ReviewAdvances in experimental medicine and biology2025
Barriers to Effective Cryopreservation of Cell Therapies: Challenges and Emerging Solution.
Review in Advances in experimental medicine and biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many cellular therapies require a cryopreservation step during their lifecycle. Cryopreservation offers many advantages such as extending product shelf life, decoupling manufacture from "just-in-time" delivery, and allowing pre-conditioning and other treatment interventions before administration. Nevertheless, it can also pose significant risks to the product and by extension the patient, if the process is non-optimized or misapplied. A clear understanding of the principles and their relationship to cell viability and functionality is therefore a pre-requisite for effective cryopreservation. The effect of cooling rate on cell survival, the need to avoid the formation of intracellular ice, and the action of cryoprotectants in improving cell recovery are all well recognized. Less so, the need to control cryoprotectant exposure times/temperature and their part in controlling cryoprotectant toxicity and the avoidance during addition/removal of damaging excursions in cell volume. However, there are other, newly emerging, factors that often go unrecognized. This chapter sets out to examine some that are potential impediments to the successful generation of a cell therapy product.Recently, a debate has opened up on the use of dimethyl sulphoxide as the cryoprotectant of choice in the context of cell therapies. Its use, together with that of bovine serum as an excipient, is being questioned and an examination of the advantages, disadvantages, and alternatives is explored herein. The control of ice nucleation/propagation and the phenomenon of supercooling which, if uncontrolled, can lead to excessive ice nucleation and variable outcomes, and the means to control this process and inhibit ice crystallization are also discussed.The effect on cell viability of transient warming events during routine low-temperature storage has, until recently, gone unrecognized. This is an emerging issue with both regulatory and commercial implications. Lastly, cryopreservation-induced delayed-onset cell death, its causes, detection and prevention, and the implications of such injury on demonstrating acceptable viability and functionality for regulatory purposes and routine quality-control monitoring are also examined.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41136846What 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.