A Comparison between Conventional Slow Freezing and Vitrification of Mouse Blastocysts using Cryo-E

Authors

  • Orawan Makemaharn Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University
  • Suphadtra Phornwilardsiri Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University
  • Pitak Laokirkkiat Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University
  • Somsin Petyim Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University
  • Suphakde Julvijitphong Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University
  • Singpech Suksompong Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University
  • Roungsin Choavaratana Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University

Keywords:

Blastocyst, cryo E, slow freezing, vitrification

Abstract

Objective: To compare the efficiency of two cryopreservations between conventional slow freezing and vitrification of mouse blastocysts using cryo-E.
Methods: ICR female mice (8 weeks) were superovulated with 5 IU/ml of pregnant mare serum gonadotrophin (PMSG), the successfulness of mating with males was verified by the presence of a vaginal plug. Blastocysts were obtained between 3.5 and 4.5 days per p.c. or 96-108 hours after hCG administration by flushing the uterus. Randomly selected blastocysts were simultaneouly frozen by slow-rate freezing and a vitrification method. One month later, the embryos were thawed and cultured in the blastocyst medium (COOK; Sydney IVF, Australia).
Results: Based on 250 slow freezing and 310 vitrified mouse blastocysts, vitrification resulted in a slightly higher survival and hatching rates than the slow-freezing method (83.9% VS 82.0%, and 68.8% VS 66.8%, respectively).
Conclusion: Both slow freezing and vitrification of mouse blastocysts are useful methods for cryopreservation. These results showed that vitrification is better than slow freezing in terms of simplicity, duration, and cost-effectiveness.Â

Downloads

Published

01-11-2008

How to Cite

Makemaharn, O., Phornwilardsiri, S., Laokirkkiat, P. ., Petyim, S. ., Julvijitphong, S. ., Suksompong, S. ., & Choavaratana, R. (2008). A Comparison between Conventional Slow Freezing and Vitrification of Mouse Blastocysts using Cryo-E. Siriraj Medical Journal, 60(6), 349–352. Retrieved from https://he02.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/sirirajmedj/article/view/246509

Issue

Vol. 60 No. 6 (2008): Nov-Dec

Section

Original Article

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following conditions:

Copyright Transfer

In submitting a manuscript, the authors acknowledge that the work will become the copyrighted property of Siriraj Medical Journal upon publication.

License

 Articles are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). This license allows for the sharing of the work for non-commercial purposes with proper attribution to the authors and the journal. However, it does not permit modifications or the creation of derivative works.

Sharing and Access

Authors are encouraged to share their article on their personal or institutional websites and through other non-commercial platforms. Doing so can increase readership and citations.