Cargando…
A non-traditional approach to cryopreservation by ultra-rapid cooling for human mesenchymal stem cells
Cryopreservation is the most common method for long-term cell storage. Successful cryopreservation of cells depends on optimal freezing conditions, freezer storage and a proper thawing technique to minimize the cellular damage that can occur during the cryopreservation process. These factors are esp...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6645672/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31329628 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220055 |
Sumario: | Cryopreservation is the most common method for long-term cell storage. Successful cryopreservation of cells depends on optimal freezing conditions, freezer storage and a proper thawing technique to minimize the cellular damage that can occur during the cryopreservation process. These factors are especially critical for sensitive stem cells with a consequential and significant impact on viability and functionality. Until now, slow-freezing has been the routine method of cryopreservation but, more recently rapid-cooling techniques have also been proposed. In this study, an ultra-rapid cooling technique [1] was performed for the first time on human mesenchymal stem cells and the effectiveness evaluated in comparison with the conventional slow-freezing procedure. A thin nylon-membrane carrier was used combined with different cryoprotective agents: dimethyl sulfoxide, ethylene glycol and/or trehalose. Various aspects of the low cryoprotective doses and the ultra-rapid cooling procedure of the human mesenchymal stem cells were examined including: the physical properties of the nylon-support, cells encumbrance, viability, proliferation and differentiation. The expression of cell surface markers and apoptosis were also investigated. The study used an ultra-rapid cooling/warming method and showed an overall cell integrity preservation (83–99%), with no significant differences between dimethyl sulfoxide or ethylene glycol treatment (83–87%) and a substantial cell viability of 68% and 51%, respectively. We confirmed a discrepancy also observed by other authors in cell viability and integrity, which implies that caution is necessary when assessing and reporting cell viability data. |
---|