X-Message-Number: 7825
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 1997 15:20:48 -0800
From: Paul Wakfer <>
Subject: Re: DNA Storage

This is in reply to Brook Norton's post #7820 about DNA preservation.
 
I wish to thank Brook for sharing his knowledge of other preservation 
possibilities and their cost with us. In addition, as president of
CryoSpan it helps to know what "competition" I am up against.

Brook gives some good reasons for storing young DNA. However, I believe
that the number of cells which would be stored in 3 cc of tissue, blood
or semen of even an older person are almost certain to contain many
cells with virtually undamaged DNA. In addition, it would also be
possible to piece together a complete undamaged DNA from millions of
cells with partially damaged DMA. That, in fact, is the only hope for a
badly decomposed case which is in storage at CryoSpan -- with a
duplicate at Alcor. I note again as I have stated before, that this case
and others similar are *not* classified as *cryonics* patients any more
than the proposed DNA storage would be classified as the storage of a
cryonics patient.

> I'm 36 and last year had a skin sample preserved by a company called
> "Third Millennium Research, Inc."  based in WA, 206-524-6376.  For $55
> they send you a kit to take a sample by rubbing a patch inside your
> cheek (facial). You send back the sample and they encapsulate it. 
> Their literature says "The storage system is designed to protect the
> DNA from physical and chemical abuse and consists of the following: 
> The DNA and an antioxidant have been placed on a small piece of filter
> paper in the bottom of a glass tube.  The glass tube has been heat
> fused to seal off the DNA from the atmosphere and then enclosed in
> plastic to prevent its breakage during examination.  The DNA capsule
> rests inside the block of anodized aluminum and entrance to the
> chamber is restricted by a heavy bolt."  The antioxidant is BHT.  They
> send you the aluminum block.

> I'm curious about how you would compare the effectiveness of the above
> method, vs your proposed method of storage in liquid nitrogen.

While I have gained sufficient biological knowledge to competently plan
and operate a cryonics long-term care company, I do not feel
sufficiently knowledgeable to fully answer this question and I will look
to others for that answer. Two major differences which I can see
immediately are the much larger number of cells which would be stored by
CryoSpan's proposed method, and the greater long-term stability of cells
stored in liquid nitrogen than those protected by being sealed with a
simple, only-lipid-soluble, mono-agent antioxidant like BHT. (Nothing
wrong with BHT, however, I take some every day to "preserve" myself!)
Another major difference, is that they send you back the sample for your
own care-taking which may not be as long-term safe and effective as
CryoSpan's or some other cryonics storage provider. My own (admittedly
biased) impression is that these differences fully justify the price
difference ($55 vs $300) between the two methods.

-- Paul --

CryoSpan, Inc.-low cost, secure cryogenic storage of biological material
1313 N Market St. Suite 3410, Wilmington, DE 19801-1151
Email: Voice/Fax:909-481-4433 Page:800-805-2870


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=7825