| Literature DB >> 24505560 |
Jun Woo Jo1, Byung Chul Jee2, Chang Suk Suh2, Seok Hyun Kim3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the mouse oocyte vitrification outcomes of the CryoLogic vitrification method (CVM) and the conventional open method using a Cryotop. Two CVM methods (original CVM and modified CVM) were tested.Entities:
Keywords: Closed method; Oocyte; Open method; Spindle; Vitrification
Year: 2013 PMID: 24505560 PMCID: PMC3913893 DOI: 10.5653/cerm.2013.40.4.148
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Exp Reprod Med ISSN: 2093-8896
Figure 1Two vitrification procedures using the CVM kit: the original protocol (left panel) and the modified protocol (right panel). CVM, CryoLogic vitrification method.
Figure 2Microphotographs showing fluorescent caspase staining of blastocysts derived from vitrified-warmed mouse oocytes (×400). Apoptotic blastomeres appear green. DAPI, 4,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole; FITC, fluorescein isothiocyanate; CVM, CryoLogic vitrification method.
Developmental competency of vitrified-warmed mouse oocytes according to cryo-device (5 replicates)
Values are presented as number (%) or mean±SD.
CVM, CryoLogic vitrification method.
ap<0.05 vs. Cryotop; no. of blastocysts tested: b39, c43, d40; no. of oocytes tested: e98, f107, g109.