4.7 Article

Safety of cryopreservation straws for human gametes or embryos: a study with human immunodeficiency virus-1 under cryopreservation conditions

期刊

HUMAN REPRODUCTION
卷 18, 期 1, 页码 140-144

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deg001

关键词

assisted reproductive technology; cryopreservation; HIV-1; liquid nitrogen; straws

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: The possibility of assisted reproductive technology (ART) for couples carrying viruses, especially HIV-1, necessitates consideration of the safety of cryopreserving human gametes or embryos in liquid nitrogen tanks. Following our evaluation of the safety of three kinds of straws containing HIV-1 at 37degreesC, we have now examined the HIV-1 imperviousness of the same straws under cryopreservation conditions. METHODS: Polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PETG) and high-security ionomeric resin (IR) straws (24 each) were tested. Each straw was filled with 100 mul of HIV-1-containing supernatant [reverse transcriptase (RT) activity: 15 000 c.p.m./50 mul]. Then PVC and PETG straws were sealed ultrasonically only at their free-end, and IR straws were thermosoldered at both ends. Each straw was put in a 15 ml Falcon tube which was capped and submerged in a liquid-nitrogen tank for 7 days. After bleach decontamination or not, the outside of each end of the straw was rinsed with RPMI medium (1 ml) before cryopreservation and after thawing. Viral RNA was extracted from the medium and then amplified by RT-polymerase chain reaction (PCR) followed by nested-PCR using HIV-1 protease-specific primers. RESULTS: HIV-1 RNA was detected in some PVC and PETG rinse media, probably resulting from splashing during ultrasonic sealing, but not in the rinse media of thermosoldered IR straws. CONCLUSION: Under cryopreservation conditions, IR straws would appear to be safe for HIV-1 storage in ART. For PVC and PETG straws, as highlighted in this study, the ultrasonic sealing could be the weak safety link.

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