ArticleJournal of ovarian research2026
Vitrification versus slow freezing for prepubertal ovarian tissue cryopreservation: insights from a porcine xenotransplantation model.
Article in Journal of ovarian research, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOvarian cryopreservation is crucial for preserving fertility in prepubertal patients requiring gonadotoxic therapies. However, the optimal cryopreservation strategy remains unresolved. This study was conducted to compare vitrification and slow freezing techniques for prepubertal ovarian tissue cryopreservation, focusing on post-thaw viability and post-transplant functional recovery using a porcine xenotransplantation model.
methodsOvarian cortical tissues from prepubertal gilts were cryopreserved via vitrification (V group) or slow freezing (S group), with fresh tissue (F group) as control. Post-thaw apoptosis (TUNEL, caspase-3), ultrastructure (TEM), and follicular integrity were evaluated. Tissues were xenografted into ovariectomized nude mice and harvested at days 9 and 30 post-transplantation. Outcome measures included follicular morphology, apoptosis, neovascularization (CD31, VEGFA immunohistochemistry), and endocrine function (AMH, estradiol, progesterone levels).
resultsUpon thawing assessment, TUNEL fluorescence staining revealed comparable apoptotic rates between the two cryopreservation protocols. In contrast, ultrastructural analysis by transmission electron microscopy demonstrated inferior stromal cell integrity preservation in the vitrified group relative to the slow-freezing group. At 9 days post-transplantation, no significant differences were observed in apoptosis, angiogenic marker (CD31 and VEGFA), or hormone profiles among the groups. By 30 days post-transplantation, the S group exhibited a significantly lower proportion of morphologically intact follicles (p < 0.05), yet demonstrated enhanced angiogenic capacity, as evidenced by increased CD31 staining intensity and expanded VEGFA-positive area (both p < 0.05), compared to the V group. Hormonal profiles remained comparable between the two groups at this later time point.
conclusionsBoth vitrification and slow freezing maintain short-term follicular viability post-transplantation. However, slow freezing appears to promote superior neovascularization and morphological preservation of stromal architecture, whereas vitrification better preserves follicular morphology in the longer term. These findings suggest a differential susceptibility of stromal versus follicular compartments to cryoinjury. Future optimization strategies—such as stromal preconditioning or VEGF supplementation—may improve graft outcomes. Translation to clinical protocols for pediatric fertility preservation warrants further investigation.
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.