4.4 Article

Cryopreservative Effects of the Recombinant Ice-Binding Protein from the Arctic Yeast Leucosporidium sp on Red Blood Cells

期刊

APPLIED BIOCHEMISTRY AND BIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 167, 期 4, 页码 824-834

出版社

HUMANA PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1007/s12010-012-9739-z

关键词

Antifreeze protein; Recombinant; LeIBP; Red blood cells; Cryopreservation; Cell size distribution

资金

  1. Korea Polar Research Institute [PE11100]
  2. Korea Research Council of Fundamental Science and Technology [PG11010, PG12010]
  3. National Research Council of Science & Technology (NST), Republic of Korea [PG11010, pg12010] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Antifreeze proteins (AFPs) have important functions in many freeze-tolerant organisms. The proteins non-colligatively lower the freezing point and functionally inhibit ice recrystallization in frozen solutions. In our previous studies, we found that the Arctic yeast Leucosporidium sp. produces an AFP (LeIBP), and that the protein could be successfully produced in Pichia expression system. The present study showed that recombinant LeIBP possesses the ability to reduce the damage induced to red blood cells (RBCs) by freeze thawing. In addition to 40 % glycerol, both 0.4 and 0.8 mg/ml LeIBPs significantly reduced freeze-thaw-induced hemolysis at either rapid- (45 A degrees C) or slow-warming (22 A degrees C) temperatures. Post-thaw cell counts of the cryopreserved RBCs were dramatically enhanced, in particular, in 0.8 mg/ml LeIBP. Interestingly, the cryopreserved cells in the presence of LeIBP showed preserved cell size distribution. These results indicate that the ability of LeIBP to inhibit ice recrystallization helps the RBCs avoid critically damaging electrolyte concentrations, which are known as solution effects. Considering all these data, LeIBP can be thought of as a key component in improving RBC cryopreservation efficiency.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据