A comparison of different cryoprotectant solutions and thawing methods for cryopreservation of embryos of mice and rats. T. N. Igonina, E. Yu. Brusentsev, I. N. Rozhkova, V. A. Naprimerov, S. Ya. Amstislavsky ВАВИЛОВСКИЙ

Abstract:

The proper choice of cryoprotectant and thawing method affects cryopreservation efficiency. A freezing-thawing method for sparing embryonic cells was evaluated in experiments with ICR mice. Cleavage-stage embryos of ICR mice, GC rats, and OXYS rats were collected on Day 3 of pregnancy and frozen in plastic straws according to a standard protocol. Permeating (ethylene glycol and glycerol) and nonpermeating (sucrose) cryoprotectants and their combinations were compared during the freezing of ICR mouse embryos. With these mice, two thawing methods were compared: rapid (water bath, 10 s, 37 °С) and slow (40 s, room temperature; 40 s, 30 °С). Embryo viability in mice and rats was evaluated by their in vitro culturing after thawing. Our data on mice indicate that slow thawing is more suitable for sparing the integrity of embryonic cells; moreover, supplementation of the main cryoprotectant (either ethylene glycol or glycerol) with sucrose is beneficial for subsequent in vitro culture, especially in the case of glycerol. This freezing-thawing protocol (with glycerol and sucrose as cryoprotectant agents and slow thawing) was applied to rats of the GC and OXYS strains; the survival rate after cryopreservation was 68–83.3 %, and the rate of in vitro development was 64.7–66.6 %.

About The Authors:

T. N. Igonina. Institute of Cytology and Genetics SB RAS, Russian Federation, Novosibirsk

E. Yu. Brusentsev. Institute of Cytology and Genetics SB RAS, Russian Federation, Novosibirsk

I. N. Rozhkova. Institute of Cytology and Genetics SB RAS, Russian Federation, Novosibirsk

V. A. Naprimerov. Institute of Cytology and Genetics SB RAS, Russian Federation, Novosibirsk

S. Ya. Amstislavsky. Institute of Cytology and Genetics SB RAS, Russian Federation, Novosibirsk

References:

1. Abbott A. Geneticists prepare for deluge of mutant mice. Nature. 2004; 432:541. DOI: 10.1038/432541a

2. Amstislavsky S.Ya. Embriotekhnologicheskie podkhody k sokhraneniyu ischezayushchikh vidov mlekopitayushchikh. Diss. dokt. biol. nauk [Embryotechnological approaches to conservation of endangered mammalian species: Dr. biol. sci. diss.]. Novosibirsk, 2006.

3. Amstislavsky S., Brusentsev E., Kizilova E., Igonina T., Abramova T., Rozhkova I. Embryo cryopreservation and in vitro culture of preimplantation embryos in Campbell’s hamster (Phodopus campbelli). Theriogenology. 2015;82:1056-1063. DOI: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2014.12.013

4. Amstislavsky S.Ya., Igonina T.N., Rozhkova I.N., Brusentsev E.Yu., Rogovaya A.A., Ragaeva D.S., Naprimerov V.A., Litvinova E.A., Plyusnina I.Z., Markel A.L. Rederivation by embryo transfer in strains of laboratory mice and rats. Vavilovskiy zhurnal genetiki i selektsii — Vavilov Journal of Genetics and Breeding. 2013;17(1):147-161.

5. Brusentsev E.Yu., Naprimerov V.A., Amstislavsky S.Ya. Rederivation as a means for laboratory animal purification. Vavilovskiy zhurnal genetiki i selektsii — Vavilov Journal of Genetics and Breeding. 2011;15(1):102-113.

6. Emiliani S., Van den Bergh M., Vannin A.S., Biramanel J., Englert Y. Comparison of ethylene glycol, 1,2-propanediol and glycerol for cryopreservation of slow-cooled mouse zygotes, 4-cell embryos and blastocysts. Hum. Reprod. 2000;4:905-910. DOI: humrep/15.4.905

7. Lasar J., Moreno C., Jacob H., Kwitek A. Impact of genomics on research in rats. Genome Res. 2005;15:1717-1728. DOI: 10.1101/gr.3744005

8. McWilliams R.B., Gibbons W., Leibo S. Osmotic and physiological responses of mouse zygotes and human oocytes to mono- and disaccharides. Hum. Reprod. 1995;10:1163-1171. DOI: 10.5.1163

9. Miyoshi K., Abeydeera L.R., Okuda K., Niwa K. Effects of osmolarity and amino acids in a chemically defined medium on development of rat one-cell embryos. J. Reprod. Fertil. 1995;103(1):27-32. DOI:10.1530/jrf.0.1030027

10. Morrell J.M. Techniques of embryo transfer and facility decontamination used to improve the health and welfare of transgenic mice. Lab. Anim. 1999;33:201-206. DOI: 10.1258/002367799780578165

11. Pedro P.B., Yokoyama E., Zhu S.E., Yoshida N., Valdez D.M. Jr., Tanaka M., Edashige K., Kasai M. Permeability of mouse oocytes and embryos at various developmental stages to five cryoprotectants. J. Reprod. Dev. 2005;2:235-246. DOI: 10.1262/jrd.16079

12. Pfaff R.T., Agca Y., Liu J., Woods E.J., Peter A.T., Critser J.K. Cryobiology of rat embryos I: determination of zygote membrane permeability coefficients for water and cryoprotectants, their activation energies, and the development of improved cryopreservation methods. Biol. Reprod. 2000;63:1294-1302. DOI:10.1095/biolreprod63.5.1294

13. Rall W.F., Schmidt P.M., Lin X., Brown S.S., Ward A.C., Hansen C.T. Factors affecting the efficiency of embryo cryopreservation and rederivation of rat and mouse models. ILAR J. 2000;41:221-227. DOI:10.1093/ilar.41.4.221

14. Renard J.P., Babinet C. High survival of mouse embryos after rapid freezing and thawing inside plastic straws with 1-2 propanediol as cryoprotectant. J. Exp. Zool. 1984;230:443-448. DOI: 10.1002/jez.1402300313

15. Ridha M.T., Dukelow W.R. The developmental potential of frozenthawed hamster preimplantation embryos following embryo transfer: viability of slowly frozen embryos following slow and rapid thawing. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 1985;9:253-259. DOI: 10.1016/0378-4320(85)90008-9

16. Rozhkova I.N., Brusentsev E.Yu., Amstislavsky S.Ya. Coats of preimplantation mammalian embryos as a target of reproductive technologies. Ontogenez — Ontogeny. 2012;43(5):1-11.

17. Rulicke T., Autenried P. Potential of two-cell mouse embryos to develop to term despite partial damage after cryopreservation. Lab. Anim. 1995;29:320-326. DOI: 10.1258/002367795781088252

18. Van Soom A., Wrathall A.E., Herrler A., Nauwynck H.J. Is the zona pellucida an efficient barrier to viral infection? Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 2010;22:21-31. DOI: 10.1071/RD09230