Literature DB >> 12061845

Vitrification media: toxicity, permeability, and dielectric properties.

Monica C Wusteman1, David E Pegg, Martin P Robinson, Li-Hong Wang, Paul Fitch.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to select a cryoprotectant for use in attempts to preserve tissues and organs by vitrification. The first step was to select a cell line with which to compare the toxicity of a range of commonly used cryoprotectants. An immortal vascular endothelial cell (ECV304) was exposed to vitrifying concentrations of four cryoprotectants: dimethyl sulfoxide (Me(2)SO; 45% w/w); 2,3 butanediol (BD; 32%); 1,2-propanediol (PD; 45%); and ethanediol (ED; 45%). Three times of exposure (1, 3, and 9 min) and two temperatures (22 and 2-4 degrees C) were studied. After removal of the cryoprotectant, the ability of the cells to adhere and divide in culture over a 2-day period was measured and expressed as a Cell Survival Index (CSI). There was no measurable loss of cells after exposure to the four cryoprotectants but 3-min exposure to BD, PD, or Me(2)SO at room temperature completely destroyed the ability of the cells to adhere and divide in culture. In contrast, exposure to all four cryoprotectants at 2-4 degrees C for up to 9 min permitted the retention of significant cell function, the CSIs, as a proportion of control, being 76.3+/-7.0% for BD, 63.6+/-7.1% for PD, 37.0+/-4.1 for Me(2)SO, and 33.2+/-3.0 for ED. The permeability properties of the cells for these four cryoprotectants was also measured at each temperature. Permeability to water was high, L(p) approximately equal 10(-7) cm/s/atm at 2-4 degrees C with all the cryoprotectants, but there were substantial differences in solute permeability: BD and PD were the most permeable at 2-4 degrees C (P(s)=4.1 and 3.0 x 10(-6) cm/s, respectively). Equilibration of intracellular cryoprotectant concentration was rapid, due in part to high water permeability; the cells were approximately 80% of their physiological volume after 10 min. Treatment at 2-4 degrees C with BD was the least damaging, but PD was not significantly worse. Exposure to vitrifying concentrations of ED and Me(2)SO, even at 2-4 degrees C, was severely damaging. Segments of rabbit carotid artery were treated with vitrifying concentrations of each of the two most favorable cryoprotectants, BD and PD, for 9 min. It was shown that each cryoprotectant reduced smooth muscle maximum contractility to a similar extent and abolished the acetylcholine response. However, vital staining revealed that exposure to BD also caused substantial damage to the endothelial lining, whereas the endothelium was completely intact after PD exposure, raising the possibility that the effect of PD on NO release may be reversible. In later stages of this project it is planned to use dielectric heating to rewarm the tissues and thereby avoid devitrification. The effects of each cryoprotectant on this mode of heating was therefore studied. Gelatin spheres containing vitrifiable concentrations of each cryoprotectant were rewarmed from -60 degrees C in a radiofrequency applicator. Because the uniformity of heating is related to the dielectric properties of the material, these properties were also measured. PD was the most suitable. These physical measurements, combined with the measurements of toxicity and permeability, indicate that PD is the most favorable cryoprotectant of those tested for use in subsequent stages of this study. (c) 2002 Elsevier Science (USA).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12061845     DOI: 10.1016/S0011-2240(02)00002-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cryobiology        ISSN: 0011-2240            Impact factor:   2.487


  12 in total

1.  Permeation of dimethyl sulfoxide into articular cartilage at subzero temperatures.

Authors:  Shao-Zhi Zhang; Xiao-Yi Yu; Guang-Ming Chen
Journal:  J Zhejiang Univ Sci B       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 3.066

2.  Whole sheep ovary cryopreservation: evaluation of a slow freezing protocol with dimethylsulphoxide.

Authors:  Milan Milenkovic; Ann Wallin; Manda Ghahremani; Mats Brännström
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2010-09-15       Impact factor: 3.412

3.  Emerging technologies in medical applications of minimum volume vitrification.

Authors:  Xiaohui Zhang; Paolo N Catalano; Umut Atakan Gurkan; Imran Khimji; Utkan Demirci
Journal:  Nanomedicine (Lond)       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 5.307

4.  Cytotoxicity effects of cryoprotectants as single-component and cocktail vitrification solutions.

Authors:  Alison Lawson; Hajira Ahmad; Athanassios Sambanis
Journal:  Cryobiology       Date:  2011-01-22       Impact factor: 2.487

Review 5.  Cryoprotectant Toxicity: Facts, Issues, and Questions.

Authors:  Benjamin P Best
Journal:  Rejuvenation Res       Date:  2015-09-22       Impact factor: 4.663

6.  On-chip characterization of cryoprotective agent mixtures using an EWOD-based digital microfluidic device.

Authors:  Sinwook Park; Pavithra A L Wijethunga; Hyejin Moon; Bumsoo Han
Journal:  Lab Chip       Date:  2011-05-20       Impact factor: 6.799

7.  Cryoprotectant delivery and removal from murine insulinomas at vitrification-relevant concentrations.

Authors:  Indra Neil Mukherjee; Ying C Song; Athanassios Sambanis
Journal:  Cryobiology       Date:  2007-04-10       Impact factor: 2.487

Review 8.  Advances in cryopreservation of organs.

Authors:  Di Liu; Feng Pan
Journal:  J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci       Date:  2016-04-13

9.  Comparison and avoidance of toxicity of penetrating cryoprotectants.

Authors:  Edyta A Szurek; Ali Eroglu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-11-16       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Toxicity Minimized Cryoprotectant Addition and Removal Procedures for Adherent Endothelial Cells.

Authors:  Allyson Fry Davidson; Cameron Glasscock; Danielle R McClanahan; James D Benson; Adam Z Higgins
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-11-25       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.