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

Users are free to share, copy, and redistribute all articles published in the Siriraj Medical Journal (SMJ) in any medium or format as long as you follow the following terms:

  • Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the material, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the publisher endorses you or your use.
  • NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
  • NoDerivatives — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material.
  • No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.