Rapid freezing versus Cryotop vitrification of mouse two-cell embryos

© 2018. The Korean Society for Reproductive Medicine. Objective: To compare our in-house method of embryo freezing with Cryotop vitrification in terms of immediate survival, subsequent cleavage and blastocyst formation, and cell numbers in blastocysts. Methods: Two-cell mouse embryos were randomly a...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Namfon Inna, Usanee Sanmee, Ubol Saeng-Anan, Waraporn Piromlertamorn, Teraporn Vutyavanich
Format: Journal
Published: 2018
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85053245263&origin=inward
http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/62797
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Chiang Mai University
id th-cmuir.6653943832-62797
record_format dspace
spelling th-cmuir.6653943832-627972018-11-29T07:50:35Z Rapid freezing versus Cryotop vitrification of mouse two-cell embryos Namfon Inna Usanee Sanmee Ubol Saeng-Anan Waraporn Piromlertamorn Teraporn Vutyavanich Medicine © 2018. The Korean Society for Reproductive Medicine. Objective: To compare our in-house method of embryo freezing with Cryotop vitrification in terms of immediate survival, subsequent cleavage and blastocyst formation, and cell numbers in blastocysts. Methods: Two-cell mouse embryos were randomly allocated into three groups: a non-frozen control group (group 1, n=300), a group that underwent Cryotop vitrification (group 2, n=300), and a group that underwent our in-house freezing method (group 3, n=300). Results: There were no significant differences between groups 2 and 3 in the immediate survival rate (96.3% vs. 98.6%, respectively; p=0.085), the further cleavage rate (91.7% vs. 95.0%, respectively; p=0.099), or the blastocyst formation rate (80.7% vs. 78.6%, respectively; p=0.437). The cell numbers in the blastocysts from groups 1, 2, and 3 were comparable (88.99±10.44, 88.29±14.79, and 86.42±15.23, respectively; p=0.228). However, the percentage of good-quality blastocysts in the Cryotop vitrification group was significantly higher than in the group in which our in-house method was performed, but was lower than in the control group (58.0%, 37.0%, and 82.7%, respectively; p < 0.001). Conclusion: At present, our method is inferior to the commercial Cryotop vitrification system. However, with further improvements, it has the potential to be useful in routine practice, as it is easier to perform than the current vitrification system. 2018-11-29T07:50:35Z 2018-11-29T07:50:35Z 2018-09-01 Journal 22338241 22338233 2-s2.0-85053245263 10.5653/cerm.2018.45.3.110 https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85053245263&origin=inward http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/62797
institution Chiang Mai University
building Chiang Mai University Library
country Thailand
collection CMU Intellectual Repository
topic Medicine
spellingShingle Medicine
Namfon Inna
Usanee Sanmee
Ubol Saeng-Anan
Waraporn Piromlertamorn
Teraporn Vutyavanich
Rapid freezing versus Cryotop vitrification of mouse two-cell embryos
description © 2018. The Korean Society for Reproductive Medicine. Objective: To compare our in-house method of embryo freezing with Cryotop vitrification in terms of immediate survival, subsequent cleavage and blastocyst formation, and cell numbers in blastocysts. Methods: Two-cell mouse embryos were randomly allocated into three groups: a non-frozen control group (group 1, n=300), a group that underwent Cryotop vitrification (group 2, n=300), and a group that underwent our in-house freezing method (group 3, n=300). Results: There were no significant differences between groups 2 and 3 in the immediate survival rate (96.3% vs. 98.6%, respectively; p=0.085), the further cleavage rate (91.7% vs. 95.0%, respectively; p=0.099), or the blastocyst formation rate (80.7% vs. 78.6%, respectively; p=0.437). The cell numbers in the blastocysts from groups 1, 2, and 3 were comparable (88.99±10.44, 88.29±14.79, and 86.42±15.23, respectively; p=0.228). However, the percentage of good-quality blastocysts in the Cryotop vitrification group was significantly higher than in the group in which our in-house method was performed, but was lower than in the control group (58.0%, 37.0%, and 82.7%, respectively; p < 0.001). Conclusion: At present, our method is inferior to the commercial Cryotop vitrification system. However, with further improvements, it has the potential to be useful in routine practice, as it is easier to perform than the current vitrification system.
format Journal
author Namfon Inna
Usanee Sanmee
Ubol Saeng-Anan
Waraporn Piromlertamorn
Teraporn Vutyavanich
author_facet Namfon Inna
Usanee Sanmee
Ubol Saeng-Anan
Waraporn Piromlertamorn
Teraporn Vutyavanich
author_sort Namfon Inna
title Rapid freezing versus Cryotop vitrification of mouse two-cell embryos
title_short Rapid freezing versus Cryotop vitrification of mouse two-cell embryos
title_full Rapid freezing versus Cryotop vitrification of mouse two-cell embryos
title_fullStr Rapid freezing versus Cryotop vitrification of mouse two-cell embryos
title_full_unstemmed Rapid freezing versus Cryotop vitrification of mouse two-cell embryos
title_sort rapid freezing versus cryotop vitrification of mouse two-cell embryos
publishDate 2018
url https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85053245263&origin=inward
http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/62797
_version_ 1681425873953095680