Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39844781›Full record

ArticleFree neuropathology2024

Cryopreservation of brain cell structure: a review.

Andrew T McKenzie, Emma L Thorn, Oge Nnadi, Borys Wróbel, Emil Kendziorra, Kurt Farrell, John F Crary

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Free neuropathology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. ONE microscopy.Nature protocols · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Alzheimer's disease in theFree neuropathology · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

7 authors.

Andrew T McKenzieApex Neuroscience, Salem, Oregon, USA.
Emma L ThornFriedman Brain Institute, Departments of Pathology, Neuroscience, and Artificial Intelligence & Human Health, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA.
Oge NnadiBrain Preservation Foundation, Ashburn, Virginia, USA.
Borys WróbelEuropean Institute for Brain Research, Amstelveen, The Netherlands.
Emil KendziorraEuropean Biostasis Foundation, Riehen, Canton of Basel-Stadt, Switzerland.
Kurt FarrellFriedman Brain Institute, Departments of Pathology, Neuroscience, and Artificial Intelligence & Human Health, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA.
John F CraryFriedman Brain Institute, Departments of Pathology, Neuroscience, and Artificial Intelligence & Human Health, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cryopreservation, the preservation of tissues at subzero temperatures, is a mainstay of brain banking that allows for the storage of brain tissue without the use of chemical fixatives. This is particularly important for molecular studies that are incompatible with tissue fixation. However, brain tissue is vulnerable to various forms of damage during the cryopreservation process, in particular due to the phase transition of water from a liquid to a solid state with the formation of ice crystals, which can disrupt cellular morphology. There is a critical need to characterize the effects of cryopreservation on brain cell structure at the microscopic level. In this review, we conducted a comprehensive literature search, identifying 97 studies that yielded 146 distinct observations of the effects of cryopreservation on neurohistology. We classified the reviewed studies into three main categories: cryofixation, freezing, and cryopreservation with cryoprotectants. Cryofixation techniques enable vitrification and excellent ultrastructural preservation of thin tissue samples but are limited in terms of the depth of tissue that can be preserved without ice artifacts. Freezing methods, particularly when applied to brain slices, can achieve rapid cooling rates that result in minimal ice artifacts detectable by light microscopy. Cryoprotectant-based approaches have the potential to reduce ice damage and achieve vitrification. For thin tissue samples, immersion in cryoprotectants has been found to be effective for structural preservation. However, for larger samples or the entire brain, perfusion of cryoprotectants is necessary to perform rapid distribution, and this has a more limited evidence base. In conclusion, while current cryopreservation methods can provide sufficient quality for some downstream applications, there is a need for improved techniques that enable the cryopreservation of larger brain tissue samples while maintaining excellent structural preservation.

Indexed as

Brain bankingCryofixationCryopreservationCryoprotectantIce artifactVitrification

Identifiers

PMID39844781
PMCPMC11753176

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.