Cryoprotectant toxicity neutralization

Cryoprotectant toxicity is a fundamental limiting factor for the successful cryopreservation of living systems by both freezing and vitrification, and the ability to negate it would be attractive. Past attempts to demonstrate “cryoprotectant toxicity neutralization” (CTN) have had many ups and downs. First convincingly introduced by Baxter and Lathe in 1971, the concept that certain amides can block toxic effects of dimethyl sulfoxide (Me2SO) was contradicted by direct experiments in 1990. But in 1995, the opposite mode of CTN, in which Me2SO blocked the damaging effects of formamide, was robustly demonstrated. Recent experiments have verified the original 1995 results and extended them to urea and acetamide, but no CTN was detected for N-methylamides (N-methylformamide, N,N-dimethylformamide, and N-methylacetamide). On the theory that the latter amides and acetamide might serve as low-toxicity structural analogs of formamide, urea, or Me2SO, competition experiments were carried out between them and formamide or urea, but CTN was not observed for these amide–amide systems. The idea that the N-methylamides might have non-specific rather than specific toxicity was supported by the fact that the concentrations of these amides that cause toxicity are similar to the concentrations that denature model proteins. Clear examples of neutralization of the toxicity of glycerol, propylene glycol, ethylene glycol, or Me2SO are presently lacking, but effects of the latter that depend on sulfhydryl oxidation have been reversed with reducing agents. In summary, CTN is a useful phenomenon with significant theoretical and practical implications.