FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2023875062> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2023875062 endingPage "675" @default.
• W2023875062 startingPage "674" @default.
• W2023875062 abstract "The article by Salumets et al. (1Salumets A. Suikkari A.M. Mölls T. Söderström-Anttila V. Tuuri T. Influence of oocytes and spermatozoa on early embryonic development.Fertil Steril. 2002; 78: 1082-1087Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (48) Google Scholar) presents an alternative approach to assessing the quality of spermatozoa and oocytes, and their influence on embryonic development. Briefly, oocytes retrieved from donors participating in an oocyte donation program were divided between two recipient couples each time, and the oocytes were inseminated with sperm from the male partner of those recipient couples.The authors concluded that oocyte quality influences embryo morphology, whereas spermatozoa and oocyte quality influences blastomere cleavage rate. Although the study was elegantly organized and presented, and the authors should be congratulated by their efforts, several questions must be asked for a more profound understanding of the factors involved.With regard to the role of spermatozoa, the oocytes were inseminated by conventional IVF with spermatozoa classified according to Kruger's criteria into three groups; less than 4%, 4% to 14%, and greater than 14% normal morphology. The insemination dose was adjusted according to the motility of the spermatozoa. However, the group with the highest percentage of morphologically normal spermatozoa received a lower dose than the other groups (1.1 × 105 vs. 1.3 × 105 motile spermatozoa).If the morphologic borderline values for each classification are taken into account when calculating the proportion of motile and morphologically normal spermatozoa, it is possible that some samples of the middle group may have overlapped or surpassed samples from the higher motility group. In example, samples from group 2 at the upper morphologic cut-off value may have contained 0.182 × 105 normal spermatozoa in the insemination dose. In contrast, samples from group 3 at the lower limit of the morphologic cut-off value may have contained 0.165 × 105 normal spermatozoa in the insemination dose.With regard to the oocyte factor, a comparison of the variability in number of oocytes and quality of cumulus–oocyte complexes between different couples would have been helpful. Because comparisons between couples were performed on the basis of averages for embryo grade and blastomere numbers of all embryos available for each couple, it is not known whether significant variations within the embryo populations between pairs of couples played a determining role in the outcome of the results.In addition, the role of pairings in couples sharing oocytes from the same oocyte donor in terms of the sperm morphologic classification must be assessed. Most of the couples were allocated to the 4% to 14% normal morphology group, whereas few patients were assigned to the less than 4% normal morphology group. This unequal proportion does not seem to have influenced the results for the effect of the oocyte on embryo quality, which agrees with current evidence (2Krey L.C. Grifo J.A. Poor embryo quality the answer lies (mostly) in the egg.Fertil Steril. 2001; 75: 466-468Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (17) Google Scholar). However, the factors mentioned above could influence the effects of oocyte and sperm quality on embryo cleavage rate, which is reflected by considering the scattering of the data in the correlation analysis.Finally, assessment of pronuclear factors and early cleavage (>24 hours after fertilization) should provide additional information on the influence of oocyte sperm quality and embryo development characteristics (3Scott L. Alvero R. Leondires M. Miller B. The morphology of human pronuclear embryos is positively related to blastocyst development and implantation.Hum Reprod. 2000; 15: 2394-2403Crossref PubMed Scopus (361) Google Scholar, 4Balaban B. Urman B. Isiklar A. Alatas C. Aksoy S. Mercan R. et al.The effect of pronuclear morphology on embryo quality parameters and blastocyst transfer outcome.Hum Reprod. 2001; 16: 2357-2361Crossref PubMed Scopus (71) Google Scholar, 5Lundin K. Bergh C. Hardarson T. Early embryo cleavage is a strong indicator of embryo quality in human IVF.Hum Reprod. 2001; 16: 2652-2657Crossref PubMed Scopus (262) Google Scholar). Characteristics of pronuclear formation, such as, size, orientation, and number and arrangement of nucleoli, could be considered in additional studies. Early embryo cleavage after disappearance of pronuclear events may be more representative of embryo quality and implantation potential or could be used in conjunction with day 2 observations (5Lundin K. Bergh C. Hardarson T. Early embryo cleavage is a strong indicator of embryo quality in human IVF.Hum Reprod. 2001; 16: 2652-2657Crossref PubMed Scopus (262) Google Scholar). The article by Salumets et al. (1Salumets A. Suikkari A.M. Mölls T. Söderström-Anttila V. Tuuri T. Influence of oocytes and spermatozoa on early embryonic development.Fertil Steril. 2002; 78: 1082-1087Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (48) Google Scholar) presents an alternative approach to assessing the quality of spermatozoa and oocytes, and their influence on embryonic development. Briefly, oocytes retrieved from donors participating in an oocyte donation program were divided between two recipient couples each time, and the oocytes were inseminated with sperm from the male partner of those recipient couples. The authors concluded that oocyte quality influences embryo morphology, whereas spermatozoa and oocyte quality influences blastomere cleavage rate. Although the study was elegantly organized and presented, and the authors should be congratulated by their efforts, several questions must be asked for a more profound understanding of the factors involved. With regard to the role of spermatozoa, the oocytes were inseminated by conventional IVF with spermatozoa classified according to Kruger's criteria into three groups; less than 4%, 4% to 14%, and greater than 14% normal morphology. The insemination dose was adjusted according to the motility of the spermatozoa. However, the group with the highest percentage of morphologically normal spermatozoa received a lower dose than the other groups (1.1 × 105 vs. 1.3 × 105 motile spermatozoa). If the morphologic borderline values for each classification are taken into account when calculating the proportion of motile and morphologically normal spermatozoa, it is possible that some samples of the middle group may have overlapped or surpassed samples from the higher motility group. In example, samples from group 2 at the upper morphologic cut-off value may have contained 0.182 × 105 normal spermatozoa in the insemination dose. In contrast, samples from group 3 at the lower limit of the morphologic cut-off value may have contained 0.165 × 105 normal spermatozoa in the insemination dose. With regard to the oocyte factor, a comparison of the variability in number of oocytes and quality of cumulus–oocyte complexes between different couples would have been helpful. Because comparisons between couples were performed on the basis of averages for embryo grade and blastomere numbers of all embryos available for each couple, it is not known whether significant variations within the embryo populations between pairs of couples played a determining role in the outcome of the results. In addition, the role of pairings in couples sharing oocytes from the same oocyte donor in terms of the sperm morphologic classification must be assessed. Most of the couples were allocated to the 4% to 14% normal morphology group, whereas few patients were assigned to the less than 4% normal morphology group. This unequal proportion does not seem to have influenced the results for the effect of the oocyte on embryo quality, which agrees with current evidence (2Krey L.C. Grifo J.A. Poor embryo quality the answer lies (mostly) in the egg.Fertil Steril. 2001; 75: 466-468Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (17) Google Scholar). However, the factors mentioned above could influence the effects of oocyte and sperm quality on embryo cleavage rate, which is reflected by considering the scattering of the data in the correlation analysis. Finally, assessment of pronuclear factors and early cleavage (>24 hours after fertilization) should provide additional information on the influence of oocyte sperm quality and embryo development characteristics (3Scott L. Alvero R. Leondires M. Miller B. The morphology of human pronuclear embryos is positively related to blastocyst development and implantation.Hum Reprod. 2000; 15: 2394-2403Crossref PubMed Scopus (361) Google Scholar, 4Balaban B. Urman B. Isiklar A. Alatas C. Aksoy S. Mercan R. et al.The effect of pronuclear morphology on embryo quality parameters and blastocyst transfer outcome.Hum Reprod. 2001; 16: 2357-2361Crossref PubMed Scopus (71) Google Scholar, 5Lundin K. Bergh C. Hardarson T. Early embryo cleavage is a strong indicator of embryo quality in human IVF.Hum Reprod. 2001; 16: 2652-2657Crossref PubMed Scopus (262) Google Scholar). Characteristics of pronuclear formation, such as, size, orientation, and number and arrangement of nucleoli, could be considered in additional studies. Early embryo cleavage after disappearance of pronuclear events may be more representative of embryo quality and implantation potential or could be used in conjunction with day 2 observations (5Lundin K. Bergh C. Hardarson T. Early embryo cleavage is a strong indicator of embryo quality in human IVF.Hum Reprod. 2001; 16: 2652-2657Crossref PubMed Scopus (262) Google Scholar). Sperm morphology and rate of blastomere cleavage; correlation?Fertility and SterilityVol. 80Issue 3Preview Full-Text PDF" @default.
• W2023875062 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2023875062 creator A5058828082 @default.
• W2023875062 date "2003-09-01" @default.
• W2023875062 modified "2023-10-03" @default.
• W2023875062 title "Sperm morphology and rate of blastomere cleavage: correlation?" @default.
• W2023875062 cites W1973312680 @default.
• W2023875062 cites W1973528668 @default.
• W2023875062 cites W2134610702 @default.
• W2023875062 cites W2146659045 @default.
• W2023875062 cites W2165869124 @default.
• W2023875062 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(03)00956-7" @default.
• W2023875062 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12969729" @default.
• W2023875062 hasPublicationYear "2003" @default.
• W2023875062 type Work @default.
• W2023875062 sameAs 2023875062 @default.
• W2023875062 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2023875062 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2023875062 hasAuthorship W2023875062A5058828082 @default.
• W2023875062 hasBestOaLocation W20238750621 @default.
• W2023875062 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W2023875062 hasConcept C16685009 @default.
• W2023875062 hasConcept C175156509 @default.
• W2023875062 hasConcept C196843134 @default.
• W2023875062 hasConcept C43369102 @default.
• W2023875062 hasConcept C499950583 @default.
• W2023875062 hasConcept C68760520 @default.
• W2023875062 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2023875062 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2023875062 hasConcept C87073359 @default.
• W2023875062 hasConcept C90856448 @default.
• W2023875062 hasConcept C95444343 @default.
• W2023875062 hasConceptScore W2023875062C151730666 @default.
• W2023875062 hasConceptScore W2023875062C16685009 @default.
• W2023875062 hasConceptScore W2023875062C175156509 @default.
• W2023875062 hasConceptScore W2023875062C196843134 @default.
• W2023875062 hasConceptScore W2023875062C43369102 @default.
• W2023875062 hasConceptScore W2023875062C499950583 @default.
• W2023875062 hasConceptScore W2023875062C68760520 @default.
• W2023875062 hasConceptScore W2023875062C71924100 @default.
• W2023875062 hasConceptScore W2023875062C86803240 @default.
• W2023875062 hasConceptScore W2023875062C87073359 @default.
• W2023875062 hasConceptScore W2023875062C90856448 @default.
• W2023875062 hasConceptScore W2023875062C95444343 @default.
• W2023875062 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2023875062 hasLocation W20238750621 @default.
• W2023875062 hasLocation W20238750622 @default.
• W2023875062 hasOpenAccess W2023875062 @default.
• W2023875062 hasPrimaryLocation W20238750621 @default.
• W2023875062 hasRelatedWork W1898360326 @default.
• W2023875062 hasRelatedWork W1974424562 @default.
• W2023875062 hasRelatedWork W1994226861 @default.
• W2023875062 hasRelatedWork W2006943393 @default.
• W2023875062 hasRelatedWork W2276173682 @default.
• W2023875062 hasRelatedWork W2348058448 @default.
• W2023875062 hasRelatedWork W2363274645 @default.
• W2023875062 hasRelatedWork W2393763651 @default.
• W2023875062 hasRelatedWork W2591853382 @default.
• W2023875062 hasRelatedWork W3006285751 @default.
• W2023875062 hasVolume "80" @default.
• W2023875062 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2023875062 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2023875062 magId "2023875062" @default.
• W2023875062 workType "article" @default.