4.0 Article

Detrimental Effect of Phenol Red on the Vitrification of Cat (Felis catus) Ovarian Tissue

Journal

BIOPRESERVATION AND BIOBANKING
Volume 14, Issue 1, Pages 17-22

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/bio.2015.0025

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. CNPq, Brazil
  2. CAPES

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of different media with or without phenol red or the antioxidant trolox on the successful vitrification of feline ovarian tissue. In a first experiment, ovarian cortical pieces from three cats were vitrified in solutions of Roswell Park Memorial Institute (RPMI)-1640 medium, Minimum Essential Medium, Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium, or Tissue Culture Medium 199 as basic medium, supplemented or not with 50M of trolox, all containing 40% ethylene glycol (EG) and 1M of sucrose. RPMI-1640 (phenol red-free) without trolox was the only medium that preserved the percentage of morphologically normal preantral follicles similar to control (80%). The main difference between RPMI-1640 and the other media was the absence of phenol red and CaCl2. In a second experiment, ovarian cortical pieces from three cats were vitrified in a solution containing RPMI-1640 as basic medium, 40% EG, 1M of sucrose, supplemented or not with phenol red or CaCl2 alone, or in combination. It was observed that phenol red supplementation led to follicular degeneration. Finally, to evaluate the interaction between phenol red and the cryoprotectant agent (i.e., EG), ovarian tissue was exposed to RPMI-1640 supplemented with phenol red and EG at different concentrations (10%, 20%, or 40%). There was an inverse relationship between EG concentration and free phenol red in the medium after exposure. It is suggested that vitrification of feline ovarian tissue should be performed in a phenol red-free medium. Medium supplementation with 50M of trolox was deleterious for follicular morphology.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available