1. Pronuclear morphology and chromosomal abnormalities as scoring criteria for embryo selection 
Luca Gianaroli, MD, M.Cristina Magli, MSc, Anna P Ferraretti, MD, PhD, Daniela Fortini, BSc, Natascia Grieco, BSc 
Fertility and Sterility 
Volume 80, Issue 2, Pages (August 2003)
DOI: /S (03)00596-X

2. FIGURE 1
Diagram showing the different configurations that identify pronuclear morphology, nucleolar morphology, and polar body alignment with respect to the longitudinal axis of pronuclei. Each configuration is conventionally given a capital letter in the case of pronuclear morphology (A–E), a number for nucleolar morphology (1–4), and a symbol from the Greek alphabet (α–γ) to identify the polar body alignment.
Gianaroli. Pronuclear morphology and chromosomal status. Fertil Steril 2003.
Fertility and Sterility  , DOI: ( /S (03)00596-X)

3. FIGURE 2
Percentage of embryos with a normal chromosomal complement (diamond), monosomies or trisomies (square), complex abnormalities (triangle) in relation to the configurations of pronuclear zygote morphology. Values with the same letter are statistically different. aP<.005, bP<.025; cP <.0001 represents the percentage of chromosomally normal embryos in A1α, A2β, A3β, and A3α vs. all the other configurations; dP<.0001 represents the percentage of embryos with complex abnormalities in A4α and A4β vs. all the other configurations.
Gianaroli. Pronuclear morphology and chromosomal status.Fertil Steril 2003.
Fertility and Sterility  , DOI: ( /S (03)00596-X)

4. FIGURE 3
Development to morulas according to the different configurations of pronuclear zygote morphology. aP<.0001 represents the percentage of morulas at 88 hours after insemination in A1α, A2β, and A3β vs. all the other configurations.
Gianaroli. Pronuclear morphology and chromosomal status.Fertil Steril 2003.
Fertility and Sterility  , DOI: ( /S (03)00596-X)