Meiosis Archives - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
Summary
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2012;34(11):524-529
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032012001100008
PURPOSE: To evaluate the concordance between polarization microscopy and confocal microscopy techniques in the evaluation of the meiotic spindle of human oocytes matured in vivo. METHODS: Prospective study that evaluated oocytes with the first polar extruded body obtained from infertile women who had undergone ovarian stimulation for intracytoplasmic sperm injection. The oocytes with the first polar extruded body were evaluated by polarization microscopy and were then immediately fixed and stained for microtubule and chromatin evaluation by high-performance confocal microscopy. We determined the correlation of polarization microscopy with confocal microscopy in the detection of meiotic oocyte anomalies, and we also evaluated the percentage of oocytes with a visible and non-visible cell spindle by polarization microscopy and with meiotic normality and abnormalities by confocal microscopy. Confidence intervals, Kappa's index and concordance between the methodologies were calculated, considering immunofluorescence microscopy analysis as the golden-standard for evaluating normal spindle and oocyte chromosome distribution. RESULTS: We observed that 72.7% of metaphase II oocytes with a nonvisible meiotic spindle by polarization microscopy showed no meiotic abnormalities by confocal analysis and 55.6% of metaphase II oocytes with a visible meiotic spindle by polarization microscopy were found to be abnormal oocytes by the confocal analysis. Only 44.4% of oocytes with a visible meiotic spindle by polarization microscopy were found to be normal by confocal analysis. Concordance between the methods was 51.1% (Kappa: 0.11; 95%CI -0.0958 - 0.319). CONCLUSIONS: The low correlation between polarization microscopy and confocal microscopy in the assessment of oocyte meiotic spindle suggests that visualization of the meiotic spindle of human oocytes at metaphase II by polarization microscopy is not a good indicator of oocyte meiotic normality.
Summary
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2012;34(11):524-529
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032012001100008
PURPOSE: To evaluate the concordance between polarization microscopy and confocal microscopy techniques in the evaluation of the meiotic spindle of human oocytes matured in vivo. METHODS: Prospective study that evaluated oocytes with the first polar extruded body obtained from infertile women who had undergone ovarian stimulation for intracytoplasmic sperm injection. The oocytes with the first polar extruded body were evaluated by polarization microscopy and were then immediately fixed and stained for microtubule and chromatin evaluation by high-performance confocal microscopy. We determined the correlation of polarization microscopy with confocal microscopy in the detection of meiotic oocyte anomalies, and we also evaluated the percentage of oocytes with a visible and non-visible cell spindle by polarization microscopy and with meiotic normality and abnormalities by confocal microscopy. Confidence intervals, Kappa's index and concordance between the methodologies were calculated, considering immunofluorescence microscopy analysis as the golden-standard for evaluating normal spindle and oocyte chromosome distribution. RESULTS: We observed that 72.7% of metaphase II oocytes with a nonvisible meiotic spindle by polarization microscopy showed no meiotic abnormalities by confocal analysis and 55.6% of metaphase II oocytes with a visible meiotic spindle by polarization microscopy were found to be abnormal oocytes by the confocal analysis. Only 44.4% of oocytes with a visible meiotic spindle by polarization microscopy were found to be normal by confocal analysis. Concordance between the methods was 51.1% (Kappa: 0.11; 95%CI -0.0958 - 0.319). CONCLUSIONS: The low correlation between polarization microscopy and confocal microscopy in the assessment of oocyte meiotic spindle suggests that visualization of the meiotic spindle of human oocytes at metaphase II by polarization microscopy is not a good indicator of oocyte meiotic normality.
Summary
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2008;30(8):413-419
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032008000800007
PURPOSE: to evaluate the meiotic spindle and the chromosome distribution of in vitro mature oocytes from stimulated cycles of infertile women with endometriosis, and with male and/or tubal infertility factors (Control Group), comparing the rates of in vitro maturation (IVM) between the two groups evaluated. METHODS: fourteen patients with endometriosis and eight with male and/or tubal infertility factors, submitted to ovarian stimulation for intracytoplasmatic sperm injection have been prospectively and consecutively selected, and formed a Study and Control Group, respectively. Immature oocytes (46 and 22, respectively, from the Endometriosis and Control Groups) were submitted to IVM. Oocytes presenting extrusion of the first polar corpuscle were fixed and stained for microtubules and chromatin evaluation through immunofluorescence technique. Statistical analysis has been done by the Fisher's exact test, with statistical significance at p<0.05. RESULTS: there was no significant difference in the IVM rates between the two groups evaluated (45.6 and 54.5% for the Endometriosis and Control Groups, respectively). The chromosome and meiotic spindle organization was observed in 18 and 11 oocytes from the Endometriosis and Control Groups, respectively. In the Endometriosis Group, eight oocytes (44.4%) presented themselves as normal metaphase II (MII), three (16.7%) as abnormal MII, five (27.8%) were in telophase stage I and two (11.1%) underwent parthenogenetic activation. In the Control Group, five oocytes (45.4%) presented themselves as normal MII, three (27.3%) as abnormal MII, one (9.1%) was in telophase stage I and two (18.2%) underwent parthenogenetic activation. There was no significant difference in meiotic anomaly rate between the oocytes in MII from both groups. CONCLUSIONS: the present study data did not show significant differences in the IVM or in the meiotic anomalies rate between the IVM oocytes from stimulated cycles of patients with endometriosis, as compared with controls. Nevertheless, they have suggested a delay in the outcome of oocyte meiosis I from patients with endometriosis, shown by the higher proportion of oocytes in telophase I observed in this group.
Summary
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2008;30(8):413-419
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032008000800007
PURPOSE: to evaluate the meiotic spindle and the chromosome distribution of in vitro mature oocytes from stimulated cycles of infertile women with endometriosis, and with male and/or tubal infertility factors (Control Group), comparing the rates of in vitro maturation (IVM) between the two groups evaluated. METHODS: fourteen patients with endometriosis and eight with male and/or tubal infertility factors, submitted to ovarian stimulation for intracytoplasmatic sperm injection have been prospectively and consecutively selected, and formed a Study and Control Group, respectively. Immature oocytes (46 and 22, respectively, from the Endometriosis and Control Groups) were submitted to IVM. Oocytes presenting extrusion of the first polar corpuscle were fixed and stained for microtubules and chromatin evaluation through immunofluorescence technique. Statistical analysis has been done by the Fisher's exact test, with statistical significance at p<0.05. RESULTS: there was no significant difference in the IVM rates between the two groups evaluated (45.6 and 54.5% for the Endometriosis and Control Groups, respectively). The chromosome and meiotic spindle organization was observed in 18 and 11 oocytes from the Endometriosis and Control Groups, respectively. In the Endometriosis Group, eight oocytes (44.4%) presented themselves as normal metaphase II (MII), three (16.7%) as abnormal MII, five (27.8%) were in telophase stage I and two (11.1%) underwent parthenogenetic activation. In the Control Group, five oocytes (45.4%) presented themselves as normal MII, three (27.3%) as abnormal MII, one (9.1%) was in telophase stage I and two (18.2%) underwent parthenogenetic activation. There was no significant difference in meiotic anomaly rate between the oocytes in MII from both groups. CONCLUSIONS: the present study data did not show significant differences in the IVM or in the meiotic anomalies rate between the IVM oocytes from stimulated cycles of patients with endometriosis, as compared with controls. Nevertheless, they have suggested a delay in the outcome of oocyte meiosis I from patients with endometriosis, shown by the higher proportion of oocytes in telophase I observed in this group.
