Back

Ultrasonic rewarming of cryopreserved alginate encapsulated liver spheroids

Xu, R.; Brookshaw, T.; Erro, E.; Selden, C.; Martin, E.

2025-06-16 biophysics
10.1101/2025.06.11.659069 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Rapid volumetric rewarming methods are needed to enable the effective cryopreservation and recovery of large volumes of biological cells for therapy and banking of tissues and organs. Ultrasonic rewarming is currently under development, but its effect on cells and their post-rewarming viability has not yet been established. Here, we compare ultrasonic rewarming with the gold-standard 37{degrees}C water bath using cryovials containing cryopreserved alginate encapsulated liver spheroids. Mean rewarming rates are used to establish the exposure time to rewarm to 5{degrees}C for higher power (100 W) and lower power (20 W) ultrasonic rewarming. These electrical powers correspond to free-field pressures along the central cryovial axis of 2.8 MPa and 1.3 MPa, respectively. Ultrasonic rewarming is faster than the gold-standard (120 {+/-}5 s), taking 88 s (36% faster) and 34 s (350% faster) to rewarm to 5{degrees}C with the lower and higher powers. We measure post-rewarming liver spheroid viability and viable cell number across the 96-hour recovery period. The lower power improves viability by 1% and the higher power reduces viability by 2% on average, relative to the gold-standard. There were no significant differences in viable cell number between rewarming methods. Our findings will serve as a foundation for ultrasonic cryovial rewarming and demonstrates potential for scaling to larger volumes.

Published in Scientific Reports (predicted rank #1) · training set

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.