Rapid freezing versus Cryotop vitrification of mouse two-cell embryos

• Published in: Clinical and experimental reproductive medicine Vol. 45; no. 3; pp. 110 - 115
• Main Authors: Inna, Namfon, Sanmee, Usanee, Saeng-Anan, Ubol, Piromlertamorn, Waraporn, Vutyavanich, Teraporn
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Korea (South) The Korean Society for Reproductive Medicine 01.09.2018
• Subjects: Original; Embryo cryopreservation; Cryo-survival rate, Cryotop vitrification; Rapid freezing method
• ISSN: 2233-8233; 2233-8241
• DOI: 10.5653/cerm.2018.45.3.110

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. 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). There were no significant differences between groups 2 and 3 in the immediate survival rate (96.3% vs. 98.6%, respectively; =0.085), the further cleavage rate (91.7% vs. 95.0%, respectively; =0.099), or the blastocyst formation rate (80.7% vs. 78.6%, respectively; =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; =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; <0.001). 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.