X-Message-Number: 5460 Date: 21 Dec 95 17:32:20 EST From: Mike Darwin <> Subject: SCI.CRYONICS Glycerol Doug Skrecky writes: >Cryonicists use glycerol primarily because cryobiologists do. Doug, this is just plain wrong. And I think you know it, or should. Here are the relevant and *correct* facts: 1) Cryonicists did not always use glycerol. We tried Me2SO (DMSO) early on because of its greater cellular permeability and the superior protection its provides some tissues (over glycerol). This was a disaster with patients becoming edemetaous (swelling) and circulation grinding to a halt before significant concentrations of agent could be loaded into the tissue. The last patient I perfused with DMSO gained 30% of his weight in fluid and ended up with an aortic DMSO concentration of 5% on autopsy (when he was converted from whole body to neuro). 2) Extensive screening studies have been carried out using rabbit brain slices and in some cases rabbit and dog brain perfusion preparations by Fahy and by Darwin (me) independantly, using a wide variety of agents followed by freezing and thawing. Some of the sgents were: DMSO (perfusion and slice incubation) propylene glycol (PG) (perusion and slice incubation) PG and DMSO (slice incubation) ethylene glycol glycerol and sucrose (perfusion and slice incubation) glycerol and DMSO (slice incubation) 2,3 butanediol (slice incubation) DMSO to 60% (v/v) using the Farrant technique of stepwise increase of concentration while stepwise reducing the temperature to minimize toxicity, using brain slices). glycerol and trehalose Vitrification Solution 1 (VS1) (perfusion of intact dog heads) Not only were the above agents screened, but they were often evalauated at different concentrations and with different temperatures of introduction and different cooling/warming profiles. Results were evaluated by light microscopy in all cases (often with two or more stains) and by EM in many cases. Freeze substitution was used in the most promising cases based on post-thaw light and EM results. EG gave comparable results to glycerol. Most others were worse. Some looked OK at the light level, but caused serious ultrastructural disruption at EM; like dissolution of synaptic membranes! 3) Glycerol-PG perfusate was, I have heard rumored, used on at least 2 early CI patients and resulted in massive edema. 4) I have been very unhappy with glycerol for years. If you start at the beginning of CRYONICS magazine and read all of them you will find this unhappiness reflected in many remarks made over the years. I am unhappy with glycerol because: a) It equilibrates poorly with brain, skin and skeletal muscle cells. This results in massive dehydration of these organ systems. In fact, many patients are positively mummified in appearance after glycerolization even to 3M. I mean this literally; a casual observer (excluding skin color from consideration) would assume he was looking at a mummy; there is massive water loss in some tissues; up to 50% for muscle and skin and slightly under or over that for brain. b) Glycerol does not penetrate myelinated axons well and intra-axonal ice formation is massive. I have distributed freeze-substitution pix (EM) to Merkle, Donaldson and Ettinger which show a clear and easily demarcated line between gray and whit matter in canine brain treated with 4M glycerol. The line of demarkaction is where the size and number of crystals abruptly change from gray to white matter. A child of 6 could recognize and point out the pattern difference and draw the line between the tissues with a highlight marker (and yes, I've DONE this experiment using a visting child to the lab). c) The above notwithstanding, glycerol does equilibrate some, and it does provide better protection than the above agents. d) We are and have been for 6 months looking at sorbitol and several other compounds. e) I remarked to Keith Henson at the ACS Directors meeting held at the 21st facility a few weeks ago that I sincerely hoped that I had perfused the last *optimally* stabilized BPI cryopatient with glycerol. This should tell you that some of our new screening work has suggested a better compound(s) for use in brains. My remarks to Keith preceded your comments here. This new technique will possibly and maybe even probably not be applicable to patients with long unstabilized down-times or capillary/extracellular matrix injury because of the liklihood of such patients developing perfusion-limiting edema; in such cases we will use glycerol. f) Years ago, long before your involvement with cryonics, I switched from mannitol in our base perfusate to sucrose because sucrose provided superior membrane protection to synaptosomes and was a better glass former (based on the literature). We pumped three live dogs with sucrose base perfusate and had three surviors (2 hours of perfusion at 4 C). However, we subsequently had serious problems with dogs using sucrose (they died!) and more to the point, we had markedly worse cerebral edema during cryoprotective perfusion in humans; the more pre CPA perfusion ischemic injury, the mor rapid and worse the brain swelling during glycerol-sucrose perfusion. Bob Ettinger observed the same thing with his sheep heads. Despite mannitol's absent glass forming ability and its proclivity to form large crystals on cooling, it still provided superior protection against edema, and superior EM results, despite the obvious theoretical advantages of sucrose. The switch to sucrose is also documented in CRYONICS. I suggest you get the back issues on diskette and READ THEM (Steve B., for God's sake, for all our sakes!, send Doug the back issues free; I'll pay for the diskettes costs and shipping!) so we are spared his uninformed posts and/or can flame him into silence or general disregard, with justification. Finally Doug, we are not stupid and your native intelligence is great enough that you do not have to be. You do sometimes come up with useful information; but it is like regurgitation on a plate instead of well prepared cusine. Sometimes nourishing, but very unpalatable. Please learn that science is not done in an arm chair; at least not since Plato and IMHO that wasn't science. Mike Darwin Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5460