Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 484

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Human oocyte cryopreservation: new perspectives regarding oocyte survival

Open access
Fabbri, R., Porcu, E., Marsella, T., Rocchetta, G., Venturoli, S., Flamigni, C.·2001·Human Reproduction

Abstract

The success of human oocyte cryopreservation depends on morphological and biophysical factors that could influence oocyte survival after thawing. Various attempts to cryopreserve human oocytes have been performed with contrasting results. Therefore the effect of some factors, such as the presence or absence of the cumulus oophorus, the sucrose concentration in the freezing solution and the exposure time to cryoprotectants, on human oocyte survival after thawing were investigated. The oocytes were cryopreserved in 1,2-propanediol added with sucrose, using a slow-freezing-rapid-thawing programme. After thawing, the oocytes were inseminated by intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and the outcomes of insemination and subsequent embryo development were also recorded. The post-thaw cryosurvival rate was not different for the oocytes cryopreserved with their cumuli partially removed mechanically (56%) when compared with those cryopreserved with their cumuli totally removed enzymatically (53%). On the contrary, a significantly higher survival rate was obtained when the oocytes were cryopreserved in the presence of a doubled sucrose concentration (0.2 mol/l) in the freezing solution and the survival rate was even higher when the sucrose concentration was tripled (0.3 mol/l) (60 versus 82% P < 0.001). Furthermore, a longer exposure time (from 10.5 to 15 min) to cryoprotectants, before lowering the temperature, significantly increased the oocyte survival rate (P < 0.005). Intracytoplasmic sperm injection produced a good fertilization rate (57%) of thawed oocytes and a high embryo cleavage rate (91%) and a satisfactory embryo morphology was observed (14 and 34% for grade I and grade II embryos respectively).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/humrep/16.3.411

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 484

Metadata

Authors
Fabbri, R., Porcu, E., Marsella, T., Rocchetta, G., Venturoli, S., & Flamigni, C.
Venue
Human Reproduction
Published
2001-03-01
Volume
16
Issue
3
Pages
411-416
ISSN
  • 0268-1161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2350
OpenAlex
W2151261872
Cited by
484
References
0
FWCI
26.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Human oocyte cryopreservation: new perspectives regarding oocyte survival. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/humrep/16.3.411
The paper
Fabbri, R., Porcu, E., Marsella, T., Rocchetta, G., Venturoli, S., & Flamigni, C. (2001). Human oocyte cryopreservation: new perspectives regarding oocyte survival. Human Reproduction. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/16.3.411

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.