yanqiu Hu. Research progress of methods on the assessment of embryonic quality[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2018, 14(05): 612-616.

选择植入发育潜能更高的胚胎是辅助生殖技术(ART)中最主要的挑战之一。形态学评分法是目前运用最为广泛的胚胎质量评估方法,但是由于存在观察者的人为误差,导致该方法评价胚胎质量并不准确。近十年,代谢组学和蛋白质组学不断发展,结合傅立叶变换红外(FTIR)光谱、近红外光谱(NIR)、1H-质子核磁共振(1H-NMR)光谱、拉曼光谱技术等新技术的临床应用,可以精确检测胚胎培养液中的各种代谢产物,如丙酮酸、氨基酸、人类白细胞抗原(HLA)-G等。研究结果表明,妊娠组胚胎培养液代谢产物与未妊娠组不同。因此,无创性代谢组学及蛋白质组学对于胚胎质量的评估,或许可被运用于临床指导体外受精(IVF)方案的调整,选择最优质的移植胚胎。然而,形态学评分法、代谢组学和蛋白质组学均不能检测胚胎染色体异常,基因组学可弥补这一缺憾。通过胚胎移植前基因组检测和筛查,可以排除非整倍体性胚胎,从而提高ART助孕成功率。笔者拟就胚胎质量评估方法研究的最新进展进行阐述。

Selection of embryos with higher potentiality of development has been one of the major challenges in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Morphological scoring method is a general method to evaluate embryonic quality, but it′s not an accurate method due to the personal error. In the past decade, with the development of metabolomics and proteomics, metabolities in embryo culture media such as pyruvate, amino acids, human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-G can be precisely analyzed by newly developed technologies such as Fourier transformation infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, near infrared spectroscopy (NIR), 1H-proton nuclear magnetic resonance (1H-NMR) spectroscopy, and Raman spectroscopy. Studies have shown that the metabolic profiles vary between pregnancy and non-pregnancy embryos. Thus, noninvasive metabolomics and proteomics might be applied to guide clinical protocol adjustments of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and select transplanted embryo with the best quality. However, chromosome abnormalities in embryo can not be detected by morphological scoring method, metabolomics, proteomics, and genomics can make up for this deficiency. Genomic screening could be conducted to detect non-euploidy embryo before transplantation and thus improve the success rate of ART. This paper reviews the latest research progress of the embryo quality assessment methods.

[1]
Siristatidis CS,Sertedaki E,Vaidakis D. Metabolomics for improving pregnancy outcomes in women undergoing assisted reproductive technologies[J]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2017, 5(5): CD011872.
[2]
Wong C,Chen AA,Behr B, et al. Time-lapse microscopy and image analysis in basic and clinical embryo development research[J]. Reprod Biomed Online, 2013, 26(2): 120-129.
[3]
李楠,黎靖宇,唐永梅,等. 早期胚胎质量评估:提高预测胚胎发育潜能的敏感性和特异性[J]. 中国组织工程研究,2014, 18(42): 6849-6855.
[4]
Mizobe Y,Oya N,Iwakiri R, et al. Effects of early cleavage patterns of human embryos on subsequent in vitro development and implantation[J]. Fertil Steril, 2016, 106(2): 348-353.
[5]
Hesters L,Prisant N,Fanchin R, et al. Impact of early cleaved zygote morphology on embryo development and in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer outcome: a prospective study[J]. Fertil Steril, 2008, 89(6): 1677-1684.
[6]
Watanabe S,Kamihata M,Matsunaga R, et al. Effect of an abnormal first cleavage on embryonic development: time-lapse video analysis[J]. Fertil Steril, 2013, 100(3): S245-S246.
[7]
Desch L,Bruno C,Luu M, et al. Embryo multinucleation at the two-cell stage is an independent predictor of intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcomes[J]. Fertil Steril, 2017, 107(1): 97-103.
[8]
Martínez-Granados L,Serrano M,González-Utor A, et al. Reliability and agreement on embryo assessment: 5 years of an external quality control programme[J]. Reprod Biomed Online, 2018, 36(3): 259-268.
[9]
李楠,唐永梅,牟联俊,等,辅助生殖技术中胚胎质量评估方法的研究进展[J/CD].中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2015, 11(2): 265-268.
[10]
Aguilar J,Rubio I,Muñoz E, et al. Study of nucleation status in the second cell cycle of human embryo and its impact on implantation rate[J]. Fertil Steril, 2016, 106(2): 291-299.
[11]
Yang L,Cai S,Zhang S, et al. Single embryo transfer by day 3 time-lapse selection versus day 5 conventional morphological selection: a randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial[J]. Hum Reprod, 2018, 33(5): 869-876.
[12]
Milewski R,Milewska AJ,Kuczyńska A,et al. Do morphokinetic data sets inform pregnancy potential?[J]. J Assist Reprod Genet, 2016, 33(3): 357-365.
[13]
Basile N,Barrière P,Meseguer M, et al. Time-lapse in the IVF lab: how should we assess potential benefit?[J]. Hum Reprod, 2015, 30(5): 1276.
[14]
Racowsky C,Kovacs P,Martins WP. A critical appraisal of time-lapse imaging for embryo selection: where are we and where do we need to go?[J]. J Assist Reprod Genet, 2015, 32(7): 1025-1030.
[15]
Vergouw CG,Heymans MW,Hardarson T, et al. No evidence that embryo selection by near-infrared spectroscopy in addition to morphology is able to improve live birth rates: results from an individual patient data Meta-analysis[J]. Hum Reprod, 2014, 29(3): 455-461.
[16]
Kirkegaard K,Svane ASP,Nielsen JS, et al. Nuclear magnetic resonance metabolomic profiling of day 3 and 5 embryo culture medium does not predict pregnancy outcome in good prognosis patients: a prospective cohort study on single transferred embryos[J]. Hum Reprod, 2014, 29(11): 2413-2420.
[17]
Parlatan U,Basar G,Bavili N, et al. Embryo viability indexing using raman spectroscopy of spent culture media[J]. Spectrosc Lett, 2016, 49(7): 458-463.
[18]
RoyChoudhury S,Singh A,Gupta NJ, et al. Repeated implantation failure versus repeated implantation success: discrimination at a metabolomic level[J]. Hum Reprod, 2016, 31(6): 1265-1274.
[19]
Yang YC,Kuo CH,Tseng YJ, et al. Identifying differential expressed metabolites in viable embryos with UHPLC-ToF-MS (ultra high-performance liquid chromatography-time of flight-mass spectrometry): a comprehensive metabolomic approach[J]. Fertil Steril, 2013, 100(3): S119.
[20]
Tejera A,Castelló D,de los Santos JM, et al. Combination of metabolism measurement and a time-lapse system provides an embryo selection method based on oxygen uptake and chronology of cytokinesis timing[J]. Fertil Steril, 2016, 106(1): 119-126.
[21]
Bjelica A,Subanovic S. Assessment of the embryo quality in the procedure of in vitro fertilization[J]. Med Pregl, 2016, 69(7-8): 241-246.
[22]
姚元庆. 人类白细胞抗原-G与早期胚胎生长发育和着床[J]. 生殖医学杂志,2014, 23(3): 206-209.
[23]
Niu Z,Wang L,Pang RTK, et al. A Meta-analysis of the impact of human leukocyte antigen-G on the outcomes of IVF/ICSI[J]. Reprod Biomed Online, 2017, 34(6): 611-618.
[24]
McReynolds S,Vanderlinden L,Stevens J, et al. Lipocalin-1: a potential marker for noninvasive aneuploidy screening[J]. Fertil Steril, 2011, 95(8): 2631-2633.
[25]
Dominguez F,Meseguer M,Aparicio-Ruiz B, et al. New strategy for diagnosing embryo implantation potential by combining proteomics and time-lapse technologies[J]. Fertil Steril, 2015, 104(4): 908-914.
[26]
Rødgaard T,Heegaard PM,Callesen H. Non-invasive assessment of in-vitro embryo quality to improve transfer success[J]. Reprod Biomed Online, 2015, 31(5): 585-592.
[27]
Lee E,Illingworth P,Wilton L, et al. The clinical effectiveness of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy in all 24 chromosomes (PGD-A): systematic review[J]. Hum Reprod, 2015, 30(2): 473-483.
[28]
Lu L,Lv B,Huang K, et al. Recent advances in preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening[J]. J Assist Reprod Genet, 2016, 33(9): 1129-1134.
[29]
Capalbo A,Ubaldi FM,Cimadomo D, et al. Consistent and reproducible outcomes of blastocyst biopsy and aneuploidy screening across different biopsy practitioners: a multicentre study involving 2 586 embryo biopsies[J]. Hum Reprod, 2016, 31(1): 199-208.
[30]
Magli MC,Pomante A,Cafueri G, et al. Preimplantation genetic testing: polar bodies, blastomeres, trophectoderm cells, or blastocoelic fluid?[J]. Fertil Steril, 2016, 105(3): 676-683.
[31]
Sullivan-Pyke C,Dokras A. Preimplantation genetic screening and preimplantation genetic diagnosis[J]. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am, 2018, 45(1): 113-125.
[32]
Forman EJ,Upham KM,Cheng M, et al. Comprehensive chromosome screening alters traditional morphology-based embryo selection: a prospective study of 100 consecutive cycles of planned fresh euploid blastocyst transfer[J]. Fertil Steril, 2013, 100(3): 718-724.
[33]
Keltz MD,Vega M,Sirota I, et al. Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) with comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) following day 3 single cell blastomere biopsy markedly improves IVF outcomes while lowering multiple pregnancies and miscarriages[J]. J Assist Reprod Genet, 2013, 30(10): 1333-1339.
[34]
Sermon K. Novel technologies emerging for preimplantation genetic diagnosis and preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy[J]. Expert Rev Mol Diagn, 2017, 17(1): 71-82.
[35]
Griesinger G. Beware of the " implantation rate" ! Why the outcome parameter " implantation rate" should be abandoned from infertility research[J]. Hum Reprod, 2016, 31(2): 249-251.
[1] 庄蕙嘉, 岳志成, 钟坤岑, 朱慧莉. 乳腺癌患者生育力保存的研究进展[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 238-242.
[2] 何梦媛, 胡鸿保, 谢庆云, 廖冬发, 王维. 股骨头坏死的代谢组学的相关研究进展[J/OL]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(03): 379-382.
[3] 费一鸣, 刘卓, 张丽娟. 组学分析在早产分子机制中的研究现状[J/OL]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2024, 20(05): 504-510.
[4] 王敏, 周玲. 复发性流产的遗传因素病因学研究现状[J/OL]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2024, 20(04): 374-381.
[5] 高青卓, 康宜凡, 王治鸿. 体外受精周期中单原核胚胎的临床研究现状[J/OL]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2024, 20(03): 260-265.
[6] 奚卫, 王闻卿, 刘玥, 王亚楠, 许学斌. 胃肠炎继发脓毒症感染创伤弧菌ST14514的病原学诊断与文献病例回顾分析[J/OL]. 中华实验和临床感染病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 293-302.
[7] 王欢欢, 郑少祥, 郝金锦, 陈文亮. 胃癌分子分型的研究进展及相关联系[J/OL]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2024, 18(03): 229-234.
[8] 方晓铵, 熊欢庆, 李玉娟, 刘刚, 金发光. E3泛素连接酶COP-1在脂多糖致小鼠急性肺损伤中的意义[J/OL]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(01): 14-18.
[9] 邢媛媛, 蒋军红, 谢海琴, 吕学东. 肺恶性肿瘤继发下呼吸道感染病原学特点及耐药分析[J/OL]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2023, 16(06): 779-783.
[10] 郭晓磊, 李晓云, 孙嘉怿, 金乐, 郭亚娟, 史新立. 含生长因子骨移植材料的研究进展和监管现状[J/OL]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2023, 09(06): 373-378.
[11] 洪凡, 陈敦金, 傅洋, 梁新月, 吴毅, 王晓怡. 体外受精-胚胎移植妊娠合并前置胎盘临床研究[J/OL]. 中华产科急救电子杂志, 2024, 13(03): 176-182.
[12] 粟睿, 周璇, 杨殊琳, 方晨韵, 陈素华, 邓东锐, 曾万江, 刘海意, 龚洵, 吴媛媛, 刘燕燕, 肖娟, 余俊, 何梦舟, 李淑芳, 王子琢, 林星光, 乌剑利, 王少帅, 岳静, 靳镭, 冯玲, 丁文成. 经辅助生殖技术妊娠患者早产的影响因素分析[J/OL]. 中华产科急救电子杂志, 2024, 13(03): 168-175.
[13] 胡采宏, 张卫社. 辅助生殖技术与早期流产[J/OL]. 中华产科急救电子杂志, 2024, 13(02): 69-72.
[14] 卫星, 孙路明. 辅助生殖技术与胎儿生长障碍[J/OL]. 中华产科急救电子杂志, 2024, 13(02): 88-92.
[15] 李任远, 梁桂宁, 于馨洋, 张莹. 基因检测及胚胎植入前单基因遗传学检测在优生优育中的作用[J/OL]. 中华产科急救电子杂志, 2024, 13(02): 117-120.
阅读次数
全文


摘要