4.7 Article

Nanoliter droplet vitrification for oocyte cryopreservation

Journal

NANOMEDICINE
Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 553-564

Publisher

FUTURE MEDICINE LTD
DOI: 10.2217/NNM.11.145

Keywords

cryopreservation; fertility; nanoliter droplet vitrification; oocyte

Funding

  1. NIH [UL1DE019581, RL1DE019021, R21HL095960, R21EB007707, R01AI081534, R21AI087107]
  2. W.H. Coulter Foundation
  3. Center for Integration of Medicine and Innovative Technology (CIMIT) under the US Army
  4. NIH from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development [K12HD001255]
  5. Presidential New Investigator Award
  6. Klarman Family Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim: Oocyte cryopreservation remains largely experimental, with live birth rates of only 2-4% per thawed oocyte. In this study, we present a nanoliter droplet technology for oocyte vitrification. Materials & methods: An ejector-based droplet vitrification system was designed to continuously cryopreserve oocytes in nanoliter droplets. Oocyte survival rates, morphologies and parthenogenetic development after each vitrification step were assessed in comparison with fresh oocytes. Results: Oocytes were retrieved after cryoprotectant agent loading/unloading, and nanoliter droplet encapsulation showed comparable survival rates to fresh oocytes after 24 h in culture. Also, oocytes recovered after vitrification/thawing showed similar morphologies to those of fresh oocytes. Additionally, the rate of oocyte parthenogenetic activation after nanoliter droplet encapsulation was comparable with that observed for fresh oocytes. This nanoliter droplet technology enables the vitrification of oocytes at higher cooling and warming rates using lower cryoprotectant agent levels (i.e., 1.4 M ethylene glycol, 1.1 M dimethyl sulfoxide and 1 M sucrose), thus making it a potential technology to improve oocyte cryopreservation outcomes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available