Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine

The Korean Society for Reproductive Medicine (대한생식의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of static culture, micro-vibration culture, and micro-vibration culture with co-culture in poor ovarian responders

  • Received : 2016.02.16
  • Accepted : 2016.05.24
  • Published : 2016.09.22
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: This study was conducted to compare the effects of static culture, dynamic culture, and the combination of dynamic culture with specialized surfaces involving co-culture on human embryonic development. Embryos cultured using conventional static culture (SC) techniques served as a control group. We compared dynamic culture using micro-vibration culture (MVC) and micro-vibration with co-culture (MCoC), in which autologous cumulus cells were used as a specialized surface. Methods: We conducted a chart review of patients who were treated between January 2011 and November 2014 in order to compare embryonic development rates and pregnancy rates among the groups. Zygotes were cultured in micro-droplets, and embryos were subsequently selected for transfer. Some surplus embryos were cryopreserved, and the others were cultured for blastocyst development. A micro-vibrator was set at the frequency of 42 Hz for duration of 5 seconds per 60 minutes to facilitate embryo development. Results: No significant differences among the groups were present in patient's characteristics. However, the clinical pregnancy rates were significantly higher in the MVC group and the MCoC group than in the SC group. No significant differences were found in the blastocyst development rate between the SC group and the MVC group, but the blastocyst development rate in the MCoC group was significantly higher than in the SC and MVC groups. Conclusion: The clinical pregnancy rate was significantly increased by the application of micro-vibration to the embryonic cultures of poor responders. The blastocyst development rate was significantly increased by the application of MCoC to surplus embryos.

Keywords

References

  1. Swain JE. Decisions for the IVF laboratory: comparative analysis of embryo culture incubators. Reprod Biomed Online 2014;28:535-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.01.004
  2. Ali J. Continuous ultra micro-drop culture yields higher pregnancy and implantation rates than either large-drop culture or fresh-medium replacement. Clin Embryol (Online) 2004;7:1-23.
  3. Gopichandran N, Leese HJ. The effect of paracrine/autocrine interactions on the in vitro culture of bovine preimplantation embryos. Reproduction 2006;131:269-77. https://doi.org/10.1530/rep.1.00677
  4. Melin J, Lee A, Foygel K, Leong DE, Quake SR, Yao MW. In vitro embryo culture in defined, sub-microliter volumes. Dev Dyn 2009;238:950-5. https://doi.org/10.1002/dvdy.21918
  5. Rieger D, Schimmel T, Cohen J, Cecchi M. Comparison of GPS and standard dishes for embryo culture: set-up and observation times, and embryo development. Proceedings of the 14th World Congress on In Vitro Fertilization; 2007 Sep 15-19; Montreal, Canada.
  6. Vajta G, Peura TT, Holm P, Paldi A, Greve T, Trounson AO, et al. New method for culture of zona-included or zona-free embryos: the Well of the Well (WOW) system. Mol Reprod Dev 2000;55:256-64. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2795(200003)55:3<256::AID-MRD3>3.0.CO;2-7
  7. Vajta G, Korosi T, Du Y, Nakata K, Ieda S, Kuwayama M, et al. The Well-of-the-Well system: an efficient approach to improve embryo development. Reprod Biomed Online 2008;17:73-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60296-9
  8. Anand S, Guha SK. Mechanics of transport of the ovum in the oviduct. Med Biol Eng Comput 1978;16:256-61. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02442424
  9. Fauci LJ, Dillon R. Biofluidmechanics of reproduction. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 2006;38:371-94. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.fluid.37.061903.175725
  10. Lyons RA, Saridogan E, Djahanbakhch O. The reproductive significance of human Fallopian tube cilia. Hum Reprod Update 2006;12:363-72. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dml012
  11. Zervomanolakis I, Ott HW, Hadziomerovic D, Mattle V, Seeber BE, Virgolini I, et al. Physiology of upward transport in the human female genital tract. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2007;1101:1-20. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1389.032
  12. Raty S, Walters EM, Davis J, Zeringue H, Beebe DJ, Rodriguez-Zas SL, et al. Embryonic development in the mouse is enhanced via microchannel culture. Lab Chip 2004;4:186-90. https://doi.org/10.1039/b316437c
  13. Cabrera LM, Heo YS, Ding J, Takayama S, Smith GD. Improved blastocyst development with microfluidics and Braille pin actuator enabled dynamic culture. Fertil Steril 2006;86:S43.
  14. Mizobe Y, Yoshida M, Miyoshi K. Enhancement of cytoplasmic maturation of in vitro-matured pig oocytes by mechanical vibration. J Reprod Dev 2010;56:285-90. https://doi.org/10.1262/jrd.09-142A
  15. Isachenko E, Maettner R, Isachenko V, Roth S, Kreienberg R, Sterzik K. Mechanical agitation during the in vitro culture of human pre-implantation embryos drastically increases the pregnancy rate. Clin Lab 2010;56:569-76.
  16. Matsuura K, Hayashi N, Kuroda Y, Takiue C, Hirata R, Takenami M, et al. Improved development of mouse and human embryos using a tilting embryo culture system. Reprod Biomed Online 2010;20:358-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2009.12.002
  17. Hunter SK, Scott JR, Hull D, Urry RL. The gamete and embryo compatibility of various synthetic polymers. Fertil Steril 1988;50:110-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(16)60017-1
  18. Hunter RH. Modulation of gamete and embryonic microenvironments by oviduct glycoproteins. Mol Reprod Dev 1994;39:176-81. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrd.1080390209
  19. Franks F. Solute-water interactions: do polyhydroxy compounds after the properties of water? Cryobiology 1983;20:335-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/0011-2240(83)90022-6
  20. Gardner DK, Rodriegez-Martinez H, Lane M. Fetal development after transfer is increased by replacing protein with the glycosaminoglycan hyaluronan for mouse embryo culture and transfer. Hum Reprod 1999;14:2575-80. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/14.10.2575
  21. Thompson JG. Culture without the petri-dish. Theriogenology 2007;67:16-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2006.09.016
  22. Villa-Diaz LG, Nandivada H, Ding J, Nogueira-de-Souza NC, Krebsbach PH, O’Shea KS, et al. Synthetic polymer coatings for long-term growth of human embryonic stem cells. Nat Biotechnol 2010;28:581-3. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.1631
  23. Hur YS, Park JH, Ryu EK, Park SJ, Lee JH, Lee SH, et al. Effect of micro-vibration culture system on embryo development. J Assist Reprod Genet 2013;30:835-41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-013-0007-0
  24. Lee SW, Yoon SH, Yoon HG, Cho HJ, Heo YS, Yoon HJ, et al. The studies on the development of human blastocyst embryos in IVF-ET Program. II: the development of human blastocyst embryos by co-culture with cumulus cells. Korean J Fertil Steril 1998;25:35-42.
  25. Goto K, Kajihara Y, Kosaka S, Koba M, Nakanishi Y, Ogawa K. Pregnancies after co-culture of cumulus cells with bovine embryos derived from in-vitro fertilization of in-vitro matured follicular oocytes. J Reprod Fertil 1988;83:753-8. https://doi.org/10.1530/jrf.0.0830753
  26. Goovaerts IG, Leroy JL, Van Soom A, De Clercq JB, Andries S, Bols PE. Effect of cumulus cell coculture and oxygen tension on the in vitro developmental competence of bovine zygotes cultured singly. Theriogenology 2009;71:729-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2008.09.038
  27. Benkhalifa M, Demirol A, Sari T, Balashova E, Tsouroupaki M, Giakoumakis Y, et al. Autologous embryo-cumulus cells co-culture and blastocyst transfer in repeated implantation failures: a collaborative prospective randomized study. Zygote 2012;20:173-80. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0967199411000062
  28. Swain JE, Smith GD. Advances in embryo culture platforms: novel approaches to improve preimplantation embryo development through modifications of the microenvironment. Hum Reprod Update 2011;17:541-57. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmr006
  29. Jenkins JM, Davies DW, Devonport H, Anthony FW, Gadd SC, Watson RH, et al. Comparison of ‘poor’ responders with ‘good’ responders using a standard buserelin/human menopausal gonadotrophin regime for in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1991;6:918-21. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a137459
  30. Keay SD, Liversedge NH, Mathur RS, Jenkins JM. Assisted conception following poor ovarian response to gonadotrophin stimulation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997;104:521-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1997.tb11525.x
  31. Ferraretti AP, La Marca A, Fauser BC, Tarlatzis B, Nargund G, Gianaroli L, et al. ESHRE consensus on the definition of ‘poor response’ to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod 2011;26:1616-24. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der092
  32. Kang SM, Lee SW, Jeong HJ, Yoon SH, Koh MW, Lim JH, et al. Clinical outcomes of elective single morula embryo transfer versus elective single blastocyst embryo transfer in IVF-ET. J Assist Reprod Genet 2012;29:423-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-012-9736-8
  33. Ziebe S, Petersen K, Lindenberg S, Andersen AG, Gabrielsen A, Andersen AN. Embryo morphology or cleavage stage: how to select the best embryos for transfer after in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1997;12:1545-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/12.7.1545
  34. Gardner DK, Lane M, Stevens J, Schlenker T, Schoolcraft WB. Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: towards a single blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril 2000;73:1155-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(00)00518-5
  35. Hickman DL, Beebe DJ, Rodriguez-Zas SL, Wheeler MB. Comparison of static and dynamic medium environments for culturing of pre-implantation mouse embryos. Comp Med 2002;52:122-6.
  36. Isachenko V, Maettner R, Sterzik K, Strehler E, Kreinberg R, Hancke K, et al. In-vitro culture of human embryos with mechanical micro-vibration increases implantation rates. Reprod Biomed Online 2011;22:536-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.02.006
  37. Blake JR, Vann PG, Winet H. A model of ovum transport. J Theor Biol 1983;102:145-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(83)90267-9
  38. Heo YS, Cabrera LM, Bormann CL, Shah CT, Takayama S, Smith GD. Dynamic microfunnel culture enhances mouse embryo development and pregnancy rates. Hum Reprod 2010;25:613-22. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dep449

Cited by

  1. Effect of Mechanical Microvibration on the Quality of Human Embryos during In Vitro Culturing and Outcomes of Assisted Reproduction Technologies vol.165, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10517-018-4211-x