4.7 Article

Successful cryopreservation of coral larvae using vitrification and laser warming

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-34035-0

关键词

-

资金

  1. Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute
  2. Paul M. Angell Family Foundation
  3. Roddenberry Foundation
  4. William H. Donner Foundation
  5. Barrett Family Foundation
  6. Skippy Frank Foundation
  7. Compton Foundation
  8. Cedar Hill Foundation
  9. Anela Kolohe Foundation
  10. National Institutes of Health [NIH R41 OD024430-01]
  11. Carl and Janet Kuhrmeyer Chair in Mechanical Engineering
  12. Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology
  13. Seaver Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Climate change has increased the incidence of coral bleaching events, resulting in the loss of ecosystem function and biodiversity on reefs around the world. As reef degradation accelerates, the need for innovative restoration tools has become acute. Despite past successes with ultra-low temperature storage of coral sperm to conserve genetic diversity, cryopreservation of larvae has remained elusive due to their large volume, membrane complexity, and sensitivity to chilling injury. Here we show for the first time that coral larvae can survive cryopreservation and resume swimming after warming. Vitrification in a 3.5 M cryoprotectant solution (10% v/v propylene glycol, 5% v/v dimethyl sulfoxide, and 1 M trehalose in phosphate buffered saline) followed by warming at a rate of approximately 4,500,000 degrees C/min with an infrared laser resulted in up to 43% survival of Fungia scutaria larvae on day 2 post-fertilization. Surviving larvae swam and continued to develop for at least 12 hours after laser-warming. This technology will enable biobanking of coral larvae to secure biodiversity, and, if managed in a high-throughput manner where millions of larvae in a species are frozen at one time, could become an invaluable research and conservation tool to help restore and diversify wild reef habitats.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据