ArticleBMC genomics2024
Comparative transcriptome analysis reveals molecular damage associated with cryopreservation in Crassostrea angulata D-larvae rather than to cryoprotectant exposure.
Article in BMC genomics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Selective under-representation of transcripts encoding membrane-integrated architectures following neural tissue vitrification.Biochemistry and biophysics reports · 2026Article
- Cryopreservation of Marine Invertebrates: From Sperm to Organismal Cryopreservation.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Portuguese oyster Crassostrea angulata, a bivalve of significant economic and ecological importance, has faced a decline in both production and natural populations due to pathologies, climate change, and anthropogenic factors. To safeguard its genetic diversity and improve reproductive management, cryopreservation emerges as a valuable strategy. However, the cryopreservation methodologies lead to some damage in structures and functions of the cells and tissues that can affect post-thaw quality. Transcriptomics may help to understand the molecular consequences related to cryopreservation steps and therefore to identify different freezability biomarkers. This study investigates the molecular damage induced by cryopreservation in C. angulata D-larvae, focusing on two critical steps: exposure to cryoprotectant solution and the freezing/thawing process.
resultsExpression analysis revealed 3 differentially expressed genes between larvae exposed to cryoprotectant solution and fresh larvae and 611 differentially expressed genes in cryopreserved larvae against fresh larvae. The most significantly enriched gene ontology terms were "carbohydrate metabolic process", "integral component of membrane" and "chitin binding" for biological processes, cellular components and molecular functions, respectively. Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes enrichment analysis identified the "neuroactive ligand receptor interaction", "endocytosis" and "spliceosome" as the most enriched pathways. RNA sequencing results were validate by quantitative RT-PCR, once both techniques presented the same gene expression tendency and a group of 11 genes were considered important molecular biomarkers to be used in further studies for the evaluation of cryodamage.
conclusionsThe current work provided valuable insights into the molecular repercussions of cryopreservation on D-larvae of Crassostrea angulata, revealing that the freezing process had a more pronounced impact on larval quality compared to any potential cryoprotectant-induced toxicity. Additionally, was identify 11 genes serving as biomarkers of freezability for D-larvae quality assessment. This research contributes to the development of more effective cryopreservation protocols and detection methods for cryodamage in this species.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.