4.7 Article

1,2-propanediol and the type of cryopreservation procedure adversely affect mouse oocyte physiology

Journal

HUMAN REPRODUCTION
Volume 22, Issue 1, Pages 250-259

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/del319

Keywords

calcium; cryoprotectant; oocyte; proteome; slow freezing

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: The aim of this work was to examine the effect of 1,2-propanediol (PrOH) and type of cryopreservation procedure (slow freezing and vitrification) on oocyte physiology. METHODS: Intracellular calcium of mouse metaphase II (MII) oocytes was quantified by fluorescence microscopy. The effect of PrOH on cell physiology was further assessed through analysis of zona pellucida hardening and cellular integrity. Protein profiles of cryopreserved oocytes were generated by time-of-flight mass spectrometry (TOF-MS). RESULTS: PrOH caused a protracted increase in calcium, which was sufficient to induce zona pellucida hardening and cellular degeneration. Using 'nominally calcium free' media during PrOH exposure significantly reduced the detrimental effects. Proteomic analysis identified numerous up- and down-regulated proteins after slow freezing when compared with control and vitrified oocytes. CONCLUSIONS: Using such approaches to assess effects on cellular physiology is fundamental to improving assisted reproduction techniques (ART). This study demonstrates that PrOH causes a significant rise in intracellular calcium. Using calcium-free media significantly reduced the increase in calcium and the associated detrimental physiological effects, suggesting that calcium-free media should be used with PrOH. In addition, analysis of the oocyte proteome following cryopreservation revealed that slow freezing has a significant effect on protein expression. In contrast, vitrification had a minimal impact, indicating that it has a fundamental advantage for the cryopreservation of oocytes.

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