The relationship between preimplantation morphokinetics of human embryos and sex chromosome pattern

Is there a relationship between morphokinetic parameters and neonatal sex in fresh embryo transfers?

To investigate whether morphokinetic parameters differ between male and female embryos in IVF embryos resulting in live births, a retrospective cohort study was undertaken. Files of all live births resulting from a single embryo transfer (SET) cultured in time-lapse incubators between 2013 and 2019 in two tertiary care centres were reviewed. The study group consisted of 187 SETs resulted in 187 live births, of which 100 were females (53.5%) and 87 were males (46.5%). Embryo selection for transfer was based on the known implantation data (KID) score provided by the Embryoscope and morphological assessment by experienced embryologists. Neonatal sex was confirmed through live birth documentation. Morphokinetic parameters and day 3 and day 5 KID scores of male and female embryos were compared. Maternal baseline and treatment characteristics were similar between groups. Morphokinetic time-lapse parameters of male and female embryos including: pronuclei fading; cleavage timings (t2-t9); second and third cell cycle durations; synchrony of the second and third cleavages; late morphokinetic parameters and KID scores did not differ between groups. In conclusion, time-lapse morphokinetic parameters and embryo selection methods do not seem to differ between male and female embryos, and their utilization does not bias towards any neonatal sex.

A Mini-Review Regarding the Clinical Outcomes of In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) Following Pre-Implantation Genetic Testing (PGT)-Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) Approach

Background: PGT-based NGS revolutionized the field of reproductive medicine, becoming an integrated component within current assisted reproductive technology (ART) protocols. Methods: We searched the literature published in the last half a decade in four databases (PubMed/Medline, ISI Web of Knowledge, ScienceDirect, and Scopus) between 2018 and 2022. Results: A total of 1388 articles were filtered, from which 60 met, initially, the eligibility criteria, but only 42 were included (≥100 patients/couples—62,465 patients and 6628 couples in total) in the present mini-review. In total, forty-two (70.0%) reported reproductive outcomes, while eighteen (30.0%) had distinct objectives. Furthermore, n = 1, 1.66% of the studies focused on PGT, n = 1, 1.66% on pre-implantation genetic testing for monogenic disorders (PGT-M), n = 3, 5.0% on pre-implantation genetic testing for structural rearrangements (PGT-SR) and n = 55, 91.66% on pre-implantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A). Conclusions: PGT using NGS proved to be an excellent companion that folds within the current ascending tendency among couples that require specialty care. We strongly encourage future studies to provide a systematic overview expanded at a larger scale on the role of the PGT-NGS.