Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/62797
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorNamfon Innaen_US
dc.contributor.authorUsanee Sanmeeen_US
dc.contributor.authorUbol Saeng-Ananen_US
dc.contributor.authorWaraporn Piromlertamornen_US
dc.contributor.authorTeraporn Vutyavanichen_US
dc.date.accessioned2018-11-29T07:50:35Z-
dc.date.available2018-11-29T07:50:35Z-
dc.date.issued2018-09-01en_US
dc.identifier.issn22338241en_US
dc.identifier.issn22338233en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85053245263en_US
dc.identifier.other10.5653/cerm.2018.45.3.110en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85053245263&origin=inwarden_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/62797-
dc.description.abstract© 2018. The Korean Society for Reproductive Medicine. Objective: To compare our in-house method of embryo freezing with Cryotop vitrification in terms of immediate survival, subsequent cleavage and blastocyst formation, and cell numbers in blastocysts. Methods: Two-cell mouse embryos were randomly allocated into three groups: a non-frozen control group (group 1, n=300), a group that underwent Cryotop vitrification (group 2, n=300), and a group that underwent our in-house freezing method (group 3, n=300). Results: There were no significant differences between groups 2 and 3 in the immediate survival rate (96.3% vs. 98.6%, respectively; p=0.085), the further cleavage rate (91.7% vs. 95.0%, respectively; p=0.099), or the blastocyst formation rate (80.7% vs. 78.6%, respectively; p=0.437). The cell numbers in the blastocysts from groups 1, 2, and 3 were comparable (88.99±10.44, 88.29±14.79, and 86.42±15.23, respectively; p=0.228). However, the percentage of good-quality blastocysts in the Cryotop vitrification group was significantly higher than in the group in which our in-house method was performed, but was lower than in the control group (58.0%, 37.0%, and 82.7%, respectively; p < 0.001). Conclusion: At present, our method is inferior to the commercial Cryotop vitrification system. However, with further improvements, it has the potential to be useful in routine practice, as it is easier to perform than the current vitrification system.en_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titleRapid freezing versus Cryotop vitrification of mouse two-cell embryosen_US
dc.typeJournalen_US
article.title.sourcetitleClinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicineen_US
article.volume45en_US
article.stream.affiliationsChiang Mai Universityen_US
Appears in Collections:CMUL: Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in CMUIR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.