Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25826677›Full record

ReviewRejuvenation research2015

Cryoprotectant Toxicity: Facts, Issues, and Questions.

Benjamin P Best

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Rejuvenation research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 159 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
159citing papers in PubMed
21.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

159 citing papers in PubMed, 488 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Cryopreservation of biological materials: applications and economic perspectives.In vitro cellular & developmental biology. Animal · 2026
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Thermodynamic Principles of Emerging Cryopreservation Technologies.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. An Ultrapotent, Ultraeconomical, Antifreeze Polypeptide.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2026
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

99 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Benjamin P BestLife Extension Foundation , Coconut Creek, Florida.
Life Extension Foundation · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High levels of penetrating cryoprotectants (CPAs) can eliminate ice formation during cryopreservation of cells, tissues, and organs to cryogenic temperatures. But CPAs become increasingly toxic as concentration increases. Many strategies have been attempted to overcome the problem of eliminating ice while minimizing toxicity, such as attempting to optimize cooling and warming rates, or attempting to optimize time of adding individual CPAs during cooling. Because strategies currently used are not adequate, CPA toxicity remains the greatest obstacle to cryopreservation. CPA toxicity stands in the way of cryogenic cryopreservation of human organs, a procedure that has the potential to save many lives. This review attempts to describe what is known about CPA toxicity, theories of CPA toxicity, and strategies to reduce CPA toxicity. Critical analysis and suggestions are also included.

Indexed as

AnimalsCell MembraneCell Membrane PermeabilityCold TemperatureCryoprotective AgentsHumansOsmosisOxidative StressCryoprotective Agents

Identifiers

PMID25826677
PMCPMC4620521
OpenAlexW1957534126

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.