The relationship between blastocyst morphology, chromosomal abnormality, and embryo gender Samer Alfarawati, M.S., Elpida Fragouli, Ph.D., Pere Colls, Ph.D., John Stevens, M.S., Cristina Gutiérrez-Mateo, Ph.D., William B. Schoolcraft, M.D., Mandy G. Katz-Jaffe, Ph.D., Dagan Wells, Ph.D., F.R.C.Path. Fertility and Sterility Volume 95, Issue 2, Pages 520-524 (February 2011) DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.04.003 Copyright © 2011 American Society for Reproductive Medicine Terms and Conditions
Figure 1 Number of whole (dark bars) and partial (light bars) aneuploidies affecting each chromosome. Fertility and Sterility 2011 95, 520-524DOI: (10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.04.003) Copyright © 2011 American Society for Reproductive Medicine Terms and Conditions
Figure 2 Blastocyst morphologic grading and the proportion of euploid and aneuploid (divided by type) embryos. Fertility and Sterility 2011 95, 520-524DOI: (10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.04.003) Copyright © 2011 American Society for Reproductive Medicine Terms and Conditions
Figure 3 Proportion of male (dark bars) and female (light bars) embryos in each blastocyst development grade. Fertility and Sterility 2011 95, 520-524DOI: (10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.04.003) Copyright © 2011 American Society for Reproductive Medicine Terms and Conditions
Figure 4 Comparison of the growth rate for embryos with aneuploidy affecting chromosomes 1–5 (n = 17; dark bars) and embryos with aneuploidy affecting chromosomes 21 or 22 (n = 38; light bars). Embryos not graded for inner cell mass and trophectoderm had a morphologic score of <3. Fertility and Sterility 2011 95, 520-524DOI: (10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.04.003) Copyright © 2011 American Society for Reproductive Medicine Terms and Conditions