X-Message-Number: 26716 From: Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:47:03 EDT Subject: testing solutions Someone wrote: "It's extremely unlikely that Pichugin's solution is as good as M22. It's easy to make a mixture of cryoprotectants that will vitrify at any cooling rate, especially if you don't use electron microscopy to check the preservation. It's making a mixture with low toxicity that is very hard." Dr. Pichugin has tested all the best solutions known to him, and continues further testing, with emphasis on toxicity or viability. The main tool so far, as I understand it, is the potassium/sodium ratio, which is generally believed to be a very broad indicator of overall viability, much more sensitive than electron microscopy. Microscopy indicates structure (within its limits, and with many possible artifacts), while the K/Na rato indicates function. You can have apparently good structure without function, and function is the bottom line. Good structure is better than poor, and even poor structure may be eventually reparable, but Dr. Pichugin's standard is the toughest. Ideally we want all kinds of verification, and we are working on it. It's difficult and expensive, and therefore slow. As far as I know, nobody--nobody, nobody, nobody--has yet vitrified a whole mammalian brain and quantified the results in various segments and subsegments. We (everybody) make our best guesses and take our chances, and gradually advance. Eventually there may be some convergence and consensus, but that does not appear close. A few months ago, when Joe Waynick visited, he expressed a desire for more cooperation, including research. However, as I understand it, Alcor is not independent but constrained by legal agreements with 21CM, so I don't know what the answer to that is. Again, Ben is still out of town, and may have something more or different to say. Robert Ettinger Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" [ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26716