4.3 Article

Intracellular ice formation in yeast cells vs. cooling rate: Predictions from modeling vs. experimental observations by differential scanning calorimetry

Journal

CRYOBIOLOGY
Volume 58, Issue 2, Pages 157-165

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.cryobiol.2008.11.011

Keywords

Freezing; Cryobiology; Intracellular ice formation; DSC; Modeling; Yeast

Funding

  1. NIH [R01-RR18470]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To survive freezing, cells must not undergo internal ice formation during cooling. One vital factor is the cooling rate. The faster cells are cooled, the more their contents supercool, and at some subzero temperature that supercooled cytoplasm will freeze. The question is at what temperature? The relation between cooling rate and cell supercooling can be computed. Two important parameters are the water permeability (Lp) and its temperature dependence. To avoid intracellular ice formation (IIF), the supercooling must be eliminated by dehydration before the cell cools to its ice nucleation temperature. With an observed nucleation temperature of -25 degrees C, the modeling predicts that IIF should not occur in yeast cooled at <20 degrees C/min and it should occur with near certainty in cells cooled at >= 30 degrees C/min. Experiments with differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) confirmed these predictions closely. The premise with the DSC is that if there is no IIF, one should see only a single exotherm representing the freezing of the external water. If IIF occurs, one should see a second, lower temperature exotherm. A further test of whether this second exotherm is IIF is whether it disappears. on repeated freezing. IIF disrupts the plasma membrane; consequently, in a subsequent freeze cycle, the cell can no longer supercool and will not exhibit a second exotherm. This proved to be the case at cooling rates >20 degrees C/min. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available