Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:56:00.617Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vitrification of bovine embryos followed by in vitro hatching and expansion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2017

J.F. Souza ,
C.M. Oliveira ,
L.L. Lienou ,
T.V. Cavalcante ,
E. Alexandrino ,
R.R. Santos ,
A.P.R. Rodrigues ,
C.C. Campello ,
J.R. Figueiredo  and
F.E.F. Dias
J.F. Souza
Affiliation:
Laboratory Brio Genetics and Biotechnology Ltd, Araguaína, TO, Brazil.
C.M. Oliveira
Affiliation:
Veterinary Medical, Redenção, PA, Brazil.
L.L. Lienou
Affiliation:
Laboratory Brio Genetics and Biotechnology Ltd, Araguaína, TO, Brazil.
T.V. Cavalcante
Affiliation:
Federal University of Piauí, Teresina, PI, Brazil.
E. Alexandrino
Affiliation:
Federal University of Tocantins, EMVZ, Campus Araguaína, TO, Brazil.
R.R. Santos
Affiliation:
Federal University of Pará, Castanhal, PA, Brazil.
A.P.R. Rodrigues
Affiliation:
State University of Ceará, Fortaleza, CE, Brazil.
C.C. Campello
Affiliation:
State University of Ceará, Fortaleza, CE, Brazil.
J.R. Figueiredo*
Affiliation:
Faculdade de Veterinária, Universidade Estadual do Ceará, Av. Silas Munguba, 1700 Campus do Itaperi, 60714–903, Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil. State University of Ceará, Fortaleza, CE, Brazil.
F.E.F. Dias
Affiliation:
Federal University of Tocantins, EMVZ, Campus Araguaína, TO, Brazil.
*
All correspondence to: J. R. Figueiredo. Faculdade de Veterinária, Universidade Estadual do Ceará, Av. Silas Munguba, 1700 Campus do Itaperi, 60714–903, Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil. Tel: +55 85 31019858. Fax: +55 85 31019840. E-mail: figueiredo.lamofopa@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The objective of this study was to assess the effects of bovine embryo vitrification by applying three different vitrification solutions containing ethylene glycol (EG) and dimethylsulphoxide (DMSO) at different concentrations (10, 20 or 25% each) combined with 1.0 M glucose or 1.0 M sucrose, on the in vitro hatching and expansion rates. Healthy oocytes were selected for in vitro maturation and fertilization from 200 bovine ovaries, and subsequently cultured up to the blastocyst stage (n = 800). Control (n = 200) and vitrified cells (n = 100 per treatment; 600 in total) were cultured for an extra 24 or 48 h to evaluate hatching and expansion, respectively. Vitrification significantly decreased embryonic re-expansion and hatching rates independently of the tested solution when compared with control embryos, but solutions with 25% EG + 25% DMSO resulted in the highest re-expansion (75%) and hatching (70%) rates, independently of the added sugar. The addition of sucrose resulted in higher rates of re-expanded and hatched embryos when compared with glucose addition. We concluded that the combination of 25% EG + 25% DMSO and 1.0 M sucrose allowed hatching and expansion of vitrified-warmed bovine embryos produced in vitro.

Keywords

DMSOEGEmbryo vitrificationGlucoseSucrose
Type
Short Communication
Information
Zygote , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , February 2018 , pp. 99 - 103
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Caamano, I.N., Gomez, E., Trigal, B., Munos, M., Carrocera, S., Martin, D. & Diez, C. (2015). Survival of vitrified in vitro-produced embryo bovine embryos after a one-set warming in-straws cryoprotectant dilution procedure. Theriogenology 83, 881–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Do, V.H., Walton, S. & Taylor-Robinson, A.W. (2014). Benefits and constraints of vitrification technologies for cryopreservation of bovine in vitro fertilized embryos. J. Vet. Sci. Anim. Husbandry 2, 401.Google Scholar
Kaidi, S., Donnay, I., Lambert, P., Dessy, F. & Massip, I. (2000). Osmotic behavior of in vitro produced bovine blastocysts in cryoprotectant solutions as a potential predictive test of survival. Cryobiology 41, 106–15.Google Scholar
Kaidi, S., Van Langendonckt, A., Massip, A., Dessy, F. & Donnay, I. (1999). Cellular alterations after dilution of cryoprotective solutions used for the vitrification of in vitro-produced bovine embryos. Theriogenology 52, 515–25.Google Scholar
Kuleshova, L.L. & Hutmacher, D.W. (2008). Cryobiology. In Tissue Engineering, 1st edn (ed. Blitterswijk, C. van), pp. 363–401. London: Elsevier Google Scholar
Kuleshova, L.L., MacFarlane, D.R., Trounson, A.O., Shaw, J.M. (1999). Sugars exert a major influence on the vitrification properties of ethylene glycol-based solutions and have low toxicity to embryos and oocytes. Cryobiology 38, 119–30.Google Scholar
Lahnsteiner, F. (2008). The effect of internal and external cryoprotectants on zebrafish (Danio rerio) embryos. Theriogenology 69, 384–96.Google Scholar
Lai, D., Ding, J., Smith, G.W., Smith, G.D., Takayama, S. (2015). Slow and steady cell shrinkage reduces osmotic stress in bovine and murine oocyte and zygote vitrification. Hum. Reprod. 30, 37–45.Google Scholar
Liebermann, J. & Tucker, M.J. (2006). Comparison of vitrification versus conventional cryopreservation of day 5 and day 6 blastocysts during clinical application. Fertil. Steril. 86, 20–6.Google Scholar
Liebermann, J. (2009). Vitrification of human blastocysts: an update. Reprod. BioMed. Online 19, 105–14.Google Scholar
Liebermann, J. (2011). More than six years of blastocyst vitrification – What is the verdict? US Obstet. Gynecol. 5, 14–7.Google Scholar
Liebermann, J., Nawroth, F., Isachenko, V., Isachenko, E., Rahimi, G. & Tucker, M.J. (2002). Potential importance of vitrification in reproductive medicine. Biol. Reprod. 67, 1671–80.Google Scholar
Madeira, E.M., Mion, B., Silva, J.F., Pereira, M.M., Campos, F.T., Rincón, J.A.A., Viegas, D., Vieira, A.D., Pegoraro, L.M.C. & Lucia, T. Jr (2014). Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether: a potential cryoprotectant for vitrification of bovine embryos produced in vitro . Anim. Reprod. 11, 486.Google Scholar
Morato, R. & Mogas, T. (2014). New device for the vitrification and in-straw warminkg of in vitro produced embryos. Cryobiology 68, 288–93.Google Scholar
Rall, W.F. (1987). Factors affecting the survival of mouse embryos cryopreserved by vitrification. Cryobiology 24, 387–402.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, A.P., Amorim, C.A., Costa, S.H., Matos, M.H., Santos, R.R., Lucci, C.M., Báo, S.N., Ohashi, O.M. & Figueiredo, J.R. (2004a). Cryopreservation of caprine ovarian tissue using dimethylsulfoxide and propanediol. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 84, 211–27Google Scholar
Rodrigues, A.P., Amorim, C.A., Costa, S.H., Matos, M.H., Santos, R.R., Lucci, C.M., Báo, S.N., Ohashi, O.M. & Figueiredo, J.R. (2004b). Cryopreservation of caprine ovarian tissue using glycerol and ethylene glycol. Theriogenology 61, 1009–24.Google Scholar
Shaw, J.M. & Jones, G.M. (2003). Terminology associated with vitrification and other cryopreservation procedures for oocytes and embryos. Hum. Reprod. Update 9, 583–605.Google Scholar
Siqueira Filho, E., Caixeta, E.S., Pribenszky, C., Molnar, M., Horvath, A., Harnos, A., Franco, M.M. & Rumpf, R. (2011). Vitrification of bovine blastocysts pretreated with sublethal hydrostatic pressure stress: evaluation of post-thaw in vitro development and gene expression. Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 23, 585–90.Google Scholar
Storey, K.B. & Mommsen, T.P. (1994). Effects of temperature and freezing on hepatocytes isolated from a freeze-tolerant frog. Am. J. Physiol. 266, 1477.Google Scholar
Sugimachi, K., Roach, K., Rhoads, D.B., Tompkins, R.G. & Toner, M. (2006). Nonmetabolizable glucose compounds impart cryotolerance to primary rat hepatocytes. Tissue Eng. 12, 579–88.Google Scholar
Turner, S., Senaratna, T., Touchell, D., Bunn, E., Dixon, K. & Tan, B. (2001). Stereochemical arrangement of hydroxyl groups in sugar and polyalcohol molecules as an important factor in effective cryopreservation. Plant Sci. 160, 489–97.Google Scholar
Vajta, G., Holm, P., Greve, T. & Callesen, H. (1996). Factors affecting survival rates of in vitro produced bovine embryos after vitrification and direct in-straw rehydration. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 45, 191–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vajta, G., Holm, P., Kuwayama, M., Booth, P.J., Jacobsen, H., Greve, T. & Callesen, H. (1998). Open pulled straw (OPS) vitrification: a new way to reduce cryoinjuries of bovine ova and embryos. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 51, 53–8.Google Scholar
Varago, F.C., Saliba, W.P., Alvim, M.T.T., Vasconcelos, A.B., Oliveira, C.H., Stahlberg, R. & Albuquerque, M. (2006). Vitrification of in vitro produced zebu embryos. Anim. Reprod. 3, 353–8.Google Scholar
Villamil, P.R., Lozano, D., Oviedo, J.M., Ongaratto, F.L. & Bó, G.A. (2012). Developmental rates of in vivo and in vitro produced bovine embryos cryopreserved in ethylene glycol based solutions by slow freezing or solid surface vitrification. Anim. Reprod. 9, 86–92.Google Scholar
Yokota, Y., Sato, S., Yokota, M., Ishikawa, Y., Makita, M., Asada, T. & Araki, Y. (2000). Successful pregnancy following blastocyst vitrification: case report. Hum. Reprod. 15, 1802–3.Google Scholar