| Literature DB >> 29304068 |
Andrew C Drake1, Youngjoo Lee1, Emma M Burgess1, Jens O M Karlsson2, Ali Eroglu3,4, Adam Z Higgins1.
Abstract
Long-term storage of viable mammalian cells is important for applications ranging from in vitro fertilization to cell therapy. Cryopreservation is currently the most common approach, but storage in liquid nitrogen is relatively costly and the requirement for low temperatures during shipping is inconvenient. Desiccation is an alternative strategy with the potential to enable viable cell preservation at more convenient storage temperatures without the need for liquid nitrogen. To achieve stability during storage in the dried state it is necessary to remove enough water that the remaining matrix forms a non-crystalline glassy solid. Thus, the glass transition temperature is a key parameter for design of cell desiccation procedures. In this study, we have investigated the effects of moisture content on the glass transition temperature (Tg) of mixtures of sugars (trehalose or raffinose), polymers (polyvinylpyrrolidone or Ficoll), penetrating cryoprotectants (ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, or dimethyl sulfoxide), and phosphate buffered saline (PBS) solutes. Aqueous solutions were dried to different moisture contents by equilibration with saturated salt solutions, or by baking at 95°C. The glass transition temperatures of the dehydrated samples were then measured by differential scanning calorimetry. As expected, Tg increased with decreasing moisture content. For example, in a desiccation medium containing 0.1 M trehalose in PBS, Tg ranged from about 360 K for a completely dry sample to about 220 K at a water mass fraction of 0.4. Addition of polymers to the solutions increased Tg, while addition of penetrating cryoprotectants decreased Tg. Our results provide insight into the relationship between relative humidity, moisture content and glass transition temperature for cell desiccation solutions containing sugars, polymers and penetrating cryoprotectants.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29304068 PMCID: PMC5755887 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190713
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Mixture compositions for glass transition studies.
| Composition of Desiccation Solution | Corresponding Solute Mass Percentages |
|---|---|
| 0.1 M trehalose in water | trehalose (100%) |
| 0.1 M trehalose in PBS | trehalose (78.2%), PBS salts (21.8%) |
| 0.1M trehalose, 10% PVP in water | trehalose (25.5%), PVP (74.5%) |
| 0.1 M trehalose, 10% Ficoll in PBS | trehalose (23.6%), PBS salts (7.3%), Ficoll (69.1%) |
| 0.1 M trehalose, 10% PVP in PBS | trehalose (23.6%), PBS salts (7.3%), PVP (69.1%) |
| 0.1 M trehalose, 10% PVP in PBS Mg/Ca | trehalose (23.6%), PBS Mg/Ca salts (7.3%) PVP (69.1%) |
| 0.1 M raffinose, 10% PVP in PBS | raffinose (31.5%), PBS salts (6.0%), PVP (62.5%) |
| 0.1 M trehalose, 10% PVP, 0.25 M DMSO in PBS | trehalose (20.8%), PBS salts (6.4%), PVP (60.9%), DMSO (11.9%) |
| 0.1 M trehalose, 10% PVP, 0.25 M EG in PBS | trehalose (21.3%), PBS salts (6.6%), PVP (62.4%), EG (9.7%) |
| 0.1 M trehalose, 10% PVP, 0.25 M PG in PBS | trehalose (20.9%), PBS salts (6.4%), PVP (61.1%), PG (11.6%) |
| 0.1 M trehalose, 10% PVP, 0.5 M DMSO in PBS | trehalose (18.6%), PBS salts (5.8%), PVP (54.4%), DMSO (21.2%) |
| 0.1 M trehalose, 10% PVP, 0.5 M EG in PBS | trehalose (19.5%), PBS salts (6%), PVP (56.9%), EG (17.6%) |
| 0.1 M trehalose, 10% PVP, 0.5 M PG in PBS | trehalose (18.7%), PBS salts (5.8%), PVP (54.7%), PG (20.8%) |
a PBS is phosphate buffered saline without calcium and magnesium (see text for details).
b PBS Mg/Ca is phosphate buffered saline with calcium and magnesium.
Relative humidity values at room temperature for saturated salt solutions [32].
| Salt Solution | Relative Humidity (%) |
|---|---|
| Lithium Bromide, LiBr | 6.5 |
| Potassium Acetate, KCH3COO | 23 |
| Magnesium Nitrate, Mg(NO3)2 | 54 |
| Sodium Chloride, NaCl | 75 |
Fig 1Representative DSC data (A) and zoomed in version showing the glass transition region (B).
Light grey line is the initial ramp up in temperature which is done to erase thermal history in the sample. The test proceeds counter-clockwise, as indicated by the arrows. The glass transition temperature was determined from the inflection point in the second heating cycle, as illustrated in panel B (arrow).
Fig 2Moisture sorption isotherms.
Moisture content in samples prepared either as an aqueous solution (black symbols) or as a freeze-dried matrix (white and grey symbols) was measured after equilibration in chambers with controlled relative humidity. The BET model (Eq 3) was fit (dotted lines) to observations from freeze-dried samples, except for the trehalose-PBS case, in which aqueous solution data were used for fitting; in the trehalose-water experiment, outlier values at 75% relative humidity (grey symbols) were omitted from the fit. See Table 1 for detailed composition of each mixture.
Fig 3Glass transition temperature of binary trehalose-water mixtures.
Samples were prepared either by equilibrating aqueous solution (black symbols) or freeze-dried matrix (white symbols) in various relative humidity environments. The solid grey line shows a fit of the GT model to literature data, as reported by Chen et al. [29]. The dotted line shows the best-fit GT model (Eq 1) to the data from the current study. The dashed line represents predictions of the CK model (Eq 2) using the parameters shown in Table 3.
Parameters for use in the CK model.
| Species | Δ | Sources | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Water | 136 | 1.94 | Katkov and Levine, 2004 [ |
| Trehalose | 390 | 0.55 | Katkov and Levine, 2004; Weng et al., 2014; Ohtake et al., 2004; Surana et al., 2004 [ |
| PVP (40,000 Da) | 413 | 0.27 | Buera et al., 1992 [ |
Fig 4Glass transition temperature of trehalose-PVP-water mixtures.
Samples were prepared by equilibrating freeze-dried matrix in various relative humidity environments. The dotted line shows the best fit of the GT model (Eq 1) to the data. The solid line shows predictions of the CK model (Eq 2) using the parameters shown in Table 3.
Fig 5Glass transition temperatures of various mixtures containing PBS.
Samples were prepared either by equilibrating aqueous solution (filled symbols) or freeze-dried matrix (open symbols) in various relative humidity environments. The dotted lines show the best-fit GT model to each data set. Mixtures containing penetrating CPAs at concentrations of 0.25 M and 0.5 M are shown as circles and triangles, respectively. See Table 1 for detailed composition of each mixture.
Fig 6Comparison of best-fit GT models.
(A) Effect sugars, polymers and PBS salts on the glass transition temperature. (B) Effect of CPAs on the glass transition temperature.
Best-fit GT model parameters (see Eq 1).
| Composition of desiccation solution | ||
|---|---|---|
| 0.1 M trehalose in water | 389 | 6.8 |
| 0.1 M trehalose in PBS | 356 | 4.1 |
| 0.1M trehalose, 10% PVP | 405 | 3.0 |
| 0.1 M trehalose, 10% Ficoll in PBS | 385 | 5.7 |
| 0.1 M trehalose, 10% PVP in PBS | 403 | 4.1 |
| 0.1 M trehalose, 10% PVP in PBS Mg/Ca | 407 | 4.4 |
| 0.1 M raffinose, 10% PVP in PBS | 401 | 4.2 |
| 0.1 M trehalose, 10% PVP, 0.25 M DMSO in PBS | 342 | 3.8 |
| 0.1 M trehalose, 10% PVP, 0.25 M EG in PBS | 324 | 2.8 |
| 0.1 M trehalose, 10% PVP, 0.25 M PG in PBS | 347 | 4.0 |
| 0.1 M trehalose, 10% PVP, 0.5 M DMSO in PBS | 291 | 4.1 |
| 0.1 M trehalose, 10% PVP, 0.5 M EG in PBS | 296 | 3.2 |
| 0.1 M trehalose, 10% PVP, 0.5 M PG in PBS | 296 | 4.4 |