Pathogenesis, developmental consequences, and clinical correlations of human embryo fragmentation  Victor Y. Fujimoto, M.D., Richard W. Browne, Ph.D., Michael S. Bloom, Ph.D., Denny Sakkas, Ph.D., Mina Alikani, Ph.D.  Fertility and Sterility  Volume 95, Issue 4, Pages 1197-1204 (March 2011) DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.11.033 Copyright © 2011 American Society for Reproductive Medicine Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Laser scanning confocal (A, B) and differential interference contrast (C) images of cleavage-stage human embryos showing normal cleavage (A), fragmentation and degeneration (B), and type 4 fragments (C). Three normal mitotic spindles are visible in A, and the cytoskeletal structure in the interphase cells is organized. By contrast, the fragmented embryo in B shows disorganized cytoskeletal structure—one abnormal nucleus and one cell in anaphase. (C) Predominantly large fragments (type 4) are interspersed among blastomeres of varying sizes. Green stain is tubulin, and red stain is DNA. Immunofluorescence staining methods are described by Alikani et al. (7, 9). Fertility and Sterility 2011 95, 1197-1204DOI: (10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.11.033) Copyright © 2011 American Society for Reproductive Medicine Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 Embryo fragmentation score as a function of unadjusted FF concentrations of HDL particle components, cholesterol, and ApoAI. Reprinted with permission from Fujimoto et al. (104). Fertility and Sterility 2011 95, 1197-1204DOI: (10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.11.033) Copyright © 2011 American Society for Reproductive Medicine Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 Current understanding of human embryo fragmentation during IVF and the negative clinical consequences associated with this anomaly. Fertility and Sterility 2011 95, 1197-1204DOI: (10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.11.033) Copyright © 2011 American Society for Reproductive Medicine Terms and Conditions