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