Vitreous tissue cryopreservation using a blood vessel model and cryomacroscopy for scale-up studies: Observations and mathematical modeling
Michael J Taylor,Prem K Solanki,Zhenzhen Chen,Simona Baicu,Christina Crossley,Elizabeth D Greene,Lia H Campbell,Kelvin G M Brockbank,Yoed Rabin
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cryobiol.2024.104976
IF: 2.728
Cryobiology
Abstract:Successful long-term cryobanking of multicellular tissues and organs at deep subzero temperatures calls for the avoidance of ice cryoinjury by reliance upon ice-free cryopreservation techniques. However, the quality of the cryopreserved material is the direct result of its ability to survive a host of harmful mechanisms, chief among which is overcoming the trifecta effects of ice crystallization, toxicity, and mechanical stress. This study aims at exploring improved conditions to scale-up ice-free cryopreservation by combining DP6 as a base cryoprotective agent (CPA) solution with an array of synthetic ice modulators (SIMs). This study is conducted by integrating cryomacroscopy techniques, thermal modeling, solid mechanics analysis, and viability and contractility investigation to correlate physical effects, thermal outcomes, and cryobiology results. As an extension of previous work, this study aims at scale-up of established baseline blood vessel models, while comparing the relative toxicity and vitreous stability of 4 ml and 10 ml samples of DP6 containing either sucrose as a SIM, or the commercial synthetic ice blockers (X1000 and Z1000). Using that established protocol, the addition and removal of DP6+0.6M sucrose and DP6 + 1% X1000 + 1% Z1000 were both well tolerated in rabbit carotid and pig femoral artery models, when assessed for metabolic recovery and contractility. Using cryomacroscopy, it was demonstrated that DP6 + 0.6M sucrose provided a stable vitrification medium under marginal cooling and warming conditions that resulted in >50% survival rate. By contrast, DP6 + 1% X1000 + 1% Z1000 was subject to visible ice formation during cooling under the same thermal conditions, resulting in a significantly lower recovery of ∼20%. Thermal modeling is used in this study to verify the actual cooling and rewarming rates in the specimens, while thermomechanics analysis is used to explain why fractures were observed using cryomacroscopy when the specimens were contained in glass vials but not in plastic vials.