Review Article

An Overview of The Available Methods for Morphological

Scoring of Pre-Implantation Embryos in In Vitro
Fertilization
Nahid Nasiri, M.Sc., Poopak Eftekhari-Yazdi, Ph.D.*
Department of Embryology at Reproductive Biomedicine Research Center, Royan Institute for Reproductive
Biomedicine, ACECR, Tehran, Iran

*Corresponding Address: P.O.Box: 16635-148, Department of Embryology at Reproductive

Biomedicine Research Center, Royan Institute for Reproductive Biomedicine,
ACECR, Tehran, Iran
Email: eftekhari@royaninstitute.org
Received: 3/Aug/2013, Accepted: 8/Oct/2013
Abstract
Assessment of embryo quality in order to choose the embryos that most likely result in
pregnancy is the critical goal in assisted reproductive technologies (ART). The current
trend in human in vitro fertilization/embryo transfer (IVF/ET) protocols is to decrease the
rate of multiple pregnancies after multiple embryo transfer with maintaining the pregnancy
rate at admissible levels (according to laboratory standards). Assessment of morphologi-
cal feathers as a reliable non-invasive method that provides valuable information in predic-
tion of IVF/intra cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) outcome has been frequently proposed
in recent years. This article describes the current status of morphological embryo evalua-
tion at different pre-implantation stages.

Keywords: Embryonic Development, Cleavage Stage, In Vitro Fertilization, Zygote,

Blastocyst
Cell Journal(Yakhteh), Vol 16, No 4, Winter 2015, Pages: 392-405

Citation: Nasiri N, Eftekhari-Yazdi P. An overview of the available methods for morphological scoring of pre-implantation
embryos in in vitro fertilization. Cell J. 2015; 16(4): 392-405.

Introduction
to transfer (3).
Accurate selection of embryos for transfer
and prediction of implantation is the most im- Application of a proper embryo scoring sys-
portant topic in assisted reproduction (1). Gen- tem has many potential benefits such as; 1. ac-
erally, quality and the rate of development in curate selection of embryos prior to transfer, 2.
human embryos that are produced in vitro may reduction of the risk of multiple pregnancies,
vary widely. These differences may indicate the 3. assessment of different culture media and 4.
inherent diversity in the potential of gametes comparison of embryo quality between patient
as well as in details of the in vitro fertilization cycles (4). It is clear that the use of such ef-
(IVF) method and culture medium status (2). ficient methods are required for selection of
The success rate of IVF is mainly related to the proper embryo characteristics which are based
number of embryos transferred as well as fac- on a foundation of basic research and credited
tors such as embryo quality, patient’s condition, by clinical studies (5, 6). Therefore, identifica-
and laboratory standards. A lower number of tion of these features and the methods of their
embryos can decrease the chance of pregnancy. assessment is one of the requisites for the IVF/
However, if the goal is to increase pregnancy intra cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) suc-
rate with restricting the possibility of multiple cess rate, admission of single embryo transfer
pregnancies, more sensitive and non invasive (SET) and a reduction in the risk of multiple
methods are required for embryo selection prior pregnancies (7).

CELL JOURNAL(Yakhteh), Vol 16, No 4, Winter 2015 392

Morphological Scoring of Embryos

Current embryo grading systems differ with clear stage morphology have been reported by
regards to selection of embryo stage and cri- Scott and Smith (10) and Tesarik et al. (14). In
teria for assessment of embryo quality. There busy IVF laboratories, these systems are usually
are several stages for the evaluation of pre- impossible to implement (with the exception of
implantation embryo’s quality. In this study we time-lapse technology which will be discussed
have reviewed some main protocols (including later) because it has a very detailed classifica-
important embryo traits and different scoring tion and is time consuming.
methods) in each stage.
Tesarik and Greco (15) classified zygotes
Discussion based on size and number as well as distribution
of nucleoli or their precursors [nucleolar pre-
According to specific standards and laboratory cursor bodies (NPBs)]. After this report, other
facilitates, embryologists apply different proto- simplified grading systems have been provided
cols. Each includes the proper embryo criteria using the number, alignment and position of
and appropriate time point for quality evalua- NPBs (16, 17). One example for such scoring
tion of an embryo in their laboratory. However, system is the method reported by Brezinova et
all protocols fall into one of one of the follow- al. (18) in 2009. They classified zygotes into
ing three stages. two different patterns ("O", "Other") based
on pronuclei morphology of the zygote and
Quality assessment of zygote (16-18 hours after an early cleavage rate. Pattern "O" consisted
oocyte insemination) of zygotes that exhibited the same number of
Zygotes are formed after fusion of male and small NPBs distributed in the nucleus or large
female gametes. In most assisted reproductive NPBs with polar distribution between the two
technology (ART) laboratories, the quality of pronuclei. Zygotes with non-symmetrical align-
male and female gametes (sperm, oocyte) is ments of NPB achieved the "Other" score (Fig
evaluated separately. For example, the abnor- 1A, B). The second criterion in this assessment
malities of oocyte morphology which are most is the first mitotic division. This occurrence
frequently observed are large perivitelline space, is checked 23-27 hours after insemination. At
dark zona pellucida, dark incorporations, spots, this moment, embryos with two blastomeres
vacuoles, refractile bodies (dense and insoluble are classified as early cleavage (EC) embryos
bodies which are produced within the cells) and and those that do not reach this stage with in-
irregular shape (8). Abnormal morphological tact nuclear membranes are classified as no
criteria which can be observed in sperm consist early cleavage (NEC) embryos. The results in-
of amorphous, round, large, small, vaculated or dicate that best outcome can be achieved if both
tapered head, neck and midpiece defects, excess embryo scoring systems are used together and
residual cytoplasm and coiled, broken multi and embryos are classified as EC and "O" pattern
short tail (9).
(18). EC embryos show more than two times the
The first step for assessment of embryo qual- pregnancy rate and three times the implantation
ity is evaluation of zygotes or pronuclear stage rate compared with non EC (NEC) embryos.
embryo quality. In the recent years, there has These results have previously been proposed by
been growing interest in the evaluation of pro- Shoukir et al. (3) in 1997. They reported that
nuclear morphology to select the most compe- fertilized embryos which cleaved to the 2-cell
tent embryos. For this purpose, in vitro ferti- stage 25 hours after insemination were classi-
lized human zygotes are classified on the basis fied as EC embryos versus those that did not
of different features such as; number, equality, reach the 2 cell stage (NEC). In this study, EC
size and distribution of nucleoli, pronuclear size embryos showed better pregnancy outcomes
and alignment, the time of pronuclear break- compared with NEC embryos. They proposed
down and presence or absence of cytoplasmic the EC definition method as a simple, effective
halo (10-13).
noninvasive method for selection and assess-
Two main systems for evaluation of pronu- ment of embryos before transfer (Fig 2).

CELL JOURNAL(Yakhteh), Vol 16, No 4, Winter 2015 393

 Nasiri and Eftekhari-Yazdi

Fig 1: A. Classification of pronuclear morphology according to Brezinova et al. (18). Pattern " O"
, is defined as the same number
of small nucleolar precursor bodies (NPBs) distributed in the nucleus or large NPBs with polar distribution between the two
pronuclei. B. Classification of pronuclear morphology according to Brezinova et al. (18). Pattern " Other" , Zygotes with non-
symmetrical alignments of NPB.

CELL JOURNAL(Yakhteh), Vol 16, No 4, Winter 2015 394

Morphological Scoring of Embryos

Fig 2: Embryo scoring based on specific time points for embryo cleavage during screening. Image obtained from the article of
Brazinova et al. (18).

Pronuclear zygote morphology criteria ac- A B

cording to a study by Depa-Martynow et al. (1)
in 2007 included the presence of a cytoplasmic
halo, nuclear size and alignment, NPB number
and distribution. It has been said that in many
mitotic cells, an equal number of NPB between
the nuclei is a necessary event whereas an une-
qual number of NPB results in an abnormal cell
cycle (19).
Cytoplasmic halo is another important crite-
rion for pronuclear stage embryo grading and Fig 3: The presence or absence of a cytoplasmic halo: zygote
initially reported by Payne et al. (20) in 1997 with cytoplasmic halo (A); zygote without cytoplasmic halo
as a sub plasmalemmal zone of a translucent (B). Classification according to Depa-Martynow et al. (1).
cytoplasm immediately prior to formation of
the male and female pronucleus. This structure
often progresses to coat the entire cyto-cortex Figure 4 shows the classification manner of zygotes
and is thought to be the result of a microtubule- according to the Z-scoring system proposed by Scott
organized shift of the mitochondria and other (19). This method is based on nuclear size and align-
cytoplasmic component to the center of the ment as well as NPB number and distribution. In sum-
oocyte, so that no detectable mitochondria are mary, Z1 zygotes have equal numbers of NPB aligned
found in the cortical region of the fertilized oo- at the pronuclear junction (Fig 4A). Z2 zygotes have
cyte (21). It is possible that distribution of mito- equal numbers and size of nucleoli (between 3 and 6)
chondria to the perinuclear regions is involved which are scattered equally in the two nuclei (Fig 4B).
in cell cycle regulation by Ca2+ cooperation and Z3 zygotes have equal numbers of NPB that are equal
ATP release (22, 23). Location of immature size in the same nucleoli but with one nucleus that is
mitochondria next to the pronuclei can lead to situated at the pronuclear junction and the other with
complete maturity of the mitochondria (23, 24). nucleoli dispersion, as well as zygotes with unequal
Figure 3 illustrates the pronuclear embryo clas- numbers or size of nucleoli (Fig 4C). Zygotes with
sification based on the presence or absence of a pronuclei which are located periphery or are separated
cytoplasmic halo. with very different size are classified as Z4 (Fig 4D).

CELL JOURNAL(Yakhteh), Vol 16, No 4, Winter 2015 395

 Nasiri and Eftekhari-Yazdi

A B

C D

Fig 4: Zygote classification according to Scott et al. (19): Z1 zygote (equal numbers of nucleolar precursor bodies (NPBs)
aligned at the pronuclear junction) (A), Z2 zygote (equal number and size of nucleoli which were scattered equally in the two
nuclei) (B), Z3 zygote (zygotes with unequal numbers or size of nucleoli in just one nucleus and equal number and size of nu-
cleoli in another nucleus) (C) and Z4 zygote (the pronuclei are located in the periphery or are separated with different sizes) (D).

Another method for qualitative classification of some morphological features have been suggested.
embryos at the 2PN stage has been proposed by The most notable of these features are: fragmenta-
Senn et al. (25) in 2005. In this method, zygotes tion rate (Fr), irregularities in blastomeres, multi-
are initially graded based on proximity, orientation nucleation and the blastomere number.
and centering of the pronuclei, cytoplasmic halo,
Based on the "Advanced Fertility Center of Chi-
number and polarization of NPBs, then, the cumu-
cago" definition, several morphological criteria are
lated pronuclear score (CPNS) which is the sum
considered in embryo classification; I. cell number:
of scores assigned to the six parameters is calcu-
embryos should be 2 to 4 cells at 48 hours after egg
lated for each zygote (Fig 5). It has been observed
retrieval and 7 to 10 cells by 72 hours (26) (Fig
that lower CPNS values of frozen-thawed zygotes
6A). II. Cell regularity or degree of blastomere
may indicate the freezing damage to zygotes, thus,
size equality (uneven blastomere cleavage): if in-
CPNS may be used as a single predictor tool for
dividual cells are similar in size, the embryos have
implantation of both fresh and frozen-thawed zy-
the best cell regularity. If they are approximately the
gotes (25). Figure 5 shows examples of zygote as-
same size, it is better to be compared with a different
signed scores (1, 2, 3) for zygotes and CPNS is
size (Fig 6B), III. degree of fragmentation: although
indicated in parentheses. According to the results
the fragmentation phenomenon is totally common in
of Senn et al. (25) the patterns of NPBs and cy-
human embryos, those with great than 25% fragmen-
toplasmic halo appear as the most important pre-
tation, have a low implantation potential (Fig 6C).
dictive factor for implantation rate in both types
IV. Presence of multinucleation: if there is more than
(fresh and frozen-thawed) of zygotes.
one nucleus in each blastomere on either days 2 or 3,
the embryo is multinucleated (Fig 6D) (26, 27). After
Morphological quality assessment of cleavage
day 3, it is highly difficult to identify multinuclea-
stage embryos (day 3 after insemination)
tion. Additional factors to be considered for grading
Quality assessment of cleavage stage embryos is and selection for transfers includes the presence of
a common method in embryo quality assessment vacuoles, granularity and thickness of the zona pel-
accepted by numerous embryologists. For this aim, lucida, etc (28).

CELL JOURNAL(Yakhteh), Vol 16, No 4, Winter 2015 396

Morphological Scoring of Embryos

A B

C D

E F

G H

Fig 5: Examples of zygote scoring according to Senn et al. (25). Scores (1, 2 or 3) assigned to each individual parameter (prox-
imity, orientation and centering of the pronuclei, cytoplasmic halo, number and polarization of nucleolar precursor bodies
(NPBs)) are indicated for each zygote. The cumulated pronuclear score (CPNS) is indicated in parentheses. (Bar=10 µm).

CELL JOURNAL(Yakhteh), Vol 16, No 4, Winter 2015 397

 Nasiri and Eftekhari-Yazdi

A B

C D

Fig 6: A. High quality 8-cell embryo. Embryo grading: 8 cell, grade 4. Grading method according to Advanced Fertility Center
of Chicago (24). B. Irregular cells and fragmented 5-cell embryo. Embryo grading: 5 cell, grade 2. Grading method accord-
ing to Advanced Fertility Center of Chicago (24). C. Severely fragmented and unevenly sized cells embryo. Embryo grading: 6
cell, grade 1. Grading method according to Advanced Fertility Center of Chicago (24). D. Multinucleated 2 cell embryo. Image
obtained from the site of Advanced Fertility Center of Chicago (24).

Generally, quality assessment of embryos is and preferably 8 cells (26).

not performed until 48 hours after egg retrieval. Depa-Martynow et al. (1) in 2007 classified em-
In some IVF labs, zygotes on the first day after bryos based on morphological criteria either at
egg retrieval are assessed carefully. However 48 the pronuclear stage or day 3 embryos (68 hours
hours (day 2) embryos must have at least 2 cells after insemination). Figure 7 shows their method
and preferably 3 or 4 cells. For 72 hours (day 3) for classification of day 3 embryos in four grades
embryos, it is expected to observe of at least 6 cells (A-D) according to the degree of cytoplasmic

CELL JOURNAL(Yakhteh), Vol 16, No 4, Winter 2015 398

Morphological Scoring of Embryos

fragmentation and the number of blastomeres. which is occupied by enucleate fragments) may
The best embryos with at least 7 blastomeres (7-9 contain less importance than the pattern of frag-
blastomeres) and maximum a 20% of cytoplasmic mentation (relative size and the spatial distribu-
fragmentation are grade A. Grade B embryos have tion of the fragments) (29). The loss of regulatory
7-9 cells with over 20% fragmentation. Grade C proteins during blastomere fragmentation may be
consists of 4-6 cells embryos with a maximum of one mechanism by which the developmental com-
20% fragmentation. Grade D embryos are consid- petence of an embryo is affected (30). Stensen et
ered the worst quality with 4-6 cell embryos and al. (31) in 2010 classified cleavage stage embryos
over 20% fragmentation. based on the amount of fragmentation and blasto-
mere size. Table 1 demonstrates their results.

A B Table 1: Morphological grading of embryos based on

fragmentation and blastomere size according to Stensen et
al. (31)
Score Description

3 ≥10-20% fragmentation, even or uneven blastomeres

2 >20-50% fragmentation, even or uneven blastomeres

1 Fragmentation precluded counting blastomeres

C D
0 Cleavage arrest or morphologically abnormal embryo

In 2010 Pelinck et al. (32) have reported that,

the cleavage rate plays an important role in qual-
ity assessment of a pre-implantation embryo be-
fore transfer. The embryo characteristic which is
identified as the most optimal is the presence of
Fig 7: Embryos scoring according to Depa-Martynow et al. 4 cells on day 2, 8 cells on day 3, less than 10%
(1): grade A (embryos with 8 blastomeres and a maximum
20% of cytoplasmic fragmentation) (A), grade B (embryos fragmentation and no multinucleated blastomer-
with 8 blastomeres and over 20% cytoplasmic fragmenta- es (MNBs). In IVF-ET cycles, between embryos
tion) (B), grade C (4-6 cell embryos with a maximum 20% with the same age, those with more blastomeres
fragmentation) (C), grade D (4-6 cell embryos and over 20%
fragmentation) (D). are preferable for transfer. However slight frag-
mentation is a normal phenomenon in human
Another method for grading day 3 (65-75 hours) embryos (29, 33, 34).
embryos has been developed by Desai et al. (4) in
2000. Their classification used unique features of Morphological quality assessment of blastocyst
this stage that consisted of cell number, fragmen- stage embryos (4- 5 days after fertilization)
tation pattern, cytoplasmic pitting, compaction, When an embryo has developed to the stage of
equal sized blastomeres, blastomere expansion having 2 different cell components and fluid cavity,
and absence of vacuoles. According to their re- it becomes blastocyst (35). Usually, 4-5 days after
sults, although cell number and fragmentation pat- fertilization, human embryos develop naturally to
tern were good predictors of pregnancy outcome, blastocyst stage in the body or from IVF in an IVF
the other day 3 specific parameters should be used lab. Blastocyst transfer after IVF/ICSI can lead to
for correct grouping of the embryos. Recent obser- a high pregnancy success rate with very low risk
vations have suggested that the absolute amount of of multiple pregnancies; on the other hand, day 3
fragmentation (percentage of embryonic volume embryo morphology is insufficient for predict the

CELL JOURNAL(Yakhteh), Vol 16, No 4, Winter 2015 399

 Nasiri and Eftekhari-Yazdi

implantation rate of the an embryo (35). vide and the fluid cavity enlarges. Many IVF
clinics that transfer blastocysts use the blasto-
There are three distinguished parts in blastocyst cyst scoring system developed by Gardner et
structure for quality assessment, the two cell types, al. (36). This grading system has three separate
inner cell mass (ICM) and trophoectoderm (TE) quality scores for each blastocyst. I. Expansion
and the fluid cavity. While the development of the and hatching manner II. ICM and III. TE (Ta-
blastocyst progresses, cells in the two regions di- bles 2, 3, 4).

Table 2: Embryo scoring based on blastocyst expansion grade according to Gardner et al. (36)
Expansion grade Description

1 Blastocyst development and stage status

2 Blastocoel cavity more than half the volume of the embryo

3 Full blastocyst, cavity completely filling the embryo

4 Expanded blastocyst, cavity larger than the embryo, with thinning of the shell

5 Hatching out of the shell

6 Hatched out of the shell

Table 3: Blastocyst scoring based on inner cell mass (ICM) grade

according to Gardner et al. (36)
ICM grade ICM quality

A Many cells, tightly packed

B Several cells, loosely grouped

C Very few cells

Table 4: Blastocyst scoring based on trophoectoderm (TE) grade

according to Gardner et al. (36)
TE grade TE quality

A Many cells, forming a cohesive layer

B Few cells, forming a loose epithelium

C Very few large cells

CELL JOURNAL(Yakhteh), Vol 16, No 4, Winter 2015 400

Morphological Scoring of Embryos

The final score assigned for each blastocyst is com-

posed of these three scores. Therefore the first number C
is the expansion score, a number from 1-6 based on
degree of expansion and the hatching status. The ICM
score is listed second as, A. many cells forming a co-
hesive epithelium, B. few cells forming a loose epi-
thelium and C. very few large cells. The final score is
the TE score (A. tightly packed, many cells, B. loose-
ly grouped, several cells and C. very few cells). For
example, the triplex score of the blastocyst that is ex-
panded, has many tightly packed cells in the ICM and
a TE with a few cells and loose epithelium, is 4AB.
Figure 8 are examples of blastocysts scored according
to with this method.

A
Fig 8: Examples of scored blastocyst according to Gardner
et al. (36) and image obtained from our IVF laboratory (27).
A. 4AB. 4: well expanded, A: ICM and B: TE. B. 1AB. 1:
Cavity <1/2 of the embryo’s volume, A : ICM, B: TE. C. 5AA.
5: Blastocyst hatching out of shell, A: ICM, B: TE.
ICM; Inner cell mass and TE; Trophoectoderm.

Graduated embryo score (GES) and cumulative

embryo score (CES)
Fisch et al. (37) in 2001 have proposed an em-
bryo scoring system named the GES method.
The GES system is composed of a group of as-
sessments from the insemination at pronuclear
stage morphology, then at early cleavage stage
and finally on the 3rd day after insemination.
The GES system was introduced because in
some embryos, limited features to the specific
B stage alone do not predict high implantation po-
tential following IVF/ICSI. In the GES system,
embryos are evaluated in four stages. Firstly, at
16-18 hours post-insemination, the cytoplasmic
halo, vacuoles, pronuclear size, nucleolar align-
ment, polar body apposition and fragmentation
are evaluated. The next evaluation occurs at
25-27 hours post insemination for dissolution
of the blastomere cleavage, pronuclear mem-
brane, degree and symmetry of fragmentation.
The third evaluation performs 40-43 hours
post-insemination and assesses the blastomere
number, percentage and polarity of fragmenta-
tion. Blastomere number and morphology are
evaluated 46-67 hours post insemination as the
final step in this system. This method has been

CELL JOURNAL(Yakhteh), Vol 16, No 4, Winter 2015 401

 Nasiri and Eftekhari-Yazdi

correlated with blastocyst development and im- (Fig 9B), and presence of 7-9 cells on day 3
plantation rate (38). In a study Fisch et al. (37) (Fig 9C, D). However this sequential evaluation
the researchers have emphasized some critical system requires more time, cost and manpower
criteria in each stage after the results were ana- in an ART laboratory, in addition the frequent
lyzed such as; alignment of the nucleoli along exclusion of embryos from an incubator is not
the pronuclear axis at 16-18 hours post-insem- negligible. The GES system was found to be a
ination (Fig 9A), symmetrical cleavage and better predictor of pregnancy outcome than a
<20% fragmentation at the first zygote division single day assessment (37, 39).

A B

C D

Fig 9: Embryo evaluation according to Fisch et al. (37). A. 16-18 hours post insemination (stage 1), nucleolar alignment along
the pronuclear axi, B. 25-27 hours post insemination (stage 2), demonstrating symmetrical blastomere cleavage and no frag-
mentation, C. 64-67 hours post insemination (stage 3), demonstrating symmetrical cleavage, eight cells and no fragmentation
and D. Expanded blastocyst at ~120 hours post insemination (stage 4) (Image obtained from our IVF laboratory).

CELL JOURNAL(Yakhteh), Vol 16, No 4, Winter 2015 402

Morphological Scoring of Embryos

The CES method is a mathematical scoring sys- to the lack of achievement of desired results in a
tem proposed by Steer et al. (40) and is the sum of number of laboratories.
the scores of all embryos transferred. In this meth-
Invasive analysis of embryo viability can be per-
od, the score of each embryo on the day of transfer
formed by exclusion of one or two blastomeres of
is obtained from multiplication of the morphologi-
the 8-cell stage embryo or by the removal of TE
cal grade of the embryo by the number of blas-
cells in a blastocyst stage embryo (44). However
tomeres. The best outcome in terms of pregnancy
removal of 2 cells from an 8 cell stage embryo is
rate is achieved when the CES is a maximum of
highly invasive and deleterious for the embryo.
42. An increase in the amount of CES above 42
Any cell excluded by biopsy from a cleavage stage
does not improve the pregnancy rate but enhanc-
embryo may not be representative at the proteom-
es the rate of the multiple pregnancies. A method
ic, genomic and transcriptomic levels because the
derived from the CES method, is the mean score of
information that can be derived from these cells is
transferred embryos (MSTE) which is referred to as
confused by the high incidence of mosaicism (45).
CES divided by the total number of transferred em-
bryos as proposed by Terriou et al. (41) in 2001. Selection of high quality embryos for transfer is
currently based on morphological characteristics.
Time-lapse microscopy (TLM)
Conclusion
TLM is an ideal tool to record regular time interval
photographs of an object such as a cell or an embryo We have carefully analyzed a number of primary
over a period of several hours (42). This system is scoring systems that are specific for different phas-
composed of four parts; a florescent/phase contrast es at the pre-implantation stage. Qualified assess-
microscope, a digital camera which records real-time ment should rely on the combination of sequential
images, computer software to control the camera and pre-implantation embryo evaluation such that both
an incubator as an environment for preservation of zygote and pre-implantation steps should be evalu-
the natural condition for cells or embryos. ated for optimal and efficient selection of best em-
bryo for transfer in IVF/ICSI cycles. On the other
Assessment of the oocyte/embryo developmen- hand, the choice and evaluation of criteria most
tal potential during fertilization, cleavage, devel- likely to increase the chance of implantation, is an
opment of the blastocyst, hatching and subsequent important factor. For this purpose, assessment of
changes at intervals of 5-6 days, by the selection of specific time points for beginning embryo cleav-
credible morphological criteria and flexible evalu- age (EC or NEC embryos), the size and alignment
ation using TLM instead of time point analysis of NPBs and presence or absence of a cytoplasmic
may improve IVF success and reduce the risk of halo are the most important properties for embryos
multiple pregnancies (7). in the zygote (PN) stage, whereas the blastomere
size and equality, FR and multinucleation, are
Other techniques for evaluation of embryo viability main features of cleavage stage embryos. Finally,
In ART programs, the selection of an embryo blastocyst expansion and cell number are impor-
with an acceptable implantation potential by tant criteria for blastocyst stage embryos.
means of methods that have high levels of clini-
cal benefit and low level of potential risk for the Acknowledgments
embryo is of tremendous importance.
The authors would like to thank Royan Institute
All methods which have been used for this goal for financial supporting of this study and declare
are classified as either non-invasive or invasive. that there is no conflict of interests regarding the
The embryo can be selected according to data publication of this paper.
derived from proteomic, genomic and/or me-
tabolomic levels. An example of a non-invasive References
method is near infrared (NIR) spectroscopy of 1. Depa-Martynow M, Jedrzejczak P, Pawelczyk L. Pronu-
the embryos culture media which describes their clear scoring as a predictor of embryo quality in in vitro
fertilization program. Folia Histochem Cytobiol. 2007; 45
metabolic profile as a viability index (43). Of note, Suppl 1: S85-89.
some of these methods have been excluded due 2. Cummins JM, Breen TM, Harrison KL, Shaw JM, Wil-

CELL JOURNAL(Yakhteh), Vol 16, No 4, Winter 2015 403

 Nasiri and Eftekhari-Yazdi

son LM, Hennessey JF. A formula for scoring human embryo 19. Scott L. Pronuclear scoring as a predictor of embryo de-
growth rates in in vitro fertilization: its value in predicting preg- velopment. Reprod Biomed Online. 2003; 6(2): 201-214.
nancy and in comparison with visual estimates of embryo 20. Payne D, Flaherty SP, Barry MF, Matthews CD. Prelimi-
quality. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf. 1986; 3(5): 284-295. nary observations on polar body extrusion and pronuclear
3. Shoukir Y, Campana A, Farley T, Sakkas D. Early cleav- formation in human oocytes using time-lapse video cin-
age of in-vitro fertilized human embryos to the 2-cell ematography. Hum Reprod. 1997; 12(3): 532-541.
stage: a novel indicator of embryo quality and viability. 21. Diaz G, Setzu M, Zucca A, Isola R, Diana A, Murru R, et
Hum Reprod. 1997; 12 (7): 1531-1536. al. Subcellular heterogeneity of mitochondrial membrane
4. Desai N, Goldstein J, Rowland DY, Goldfarb JM. Morpho- potential: relationship with organelle distribution and inter-
logical evaluation of human embryos and derivation of an cellular contacts in normal, hypoxic and apoptotic cells. J
embryo quality scoring system specific for day 3 embryos: Cell Sci. 1999; 112(7): 1077-1084.
a preliminary. Hum Reprod. 2000; 15(10): 2190-2196. 22. Wu GJ, Simerly C, Zoran SS, Funte LR, Schatten G. Mi-
5. Ziebe S, Petersen K, Lindenberg S, Andersen AG, Gabri- crotubule and chromatin dynamics during fertilization and
elsen A, Andersen AN. Embryo morphology or cleavage early development in rhesus monkeys, and regulation by
stage: how to select the best embryos for transfer after intracellular calcium ions. Biol Reprod. 1996; 55(2): 260-
in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 1997; 12(7): 1545-1549. 270.
6. Sakkas D, Shoukir Y, Chardonnens D, Bianchi PG, Cam- 23. Bravister BD, Squirrell JM. Mitochondrial distribution and
pana A. Early cleavage of human embryos to the two-cell function in oocytes and early embryos. Hum Reprod.
stage after intracytoplasmic sperm injection as an indica- 2000; 15 Suppl 2: 189-198.
tor of embryo viability. Hum Reprod. 1998; 13(1): 182-187. 24. Motta PM, Nottola SA, Makabe S, Heyn R. Mitochondrial
7. Chen AA, Tan L, Suraj V, Reijo Pera R, Shen S. Biomark- morphology in human fetal and adult gene cells. Hum Re-
ers identified with time-lapse imaging: discovery, valida- prod. 2000; 15 Suppl 2: 129-147.
tion, and practical application. Fertil Steril. 2013; 99(4): 25. Senn A, Urner F, Chanson A, Primi MP, Wirthner D, Ger-
1035-1043. mond M. Morphological scoring of human pronuclear zy-
8. De Sutter P, Dozortsev D, Qian C, Dhont M. Oocyte mor- gotes for prediction of pregnancy outcome. Hum Reprod.
phology does not correlate with fertilization rate and em- 2006; 21(1): 234-239.
bryo quality after intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum 26. Advanced Fertility Center of Chicago. IVF embryo qual-
Reprod. 1995; 11(3): 595-597. ity and day 3 embryos grading after in vitro fertilization,
9. Lo Monte G, Murisier F, Piva I, Germond M, Marci R. Fo- cleavage stage embryo grading. Available from: www.ad-
cus on intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm vancedfertility.com/embryoquality.htm. (2 Feb 2014).
injection (IMSI): a mini-review. Asian J Androl. 2013; 27. Eftekhari-Yazdi P, Valojerdi MR, Ashtiani SK, Eslaminejad
15(5): 608-615. MB, Karimian L. Effect of fragment removal on blastocyst
10. Scott LA, Smith S. The successful use of PN embryo formation and quality of human embryos. Reprod Biomed
transfers the day following oocyte retrieval. Hum Reprod. Online. 2006; 13(6): 823-832.
1998; 13(4): 1003-1013. 28. Rezazadeh Valojerdi M, Eftekhari-Yazdi P, Karimian L,
11. Kattera S, Chen C. Developmental potential of human Hassani F, Movaghar B. Vitrification versus slow freezing
pronuclear zygotes in relation to their pronuclear orienta- gives excellent survival, post warming embryo morpholo-
tion. Hum Reprod. 2004; 19(2): 294-299. gy and pregnancy outcomes for human cleaved embryos.
12. Ebner T, Moser M, Sommergruber M, Gaiswinkler U, J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009; 26(6): 347-354.
Wiesinger R, Puchner M, et al. Presence, but not type 29. Alikani M, Calderon G, Tomkin G, Garrisi J, Kokot M,
or degree of extension, of a cytoplasmic halo has a sig- Cohen J. Cleavage anomalies in early human embryos
nificant influence on preimplantation development and and survival after prolonged culture in-vitro. Hum Reprod.
implantation behavior. Hum Reprod. 2003; 18(11): 2406- 2000; 15(12): 2634-2643.
2412. 30. Antczak M, Van Blerkom J. Temporal and spatial aspects
13. Demirel LC, Evirgen O, Aydos K, Unlu C. The impact of of fragmentation in early human embryos: possible effects
source of spermatozoa used for ICSI on pronuclear mor- on developmental competence and association with the
phology. Hum Reprod. 2001; 16(11): 2327-2332. differential elimination of regulatory proteins from polar-
14. Tesarik J, Junca AM, Hazout A, Aubriot FX, Nathan C, ized domains. Hum Reprod. 1999; 14(2): 429-447.
Cohen-Bacrie P, et al. Embryos with high implantation po- 31. Stensen MH, Tanbo T, Storeng R, Byholm T, Fedorcsak P.
tential after intracytoplasmic sperm injection can be rec- Routine morphological scoring systems in assisted repro-
ognized by a simple, non-invasive examination of pronu- duction treatment fail to reflect age-related impairment of
clear morphology. Hum Reprod. 2000; 15(6): 1396-1399. oocyte and embryo quality. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;
15. Tesarik J, Greco E. The probability of abnormal preimplan- 21(1): 118-125.
tation development can be predicted by a single static ob- 32. Pelinck M, Hoek A, Simons AH, Heineman MJ, van Ech-
servation on pronuclear stage morphology. Hum Reprod. ten-Arends J, Arts EG. Embryo quality and impact of spe-
1999; 14(5): 1318-1323. cific embryo characteristics on ongoing implantation in
16. James AN, Hennessy S, Reggio B, Wiemer K, Larsen unselected embryos derived from modified natural cycle
F, Cohen J. The limited importance of pronuclear scor- in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2010; 94(2): 527-534.
ing of human zygotes. Hum Reprod. 2006; 21(6): 1599- 33. Van Royen E, Mangelschots K, De Neubourg D, Valken-
1604. burg M, Van de Meerssche M, Ryckaert G, et al. Charac-
17. Lukaszuk K, Liss J, Bialobrzeska D, Wojcikowski C. Prog- terization of a top quality embryo, a step towards single-
nostic value of the pronuclear morphology pattern of zy- embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 1999; 14(9): 2345-2349.
gotes for implantation rate. Ginekol Pol. 2003; 74(7): 508- 34. Holte J, Berglund L, Milton K, Garello C, Gennarelli G,
513. Revelli A, et al. Construction of an evidence-based inte-
18. Brezinova J, Oborna I, Svobodova M, Fingerova H. Eval- grated morphology cleavage embryo score for implanta-
uation of day one embryo quality and IVF outcome -- a tion potential of embryos scored and transferred on day 2
comparison of two scoring systems. Reprod Biol Endo- after oocyte retrieval. Hum Reprod. 2007; 22(2): 548-557.
crinol. 2009; 7: 9. 35. Graham J, Han T, Porter R, Levy M, Stillman R, Tucker

CELL JOURNAL(Yakhteh), Vol 16, No 4, Winter 2015 404

Morphological Scoring of Embryos

MJ. Day 3 morphology is a poor predictor of blastocyst qual- transfer in an in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer pro-
ity in extended culture. Fertil Steril. 2000; 74(3): 495-497. gramme. Hum Reprod. 1992; 7(1): 117-119.
36. Gardner DK, Lane M, Stevens J, Schoolcraft WB. Blasto- 41. Terriou P, Sapin C, Giorgetti C, Hans E, Spach JL, Roulier
cyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: R. Embryo score is a better predictor of pregnancy than
towards a single blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril. 2000; the number of transferred embryos or female age. Fertil
73(6): 1155-1158. Steril. 2001; 75(3): 525-531.
37. Fisch JD, Rodriguez H, Ross R, Overby G, Sher G. The 42. Baker M. Cellular imaging: taking a long, hard look. Nature.
graduated embryo score (GES) predicts blastocyst forma- 2010; 466(7310): 1137-1140.
tion and pregnancy rate from cleavage-stage embryos. 43. Vergouw CG, Botros LL, Roos P, Lens JW, Schats R,
Hum Reprod. 2001; 16(9): 1970-1975. Hompes PG, et al. Metabolomic profiling by near-infrared
38. Rodriguez H, Ross R, Fisch JD, Sher G. A graduated em- spectroscopy as a tool to assess embryo viability: a novel,
bryo scoring (GES) system predicts blastocyst develop- non-invasive method for embryo selection. Hum Reprod.
ment from cleavage-stage embryos. Fertil Steril. 2000; 74 2008; 23 (7): 1499-1504.
Suppl 1: S255-256. 44. McArthur SJ, Leigh D, Marshall JT, de Boer KA, Jansen
39. Rezazadeh Valojerdi M, Karimian L, Eftekhari-Yazdi P, RP. Pregnancies and live births following biopsy and PGD
Sadighi Gilani MA, Madani T, Baghestani AR. Efficacy of analysis of human embryos at the blastocyst stage. Fertil
a human embryo transfer medium: a prospective, rand- Steril. 2005; 84(6): 1628-1636.
omized clinical trial study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2006; 45. Kuo HC, Ogilvie CM, Handyside AH. Chromosomal mo-
23(5): 207-212. saicism in cleavage-stage human embryos and the ac-
40. Steer CV, Mills CL, Tan SL, Campbell S, Edwards RG. curacy of single-cell genetic analysis. J Assist Reprod
The cumulative embryo score: a predictive embryo scor- Genet. 1998; 15(5): 276-280.
ing technique to select the optimal number of embryos to

CELL JOURNAL(Yakhteh), Vol 16, No 4, Winter 2015 405