Vitrification in Open and Closed Carriers at Different Cell Stages: Assessment of Embryo Survival, Development, DNA Integrity and Stability during Vapor Phase Storage for Transport

BMC Biotechnology

Faten AbdelHafez¹  Jing Xu¹  Jeffrey Goldberg¹  Nina Desai¹ 

[1] Cleveland Clinic Fertility Center, Department of OB/GYN and Women's Health Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, USA

关键词: embryo;    storage;    HSV straw;    Cryotip;    cryoloop;    closed carrier;    vitrification;    transportation;    dry shipper;    IVF;    contamination;    liquid nitrogen;    vapor phase nitrogen;   

Others  :  1146833
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6750-11-29

 received in 2010-12-07, accepted in 2011-03-30,  发布年份 2011

【 摘 要 】

Background

High cooling rates with vitrification can be achieved through the use of carriers that allow cryopreservation in fluid volumes < one μl. Open carriers allow direct contact of embryos with liquid nitrogen (LN2) whereas closed carrier systems sequester the embryo within a sealed system during immersion in LN2. The use of closed systems may be preferable to reduce the possibility of cross-contamination. In the present study, we compare open and closed carriers for vitrification of embryos. We also examine their ability to retain embryo viability during vapor phase transport.

Methods

Frozen one-cell mouse embryos were thawed and randomly allocated to treatment groups. Embryos were cultured and vitrified at the 8-cell (CL) or at the blastocyst (BL) stage. The cryoloop, an open carrier was tested against two closed systems, the Cryotip and the HSV straw. Carriers were tested for their ability to maintain embryo viability when held in the vapor phase of a dry shipper for a period of 96 hours. Outcome parameters monitored were embryo survival, recovery, subsequent development and signs of DNA damage.

Results

A total of 561 embryos were vitrified. The only parameter significantly affected by the type of carrier was the percentage of embryos recovered after warming. Vitrification of both CL and BL stage embryos in the Cryotip resulted in significantly lower recovery rates (P < 0.001). The subsequent developmental parameters were unaffected by either the carrier or the cell stage. Vapor phase storage for 96 hours under "transport conditions" did not appear to adversely affect the viability after warming. Quantitative analysis for DNA damage showed that <5% of cells were TUNEL positive. Interestingly, the overall percent of cells exhibiting DNA damage was lower after CL stage vitrification (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

This study is one of the first to examine DNA integrity after vitrification on different carriers and at different cell stages. It also provides insight on relative safety of short term vapor storage of vitrified embryos during transport. Within the limits of this study we could not detect an adverse effect of vapor storage on blastomere DNA or other measured outcome parameters.

【 授权许可】

   
2011 AbdelHafez et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Rall WF, Fahy GM: Ice-free cryopreservation of mouse embryos at -196 degrees C by vitrification. Nature 1985, 313:573-575.
• [2]Shaw JM, Jones GM: Terminology associated with vitrification and other cryopreservation procedures for oocytes and embryos. Hum Reprod Update 2003, 9:583-605.
• [3]Bielanski A, Vajta G: Risk of contamination of germplasm during cryopreservation and cryobanking in IVF units. Hum Reprod 2009, 24:2457-2467.
• [4]Stachecki J: S3 Vitrification System: a novel approach to blastocyst freezing. Fertility magazine 2009, 11:30-36.
• [5]Schwiewe M: MicroSecure Vitrification (uS-VTF) Procedures:Optimum simplicity, security, cost-savings and effectiveness combining FDA-approved products. Journal of Clinical Embryology 2010, 13:33-40.
• [6]Kuwayama M, Vajta G, Ieda S, Kato O: Comparison of open and closed methods for vitrification of human embryos and the elimination of potential contamination. Reprod Biomed Online 2005, 11:608-614.
• [7]Cobo A, Perez S, De los Santos MJ, Zulategui J, Domingo J, Remohi J: Effect of different cryopreservation protocols on the metaphase II spindle in human oocytes. Reprod Biomed Online 2008, 17:350-359.
• [8]Camus A, Clairaz P, Ersham A, Van Kappel AL, Savic G, Staub C: [The comparison of the process of five different vitrification devices]. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 2006, 34:737-745.
• [9]Vanderzwalmen P, Ectors F, Grobet L, Prapas Y, Panagiotidis Y, Vanderzwalmen S, Stecher A, Frias P, Liebermann J, Zech NH: Aseptic vitrification of blastocysts from infertile patients, egg donors and after IVM. Reprod Biomed Online 2009, 19:700-707.
• [10]Portman M, Nagy ZP, Behr B: Evaluation of blastocyst survival following vitrification/warming using two different closed carrier systems. Human Reproduction 2010, 25(Suppl 1):P-375.
• [11]Park SY, Kim EY, Cui XS, Tae JC, Lee WD, Kim NH, Park SP, Lim JH: Increase in DNA fragmentation and apoptosis-related gene expression in frozen-thawed bovine blastocysts. Zygote 2006, 14:125-131.
• [12]Desai N, Abdelhafez F, Bedaiwy M, Goldberg J, Falcone T, Goldfarb J: Clinical Pregnancy and Live Births After Transfer of Embryos Vitrified On Day 3. Reprod Biomed Online 2010, in press.
• [13]Desai N, Blackmon H, Szeptycki J, Goldfarb J: Cryoloop vitrification of human day 3 cleavage-stage embryos: post-vitrification development, pregnancy outcomes and live births. Reprod Biomed Online 2007, 14:208-213.
• [14]Mukaida T, Oka C, Goto T, Takahashi K: Artificial shrinkage of blastocoeles using either a micro-needle or a laser pulse prior to the cooling steps of vitrification improves survival rate and pregnancy outcome of vitrified human blastocysts. Hum Reprod 2006, 21:3246-3252.
• [15]Mukaida T, Takahashi K, Kasai M: Blastocyst cryopreservation: ultrarapid vitrification using cryoloop technique. Reprod Biomed Online 2003, 6:221-225.
• [16]Takahashi K, Mukaida T, Goto T, Oka C: Perinatal outcome of blastocyst transfer with vitrification using cryoloop: a 4-year follow-up study. Fertil Steril 2005, 84:88-92.
• [17]Rama Raju GA, Haranath GB, Krishna KM, Prakash GJ, Madan K: Vitrification of human 8-cell embryos, a modified protocol for better pregnancy rates. Reprod Biomed Online 2005, 11:434-437.
• [18]Balaban B, Urman B, Ata B, Isiklar A, Larman MG, Hamilton R, Gardner DK: A randomized controlled study of human Day 3 embryo cryopreservation by slow freezing or vitrification: vitrification is associated with higher survival, metabolism and blastocyst formation. Hum Reprod 2008, 23:1976-1982.
• [19]Desai N, Falcone T, Goldberg E, Austin C, Goldfarb J: What is the optimal stage for embryo vitrification-a comparison of embryo survival and clinical outcomes with day 3 cleavage versus blastocyst stage vitrification. Fertility and Sterilty 2010, 94:S110.
• [20]Bielanski A, Nadin-Davis S, Sapp T, Lutze-Wallace C: Viral contamination of embryos cryopreserved in liquid nitrogen. Cryobiology 2000, 40:110-116.
• [21]Tarakanov Y, Johansson B, Lehmann H, Appell SP: Numerical Simulations Demonstrate Safe Vitrification and Warming of Embryos Using the Rapid-i Device. Proceedings of the COMSOL Conference; Milan, Italy 2009.
• [22]Lane M, Schoolcraft WB, Gardner DK: Vitrification of mouse and human blastocysts using a novel cryoloop container-less technique. Fertil Steril 1999, 72:1073-1078.
• [23]Seki S, Mazur P: The dominance of warming rate over cooling rate in the survival of mouse oocytes subjected to a vitrification procedure. Cryobiology 2009, 59:75-82.
• [24]Vanderzwalmen P, Bertin G, Debauche C, Standaert V, van Roosendaal E, Vandervorst M, Bollen N, Zech H, Mukaida T, Takahashi K, Schoysman R: Births after vitrification at morula and blastocyst stages: effect of artificial reduction of the blastocoelic cavity before vitrification. Hum Reprod 2002, 17:744-751.
• [25]Chen SU, Lee TH, Lien YR, Tsai YY, Chang LJ, Yang YS: Microsuction of blastocoelic fluid before vitrification increased survival and pregnancy of mouse expanded blastocysts, but pretreatment with the cytoskeletal stabilizer did not increase blastocyst survival. Fertil Steril 2005, 84(Suppl 2):1156-1162.
• [26]Hiraoka K, Hiraoka K, Kinutani M, Kinutani K: Blastocoele collapse by micropipetting prior to vitrification gives excellent survival and pregnancy outcomes for human day 5 and 6 expanded blastocysts. Hum Reprod 2004, 19:2884-2888.
• [27]Desai N, Szeptycki J, Scott M, AbdelHafez F, Goldfarb J: Artificial Collapse of Blastocysts Before Vitrification: Mechanical vs. Laser Technique and Effect on Survival, Cell Number, and Cell Death in Early and Expanded Blastocysts. Biopreservation and Biobanking 2008, 6(3):181-190.
• [28]Lim JJ, Shin TE, Song SH, Bak CW, Yoon TK, Lee DR: Effect of liquid nitrogen vapor storage on the motility, viability, morphology, deoxyribonucleic acid integrity, and mitochondrial potential of frozen-thawed human spermatozoa. Fertil Steril 2010.
• [29]Punyatanasakchai P, Sophonsritsuk A, Weerakiet S, Wansumrit S, Chompurat D: Comparison of cryopreserved human sperm in vapor and liquid phases of liquid nitrogen: effect on motility parameters, morphology, and sperm function. Fertil Steril 2008, 90:1978-1982.
• [30]Eum JH, Park JK, Lee WS, Cha KR, Yoon TK, Lee DR: Long-term liquid nitrogen vapor storage of mouse embryos cryopreserved using vitrification or slow cooling. Fertil Steril 2009, 91:1928-1932.
• [31]Cobo A, Romero JL, Perez S, de Los Santos MJ, Meseguer M, Remohi J: Storage of human oocytes in the vapor phase of nitrogen. Fertil Steril 2010.
• [32]Grout BW, Morris GJ: Contaminated liquid nitrogen vapour as a risk factor in pathogen transfer. Theriogenology 2009, 71:1079-1082.