Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39456905›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2024

Current State and Challenges of Tissue and Organ Cryopreservation in Biobanking.

Irina V Khaydukova, Valeria M Ivannikova, Dmitry A Zhidkov, Nikita V Belikov, Maria A Peshkova, Peter S Timashev, Dmitry I Tsiganov, Aleksandr V Pushkarev

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. TiACS omega · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Biobanked Liver Organoids: A Roadmap for Precision Hepatology.BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Advanced Rewarming Technologies for Cryopreservation.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Irina V KhaydukovaDepartment of Refrigeration and Cryogenic Technology, Conditioning Systems, and Life Support Systems, Bauman Moscow State Technical University, 105005 Moscow, Russia.ORCID 0000-0003-4591-5506
Valeria M IvannikovaDepartment of Refrigeration and Cryogenic Technology, Conditioning Systems, and Life Support Systems, Bauman Moscow State Technical University, 105005 Moscow, Russia.ORCID 0009-0001-9028-8196
Dmitry A ZhidkovDepartment of Refrigeration and Cryogenic Technology, Conditioning Systems, and Life Support Systems, Bauman Moscow State Technical University, 105005 Moscow, Russia.ORCID 0000-0002-1049-8741
Nikita V BelikovDepartment of Refrigeration and Cryogenic Technology, Conditioning Systems, and Life Support Systems, Bauman Moscow State Technical University, 105005 Moscow, Russia.ORCID 0000-0001-6564-6441
Maria A PeshkovaInstitute for Regenerative Medicine, Sechenov University, 119048 Moscow, Russia.ORCID 0000-0001-9429-6997
Peter S TimashevInstitute for Regenerative Medicine, Sechenov University, 119048 Moscow, Russia.
Dmitry I TsiganovDepartment of Refrigeration and Cryogenic Technology, Conditioning Systems, and Life Support Systems, Bauman Moscow State Technical University, 105005 Moscow, Russia.
Aleksandr V PushkarevDepartment of Refrigeration and Cryogenic Technology, Conditioning Systems, and Life Support Systems, Bauman Moscow State Technical University, 105005 Moscow, Russia.ORCID 0000-0002-1737-7838

Funding

Russian Science Foundation 24-19-00497
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent years have witnessed significant advancements in the cryopreservation of various tissues and cells, yet several challenges persist. This review evaluates the current state of cryopreservation, focusing on contemporary methods, notable achievements, and ongoing difficulties. Techniques such as slow freezing and vitrification have enabled the successful preservation of diverse biological materials, including embryos and ovarian tissue, marking substantial progress in reproductive medicine and regenerative therapies. These achievements highlight improved post-thaw survival and functionality of cryopreserved samples. However, there are remaining challenges such as ice crystal formation, which can lead to cell damage, and the cryopreservation of larger, more complex tissues and organs. This review also explores the role of cryoprotectants and the importance of optimizing both cooling and warming rates to enhance preservation outcomes. Future research priorities include developing new cryoprotective agents, elucidating the mechanisms of cryoinjury, and refining protocols for preserving complex tissues and organs. This comprehensive overview underscores the transformative potential of cryopreservation in biomedicine, while emphasizing the necessity for ongoing innovation to address existing challenges.

Indexed as

Biological Specimen BanksCryopreservationCryoprotective AgentsVitrificationAnimalsHumansOrgan PreservationCryoprotective Agentsbiobankingbiological tissuescryopreservationfreeze–thaworgansvitrification

Identifiers

PMID39456905
PMCPMC11508709

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.