Hubbry Logo
CryopreservationCryopreservationMain
Open search
Cryopreservation
Community hub
Cryopreservation
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Cryopreservation
Cryopreservation
Cryopreservation
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Cryogenically preserved samples being removed from a dewar of liquid nitrogen

Cryopreservation or cryoconservation is a process where biological material - cells, tissues, or organs - are frozen to preserve the material for an extended period of time.[1] At low temperatures (typically −80 °C (−112 °F) or −196 °C (−321 °F) using liquid nitrogen) any cell metabolism which might cause damage to the biological material in question is effectively stopped. Cryopreservation is an effective way to transport biological samples over long distances, store samples for prolonged periods of time, and create a bank of samples for users.

Molecules, referred to as cryoprotective agents (CPAs), are added to reduce the osmotic shock and physical stresses cells undergo in the freezing process.[2] Some cryoprotective agents used in research are inspired by plants and animals in nature that have unique cold tolerance to survive harsh winters, including: trees,[3][4] wood frogs,[5] and tardigrades.[6]

The first human corpse to be frozen with the hope of future resurrection was James Bedford's, a few hours after his cancer-caused death in 1967.[7]

Natural cryopreservation

[edit]

Tardigrades, microscopic animals sometimes known as water bears, can survive freezing by replacing most of their internal water with a sugar called trehalose, preventing it from crystallization that otherwise damages cell membranes. Mixtures of solutes can achieve similar effects. Some solutes, including salts, have the disadvantage that they may be toxic at intense concentrations. Wood frogs can also tolerate the freezing of their blood and other tissues. Urea is accumulated in tissues in preparation for overwintering, and liver glycogen is converted in large quantities to glucose in response to internal ice formation. Both urea and glucose act as "cryoprotectants" to limit the amount of ice that forms and to reduce osmotic shrinkage of cells. Frogs can survive many freeze/thaw events during winter if no more than about 65% of the total body water freezes. Research exploring the phenomenon of "freezing frogs" has been performed primarily by the Canadian researcher, Dr. Kenneth B. Storey.[citation needed]

Freeze tolerance, in which organisms survive the winter by freezing solid and ceasing life functions, is known in a few vertebrates: five species of frogs (Rana sylvatica, Pseudacris triseriata, Hyla crucifer, Hyla versicolor, Hyla chrysoscelis), one of salamanders (Salamandrella keyserlingii), one of snakes (Thamnophis sirtalis) and three of turtles (Chrysemys picta, Terrapene carolina, Terrapene ornata).[8] Snapping turtles Chelydra serpentina and wall lizards Podarcis muralis also survive nominal freezing but it has not been established to be adaptive for overwintering. In the case of Rana sylvatica one cryopreservant is ordinary glucose, which increases in concentration by approximately 19 mmol/L when the frogs are cooled slowly.[8]

History

[edit]
See also: Cryonics § History
Tubes of biological samples being placed in liquid nitrogen

One early theoretician of cryopreservation was James Lovelock. In 1953, he suggested that damage to red blood cells during freezing was due to osmotic stress,[9] and that increasing the salt concentration in a dehydrating cell might damage it.[10][11] In the mid-1950s, he experimented with the cryopreservation of rodents, determining that hamsters could be frozen with 60% of the water in the brain crystallized into ice with no adverse effects; other organs were shown to be susceptible to damage.[12]

Cryopreservation was applied to human materials beginning in 1954 with three pregnancies resulting from the insemination of previously frozen sperm.[13] Fowl sperm was cryopreserved in 1957 by a team of scientists in the UK directed by Christopher Polge.[14] During 1963, Peter Mazur, at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the U.S., demonstrated that lethal intracellular freezing could be avoided if cooling was slow enough to permit sufficient water to leave the cell during progressive freezing of the extracellular fluid. That rate differs between cells of differing size and water permeability: a typical cooling rate around 1 °C/minute is appropriate for many mammalian cells after treatment with cryoprotectants such as glycerol or dimethyl sulphoxide, but the rate is not a universal optimum.[15]

On April 22, 1966, the first human cadaver was frozen—it had been embalmed for two months—by being placed in liquid nitrogen and stored at just above freezing. The cadaver was that of an elderly woman from Los Angeles, whose name is unknown, and was soon thawed out and buried by relatives. The first human corpse to be frozen with the hope of future resurrection was James Bedford's, a few hours after his cancer-caused death in 1967.[7] Bedford's is the only cryonics corpse frozen before 1974 still frozen today.[16]

Risks

[edit]

Phenomena which can cause damage to cells during cryopreservation mainly occur during the freezing stage, and include solution effects, extracellular ice formation, dehydration, and intracellular ice formation. Many of these effects can be reduced by cryoprotectants. Once the preserved material has become frozen, it is relatively safe from further damage.[17]

Solution effects
As ice crystals grow in freezing water, solutes are excluded, causing them to become concentrated in the remaining liquid water. High concentrations of some solutes can be very damaging.
Extracellular ice formation
When tissues are cooled slowly, water migrates out of cells and ice forms in the extracellular space. Too much extracellular ice can cause mechanical damage to the cell membrane due to crushing.
Dehydration
Migration of water, causing extracellular ice formation, can also cause cellular dehydration. The associated stresses on the cell can cause damage directly.
Intracellular ice formation
While some organisms and tissues can tolerate some extracellular ice, any appreciable intracellular ice is almost always fatal to cells.

Main methods to prevent risks

[edit]

The main techniques to prevent cryopreservation damages are a well-established combination of controlled rate and slow freezing and a newer flash-freezing process known as vitrification.

Slow programmable freezing

[edit]
A tank of liquid nitrogen, used to supply a cryogenic freezer (for storing laboratory samples at a temperature of about −150 °C or −238 °F)

Controlled-rate and slow freezing, also known as slow programmable freezing (SPF),[18] is a technique where cells are cooled to around -196 °C over the course of several hours.

Slow programmable freezing was developed during the early 1970s, and eventually resulted in the first human frozen embryo birth in 1984. Since then, machines that freeze biological samples using programmable sequences, or controlled rates, have been used for human, animal, and cell biology – "freezing down" a sample to better preserve it for eventual thawing, before it is frozen, or cryopreserved, in liquid nitrogen. Such machines are used for freezing oocytes, skin, blood products, embryos, sperm, stem cells, and general tissue preservation in hospitals, veterinary practices and research laboratories around the world. As an example, the number of live births from frozen embryos 'slow frozen' is estimated at some 300,000 to 400,000 or 20% of the estimated 3 million in vitro fertilization (IVF) births.[19]

Lethal intracellular freezing can be avoided if cooling is slow enough to permit sufficient water to leave the cell during progressive freezing of the extracellular fluid. To minimize the growth of extracellular ice crystals and recrystallization,[20] biomaterials such as alginates, polyvinyl alcohol or chitosan can be used to impede ice crystal growth along with traditional small molecule cryoprotectants.[21] That rate differs between cells of differing size and water permeability: a typical cooling rate of about 1 °C/minute is appropriate for many mammalian cells after treatment with cryoprotectants such as glycerol or dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), but the rate is not a universal optimum. The 1 °C / minute rate can be achieved by using devices such as a rate-controlled freezer or a benchtop portable freezing container.[22]

Several independent studies have provided evidence that frozen embryos stored using slow-freezing techniques may in some ways be 'better' than fresh in IVF. The studies indicate that using frozen embryos and eggs rather than fresh embryos and eggs reduced the risk of stillbirth and premature delivery though the exact reasons are still being explored.

Vitrification

[edit]

Vitrification is a flash-freezing (ultra-rapid cooling) process that helps to prevent the formation of ice crystals and helps prevent cryopreservation damage.

Researchers Greg Fahy and William F. Rall helped to introduce vitrification to reproductive cryopreservation in the mid-1980s.[23] As of 2000, researchers claim vitrification provides the benefits of cryopreservation without damage due to ice crystal formation.[24] The situation became more complex with the development of tissue engineering as both cells and biomaterials need to remain ice-free to preserve high cell viability and functions, integrity of constructs and structure of biomaterials. Vitrification of tissue engineered constructs was first reported by Lilia Kuleshova,[25] who also was the first scientist to achieve vitrification of oocytes, which resulted in live birth in 1999.[26] For clinical cryopreservation, vitrification usually requires the addition of cryoprotectants before cooling. Cryoprotectants are macromolecules added to the freezing medium to protect cells from the detrimental effects of intracellular ice crystal formation or from the solution effects, during the process of freezing and thawing. They permit a higher degree of cell survival during freezing, to lower the freezing point, to protect cell membrane from freeze-related injury. Cryoprotectants have high solubility, low toxicity at high concentrations, low molecular weight and the ability to interact with water via hydrogen bonding.

Instead of crystallizing, the syrupy solution becomes an amorphous ice—it vitrifies. Rather than a phase change from liquid to solid by crystallization, the amorphous state is like a "solid liquid", and the transformation is over a small temperature range described as the "glass transition" temperature.

Vitrification of water is promoted by rapid cooling, and can be achieved without cryoprotectants by an extremely rapid decrease of temperature (megakelvins per second). The rate that is required to attain glassy state in pure water was considered to be impossible until 2005.[27]

Two conditions usually required to allow vitrification are an increase of viscosity and a decrease in the freezing temperature. Many solutes do both, but larger molecules generally have a larger effect, particularly on viscosity. Rapid cooling also promotes vitrification.

For established methods of cryopreservation, the solute must penetrate the cell membrane in order to achieve increased viscosity and decrease the freezing temperature inside the cell. Sugars do not readily permeate through the membrane. Those solutes that do, such as DMSO, a common cryoprotectant, are often toxic in intense concentration. One of the difficult compromises of vitrifying cryopreservation concerns limiting the damage produced by the cryoprotectant itself due to cryoprotectant toxicity. Mixtures of cryoprotectants and the use of ice blockers have enabled the 21st Century Medicine company to vitrify a rabbit kidney to −135 °C with their proprietary vitrification mixture. Upon rewarming, the kidney was transplanted successfully into a rabbit, with complete functionality and viability, able to sustain the rabbit indefinitely as the sole functioning kidney.[28] In 2000, FM-2030 became the first person to be successfully vitrified posthumously.[29]

Persufflation

[edit]

Blood can be replaced with inert noble gases and/or metabolically vital gases like oxygen, so that organs can cool more quickly and less antifreeze is needed. Since regions of tissue are separated by gas, small expansions do not accumulate, thereby protecting against shattering.[30] A small company, Arigos Biomedical, "has already recovered pig hearts from the 120 degrees below zero",[31] although the definition of "recovered" is not clear. Pressures of 60 atm can help increase heat exchange rates.[32] Gaseous oxygen perfusion / persufflation can enhance organ preservation relative to static cold storage or hypothermic machine perfusion, since the lower viscosity of gases, may help reach more regions of preserved organs and deliver more oxygen per gram tissue.[33]

Freezable tissues

[edit]

Generally, cryopreservation is easier for thin samples and suspended cells, because these can be cooled more quickly and so require lesser doses of toxic cryoprotectants. Therefore, cryopreservation of human livers and hearts for storage and transplant is still impractical.

Nevertheless, suitable combinations of cryoprotectants and regimes of cooling and rinsing during warming often allow the successful cryopreservation of biological materials, particularly cell suspensions or thin tissue samples. Examples include:

Embryos

[edit]
Main article: Embryo cryopreservation

Cryopreservation for embryos is used for embryo storage, e.g., when IVF has resulted in more embryos than is currently needed.

One pregnancy and resulting healthy birth has been reported from an embryo stored for 27 years, after the successful pregnancy of an embryo from the same batch three years earlier.[39] Many studies have evaluated the children born from frozen embryos, or "frosties". The result has been uniformly positive with no increase in birth defects or development abnormalities.[40] A study of more than 11,000 cryopreserved human embryos showed no significant effect of storage time on post-thaw survival for IVF or oocyte donation cycles, or for embryos frozen at the pronuclear or cleavage stages.[41] Additionally, the duration of storage did not have any significant effect on clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, implantation, or live birth rate, whether from IVF or oocyte donation cycles.[41] Rather, oocyte age, survival proportion, and number of transferred embryos are predictors of pregnancy outcome.[41]

Ovarian tissue

[edit]
Main article: Ovarian tissue cryopreservation

Cryopreservation of ovarian tissue is of interest to women who want to preserve their reproductive function beyond the natural limit, or whose reproductive potential is threatened by cancer therapy,[42] for example in hematologic malignancies or breast cancer.[43] The procedure is to take a part of the ovary and perform slow freezing before storing it in liquid nitrogen whilst therapy is undertaken. Tissue can then be thawed and implanted near the fallopian, either orthotopic (on the natural location) or heterotopic (on the abdominal wall),[43] where it starts to produce new eggs, allowing normal conception to occur.[44] The ovarian tissue may also be transplanted into mice that are immunocompromised (SCID mice) to avoid graft rejection, and tissue can be harvested later when mature follicles have developed.[45]

Oocytes

[edit]
Main article: Oocyte cryopreservation

Human oocyte cryopreservation is a new technology in which a woman's eggs (oocytes) are extracted, frozen and stored. Later, when she is ready to become pregnant, the eggs can be thawed, fertilized, and transferred to the uterus as embryos. Since 1999, when the birth of the first baby from an embryo-derived from vitrified-warmed woman's eggs was reported by Kuleshova and co-workers in the journal of Human Reproduction,[25] this concept has been recognized and widespread. This breakthrough in achieving vitrification of a woman's oocytes made an important advance in our knowledge and practice of the IVF process, as the clinical pregnancy rate is four times higher after oocyte vitrification than after slow freezing.[46] Oocyte vitrification is vital for preserving fertility in young oncology patients and for individuals undergoing IVF who object, for either religious or ethical reasons, to the practice of freezing embryos.

Semen

[edit]
Main article: Semen cryopreservation

Semen can be used successfully almost indefinitely after cryopreservation. The longest reported successful storage is 22 years.[47] It can be used for sperm donation where the recipient wants the treatment in a different time or place or as a means of preserving fertility for men undergoing vasectomy or treatments that may compromise their fertility, such as chemotherapy, radiation therapy or surgery.

Testicular tissue

[edit]
Main article: Cryopreservation of testicular tissue

Cryopreservation of immature testicular tissue is a developing method to avail reproduction to young boys who need to have gonadotoxic therapy. Animal data are promising since healthy offspring have been obtained after transplantation of frozen testicular cell suspensions or tissue pieces. However, none of the fertility restoration options from frozen tissue, i.e. cell suspension transplantation, tissue grafting and in vitro maturation has proved efficient and safe in humans as yet.[48]

Moss

[edit]
Four different ecotypes of Physcomitrella patens stored at the International Moss Stock Center

Cryopreservation of whole moss plants, especially Physcomitrella patens, has been developed by Ralf Reski and coworkers[49] and is performed at the International Moss Stock Center. This biobank collects, preserves, and distributes moss mutants and moss ecotypes.[50]

Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs)

[edit]

MSCs, when transfused immediately within a few hours post-thawing, may show reduced function or show decreased efficacy in treating diseases as compared to those MSCs which are in log phase of cell growth (fresh). As a result, cryopreserved MSCs should be brought back into the log phase of cell growth in in vitro culture before these are administered for clinical trials or experimental therapies. Re-culturing of MSCs will help in recovering from the shock the cells get during freezing and thawing. Various clinical trials on MSCs have failed which used cryopreserved products immediately post-thaw as compared to those clinical trials which used fresh MSCs.[51]

Seed

[edit]

Plant cryopreservation is becoming vital for its biodiversity value. Seeds are often considered as an important delivery system of genetic information. Cryopreservation of recalcitrant seed is the hardest due to intolerance to low temperature and low water content.[52] However, plant vitrification solution can solve the problem and help recalcitrant seed (Nymphaea caerulea) cryopreserve.[53]

Preservation of microbiology cultures

[edit]

Bacteria and fungi can be kept short-term (months to about a year, depending) refrigerated, however, cell division and metabolism is not completely arrested and thus is not an optimal option for long-term storage (years) or to preserve cultures genetically or phenotypically, as cell divisions can lead to mutations or sub-culturing can cause phenotypic changes. A preferred option, species-dependent, is cryopreservation. Nematode worms are the only multicellular eukaryotes that have been shown to survive cryopreservation.[54][55]

Fungi

[edit]

Fungi, notably zygomycetes, ascomycetes, and higher basidiomycetes, regardless of sporulation, are able to be stored in liquid nitrogen or deep-frozen. Cryopreservation is a hallmark method for fungi that do not sporulate (otherwise other preservation methods for spores can be used at lower costs and ease), sporulate but have delicate spores (large or freeze-dry sensitive), are pathogenic (dangerous to keep metabolically active fungus) or are to be used for genetic stocks (ideally to have an identical composition as the original deposit). As with many other organisms, cryoprotectants like DMSO or glycerol (e.g. filamentous fungi 10% glycerol or yeast 20% glycerol) are used. Differences between choosing cryoprotectants are species (or class) dependent, but generally for fungi penetrating cryoprotectants like DMSO, glycerol or polyethylene glycol are most effective (other non-penetrating ones include sugars mannitol, sorbitol, dextran, etc.). Freeze-thaw repetition is not recommended as it can decrease viability. Back-up deep-freezers or liquid nitrogen storage sites are recommended. Multiple protocols for freezing are summarized below (each uses screw-cap polypropylene cryotubes):[56]

Bacteria

[edit]

Many common culturable laboratory strains are deep-frozen to preserve genetically and phenotypically stable, long-term stocks.[57] Sub-culturing and prolonged refrigerated samples may lead to loss of plasmid(s) or mutations. Common final glycerol percentages are 15, 20, and 25. From a fresh culture plate, one single colony of interest is chosen and liquid culture is made. From the liquid culture, the medium is directly mixed with an equal amount of glycerol; the colony should be checked for any defects like mutations. All antibiotics should be washed from the culture before long-term storage. Methods vary, but mixing can be done gently by inversion or rapidly by vortex and cooling can vary by either placing the cryotube directly at −50 to −95 °C, shock-freezing in liquid nitrogen or gradually cooling and then storing at −80 °C or cooler (liquid nitrogen or liquid nitrogen vapor). Recovery of bacteria can also vary, namely, if beads are stored within the tube then the few beads can be used to plate or the frozen stock can be scraped with a loop and then plated, however, since only little stock is needed the entire tube should never be completely thawed and repeated freeze-thaw should be avoided. 100% recovery is not feasible regardless of methodology.[58][59][60]

Freeze tolerance in animals

[edit]

Worms

[edit]

The microscopic soil-dwelling nematode roundworms Panagrolaimus detritophagus and Plectus parvus are the only eukaryotic organisms that have been proven to be viable after cryopreservation for many years (30,000 to 40,000 years). In this case, the preservation was natural rather than artificial, due to permafrost. They came alive when warmed up.

Vertebrates

[edit]

Several animal species, including fish, amphibians, and reptiles have been shown to tolerate freezing. At least four species of frogs (Pseudacris crucifer, Hyla versicolor, Pseudacris triseriata, Lithobates sylvaticus) and several species of turtles (Terrapene carolina, hatchling Chrysemys picta), lizards, and snakes are freeze tolerant and have developed adaptations for surviving freezing. While some frogs hibernate underground or in water, body temperatures still drop to −5 to −7 °C, causing them to freeze. The wood frog (Lithobates sylvaticus) can withstand repeated freezing, during which about 65% of its extracellular fluid is converted to ice.[57]

Anthropological perspective on cryopreservation

[edit]

Based on a speculative science, cryonics is controversial in scientific debate and can be better understood as an emergent death ritual along the social evolution of human culture and technology.[citation needed] Belief in an afterlife, or second life, where the phenomenological body endures a transition or resurrection is recurrent across ancient tradition, religion and science fiction. However, the increasingly socialised language of cryotechnology in health and wellness treatments, recontextualises waking of the un/dead into the biosocial sphere, framing mortality as something akin to illness which can be controlled or cured. Cryonics draws into question the boundaries of the sovereign self [61] and the individual body, challenging legal definitions of personhood.[62] These boundaries, however, are not universal and ideas which limit the self within the dichotomy of Cartesian dualism are defined through Western philosophy and law.

To understand the imprint of cryonics on the body politic,[63] it is useful to apply the Foucauldian definition of biopower. Ability to access and harness forms of cryotechnology (from cryostorage of food, blood or sperm) is historically bound to class, wealth and power. It is central to fertility, health and death and in this sense, cryonics is a mechanism in the 'cold chain' [61] power structure with potential to produce, preserve, and/or restrict life.

Power imbalance

[edit]

Cryopreservation requires substantial financial and medical resources in order for its potential success. Therefore, suggesting those able to access cryonics must descend from significant wealth or power. This modern form of biopower is integrated into society as a new method of dictating power over the individual or phenomenological body when determining life or death outcomes. Considering the cyclical nature of wealth and power in society already (systemically undercut by race, gender, class, and religion), it is likely that the use of cryonics in the future will have a self-perpetuating influence on these structures. Hence, there is further potential to amplify already existing power imbalances as implications from a legal, financial, and socio-cultural perspective will contribute to sustaining the cryonic practice, excluding most members of society in order to benefit an already dominant group. Ultimately, cryonics reinforces hegemonic inequalities already existing in society today in which few will benefit and calls into question the ethical ambiguity of individual bodily autonomy in the pursuit of self-preservation or survival.[64][65][66][67]

Issues relative to the body politic

[edit]

Cryopreservation has long been an issue of the individual body against the body politic. Those seeking to expand their lifespan in spite of death through preservation suffer from chronic, incurable, and/or degenerative conditions, having to overcome numerous legalities regarding body disposal, human tissue storage, the rights of minors, and in some cases medically assisted suicide.[68][69] In 1993, Thomas Donaldson, suffering from a brain tumour, requested a medically assisted death.[70] Due to the tumor, he was denied and his body was cryopreserved after the tumour had so devastated the surrounding brain tissue that Donaldson passed.[70] It was not until 25 years later in 2018 that the first person, Norman Hardy, was successfully cryopreserved after being allowed a medically aided death.[70][71] In 2016, a fourteen-year-old girl won the legal right to have her corpse cryogenically frozen, becoming a landmark case in the United Kingdom.[72] In that same year, it was confirmed by Cryonics UK that their youngest member was just 7 years old.[73]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Cryopreservation

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Cryopreservation is the preservation of biological materials—such as cells, tissues, organs, or entire organisms—by cooling them to sub-zero temperatures, typically -196°C in , to halt metabolic processes and maintain structural integrity for potential future revival or use, often requiring cryoprotective agents to prevent lethal formation. The technique originated with early experiments on preservation in the mid-20th century, evolving from slow-freezing methods that controlled to modern , which rapidly dehydrates samples to form a glass-like state devoid of damaging crystals. has markedly improved outcomes for human oocytes and embryos in assisted reproduction, enabling high post-thaw viability rates exceeding 90% in optimized protocols. Key applications span , where cryopreserved gametes and embryos facilitate fertility preservation and fertilization; banking for regenerative therapies; and biological research, including for seeds and microorganisms to safeguard and genetic resources. Despite these successes, cryopreservation faces fundamental limitations for complex tissues and organs due to uneven cryoprotectant penetration, osmotic stress, and residual ice formation, resulting in incomplete viability recovery and no reliable method yet for whole-organ transplantation. Extensions to human cryopreservation post-mortem, known as , remain experimentally unproven with zero demonstrated reversals, highlighting persistent biophysical barriers over speculative promise.

Fundamentals

Definition and Core Principles

Cryopreservation is the process of cooling biological materials, including cells, tissues, organs, or entire organisms, to cryogenic temperatures below -130°C, typically -196°C in , to preserve their structural integrity and potential viability by suspending metabolic activity and biochemical degradation. This technique relies on the thermodynamic principle that at such low temperatures, molecular motion and reaction rates approach negligible levels, effectively halting decay processes that occur at physiological conditions. The goal is to enable indefinite storage without loss of functionality upon thawing, though revival success varies by material type and method. Central to cryopreservation are the biological challenges posed by water's during cooling, where intracellular and extracellular formation causes mechanical damage through , osmotic stress from solute concentration, and denaturation of proteins and membranes due to eutectic salt precipitation. Cryoprotective agents (CPAs), such as or (DMSO), are essential additives that mitigate these effects by lowering the freezing point, inhibiting nucleation via , and stabilizing cellular components through direct molecular interactions like hydrogen bonding or promotion. Non-permeating CPAs, like sugars (e.g., ), extracellularly prevent dehydration shrinkage, while permeating ones penetrate cells to replace and reduce intracellular . Optimal CPA concentrations balance protection against toxicity, which arises from high molarity disrupting cellular . Core protocols diverge on freezing dynamics: slow freezing induces controlled extracellular ice formation to dehydrate cells osmotically, minimizing intracellular while requiring precise cooling rates (typically 1°C/min) to avoid hazards, whereas vitrification employs ultra-rapid cooling (>10^3°C/min) with high CPA concentrations to achieve a glass-like amorphous state, bypassing crystalline entirely by surpassing the critical cooling velocity for . Thermodynamically, exploits the temperature (Tg), where viscosity exceeds 10^12 Pa·s, kinetically trapping the solution in a non-crystalline solid; this demands uniform heat extraction to prevent upon warming. Biologically, hinges on - and cell-specific factors like permeability to and CPAs, with sensitive structures (e.g., oocytes) favoring for higher post-thaw viability rates, often exceeding 90% in optimized human embryo protocols. Unprotected freezing remains lethal due to these biophysical insults, underscoring cryopreservation's reliance on engineered interventions over natural cold adaptation.

Thermodynamic and Biological Mechanisms

Cryopreservation achieves long-term storage of biological materials by cooling them to cryogenic temperatures, typically -196°C using , where is minimized and metabolic rates approach zero, preserving structural integrity without ongoing biochemical activity. Thermodynamically, the process involves governed by Fourier's law, with cooling rates determining phase transitions: slow cooling promotes extracellular ice nucleation at around -5°C to -15°C due to limits, while rapid cooling exceeds the critical rate to induce , bypassing by forming a glass-like below the glass transition temperature (Tg), often -120°C to -140°C for aqueous solutions with cryoprotectants. In , the system's increases exponentially near Tg, trapping molecules in a non-equilibrium, kinetically arrested state that resists upon rewarming if rates are sufficiently high. Biologically, formation during slow freezing causes mechanical damage through intracellular (IIF) piercing cell membranes and organelles or extracellular inducing hyperosmotic stress via solute exclusion, leading to cellular and shrinkage as effluxes to form . This osmotic disequilibrium concentrates ions and proteins, denaturing macromolecules and disrupting via into gel and liquid crystalline domains. Cryoprotective agents (CPAs) like (DMSO) or mitigate these effects by lowering the freezing point, increasing solution viscosity to inhibit , and permeating cells to equalize osmotic gradients, though high concentrations (>2-5 M) can introduce chemical toxicity through generation or protein unfolding. During thawing, additional injury arises from recrystallization, where small ice crystals merge into larger ones due to thermodynamic favorability of minimizing , exacerbating mechanical rupture, particularly if warming is slow. In , biological preservation hinges on avoiding IIF entirely, as the absence of prevents osmotic and mechanical insults, but requires ultra-high cooling rates (>10^3–10^6 °C/min) to prevent heterogeneous , with success dependent on sample size and CPA penetration. Overall, cellular viability post-thaw reflects a balance between thermodynamic control of phase behavior and biological tolerance to stresses, with empirical data showing survival rates dropping below 50% for many cell types without optimized protocols due to cumulative membrane lipid peroxidation and apoptotic signaling triggered by freeze-thaw cycles.

History

Early Observations and Experiments (Pre-20th Century)

In the , natural philosophers began systematically investigating , the reversible suspension of metabolism in simple organisms through cooling or , laying foundational observations for later cryopreservation concepts. Researchers documented cases where microorganisms and small , such as rotifers and tardigrades, entered dormancy-like states under subzero conditions and revived upon thawing, attributing survival to minimized cellular activity rather than active preservation techniques. These studies, often conducted via early , highlighted ice formation's disruptive effects on cellular structures but noted sporadic viability in hardy exposed to natural winter freezes. By the late 19th century, initial experimental attempts focused on freezing spermatozoa and red blood cells at temperatures around −20°C, achieving partial post-thaw functionality without chemical protectants. These efforts demonstrated that certain isolated cells could endure formation and osmotic stress during slow cooling, though viability rates remained low due to intracellular ice damage and . Pioneering work in low-temperature storage of tissues originated around this period, driven by advances in and interest in blood banking precursors, yet lacked controlled variables like cooling rates, foreshadowing 20th-century breakthroughs. Such experiments underscored the thermodynamic challenges of phase transitions in aqueous biological systems, where water's expansion upon freezing caused mechanical rupture, limiting success to resilient cell types.

20th Century Developments

In the early , initial experiments focused on freezing simple biological materials, with limited success due to damage. By 1938, researchers achieved the first reported cryopreservation of spermatozoa using rapid cooling techniques, though revival rates were low. That same year, Jahnel demonstrated partial viability in frozen human sperm, marking an early step toward preserving reproductive cells. A pivotal breakthrough occurred in 1949 when Christopher Polge, Audrey U. Smith, and Alan S. Parkes accidentally discovered 's cryoprotective properties while attempting to freeze fowl ; the addition of 15% enabled over 50% revival post-thawing at -79°C, revolutionizing low-temperature storage by mitigating intracellular ice formation. This finding, published in , shifted cryopreservation from empirical trials to a scientifically grounded practice, enabling routine semen banking for in by the early 1950s; by 1953, cryopreserved bovine achieved fertilization rates comparable to fresh samples. The 1950s and 1960s saw expansion to other cell types, with (DMSO) introduced in 1959 by and M.W.H. Bishop as an alternative cryoprotectant for erythrocytes, protecting red blood cells during freezing by reducing solute concentration effects. The was established in 1964 to advance research into freezing injuries and protective agents, fostering systematic studies on thermodynamic mechanisms like and . cryopreservation became viable in the late 1950s, supporting early therapies for patients. Embryo cryopreservation advanced in the 1970s, with David Whittingham, , and Peter Mazur reporting the first successful freezing of eight-cell mouse embryos in 1972 using DMSO and controlled slow cooling to -196°C in , yielding live births upon transfer. Human applications followed: in 1983, Alan Trounson and Linda Mohr cryopreserved eight-cell embryos with , resulting in the first live birth from a thawed embryo in 1984. The 1980s introduced , a glass-like freezing method avoiding ice crystals; William F. Rall and Gregory M. Fahy vitrified embryos in 1985 using high-concentration cryoprotectants like VS1, achieving 65-80% survival rates superior to slow freezing. lagged due to chilling sensitivity but saw its first clinical success in 1986, when Chen reported a from a thawed frozen via slow cooling with DMSO. By the , protocols refined for complex tissues, though organ-scale cryopreservation remained elusive, limited by vascular damage and cryoprotectant ; kidneys were perfused with cryoprotectants and cooled to -140°C in 1995, but rewarming viability was not achieved.

Key Milestones Post-2000

In the early 2000s, protocols for human oocytes were refined, enabling higher survival rates and clinical pregnancies compared to slow freezing; by , multiple live births had been reported using these methods, marking a shift toward routine application in assisted reproduction. In 2009, researchers at 21st Century Medicine achieved the first successful of a kidney to −130 °C, followed by rewarming via magnetic heating and transplantation into a recipient that demonstrated functional production and indefinite survival without immediate rejection. This represented a critical advance in organ-scale cryopreservation, overcoming formation challenges through high-concentration cryoprotectants. In , aldehyde-stabilized cryopreservation (ASC) was introduced as a technique for preserving mammalian brain ultrastructure; applied to rabbit brains, it combined chemical fixation with , enabling electron verification of synaptic integrity after freezing to −135 °C and rewarming, and earning the Brain Preservation Prize for demonstrating connectome-level preservation. This method addressed fracturing and cryoprotectant issues in neural tissue cryopreservation. Supercooling emerged as a complementary strategy in the late 2010s; in , human donor livers were preserved at subzero temperatures (−4 °C to −6 °C) without freezing using cryoprotectants and machine perfusion, extending viable storage from 9 hours to 27 hours while maintaining metabolic function and production comparable to conventional hypothermic storage. In 2023, combined with nanowarming via nanoparticles enabled cryopreservation of whole kidneys to −150 °C; post-rewarming transplants restored renal function in recipients, sustaining life for up to 30 days with normal glomerular and minimal . These developments highlight progress toward scalable organ banking, though scalability to human-sized organs remains limited by cryoprotectant distribution and vascular rewarming uniformity.

Preservation Methods

Conventional Slow Freezing

Conventional slow freezing, also known as equilibrium freezing, is a cryopreservation technique that involves the controlled, gradual cooling of biological samples—typically at rates of 0.3–1°C per minute—in the presence of cryoprotective agents (CPAs) to facilitate primarily extracellular formation while minimizing lethal intracellular . This method relies on the principle that slow cooling allows time for water to exit cells osmotically as extracellular nucleates, concentrating solutes outside the cells and dehydrating the intracellular environment to prevent within the . CPAs such as (DMSO) at concentrations of 1–2 M, , or are added prior to cooling to lower the freezing point, reduce size, and stabilize biomolecules against denaturation, though their toxicity necessitates careful equilibration to avoid osmotic stress. The process begins with sample preparation: cells or tissues are suspended in a CPA solution, such as those containing DMSO or glycerol, and equilibrated at 4°C for 10–30 minutes to achieve uniform penetration. Cooling proceeds in a programmable freezer: the sample is chilled to approximately -5 to -7°C (above the freezing point to induce ), followed by manual or automatic seeding to initiate extracellular , often with a 5–10 minute hold at -7°C to enhance . Subsequent cooling at -1°C/min continues to -30 to -80°C, after which samples are plunged into at -196°C for storage, ensuring vitrification of residual unfrozen solution; alternatively, in standard laboratory protocols, samples pre-cooled to -80°C may be held for 1-24 hours in a -80°C freezer to gradually lower temperature and avoid ice crystal damage, then transferred using long tongs or specialized tools in sealed cryotubes directly into liquid nitrogen or vapor phase storage to prevent cross-contamination. Thawing samples frozen in liquid nitrogen requires performing quick operations while wearing full protective equipment to ensure safety and minimize contamination risks, typically in a 37°C water bath for rapid rewarming at rates of 45–70°C/min to limit recrystallization and avoid damage from slow thawing, followed by stepwise CPA removal via dilution to prevent osmotic shock. This protocol, optimized through studies on cooling rates by Peter Mazur in the –, balances against solution effects like elevated intracellular salts that can harm cells. Developed as the foundational cryopreservation approach, slow freezing gained prominence after Christopher Polge's 1949 discovery of glycerol's protective role for fowl , enabling post-thaw viability exceeding 50% where unprotected freezing yielded none. Subsequent refinements, including DMSO's introduction in 1959 by and others for red blood cells, established it as the standard for , embryos, and hematopoietic stem cells by the 1980s, with survival rates often 70–90% for robust cell types like spermatozoa. Advantages include compatibility with larger volumes via cost-effective controlled-rate freezers, lower CPA concentrations (reducing ), and applicability to suspension cultures or tissues where vitrification's high CPA demands pose risks. However, challenges persist: suboptimal rates can lead to intracellular ice (causing mechanical rupture) or excessive (elevating solute ), yielding lower recoveries—e.g., 60–75% for oocytes—compared to in sensitive applications. Ongoing advances focus on CPA alternatives like for enhanced stability and hybrid protocols for tissues, but slow freezing remains prevalent for microbial stocks, plant germplasm, and cell therapies requiring scalable, "on-demand" storage at -150°C to -196°C. Post-thaw assessments, including viability assays (e.g., exclusion) and functional tests, confirm efficacy, with meta-analyses indicating equivalence to for primordial follicles in ovarian tissue but inferiority for implantation rates (e.g., 25–35% vs. 40–50%).

Vitrification

Vitrification is a cryopreservation technique that transforms aqueous solutions containing biological materials into a stable, amorphous glass-like solid by ultra-rapid cooling, preventing the formation of damaging . This method relies on high concentrations of cryoprotective agents (CPAs), such as (DMSO), (EG), or , combined with rapid cooling rates exceeding 10,000°C per minute, often achieved by direct immersion in at -196°C. Unlike conventional freezing, vitrification avoids of into , minimizing intracellular , osmotic imbalances, and mechanical disruption from . The foundational principles were advanced in the 1980s by Gregory Fahy, who demonstrated that sufficiently high CPA concentrations and cooling velocities could induce in complex solutions without ice nucleation. The first practical success occurred in 1985 when William F. Rall and Fahy vitrified eight-cell embryos using a mixture of DMSO, , and , achieving post-thaw viability and live births upon transfer. Subsequent refinements in the 1990s and 2000s optimized CPA formulations, reducing equilibration times and introducing carriers like straws or open-pulled straws to enhance cooling efficiency for small volumes. Compared to slow freezing, vitrification offers superior post-thaw survival rates, particularly for sensitive cells like human oocytes and embryos, with meta-analyses reporting survival exceeding 90% versus 50-70% for slow methods due to eliminated ice-related damage. It also shortens procedural time, lowers equipment costs, and preserves follicular integrity better in ovarian tissue, as evidenced by reduced DNA strand breaks in primordial follicles. However, challenges persist, including CPA toxicity from high molarities (often 4-6 M), which can cause chemical damage to membranes and proteins during exposure, and risks of fracturing in larger samples due to thermal stresses or devitrification upon rewarming. Rewarming samples frozen in liquid nitrogen requires performing quick operations while wearing full protective equipment, typically in a 37°C water bath or controlled methods for rapid thawing to minimize devitrification risks and avoid damage from slow thawing. Strategies to mitigate toxicity include stepwise CPA loading, use of non-permeating sugars like trehalose for osmotic balance, and novel mixtures that lower concentrations while maintaining glass stability. Despite these hurdles, vitrification has become the standard for gamete and embryo banking since the early 2010s, with ongoing research targeting scalability for organs.

Novel and Experimental Techniques

One promising experimental approach involves nanowarming, which addresses uneven rewarming in vitrified large tissues by using (such as ) infused with cryoprotective agents; these particles enable rapid, uniform heating via alternating magnetic fields, minimizing thermal fractures and . In 2023, researchers demonstrated successful , 100-day cryogenic storage, and nanowarming of whole pig kidneys, followed by transplantation into pigs with 72-hour function recovery, outperforming conventional conductive rewarming. Similar techniques applied to rat hearts in 2021 showed preserved contractility post-perfusion with magnetic agents and nanowarming, suggesting potential for scaling to human organs despite challenges like nanoparticle toxicity and field uniformity. A 2024 study further validated physical feasibility of nanowarming human-scale organs (e.g., 0.5-1 L volumes for kidneys) without ice formation, though biological viability remains unproven at that scale. Aldehyde-stabilized cryopreservation (ASC) combines chemical fixation with to preserve neural for potential mapping or revival, targeting applications in banking where traditional freezing causes synaptic loss. Developed by 2015, ASC perfuses tissue with to stabilize proteins and , followed by high-concentration for vitrification at -135°C, enabling electron microscopy-quality preservation of brains, including glial morphology and nanoscale details. In 2018, the method earned the Brain Preservation Prize for demonstrating synaptic preservation in a postmortem , though critics note fixation renders tissue non-viable for biological revival, limiting it to informational preservation rather than functional recovery. Ongoing refinements focus on minimizing shrinkage and optimizing concentrations, but human-scale application awaits efficacy trials. Other experimental methods include to enable subzero non-freezing preservation of organs, extending static storage beyond conventional 4-8°C limits by inhibiting at temperatures like -4°C to -6°C using or proteins. A 2019 study supercooling human livers to -6°C preserved viability for up to 27 hours (tripling standard times) with immediate post-thaw function in machine perfusion models, reducing ischemic injury. For vascularized composites like limbs, 2024 isochoric supercooling (constant-volume systems) maintained tissue integrity for days at -2°C to -4°C without ice, outperforming hypothermic storage in ATP levels and . These techniques bridge toward full cryopreservation but face risks of heterogeneous supercooling and ice propagation upon rewarming, with clinical translation pending large-animal validation. Emerging efforts also explore ice-blocking agents and miniaturized constructs for 3D bioprinted tissues, where or nanoparticles prevent intracellular ice in scaffolds, achieving higher post-thaw viability in ovarian or models as of . Directional freezing variants, incorporating nanowarming, have shown promise in preventing cracking during organ-scale thawing, as in 2025 Texas A&M trials targeting subzero storage without phase change . These remain preclinical, with viability metrics (e.g., <50% cell survival in complex tissues) underscoring the need for integrative perfusion and agent optimization.

Biological Applications

Reproductive Cells and Tissues

Cryopreservation of human sperm, established since the 1950s, employs slow freezing with permeable cryoprotectants such as glycerol at concentrations of 5-10%, achieving post-thaw motility rates of 40-60% depending on initial semen quality and protocol. This technique supports fertility preservation for men facing gonadotoxic treatments, with intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) fertilization rates comparable to fresh sperm, often exceeding 70% in clinical settings. DNA integrity post-thaw remains high in fertile donors but declines more in infertile samples due to osmotic stress and ice crystal formation. Oocyte cryopreservation relies predominantly on vitrification, a rapid cooling method using high concentrations of cryoprotectants like and to form a glass-like state, yielding survival rates over 90% and warming survival exceeding 95% in optimized protocols. For elective preservation, cryopreserving at least 20 mature oocytes before age 38 correlates with a 70% live birth rate per patient via subsequent IVF. Clinical pregnancy rates per transfer reach 38.5% with vitrified oocytes, matching fresh counterparts, though outcomes diminish with advanced maternal age at freezing due to inherent oocyte aneuploidy risks. Embryo cryopreservation, integral to in vitro fertilization (IVF), utilizes vitrification for blastocysts, attaining thaw survival rates of 90-95% and implantation rates often surpassing fresh transfers by 5-10% due to optimized endometrial receptivity in frozen cycles. Long-term storage beyond 10 years maintains viability, with reported embryo survival at 74% after such durations and subsequent live births. Utilization rates for cryopreserved embryos in fertility preservation average 25.5% over 10-year follow-ups, yielding clinical pregnancies in line with age-matched fresh IVF benchmarks. Ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC), typically via slow freezing of cortical strips, preserves primordial follicles for transplantation in patients with cancer or premature ovarian insufficiency, restoring ovarian function in 70-95% of cases post-autotransplantation and enabling spontaneous pregnancies. As of 2024, OTC has resulted in over 200 live births globally, with live birth rates per patient around 27-30% in large cohorts, though lower than oocyte methods at 8.76% per cycle due to variable follicle yield and ischemia risks during grafting. Vitrification of tissue fragments shows promise for improved follicular survival over traditional slow freezing. Testicular tissue cryopreservation offers the sole fertility preservation avenue for prepubertal boys at risk of sterility from chemotherapy or radiation, involving enzymatic digestion or xenotransplantation to derive spermatogonial stem cells post-thaw. Over 3,000 boys have undergone this procedure worldwide by 2024, primarily via slow freezing, with animal models demonstrating spermatogenesis restoration, though human applications remain experimental without confirmed live births due to ethical and technical hurdles in maturation. Post-thaw tissue viability exceeds 80% in optimized protocols, preserving stem cell potential for future in vitro gametogenesis.

Microbial and Plant Materials

Cryopreservation of microorganisms, including bacteria, fungi, and yeast, employs controlled slow freezing with cryoprotective agents such as glycerol (typically 10-20%) or dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) to mitigate ice crystal formation and osmotic stress, followed by storage at -196°C in liquid nitrogen. This approach enables long-term viability, often exceeding several decades, supporting microbial biobanks for research, diagnostics, and biotechnology applications. For bacterial strains like Lactobacillus rhamnosus, post-thaw survival rates range from 70% to 90% under optimized freezing conditions, preserving metabolic and genetic stability. Fungal cultures across 61 genera demonstrate sustained viability and functionality post-cryopreservation, with protocols emphasizing reproducible quality control to ensure strain authenticity. In plant materials, cryopreservation facilitates the conservation of genetic resources, particularly for orthodox seeds via direct immersion after desiccation and for recalcitrant or intermediate seeds through vitrification of excised embryos, shoot tips, or cell suspensions using solutions like plant vitrification solution 2 (PVS2). This method prevents intracellular ice formation by achieving a glass-like state, allowing indefinite storage without loss of regenerative capacity, critical for biodiversity preservation in gene banks such as the USDA National Plant Germplasm System. Recovery rates vary by species and protocol; for instance, a study of 164 medicinal plant seeds reported viable regrowth post-cryopreservation under standardized conditions, while potato germplasm accessions achieved success ratios dependent on explant processing efficiency. Post-thaw regrowth optimization, including hormone-supplemented media and light regimes, enhances survival by addressing oxidative stress and metabolic recovery. Applications extend to elite cultivars and endangered species, enabling pathogen-free propagation and genetic stability for agronomic improvement.

Complex Tissues and Organs

Cryopreservation of complex tissues and organs, such as vascularized structures like kidneys or livers, faces significant barriers primarily due to ice crystal formation during freezing, which disrupts cellular integrity and extracellular matrices. Unlike single cells or simple tissues, larger volumes exhibit uneven heat and mass transfer, leading to thermal gradients that promote intracellular ice nucleation and mechanical fracturing. High concentrations of cryoprotective agents (CPAs), such as dimethyl sulfoxide or glycerol, are required for vitrification to form a glass-like state without crystals, but these agents induce toxicity through osmotic stress, chemical damage, and reactive oxygen species generation. Rewarming poses additional risks, as slow thawing allows devitrification and ice recrystallization, necessitating rapid, uniform heating methods like nanowarming via magnetic nanoparticles to mitigate these effects. Vitrification has shown promise for smaller organs in animal models. In 1990, rabbit kidneys were vitrified using a mixture of CPAs, transplanted after rewarming, and supported recipient survival for 48 days, demonstrating partial functional recovery despite histological damage. More recently, in 2023, rat kidneys were vitrified with a CPA cocktail, stored cryogenically for up to 100 days, and rewarmed using nanowarming; five transplanted recipients exhibited urine production and survival without immediate rejection, though long-term function was limited by vascular and tubular impairments. These advances highlight perfusion techniques to deliver CPAs uniformly through vasculature, reducing toxicity compared to immersion methods. Despite progress, no whole mammalian organ has achieved full post-thaw viability equivalent to fresh tissue, with challenges including CPA permeation inefficiencies in dense tissues and cracking from differential contraction during cooling. Complex tissues like corneas and cartilage have been cryopreserved successfully for clinical use via slow freezing with CPAs, preserving transparency and mechanical properties, but vascularized organs require integrated solutions for ischemia-reperfusion injury post-thaw. Ongoing research emphasizes bioengineered scaffolds and CPA alternatives to enable indefinite storage, potentially expanding organ banking, though clinical translation remains elusive as of 2025.

Natural Cryopreservation and Freeze Tolerance

Mechanisms in Microorganisms and Plants

Microorganisms exhibit freeze tolerance through intracellular strategies that prevent or manage ice formation. Many cold-adapted bacteria, fungi, and algae accumulate compatible solutes such as , which acts as a natural cryoprotectant by stabilizing proteins and membranes via vitrification—a glass-like state that inhibits damaging ice crystal growth during freezing. replaces water molecules in hydrogen bonding networks, maintaining cellular integrity under low-temperature dehydration, as observed in yeasts like Saccharomyces cerevisiae where elevated levels correlate with improved survival after freeze-thaw cycles. Additional mechanisms include modifications to membrane lipid composition to preserve fluidity at subzero temperatures and the production of cold shock proteins that facilitate repair of freeze-induced damage. Some microorganisms, including certain Antarctic yeasts, synthesize antifreeze proteins that bind to ice nuclei, inhibiting recrystallization and small crystal propagation, thereby limiting cellular injury. In fungi and algae, polyols like glycerol and mannitol complement trehalose by lowering the freezing point and buffering osmotic stress during extracellular ice formation in surrounding environments. Psychrophilic algae, such as , rapidly upregulate stress-responsive genes upon cold exposure, enhancing solute accumulation and enzymatic adjustments for metabolic continuity in ice matrices. These adaptations enable survival in permafrost and sea ice, where cycles of freezing and thawing occur, with viability maintained through minimized intracellular water availability and post-thaw DNA repair pathways. Plants achieve natural cryopreservation via extracellular freezing tolerance, where ice nucleates in apoplastic spaces rather than within cells, inducing controlled dehydration that concentrates intracellular protectants. This process, prominent in hardy perennials and winter cereals, relies on ice-active proteins or nucleators that initiate freezing at higher subzero temperatures (around -2 to -5°C) to avoid lethal intracellular ice. Dehydrins and late embryogenesis abundant proteins stabilize membranes and prevent protein denaturation during the resulting hypertonic stress, while sugars like raffinose family oligosaccharides contribute to vitrification in the cytoplasm. Cold acclimation, triggered by non-freezing low temperatures, activates the ICE-CBF-COR regulon, upregulating genes for osmoprotectants and antioxidants to enhance tolerance, allowing survival to -20°C or lower in acclimated tissues. In bryophytes like the moss Physcomitrella patens, freezing tolerance integrates desiccation resistance, with abscisic acid pretreatment preserving membrane phase behavior and enabling recovery after extracellular ice formation and slow drying. This moss model demonstrates poikilohydric adaptations, where gametophytes endure freezing by minimizing protoplasmic water content and employing repair mechanisms post-thaw, reflecting evolutionary links to drought tolerance in early land plants.

Animal Adaptations and Examples

Certain ectothermic vertebrates and invertebrates have evolved freeze tolerance, enabling survival through extracellular ice formation without intracellular freezing, which would otherwise cause lethal cellular damage. This adaptation involves controlled nucleation of ice in extracellular spaces, accumulation of high concentrations of low-molecular-weight cryoprotectants such as or to colligatively depress the freezing point and stabilize membranes, and metabolic suppression to endure ischemia and anoxia during the frozen state. Ice-nucleating proteins or agents initiate freezing at relatively high subzero temperatures (around -2 to -5°C) to form small, non-damaging crystals, while antioxidants and heat shock proteins mitigate oxidative stress upon thawing. These mechanisms prevent excessive dehydration of cells and limit ice propagation into intracellular compartments. Among vertebrates, the wood frog (Rana sylvatica) exemplifies freeze tolerance, enduring whole-body freezing where up to 65-70% of body water forms extracellular ice, halting cardiac and respiratory functions for weeks at temperatures as low as -16°C. Upon cooling, frogs rapidly mobilize liver glycogen to produce glucose, elevating plasma levels to 200-300 mM, which dehydrates cells osmotically and vitrifies residual intracellular water to prevent ice formation. Thawing restores organ function within hours, supported by gene regulation changes including histone modifications for metabolic arrest. Similar strategies occur in other North American anurans like the gray tree frog (Hyla versicolor) and spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), which tolerate 50-65% body water frozen using glucose or glycerol. In reptiles, the painted turtle (Chrysemys picta) demonstrates partial freeze tolerance in northern populations, surviving brief extracellular freezing episodes during hibernation at -2 to -3°C by accumulating glucose and glycerol, alongside enhanced antioxidant defenses to counter reperfusion injury upon thawing. Freeze-tolerant insects, such as the goldenrod gall fly (Eurosta solidaginis), freeze over 60% of body water into hemolymph ice at -40°C or lower, relying on glycerol (up to 7 M) and trehalose as polyols to stabilize proteins and membranes, with sorbitol aiding in some species. These insects initiate freezing via exogenous ice nucleators or endogenous agents, maintaining cellular viability through dehydration and cryoprotectant-induced vitrification of cytoplasm. Other arthropods, including certain beetle larvae and moths, employ analogous polyol mixtures, enduring supercooling failures without intracellular ice damage. Such adaptations highlight convergent evolution of biochemical safeguards against freeze-induced denaturation and osmotic stress across taxa.

Risks and Challenges

Physical and Chemical Damage Mechanisms

During cryopreservation, physical damage primarily arises from ice crystal formation and growth, which mechanically disrupt cellular structures. Extracellular ice crystals form first during slow cooling, creating hypertonic conditions that draw water out of cells via osmosis, leading to cellular dehydration and shrinkage; failure to fully dehydrate can result in lethal intracellular ice formation (IIF), where crystals pierce organelle membranes and cause lysis. Intracellular ice crystals larger than a critical size—typically exceeding 10-20% of cell volume—exacerbate damage by expanding and fracturing cytoskeletal elements. During thawing, ice recrystallization merges smaller crystals into larger ones, amplifying mechanical injury through shear forces and osmotic swelling as water re-enters dehydrated cells. Chemical damage mechanisms complement these physical insults, often stemming from cryoprotective agents (CPAs) and solution effects. CPAs like dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) and ethylene glycol prevent ice formation but induce toxicity through direct membrane perturbation and metabolic disruption; for instance, DMSO exhibits dose-dependent cytotoxicity, with concentrations above 10% reducing cell viability by altering protein conformation and generating reactive oxygen species (ROS). Osmotic stress occurs during CPA loading and unloading, as well as freezing-induced solute concentration, causing transient volume changes that strain membranes—cells may shrink by up to 50% before rebounding, risking rupture. Additionally, freezing concentrates ions and buffers, shifting pH (e.g., a drop of 1-2 units in phosphate buffers due to selective crystallization), which denatures proteins like enzymes via altered ionization states. These effects synergize, with elevated solutes promoting ROS via Fenton reactions, further oxidizing lipids and DNA.

Biological Viability Post-Thaw

Post-thaw biological viability refers to the capacity of cryopreserved cells, tissues, or organisms to resume normal function, including metabolism, proliferation, and structural integrity, following rewarming. Immediate assessments, such as membrane integrity via trypan blue exclusion, often overestimate viability because they fail to capture delayed-onset injuries like apoptosis or oxidative stress that manifest hours to days later. In many protocols, post-thaw culturing for 24 hours or more is necessary to measure true recovery, revealing declines from apparent 60-80% immediate survival to as low as 20% total cell recovery in some cases. Cryoinjuries compromising viability include intracellular ice formation, which disrupts organelles during freezing, and osmotic imbalances during thawing that cause membrane rupture or swelling. These lead to elevated reactive oxygen species and activation of apoptotic pathways post-thaw, resulting in programmed cell death even in initially intact cells. For instance, human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells exhibit reduced metabolic activity, adhesion, and increased apoptosis after cryopreservation, with viability dropping below 70% in optimized conditions. Cooling and thawing rates critically influence outcomes; slower cooling preserves higher viability (up to 80% in fibroblasts) by minimizing ice crystal size, but rapid thawing can exacerbate solute concentration damage. Viability success rates vary markedly by biological complexity. Gametes and simple cells achieve relatively high post-thaw functionality: human oocytes show 74% survival and 67% fertilization rates, supporting viable pregnancies. Embryos with all blastomeres intact post-thaw yield clinical pregnancy rates of 37.7%. However, for multicellular structures like neurospheres or natural killer cells, survival plummets to 27-60%, with functional impairments such as reduced cytotoxicity persisting despite cryoprotectants like DMSO. Tissues and organs face compounded challenges, including vascular occlusion and ischemia-reperfusion injury, often rendering post-thaw viability negligible without advanced vitrification, which still fails to prevent widespread cell death in large volumes. Storage duration further erodes viability, with embryo survival rates declining significantly beyond short-term holds. Efforts to enhance post-thaw recovery target these mechanisms, such as ROCK inhibitors to mitigate apoptosis in T cells or antioxidants to curb oxidative damage, yielding modest improvements in yield and function. Yet, no universal protocol eliminates cryoinjury, and viability remains protocol-dependent, underscoring cryopreservation's limitations for preserving complex biological systems intact.

Long-Term Storage Stability

Cryopreserved biological materials are typically stored in liquid nitrogen vapor phase at approximately -196°C to achieve metabolic arrest and prevent biochemical degradation, theoretically enabling indefinite stability by minimizing molecular diffusion and reaction rates. Empirical data from hematopoietic progenitor cell (HPC) products demonstrate post-thaw viability stability for up to 14.6 years when stored below -150°C, though viability correlates negatively with pre-freeze granulocyte content, indicating that cellular composition influences long-term outcomes. Similarly, cord blood units have shown recovery rates exceeding 80% after 29 years of storage for unseparated samples, with expiration times validated up to 25 years for manually volume-reduced units. Despite these successes, prolonged cryopreservation can induce genomic instability, including karyotype alterations and DNA damage accumulation across diverse cell types such as stem cells and fibroblasts, potentially compromising functional integrity upon thawing. Studies on peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) report stable recovery and T-cell subtype viability after extended storage, yet subtle declines in proliferative capacity and genetic fidelity emerge beyond 2–3 years, particularly at -80°C rather than -196°C. Storage at suboptimal temperatures accelerates these risks, as even cryogenic conditions do not eliminate low-level chemical reactions or cosmic radiation-induced mutations over decades to centuries. Operational challenges further threaten stability, including vapor phase temperature fluctuations in liquid nitrogen tanks, which can exceed -150°C during refill cycles or equipment failures, leading to partial thawing and ice recrystallization damage. Peer-reviewed assessments emphasize that while short- to medium-term (up to 20–30 years) viability is reliably maintained for applications like stem cell banking, extrapolations to indefinite storage lack direct empirical validation, with potential for cumulative proteotoxic aggregates or epigenetic drifts unobserved in current datasets limited to human lifespans. Rigorous monitoring protocols, such as periodic viability assays and redundant dewars, mitigate but do not eliminate these vulnerabilities in clinical and research repositories.

Human Cryonics

Procedures and Organizational Practices

The primary organizations providing human cryonics services are the , founded in 1972 and based in Scottsdale, Arizona, and the , established in 1976 and located in Clinton Township, Michigan. Both operate as non-profit entities, requiring prospective members to sign cryopreservation contracts designating the organization as the recipient of an anatomical gift under the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, along with funding mechanisms such as life insurance policies payable upon death to cover procedure costs—typically $200,000 for whole-body preservation at Alcor or $28,000 at CI, excluding membership dues of around $500–$1,200 annually. These contracts specify procedures only after legal death certification, with provisions for next-of-kin consent and release forms to facilitate rapid intervention. Procedures commence with pre-arranged standby by trained teams, often including physicians or emergency personnel, positioned near the member's location to respond within minutes of death pronouncement. Stabilization involves immediate cardiopulmonary support via mechanical chest compression devices and ventilation to restore circulation, alongside ice packing and cold saline infusion for core cooling to 10–15°C, minimizing cerebral ischemia from halted blood flow. The body is then transported under field stabilization to the organization's facility, where surgical access to major vessels—typically the aorta or carotid arteries—is established for perfusion. Perfusion replaces blood with organ preservation solutions (e.g., heparinized saline or tissue culture media) to flush out clots and metabolites, followed by cryoprotectant agents like M22 at Alcor or CI-VM-1 at CI, delivered under controlled pressure and temperature to penetrate tissues and induce vitrification—a glass-like solidification without ice crystals—targeting the brain first. For Alcor's neuropreservation option ($80,000), the head is surgically separated post-perfusion, with the body discarded unless separately funded; CI focuses on whole-body preservation. Cooling proceeds gradually—via nitrogen gas circulation at Alcor to -125°C then immersion, or over five days in CI's computer-controlled unit to -196°C—to prevent fracturing from thermal stress. Patients are stored indefinitely in vacuum-insulated dewars filled with liquid nitrogen at -196°C, with Alcor maintaining 248 patients and CI over 250 as of mid-2025, comprising brains or whole bodies in patient-specific capsules. Organizational maintenance includes weekly nitrogen top-offs, remote monitoring of dewars, and endowments for perpetual care, audited periodically to ensure financial stability against inflation or facility risks. Teams undergo regular training in medical protocols, logistics, and cryoprotectant chemistry, with Alcor's Deployment and Recovery Teams (DART) emphasizing tactical rapid response.

Evidence on Preservation Quality

In human cryonics, preservation quality is assessed primarily through organizational protocols involving vitrification with cryoprotectant agents (CPAs) such as M22, which aim to form a glass-like state without ice crystal formation in perfused tissues. Alcor Life Extension Foundation reports that in cases with minimal post-mortem delay—often under 10 minutes via standby teams—cryoprotectant perfusion achieves high distribution in brain tissue, with electron microscopy of animal models and select human samples showing intact synaptic structures and absence of ice in vitrified regions. However, independent peer-reviewed validation of whole-brain preservation remains absent, with assessments relying on proprietary evaluations rather than standardized histological or connectomic analyses. Empirical data from proxy studies indicate partial ultrastructural preservation is feasible but limited to small scales. For instance, vitrification of human autopsy brain tissue up to 180 μm thick using glycerol and trehalose preserved subcellular features like myelin sheaths and vesicles without crystalline ice or fractures, as revealed by cryo-electron tomography. In adult mouse hippocampal slices, a 2025 study demonstrated post-thaw recovery of neuronal excitability, synaptic plasticity, and long-term potentiation at levels approaching controls (138% vs. 161% potentiation), suggesting metabolic and functional arrest without total loss. Rat hippocampal slices similarly retained over 90% ion balance viability after vitrification and rewarming. These findings support preservation of fine neural architecture in isolated tissues but do not extend to whole human brains, where diffusion limitations prevent uniform CPA penetration. Significant limitations undermine overall quality in practice. CPA toxicity from high concentrations (e.g., 40-60% mixtures) induces cellular stress, osmotic imbalance, and protein denaturation, even if mitigated by cooling or combinations like DMSO and formamide. Thermal fracturing occurs during immersion in liquid nitrogen (-196°C), with cracks propagating through non-vitrified or unevenly cooled regions; storage at -130°C has been proposed to reduce this, though not universally adopted. Pre-cryopreservation ischemia from clinical death—typically 5-60 minutes in non-standby cases—causes widespread neuronal swelling and synaptic degradation before vitrification can commence, as evidenced by animal models tolerating only up to 120 minutes of hypothermic arrest without deficits. Critics note that while gross morphology may endure, molecular-level fidelity (e.g., proteome integrity) and full connectomic mapping have not been verified in human cryonics patients, contrasting with superior structural outcomes in aldehyde-stabilized fixation methods.
FactorEvidence of PreservationKey Limitations
Ice FormationAvoided in perfused areas via vitrification (e.g., M22 CPA).Unperfused regions (e.g., due to clots or delays) form ice, causing mechanical rupture.
UltrastructureIntact synapses and organelles in small human/mouse samples.Toxicity and uneven distribution degrade deeper tissues; no whole-brain data.
FunctionalityPartial recovery in slices (e.g., LTP preserved).No mammalian whole-brain revival; ischemia pre-vitrification dominant.
Long-Term StabilityMetabolic halt at cryogenic temps (reaction rates reduced ~10^9-fold).Fractures and potential devitrification over decades untested in humans.

Prospects for Revival

Proponents of cryonics argue that revival prospects hinge on future technological advances capable of repairing cryopreservation-induced damage at the molecular level, such as molecular nanotechnology for reconstructing neural connectomes and cellular structures. This approach posits that sufficient structural information is preserved in vitrified tissues to enable restoration of biological function, drawing indirect support from successful cryopreservation and revival of smaller biological entities like embryos and nematodes. However, no human or large mammal has been revived from cryopreservation, and empirical evidence for whole-body restoration remains absent as of 2025. Key barriers include fracturing from thermal stress, cryoprotectant toxicity, and ischemic damage prior to cooling, which collectively degrade tissue integrity beyond current repair capabilities. Optimistic scenarios envision phased revival processes: molecular scanning for damage assessment, nanoscale repair of fractures and protein denaturation, and gradual rewarming with advanced perfusion techniques. Some cryobiologists speculate that breakthroughs in nanotechnology could enable initial revivals by 2040, contingent on parallel advances in regenerative medicine. Yet, these remain hypothetical, with expert opinions divided; many neuroscientists contend that synaptic and ultrastructural disruptions render identity-preserving revival implausible without unprecedented information recovery. Critics highlight the absence of peer-reviewed validation for human-scale revival, viewing cryonics as speculative rather than scientifically grounded due to thermodynamic and informational losses during vitrification. Long-term storage risks, including potential organizational failure or degradation over centuries, further diminish odds, as historical precedents show most cryopreservation entities do not persist indefinitely. While structural brain preservation techniques show promise for retaining connectomic data—potentially enabling future emulation or reconstruction—their success for functional revival depends on unproven assumptions about consciousness and repair fidelity. Overall, prospects are tied to speculative futures in nanomedicine, with no empirical trajectory guaranteeing success.

Scientific Debates and Feasibility

Empirical Evidence for Cellular Revival

Cryopreservation techniques, particularly , have demonstrated empirical success in reviving various mammalian cell types post-thaw, with viability rates often exceeding 70% for optimized protocols. Human spermatozoa routinely achieve post-thaw survival rates of 57-67%, with an overall average of 62% across multiple studies, enabling maintained fertilization capability even after long-term storage up to 21 years. of human oocytes yields survival rates of 70-94%, comparable to or exceeding slow-freezing outcomes of around 65%, and supports clinical pregnancy rates equivalent to fresh oocytes. Human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) exhibit post-thaw viability above 80% via , preserving morphology, proliferation, and differentiation potential, in contrast to slow cooling's 5% recovery. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) from bone marrow show viability reductions post-thaw, typically dropping to 70-94% depending on cryoprotectants like DMSO, yet retain metabolic activity, adhesion, and immunosuppressive functions sufficient for therapeutic applications in . Hepatocytes achieve over 60% viability with trehalose-DMSO combinations, maintaining drug-metabolizing enzyme activity and attachment capability post-thaw. Pancreatic islets survive at high rates (up to 80-90%) using 1-2 M DMSO and rapid freezing, with preserved insulin secretion in vitro, supporting potential for transplantation. For neural cells, evidence remains preliminary; vitrified adult mouse hippocampal slices recover near-physiological excitability and synaptic function after thawing from -196°C, as shown by whole-cell recordings preserving pyramidal cell responses. However, broader neural tissue cryopreservation often incurs higher damage due to cryoprotectant toxicity and ice formation risks, limiting routine revival compared to isolated gametes or stem cells. These outcomes underscore that cellular revival is feasible when minimizing ice crystal formation via vitrification or cryoprotectants, though post-thaw apoptosis and functional impairments can occur, particularly in adherent or differentiated cells, necessitating protocol optimizations for scalability. Long-term storage stability, as in 21-year sperm viability, further validates cryopreservation's role in biobanking, though empirical data emphasize cell-type-specific sensitivities over universal applicability.

Barriers to Whole-Organism Revival

The primary barriers to reviving cryopreserved whole organisms, particularly mammals, stem from irreversible cryodamage at cellular, tissue, and systemic levels, compounded by the absence of empirical successes beyond simple cells or embryos. Ice crystal formation during freezing or rewarming disrupts cellular membranes and organelles via mechanical shearing and osmotic imbalances, with intracellular ice being especially lethal as it punctures lysosomes and nuclei. Even vitrification, which aims to form a glass-like state without ice, risks devitrification upon rewarming if heating is insufficiently uniform and rapid, leading to localized recrystallization and further structural compromise. Cryoprotective agents (CPAs) essential for vitrification introduce their own toxicities, requiring concentrations of 40-60% (e.g., mixtures of dimethyl sulfoxide and ethylene glycol) that induce osmotic stress, protein denaturation, and membrane phase transitions, often exceeding cellular tolerance thresholds. Perfusion challenges exacerbate this in whole organisms, as uneven CPA distribution—due to vascular blockages, tissue permeability variations, and ischemia-induced edema—results in regions of inadequate protection or overdose, particularly in dense structures like the brain where penetration is limited by the blood-brain barrier. Thermal fracturing from differential contraction during cooling affects large volumes (>2-3 cm), generating cracks that sever intercellular junctions and vasculature, a problem unmitigated in current protocols for mammalian-scale bodies. Revival faces insurmountable hurdles from pre-cryopreservation ischemia in clinical scenarios, where minutes of oxygen deprivation cause widespread neuronal and synaptic degradation before cooling can commence, rendering structural preservation moot for functional recovery. Post-thaw, even preserved tissues exhibit reduced viability; for instance, while isolated kidneys have been vitrified, stored for 100 days, and transplanted with using nanowarming, whole-organism integration fails due to systemic incompatibilities like immune rejection, vascular reconnection, and multi-organ interdependence. No protocol has revived a cryopreserved , as repairing nanoscale damage—encompassing ion imbalances, , and disruptions—demands technologies beyond current capabilities, with brain tissue particularly vulnerable since structural integrity alone does not preserve electrochemical gradients or proteomic states necessary for . Long-term storage introduces cumulative risks like cosmic radiation-induced strand breaks and molecular reconfiguration, though these pale against initial cryopreservation injuries.

Critiques of Pseudoscientific Claims

Critics contend that certain claims advanced by cryonics organizations, such as the prospect of personal revival through future , constitute due to their reliance on unverified assumptions and absence of empirical validation, rather than testable hypotheses grounded in . has likened cryonics to a "scientistic ," arguing that it promises indefinite postponement of based on in speculative technologies like molecular repair, without delivering demonstrable results akin to religious . Similarly, analyses from evidence-based perspectives highlight that cryonics evades by deferring proof to undefined future capabilities, diverging from scientific methodology which demands reproducible evidence under present conditions. A core pseudoscientific element lies in overstating preservation quality despite known biophysical insults. Freezing induces formation that ruptures cellular membranes and disrupts neural architectures, as expansion during shreds delicate structures like synaptic connections essential for and identity; even with cryoprotectants fails to eliminate fracturing or , which degrade tissue integrity beyond repair. Pre-freeze ischemia from causes widespread neuronal within minutes, rendering the brain's irretrievably altered before cryopreservation begins, a process undocumented to be reversible in mammalian models. No peer-reviewed studies demonstrate viable revival of cryopreserved vertebrate brains, with successes limited to unicellular organisms or embryonic stages lacking the organismal complexity of humans. Revival assertions further veer into by positing nanoscale interventions to reconstruct damaged tissues, a conjecture unsupported by or , as proposed repair mechanisms would require inputs and precision exceeding known physical limits without introducing further errors. Shermer estimates success odds as "slightly higher than zero," emphasizing that cellular mush from freeze-thaw cycles defies reconstruction without antecedent proof-of-concept in simpler systems. These claims persist despite consensus among cryobiologists that whole-body or neuropreservation inflicts cumulative, non-reversible increases, prioritizing hopeful narratives over causal analysis of degradation pathways.

Individual Rights and Contractual Issues

Individuals generally possess a statutory right to direct the disposition of their remains after , which cryonics organizations interpret as encompassing cryopreservation, subject to compliance with state anatomical gift laws or uniform acts like the Revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act adopted in most jurisdictions. This right overrides next-of-kin preferences in several states, such as , where courts have affirmed cryopreservation as a valid exercise of personal autonomy when specified in advance directives or contracts, provided no violation of laws occurs. However, conflicts arise when family members object, invoking traditional rights of sepulcher or disputing the decedent's intent, as seen in cases where heirs challenged cryopreservation on grounds of or incapacity, though such challenges have rarely succeeded when clear documentation exists. Cryopreservation contracts, such as those offered by , function as pre-death directives binding executors or trustees to arrange suspension procedures immediately following declaration, often funded through life insurance policies or irrevocable trusts to circumvent limitations. These agreements specify law governance for Alcor members and outline cryopreservation protocols, but their posthumous enforceability hinges on state recognition of body disposition contracts as quasi-property interests rather than mere gratuitous promises, with potential invalidation if deemed against or if mandates interfere. Disputes have led to settlements, as in Alcor's 2010 amicable resolution with the Robbins family over a member's suspension, highlighting risks of litigation from alleging breach or misrepresentation in funding arrangements. Internationally, individual vary; in the , a 2016 ruling upheld a 14-year-old cancer patient's expressed wish for cryopreservation, authorizing suspension despite her mother's opposition and financial concerns, treating it as an enforceable posthumous interest under family division . In contrast, jurisdictions like prohibit cryonics as an unauthorized disposal method, limiting options to , , or scientific donation, which underscores how statutory restrictions on bodily remains can nullify contractual intents. Legal terminates at for cryopreserved individuals, precluding ongoing rights claims and framing preservation as a one-time disposition act rather than perpetual custody.

Resource Allocation and Economic Critiques

Human cryopreservation requires substantial upfront and ongoing financial outlays, with charging $200,000 for whole-body preservation and $80,000 for neuropreservation as of October 2022. The provides lower entry costs of $28,000 for whole-body cases, plus annual membership dues of $120 and potential additional fees up to $3,000 for local funeral and transport services. These payments, often secured via , cover initial procedures, but perpetual storage demands refills and facility maintenance, with costing $60,000 to $80,000 each and requiring weekly top-ups. Economic critiques emphasize the opportunity costs of diverting personal or familial resources to a procedure with uncertain revival outcomes, arguing that such investments yield negligible expected returns relative to immediate humanitarian applications. In resource-scarce healthcare systems, proponents of alternative allocations contend that cryopreservation exacerbates inequities by prioritizing speculative future benefits for a select affluent minority over verifiable treatments for current populations suffering unmet needs. This perspective holds that the funds—equivalent in scale to luxury expenditures—could instead support high-impact interventions, such as with demonstrated lives-saved metrics, given ' reliance on unproven technological leaps. Sustainability concerns further underscore critiques, as historical funding models have faltered against and operational escalations unforeseen since the projections. Providers face risks of over extended timelines, potentially stranding preserved remains before any revival era, while internal resource pooling for introduces allocation conflicts among members based on varying endowment contributions. Although self-funded and contractual, these dynamics amplify doubts about economic viability, with some analyses likening the practice to high-stakes gambles improbable to outlast organizational or economic disruptions.

Regulatory Hurdles and Scientific Stigma

Cryopreservation of human remains, commonly termed , encounters regulatory hurdles stemming from its operation in the interstices of existing laws on , bodily disposition, and medical practice. , no federal or state statutes explicitly prohibit or regulate cryonics, enabling providers like the and to function via anatomical gift statutes or service exemptions after certification. However, enforceability remains uncertain, as many states do not uphold cryopreservation directives, exposing arrangements to override by next-of-kin or courts, as evidenced by historical cases where family objections disrupted procedures. This variability necessitates standby teams for immediate post-mortem intervention—cooling, with cryoprotectants, and —to minimize ischemic damage, yet any pre-death initiation risks prosecution for assault or unauthorized tissue manipulation. Internationally, regulatory landscapes differ markedly: in and parts of , cryonics aligns with postmortem tissue handling laws but faces analogous constraints on timing and , with no granting it status due to unproven revival prospects. Broader legal tensions include property in cryopreserved bodies, which courts have not uniformly classified as inheritable assets versus abandoned remains, complicating funding through , trusts, or endowments that may be contested as against favoring or . Potential negligence liabilities arise if future revival attempts fail, though providers mitigate this via disclaimers emphasizing experimental status; nonetheless, absent codified frameworks, scaling cryonics beyond niche adoption invites litigation over in estates or precedents. Scientific stigma compounds these barriers, positioning as a fringe pursuit despite its foundation in reversible cryopreservation successes for cells and small tissues. Mainstream biologists and cryobiologists frequently dismiss it as pseudoscientific, citing thermodynamic irreversibility of whole-organism freezing— rupture of membranes, cryoprotectant-induced toxicity, and indefinite halting of metabolic repair—as rendering revival infeasible with current or near-term technology. This view, articulated in critiques from institutions like MIT, underscores empirical gaps: no mammalian brain has been cryopreserved and thawed with preserved integrity sufficient for behavioral restoration, let alone . The field's association with speculative exacerbates exclusion, with researchers reporting career —grant denials, publication barriers, and societal —for engaging cryonics-adjacent work, as noted by cryobiologist Ramon Risco in 2016 discussions. Such stigma persists amid institutional biases in academia, where materialist paradigms prioritize validated interventions over high-uncertainty gambles on or molecular repair, though proponents argue dismissal overlooks first-mover advantages in protocols demonstrated in rabbit kidneys (thawed functional in 2005) and nematode revival post-cryopreservation. Funding scarcity follows, with reliant on private endowments rather than NIH or equivalent grants, perpetuating a cycle of limited peer-reviewed advancement; surveys indicate <1% of scientists endorse human viability, reflecting consensus on its evidential deficits despite theoretical plausibility under advanced future capabilities. This marginalization hinders interdisciplinary progress, as ethical review boards often deem it non-viable for clinical trials, stalling empirical validation.

Recent Developments

Advances in Cryoprotectants and Rewarming (2023-2025)

In 2023, a significant advancement in rewarming techniques involved the use of infused into cryoprotectant solutions for vitrifying whole pig kidneys, enabling uniform nanowarming via alternating that achieved rapid, volumetric heating without thermal gradients or fracturing. This method supported cryopreservation for 1 to 100 days, followed by on-demand rewarming that preserved renal architecture, vascular patency, and post-transplant function in a porcine model, with kidneys exhibiting glomerular rates comparable to fresh controls after 100 days of storage. Building on this, subsequent reviews in 2023 highlighted the shift from traditional conductive rewarming—prone to uneven heating in larger volumes—to advanced photonic, inductive, and radiofrequency methods, which enhance and reduce risks in cryopreserved tissues. By 2024, efforts to mitigate cryoprotectant progressed with two validated strategies: stepwise reduction via osmotic equilibration and ultrafast protocols that achieved 90% cryoprotectant penetration into embryos within one minute, minimizing exposure time and cellular stress while maintaining viability comparable to non-toxic benchmarks. Complementary integrations improved cryoprotectant delivery, allowing targeted in complex tissues and reducing reliance on high-concentration permeating agents like (DMSO), which often induce osmotic injury. These approaches were particularly tested in cellular and embryonic models, demonstrating enhanced post-thaw recovery rates without compromising membrane integrity. In 2025, nanowarming techniques advanced further for large-scale tissues, incorporating nature-inspired designs like biomimetic scaffolds to facilitate even heat distribution during rewarming, addressing historical bottlenecks in organ-scale uniformity and ice recrystallization. Concurrently, of cryoprotectant mixtures optimized solutions for complex structures, identifying synergistic blends—such as DMSO with and —that lowered concentrations needed to prevent ice formation while boosting survival in vitrified oocytes and biofabricated constructs. A novel glass-like state was reported to inhibit cracking in sizable organs during cooling and rewarming cycles, leveraging controlled amorphous solidification to enhance mechanical stability under cryogenic stresses. These developments, while promising for scalability, remain constrained by the need for empirical validation in human-relevant models beyond small-scale proofs.

Progress in Organ and Tissue Preservation

In 2023, researchers demonstrated successful cryopreservation of kidneys using combined with magnetic nanoparticle-based nanowarming, enabling storage for up to 100 days followed by transplantation into recipient s with restored renal function, as evidenced by urine production and glomerular filtration rates comparable to non-frozen controls. This approach mitigated formation through high-concentration cryoprotectants and uniform rewarming to reduce fracturing. Similar techniques were applied to other organs, including hearts and livers, with post-thaw viability confirmed via functional assays, though full transplantation success was limited to kidneys in that study. Building on these models, a 2025 breakthrough involved cryopreserving a —closer in size and complexity to human organs—for 10 days at cryogenic temperatures, followed by rewarming and successful transplantation into a recipient , where the organ supported circulation and without immediate rejection. This achievement, led by teams at and the , utilized advanced cryoprotectant formulations and controlled rewarming to preserve vascular integrity, marking the first reported functional transplant of a large mammal organ after extended cryogenic storage. For tissues, cryopreservation has advanced more routinely, particularly in , where ovarian tissue strips are vitrified and stored in liquid , with over 200 live births reported worldwide from thawed autografts as of , demonstrating follicle viability and hormonal restoration post-transplantation. In transplant contexts, cryopreserved corneas and skin grafts have achieved high success rates exceeding 90% viability upon thawing, enabling on-demand banking, though challenges persist for vascularized tissues like blood vessels due to endothelial damage from cryoprotectant . Recent innovations, such as A&M's glass-like state induction via additives, have reduced cracking in tissue sections during freezing, potentially extending applicability to composite tissues like tracheas or heart valves. These developments highlight incremental feasibility for intermediate-term storage, but human-scale organs remain unproven, with ongoing barriers including cryoprotectant uniformity and long-term ischemia-reperfusion upon revival. Peer-reviewed evaluations emphasize that while animal models show promise, clinical translation requires further optimization of rewarming gradients to avoid gradients exceeding 50°C/min. The global cell cryopreservation market, essential for therapies, biobanking, and , was valued at USD 3.38 billion in 2024 and is projected to reach USD 8.86 billion by 2033, reflecting a (CAGR) of 11.3%, driven by rising demand for and procedures. Similarly, cryopreservation systems, including equipment for freezing biological materials, are forecasted to expand to USD 7.1 billion by 2035 at a 6.2% CAGR, fueled by advancements in and efficient cryoprotectants. In cell and gene therapy manufacturing, a 2025 International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy (ISCT) survey highlighted persistent challenges in cryopreservation protocols, with 70% of respondents reporting variability in post-thaw cell viability, prompting trends toward standardized techniques and serum-free media to enhance recovery rates above 80% for therapeutic cells. Commercial cryonics providers have introduced innovative financing and accessibility models amid growing interest. Tomorrow Biostasis, a Berlin-based firm, launched a €50 monthly subscription in 2024 for neuropreservation services, targeting younger demographics and expanding beyond traditional high-net-worth clients, with the company reporting over 200 members by late 2024. Alcor Life Extension Foundation established a dedicated in-house research and development department in 2024, the first full-time professional team focused on cryopreservation techniques within the cryonics sector, aiming to refine vitrification processes for human tissues. As of mid-2024, approximately 5,500 individuals worldwide have arranged for cryonics preservation, with around 500 bodies or heads in storage, primarily at facilities like Alcor and the Cryonics Institute, though long-term viability remains unproven due to current technological limits. Research trends emphasize reducing cryoprotectant toxicity and optimizing protocols through interdisciplinary approaches. Developments in nanotechnology, reported in 2025, enable targeted delivery of cryoprotectants to mitigate ice crystal formation and cellular damage, potentially improving survival rates in complex tissues like ovaries and embryos. Vitrification techniques have achieved over 90% survival for human oocytes by 2025, integrating rapid freezing with automated systems to support fertility preservation clinics. In plant cryopreservation, a 2025 meta-analysis identified a shift toward synthetic cryoprotectants and droplet-vitrification methods, though publication trends indicate a plateau in research output since 2020, possibly due to funding constraints and focus on applied biotechnology. Machine learning applications for predictive cooling curves are emerging, with pilot studies in 2024-2025 demonstrating 15-20% improvements in post-thaw functionality for mammalian cells.

References

  1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9756256/
  2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7995302/
  3. https://extendfertility.com/slow-freezing-vs-vitrification/
  4. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18452386/
  5. https://www.asrm.org/practice-guidance/practice-committee-documents/a-review-of-best-practices-of-rapid-cooling-vitrication-for-oocytes-and-embryos-a-committee-opinion-2021/
  6. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11626-025-01027-0
  7. https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-021-00976-8
  8. https://advanced.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adbi.202200285
  9. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/veterinary-science/articles/10.3389/fvets.2023.1201794/full
  10. https://experiments.springernature.com/articles/10.1007/978-1-4939-2193-5_1
  11. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0963689721999617
  12. https://experiments.springernature.com/articles/10.1007/978-1-4939-2193-5_2
  13. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1586/17434440.6.1.1
  14. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2781091/
  15. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0011224015001406
  16. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10215456/
  17. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7967093/
  18. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41570-022-00407-4
  19. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38584393/
  20. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0011224013002265
  21. https://hal.science/hal-01543506/document
  22. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5800373/
  23. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/cryopreservation
  24. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29660317/
  25. https://assets.cambridge.org/97805216/11282/excerpt/9780521611282_excerpt.pdf
  26. https://www.biolifesolutions.com/blog/cryopreservation/the-history-of-cryopreservation/
  27. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0011224018300579
  28. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11424012_The_History_and_Principles_of_Cryopreservation
  29. https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aogs.13569
  30. https://cryonics.org/history-timeline/
  31. https://www.rbmojournal.com/article/S1472-6483%2810%2962124-4/fulltext
  32. https://www.tomorrow.bio/post/cryopreservation-brief-history
  33. https://longevityfilmcompetition.com/jury/gregory-fahy/
  34. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2781097/
  35. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26408851/
  36. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001122401500245X
  37. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2754768
  38. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-38824-8
  39. https://www.science.org/content/article/how-to-deep-freeze-entire-organ-bring-it-back-to-life
  40. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168365918302736
  41. https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/references/gibco-cell-culture-basics/cell-culture-protocols/freezing-cells.html
  42. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11941530/
  43. https://journals.lww.com/md-journal/fulltext/2016/09270/comparison_of_vitrification_and_conventional_slow.1.aspx
  44. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0015028207012617
  45. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268875004_Principles_of_Cryopreservation_by_Vitrification
  46. https://clinicalepigeneticsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13148-022-01355-y
  47. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-09005-7
  48. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0011224009000650
  49. https://www.mdpi.com/2306-5354/10/5/508
  50. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abe3005
  51. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.11.08.622572v1
  52. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282244739_Aldehyde-Stabilized_Cryopreservation
  53. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-019-0223-y
  54. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-73549-8
  55. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11052586/
  56. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12295925/
  57. https://stories.tamu.edu/news/2025/09/17/texas-am-researchers-pioneer-cryopreservation-method-to-prevent-organ-cracking/
  58. https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/25/20/11124
  59. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9744399/
  60. https://www.auajournals.org/doi/10.1097/01.ju.0000084820.98430.b8
  61. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-15456-0
  62. https://www.asrm.org/practice-guidance/practice-committee-documents/evidence-based-outcomes-after-oocyte-cryopreservation-for-donor-oocyte-in-vitro-fertilization-and-planned-oocyte-cryopreservation-a-guideline-2021/
  63. https://www.rbmojournal.com/article/S1472-6483%2823%2900466-2/fulltext
  64. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8740039/
  65. https://www.pfcla.com/blog/frozen-embryo-transfer-success-rates-ivf
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8489820/
  67. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39479806/
  68. https://academic.oup.com/hropen/article/2017/1/hox001/3092402
  69. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/13/15/4513
  70. https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jog.70080
  71. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12130658/
  72. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36147816/
  73. https://academic.oup.com/hropen/article/2024/2/hoae010/7609675
  74. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9485727/
  75. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12013664/
  76. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12818211/
  77. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7110355/
  78. https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/14/10/1817
  79. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00275514.2024.2363135
  80. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3353557/
  81. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8707037/
  82. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8201202/
  83. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11434939/
  84. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5656718/
  85. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10135868/
  86. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11281105/
  87. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39456905/
  88. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/soft-matter/articles/10.3389/frsfm.2023.1219497/full
  89. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11508709/
  90. https://www.statnews.com/2023/06/21/cryogenic-organ-preservation-transplants/
  91. https://advanced.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adma.202510982?af=R
  92. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0011224004000264
  93. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10248239/
  94. https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1046/j.1469-8137.2001.00177.x
  95. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC203104/
  96. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10484896/
  97. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0318459
  98. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2020.611080/full
  99. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6059074/
  100. https://www.sciencedirect.com/org/science/article/pii/S0031945725001005
  101. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.pp.27.060176.002451
  102. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11432106/
  103. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16740364/
  104. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0176161711003579
  105. https://journals.physiology.org/doi/10.1152/physrev.00016.2016
  106. https://journals.biologists.com/jeb/article/216/11/1961/11417/Avoidance-and-tolerance-of-freezing-in-ectothermic
  107. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8736122/
  108. https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/extreme-cold-hardiness-in-ectotherms-24286275/
  109. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35460874/
  110. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1096495922000355
  111. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-09521-x
  112. https://www.eje.cz/pdfs/eje/1999/02/09.pdf
  113. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36662017/
  114. https://journals.biologists.com/jeb/article/225/8/jeb243934/275162/A-mixture-of-innate-cryoprotectants-is-key-for
  115. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1569255808600739
  116. https://biocor.umn.edu/research/preservation_mechanisms
  117. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11887326/
  118. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4620521/
  119. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378432024001271
  120. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27224008/
  121. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.biomac.0c00591
  122. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0011224024000129
  123. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7362331/
  124. https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/bio.2013.0032
  125. https://stemcellres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13287-020-02054-2
  126. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12209-019-00227-6
  127. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0011224025000094
  128. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10342811/
  129. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0015028299002800
  130. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cell-and-developmental-biology/articles/10.3389/fcell.2023.1196472/full
  131. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2023.1304689/full
  132. https://ovarianresearch.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13048-022-01035-8
  133. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2023/md/d3md00378g
  134. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8773610/
  135. https://bmcmolcellbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12860-024-00516-6
  136. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/medicine/articles/10.3389/fmed.2020.592242/full
  137. https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/life-science/cell-culture/cell-culture-learning-center/cryopreservation-information.html
  138. https://www.isct-cytotherapy.org/article/S1465-3249%2814%2900451-4/fulltext
  139. https://academic.oup.com/stcltm/article/13/1/30/7344334
  140. https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/25/3/1467
  141. https://bmcimmunol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12865-022-00505-4
  142. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12525932/
  143. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11441136/
  144. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022202X24018980
  145. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1465324925008369
  146. https://ashpublications.org/blood/article/140/Supplement%25201/10445/492845/Cellular-Therapy-Product-Viability-during-Long
  147. https://www.alcor.org/about/
  148. https://cryonics.org/about-ci/
  149. https://cryonics.org/members/member-forms/a-guide-to-cryopreservation-contracts/
  150. https://cryonics.org/ci-advantage/
  151. https://www.alcor.org/deployment-and-recovery/
  152. https://cryonics.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Cryonics_Institute_Standby_Manual.pdf
  153. https://www.alcor.org/cryopreservation-procedures/
  154. https://cryonics.org/guide-to-cryonics-procedures/
  155. https://cryonics.org/members/washout-and-perfusion-instructions-for-cryonics-patients/
  156. https://www.alcor.org/introduction-to-cryonics/
  157. https://www.alcor.org/alcor-membership-statistics/
  158. https://www.regeneration.ai/p/who-funds-cryo-the-2025-money-map
  159. https://www.cryonicsarchive.org/docs/cryopreservation-procedures-section-20-storage.pdf
  160. https://www.alcor.org/research-development/
  161. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4733321/
  162. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-47066-1
  163. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.01.22.634384v1.full
  164. https://insight.tomorrow.bio/articles/cryonics-risks-explained-what-you-should-know-before-signing-up
  165. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12152-025-09584-7
  166. https://www.alcor.org/docs/cryostasis-revival-summary.pdf
  167. https://www.mdlinx.com/article/cryosleep-how-close-are-we-to-reviving-the-dead/3cC19ei9nA2vn7rhPQ1MHC
  168. https://wjbphs.com/sites/default/files/WJBPHS-2024-0785.pdf
  169. https://cryonicssociety.org/futurenews/
  170. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11416988/
  171. https://worldhealth.net/news/cryonics-rising-bid-to-redefine-mortality/
  172. https://www.nad.com/news/humans-are-freezing-themselves-in-hopes-of-being-revived-in-the-future-but-is-it-worth-it
  173. https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/full/10.1142/S266131822374434X
  174. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deh249
  175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.06.030
  176. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11998440/
  177. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/16.10.2187
  178. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-019-02136-7
  179. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.01.22.634384v2.full
  180. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11753176/
  181. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9219731/
  182. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/cold-reality-versus-the-wishful-thinking-of-cryonics/
  183. https://michaelshermer.com/sciam-columns/nano-nonsense-and-cryonics/
  184. https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/freezing-brain-back-to-life
  185. https://beckerandhouse.com/estate-planning-beyond-the-grave-and-back/
  186. https://www.cryonicsarchive.org/library/the-legal-status-of-cryonics-patients/
  187. https://www.alcor.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/alcor-membership-agreement.pdf
  188. https://www.alcor.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/alcor-membership-terms-and-conditions.pdf
  189. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10639002/
  190. https://www.alcor.org/resources/blog/category/legal/
  191. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/nov/18/teenage-girls-wish-for-preservation-after-death-agreed-to-by-court
  192. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13576275.2023.2230906
  193. https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/science/arizona-cryonics-facility-preserves-bodies-revive-later-2022-10-12/
  194. https://cryonics.org/services/
  195. https://nationalpost.com/feature/cryopreservation-cryonics
  196. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/gicx9QBRpx6CMycMQ/against-cryonics-and-for-cost-effective-charity
  197. https://hospitalnews.com/ethical-issues-of-cryonics/
  198. https://www.cryonicsarchive.org/library/cryopreservation-funding-and-inflation/
  199. https://www.cryonicsarchive.org/library/allocation-of-long-term-care-costs-at-alcor/
  200. https://qz.com/1555363/cryogenics-is-facing-legal-trouble-with-body-preservation
  201. https://insight.tomorrow.bio/articles/regulatory-landscape-cryonics-across-europe-the-u-s-and-asia
  202. https://academic.oup.com/jlb/article/10/2/lsad028/7381683
  203. https://www.technologyreview.com/2015/09/15/109906/the-false-science-of-cryonics/
  204. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/nov/20/cryonics-debate-science-freezing-human-bodies
  205. https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/bio.2023.0015
  206. https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/39/Supplement_1/deae108.590/7704306
  207. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12016461/
  208. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40961865/
  209. https://techxplore.com/news/2025-09-glass-state-advancements-cryopreservation.html
  210. https://cse.umn.edu/college/news/nsf-funded-researchers-successfully-transplant-cryopreserved-pig-kidney
  211. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/14/health/frozen-kidney-organ-transplant.html
  212. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095809924007379
  213. https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/cell-cryopreservation-market-report
  214. https://www.futuremarketinsights.com/reports/cryopreservation-systems-market
  215. https://www.isctglobal.org/telegrafthub/blogs/ken-ip1/2025/05/28/cryopreservation-key-survey-findings-from-the-isct
  216. https://fortune.com/europe/2024/11/15/tomorrow-biostasis-berlin-company-50-a-month-cryogenics-subscription/
  217. https://www.business-standard.com/world-news/freezing-for-the-future-us-billionaires-bet-on-cryonics-for-eternal-life-124071200749_1.html
  218. https://www.intelmarketresearch.com/cryogenic-freezing-equipment-market-9371
  219. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39943009/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.