P-304 Does imaging affect embryo health? Comparative analysis of discrete wavelengths of light on the developing embryo
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Study question What is the effect of exposing the embryo to discrete wavelengths of light on preimplantation development and resultant offspring health? Summary answer Exposure of embryos to red or yellow wavelengths negatively impacted embryo health, pregnancy rate and resulted in offspring that were heavier at weaning. What is known already Previous studies have indicated a potential negative impact of shorter wavelengths of light on embryo health. Red and yellow wavelengths are widely considered benign and utilised clinically in time-lapse equipped incubators within IVF clinics. However previous studies had not uniformly and correctly irradiated embryos to enable a fair comparison between different wavelengths. Study design, size, duration A current aim of the field is to use optical imaging to predict embryo developmental potential. Such approaches use varying wavelengths of light. The impact of irradiating the embryo with discrete wavelengths of light is not fully understood. Here, we assess the impact of various wavelengths on the developing embryo and for the first time, ensured that the energy dose applied was consistent between wavelengths, thus mimicking fluorescence and time-lapse imaging (470 – 620 nm). Participants/materials, setting, methods Preimplantation mouse embryos were exposed daily to blue (470 nm), green (520 nm), yellow (590 nm) or red (620 nm) wavelengths and compared to embryos that were not exposed. We assessed embryo development, DNA damage, and postnatal outcomes following transfer to pseudopregnant recipients. Main results and the role of chance We found exposure to the yellow wavelength significantly impaired embryo development to the blastocyst stage (P < 0.05). While exposure to blue, green and red wavelengths resulted in significantly higher levels of DNA damage when compared to unexposed embryos (P < 0.05). The pregnancy rate was significantly lower when embryos were exposed to the red wavelength (P < 0.05). Interestingly, resultant offspring were significantly heavier when derived from red or yellow light exposed embryos compared to those derived from unexposed embryos (P < 0.01). Towards understanding the effect on offspring weight we assessed intracellular lipid abundance in the embryo. We found lipid abundance to be significantly elevated following exposure to yellow wavelength (1.8-fold, P < 0.0001) but not red. We believe that the role of chance is low as results were collected from multiple independent experimental replicates that were tested using appropriate statistical analyses. Limitations, reasons for caution While we demonstrate the distinct impacts of discrete wavelengths of light on the developing mouse embryos including post-natal effects, confirmation of these results in human embryos is required. Wider implications of the findings Red and yellow wavelengths are utilised clinically in time-lapse equipped incubators within IVF clinics. Our results demonstrate the potential need to re-evaluate these assumptions. Mapping the stress tolerance embryos show for each wavelength may be advantageous in identifying how damage can be mitigated in clinical manipulation and imaging techniques. Trial registration number not applicable
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».