Jian-Min Zhang1, Yan Sheng, Yong-Zhi Cao, Hong-Yan Wang, Zi-Jiang Chen. 1. Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine, Center for Reproductive Medicine, Provincial Hospital, Shandong University, 324 Jingwu Road, Jinan, China, 250021.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to detect the effects of different cooling rates and different ice-seeding temperatures on the cryopreservation of whole ovaries. METHODS: Cow whole ovaries were slowly frozen using different protocols with different cooling rates and different ice-seeding temperatures. Follicular viability was assessed using the trypan blue test; the percentage of morphologically normal primordial follicles and the follicular densities of grafts were measured. RESULTS: Protocol IIb was most effective protocol. Protocol Ib was more effective than protocol Ia and protocol Ic, and protocol IIIb was more effective than protocol IIIa and protocol IIIc. CONCLUSIONS: Protocol IIb (the cooling rate was 0.2°C/min, and the ice-seeding temperature was -5°C) was appropriate for slow freezing of cow whole ovaries.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to detect the effects of different cooling rates and different ice-seeding temperatures on the cryopreservation of whole ovaries. METHODS:Cow whole ovaries were slowly frozen using different protocols with different cooling rates and different ice-seeding temperatures. Follicular viability was assessed using the trypan blue test; the percentage of morphologically normal primordial follicles and the follicular densities of grafts were measured. RESULTS: Protocol IIb was most effective protocol. Protocol Ib was more effective than protocol Ia and protocol Ic, and protocol IIIb was more effective than protocol IIIa and protocol IIIc. CONCLUSIONS: Protocol IIb (the cooling rate was 0.2°C/min, and the ice-seeding temperature was -5°C) was appropriate for slow freezing of cow whole ovaries.
Authors: J A Radford; B A Lieberman; D R Brison; A R Smith; J D Critchlow; S A Russell; A J Watson; J A Clayton; M Harris; R G Gosden; S M Shalet Journal: Lancet Date: 2001-04-14 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: R Fabbri; S Venturoli; A D'Errico; C Iannascoli; E Gabusi; B Valeri; R Seracchioli; W F Grigioni Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Johan R Westphal; Renne Gerritse; Didi D M Braat; Catharina C M Beerendonk; Ronald Peek Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2017-06-03 Impact factor: 3.412