Fresh vs. Frozen: A Systematic Review of Cryopreserved vs. Freshly Cultured MSC Performance In Vivo

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive analysis for researchers and drug development professionals on the critical comparison between freshly cultured and cryopreserved Mesenchymal Stem/Stromal Cells (MSCs) for in vivo applications. We synthesize foundational biology, methodological protocols, and recent pre-clinical and clinical evidence to address a central logistical challenge in regenerative medicine. The scope covers MSC mechanisms of action, the impact of cryopreservation on cell viability and potency, optimization strategies for freezing and thawing, and a direct evaluation of therapeutic efficacy in animal models and human trials. The analysis concludes that while cryopreservation presents specific challenges, cryopreserved MSCs remain a viable and effective 'off-the-shelf' therapeutic product when protocols are rigorously optimized, supporting their use in clinical translation.

Understanding MSC Biology and the Cryopreservation Imperative

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), also referred to as mesenchymal stromal cells, represent a population of multipotent adult stem cells that have emerged as a cornerstone of regenerative medicine. First described by Friedenstein and colleagues in the 1970s as fibroblastoid cells isolated from bone marrow, MSCs have since been identified in virtually every vascularized tissue in the body [1] [2]. These cells possess a unique dual identity: they function as both traditional stem cells with multilineage differentiation potential and as sophisticated secretory powerhouses that modulate immune responses and tissue repair through paracrine signaling [1] [3]. The therapeutic application of MSCs faces a critical logistical consideration—whether to use freshly cultured cells or cryopreserved, "off-the-shelf" products. This distinction forms a fundamental framework for evaluating MSC performance in both research and clinical settings, particularly in the context of in vivo models of inflammation and disease.

Defining Characteristics: The MSC Identity Card

The International Society for Cellular Therapy (ISCT) established minimal criteria in 2006 to standardize the characterization of human MSCs across research laboratories and clinical applications [1] [2]. These criteria provide an essential framework for ensuring experimental reproducibility and therapeutic quality control.

Table 1: International Society for Cellular Therapy (ISCT) Minimal Criteria for Defining Human MSCs

Criterion Category	Specific Requirements	Technical Assessment
Plastic Adherence	Must adhere to plastic surfaces under standard culture conditions	Microscopic evaluation of cell morphology
Surface Marker Expression	≥95% positive: CD73, CD90, CD105≤2% positive: CD45, CD34, CD14/CD11b, CD79α/CD19, HLA-DR	Flow cytometry analysis
Multilineage Differentiation	Must differentiate into osteoblasts, adipocytes, and chondroblasts under standard in vitro inducing conditions	Osteogenic: Alkaline phosphatase, calcium deposition (Alizarin Red S)Adipogenic: Lipid vacuoles (Oil Red O)Chondrogenic: Glycosaminoglycans (Toluidine Blue)

It is crucial to recognize that MSC characteristics can vary significantly between species, and the surface marker patterns defined by the ISCT apply specifically to human MSCs [1]. Mouse MSCs, for instance, exhibit different surface antigen expression profiles that can also vary between strains, necessitating species-specific characterization protocols for preclinical research [1].

Therapeutic Mechanisms: Beyond Differentiation

The therapeutic potential of MSCs extends far beyond their capacity for mesodermal differentiation. The predominant mechanism through which MSCs exert their beneficial effects involves sophisticated paracrine signaling rather than direct tissue engraftment and differentiation [1] [3].

Paracrine Signaling and Immunomodulation

MSCs secrete a diverse array of bioactive molecules including growth factors, cytokines, chemokines, and extracellular vesicles that collectively create a regenerative microenvironment [3]. These secretory products activate cell proliferation, prevent apoptosis, and improve regenerative responses [4] [5]. Specifically, MSCs modulate immune responses by decreasing inflammation, reducing scar formation, increasing pathogen clearance, altering endothelial permeability, and improving mitochondrial function [4] [5]. The immunomodulatory effects occur through both direct cell-to-cell contact and release of soluble factors that ultimately decrease pro-inflammatory cytokine production while increasing anti-inflammatory mediators [4].

Homing and Integration

A remarkable property of MSCs is their innate ability to migrate to sites of injury or inflammation when administered systemically [1]. Studies across diverse disease models including myocardial infarction, cerebral ischemic stroke, pulmonary fibrosis, nephropathy, and osteogenesis imperfecta have demonstrated that systemically administered MSCs engraft preferentially at the site of injury, where they participate in tissue repair processes [1]. This homing capacity makes MSCs particularly attractive as targeted therapeutic vehicles for inflammatory conditions.

Freshly Cultured vs. Cryopreserved MSCs: A Systematic Comparison

The transition from laboratory research to clinical applications necessitates practical considerations regarding MSC storage and readiness. While many preclinical studies utilize freshly cultured MSCs, clinical applications—especially for acute conditions—require cryopreserved, "off-the-shelf" products that can be rapidly administered [4] [5] [6]. This distinction has raised important questions about potential functional differences between these two cellular states.

A comprehensive systematic review published in 2022 analyzed 18 preclinical studies directly comparing freshly cultured versus cryopreserved MSCs in animal models of inflammation [4] [5]. The findings provide crucial insights into this fundamental comparison:

Table 2: In vivo Efficacy Outcomes: Freshly Cultured vs. Cryopreserved MSCs

Outcome Category	Total Experiments	Significantly Different Outcomes	Favoring Freshly Cultured	Favoring Cryopreserved
In vivo Efficacy	257	6/257 (2.3%)	2 experiments	4 experiments
In vitro Potency	68	9/68 (13%)	7 experiments	2 experiments

Table 3: Disease Model Efficacy Comparisons

Disease Model	Study Reference	Key Parameters Measured	Overall Finding
Acute Lung Injury	Devaney et al., 2015 [4] [7]	Arterial oxygenation, lung compliance, BAL protein, neutrophils, bacterial load, cytokines	No significant difference ()
Allergic Airway Inflammation	Cruz et al., 2015 [4] [7]	Airway resistance, lung elastance, inflammation score, BAL immune cells, cytokines	No significant difference () for majority of parameters

The systematic review concluded that the majority of preclinical in vivo efficacy outcomes (97.7%) showed no statistically significant differences between freshly cultured and cryopreserved MSCs [4] [5]. This finding provides strong rationale for the use of cryopreserved MSC products in clinical settings where immediate availability is essential.

Cryopreservation Methods and Functional Considerations

Technical Approaches to MSC Preservation

Two primary techniques are employed for MSC cryopreservation, each with distinct mechanisms and methodological considerations:

Table 4: Cryopreservation Methods for MSCs

Method	Mechanism	Protocol Steps	Cell Survival Rate	Advantages/Limitations
Slow Freezing	Gradual cellular dehydration minimizes intracellular ice crystal formation [2]	1. Mix MSCs with CPAs2. Cool to -20°C → -80°C → -196°C (liquid nitrogen) [2]	70-80% [2]	Advantages: Simple operation, low contamination risk [2]Limitations: Requires optimization of CPAs
Vitrification	High CPA concentration and rapid cooling achieve glassy state without ice formation [2]	1. Equilibrium or non-equilibrium approach with high CPA concentration2. Direct immersion in liquid nitrogen [2]	Variable	Advantages: Minimizes ice crystal damageLimitations: CPA toxicity concerns, technical complexity

Impact of Cryopreservation on MSC Function

The functional integrity of MSCs following cryopreservation represents a critical consideration for therapeutic applications. Research indicates that cryopreserved MSCs may require a recovery period post-thawing to regain full functionality. One study noted that cryopreserved MSCs pre-licensed with IFN-γ for 48 hours before freezing performed better than those licensed for only 24 hours, suggesting that certain functional attributes may need time to recover after thawing [8].

Interestingly, the effect of cryopreservation may be disease model-specific. While cryopreserved MSCs have demonstrated effectiveness in models of colitis, allergic airway inflammation, and ischemia/reperfusion injury, they failed to induce a chondrogenic response in a mouse-based chondrocyte-responsive bioassay, suggesting they might be unsuitable for certain orthopedic applications [8]. This highlights the importance of validating cryopreserved MSC function in specific disease contexts.

Experimental Design and Methodology

Standardized Workflows for MSC Characterization

Diagram 1: MSC Characterization Workflow

In Vivo Assessment in Inflammatory Models

Robust assessment of MSC therapeutic potential requires carefully designed in vivo models that recapitulate human inflammatory diseases. The 2022 systematic review employed strict inclusion criteria, selecting only studies that utilized animal models with intact immune systems (excluding immunocompromised models) to properly evaluate immunomodulatory effects [4] [5]. These models included acute lung injury, sepsis, allergic airway inflammation, myocardial infarction, graft-versus-host disease, and inflammatory bowel disease, among others [4] [5].

Methodologically, studies were included only if MSCs were administered during or after disease induction (not preventively), and both freshly cultured and cryopreserved MSCs had to be derived from the same source and passage [4] [5]. Freshly cultured MSCs were defined as either in continuous culture or cryopreserved but thawed and placed in culture for at least 24 hours prior to use, while freshly thawed MSCs were defined as cryopreserved cells placed in culture for less than 24 hours post-thaw [4] [5] [6].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 5: Essential Research Reagents for MSC Characterization

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Research Application
Surface Antibodies	CD73, CD90, CD105, CD45, CD34, CD14/CD11b, HLA-DR	Flow cytometry analysis for MSC identification and purity assessment [1]
Differentiation Kits	Adipogenic: Oil Red OOsteogenic: Alizarin Red S, alkaline phosphataseChondrogenic: Toluidine Blue	Tri-lineage differentiation potential verification [1]
Cryopreservation Reagents	Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), ethylene glycol, sucrose, trehalose	Cryoprotective agents for cell preservation [2]
Cell Culture Media	α-MEM, DMEM/F12 with fetal bovine serum	MSC expansion and maintenance [9]
Functional Assay Kits	ELISA for cytokines (IL-6, IL-10, VEGF), MTT cell viability	Potency and functional assessment [4] [9]

The comprehensive characterization of MSCs—from their defining biological properties to their therapeutic mechanisms—provides an essential foundation for both basic research and clinical translation. The systematic comparison between freshly cultured and cryopreserved MSCs reveals that cryopreservation does not significantly alter the therapeutic efficacy of MSCs in most in vivo inflammatory models, supporting the feasibility of "off-the-shelf" MSC products for clinical use. However, researchers should remain cognizant that certain functional attributes and disease-specific applications may require validation of post-thaw potency. As the field advances, continued refinement of cryopreservation protocols and potency assays will further enhance the translational potential of MSC-based therapies across a broadening spectrum of inflammatory and degenerative conditions.

The therapeutic potential of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) has undergone a fundamental paradigm shift. Initially valued for their ability to differentiate into various cell types, MSCs are now recognized primarily for their paracrine activity—releasing bioactive molecules that orchestrate repair and immunomodulation [10] [11]. This "paracrine hypothesis" posits that MSCs exert their beneficial effects through secreted factors rather than by directly replacing damaged tissues [12]. These factors include proteins, lipids, nucleic acids, and small extracellular vesicles (sEVs) that mediate intercellular communication [10] [13]. The composition and potency of this secretome are critically influenced by whether MSCs are administered as freshly cultured or cryopreserved products, a key consideration for their translation from research to clinical therapy [14] [15].

The practical application of this hypothesis hinges on resolving a central logistical and biological question: can cryopreserved MSCs, which function as an accessible "off-the-shelf" therapy, match the paracrine efficacy of freshly cultured cells? This guide objectively compares the performance of these two MSC formats, focusing on the secretome and extracellular vesicles as the primary drivers of therapeutic efficacy, to inform researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals.

The Scientific Foundation of the Paracrine Hypothesis

Mechanisms of Secretion: Conventional and Unconventional Pathways

MSCs utilize multiple pathways to release their paracrine factors, broadly classified into conventional and unconventional secretion [10].

• Conventional Secretion (ER/Golgi-Dependent): This well-understood pathway involves the co-translational translocation of proteins into the endoplasmic reticulum (ER), transport to the Golgi apparatus, and packaging into vesicles for release. It is typically used for protein secretion, such as collagen from fibroblasts [10]. In the heart, atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP) released from atrial myocytes in response to stretch is a classic example of regulated conventional secretion [10].

• Unconventional Secretion (ER/Golgi-Independent): This pathway bypasses the Golgi apparatus and facilitates the release of a wider range of cargo, including certain cytokines (e.g., IL-1β, FGF), microRNAs, and other non-coding RNAs [10]. A key mechanism of unconventional secretion is the packaging of substances into vesicles like exosomes (a type of sEV) that traverse the plasma membrane intact, delivering their cargo in a protected manner to other cells [10]. Non-vesicular mechanisms, involving movement through specialized plasma membrane channels, also exist [10].

The lines between these pathways are increasingly blurred. For instance, proteins originating in the ER can sometimes bypass the Golgi, and processes like "secretory autophagy" can lead to the release of autophagosome contents [10]. This complexity underscores the diversity of the MSC secretome.

Key Paracrine Mediators: Soluble Factors and Extracellular Vesicles

The therapeutic effects of the MSC secretome are largely attributed to two key components:

• Soluble Factors: MSCs release a cocktail of growth factors, cytokines, and chemokines—such as VEGF, TGF-β, HGF, IL-6, and SDF-1α—that promote tissue repair, angiogenesis, and modulate immune responses [12] [11]. These factors can suppress immune cell activation, skew macrophages toward an anti-inflammatory phenotype, and stimulate proliferation of local cells [11].

• Extracellular Vesicles (EVs), particularly small extracellular vesicles (sEVs)/exosomes, are membrane-bound vesicles (30-200 nm) that carry a complex cargo of proteins, lipids, and nucleic acids (e.g., microRNA, mRNA) [11] [13]. They are a key intermediate for the beneficial paracrine effects of MSC therapy, mediating cell-cell communication by transferring functional cargo to recipient cells [13]. For example, sEVs from human bone marrow MSCs (hBM-MSCs) have been shown to enhance the migration of dermal fibroblasts, a critical process in wound healing, and regulate reparative gene expression more effectively than other secretome fractions [13].

The following diagram illustrates the primary secretory pathways and key paracrine mediators released by MSCs.

Comparative Performance: Freshly Cultured vs. Cryopreserved MSCs

The transition from research to clinically viable therapies necessitates cryopreservation, creating a critical need to compare the in vivo performance of freshly cultured and cryopreserved MSCs.

Preclinical Evidence from Animal Models

A comprehensive systematic review of 18 pre-clinical studies compared freshly cultured and cryopreserved MSCs in animal models of inflammation [14] [4]. The results provide strong evidence supporting the functional equivalence of cryopreserved products.

Table 1: Preclinical In Vivo Efficacy Summary (Systematic Review)

Outcome Category	Total Experiments	Significantly Different Experiments (p<0.05)	Favoring Freshly Cultured	Favoring Cryopreserved
In Vivo Efficacy	257	6 (2.3%)	2	4
In Vitro Potency	68	9 (13.2%)	7	2

The data demonstrates that the overwhelming majority (97.7%) of in vivo efficacy outcomes showed no statistically significant difference between freshly cultured and cryopreserved MSCs [14] [4]. While a slightly higher proportion of in vitro potency assays favored freshly cultured cells, this did not consistently translate to meaningful differences in actual animal model outcomes [4].

Clinical Evidence in Cardiovascular Disease

Recent clinical meta-analyses have specifically evaluated the efficacy of cryopreserved MSCs (CryoMSCs) in human patients, providing insights directly relevant to drug development.

Table 2: Clinical Efficacy of Cryopreserved MSCs in Heart Disease (Meta-Analysis)

Outcome Measure	Follow-up Period	Weighted Mean Difference (WMD) or Effect	Statistical Significance	Notes
Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (LVEF)	Short-term (≤6 mos)	WMD = +2.11% [0.66, 3.56]	P = 0.004	Greatest improvement with UC-MSCs [15]
Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (LVEF)	12 months	Not Significant	P > 0.05	Effect not sustained long-term [15]
Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACE)	Short-term	No significant difference	P > 0.05	Comparable safety profile [15]
6-Minute Walk Distance (6-MWD)	Not specified	No significant difference	P > 0.05	[15]

This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) confirms that cryopreserved MSCs can provide significant, albeit potentially short-term, functional improvements in conditions like heart failure, with a safety profile comparable to controls [15]. The source of MSCs and post-thaw viability are critical factors, with umbilical cord-derived MSCs and products with >80% post-thaw viability showing the best outcomes [15].

Experimental Workflows for Secretome and Potency Analysis

Robust experimental protocols are essential for comparing the paracrine activity of different MSC products. Below are detailed methodologies for key assays.

Secretome Fractionation and Functional Analysis

This protocol assesses the paracrine activity of different MSC secretome fractions, particularly sEVs [13].

• Conditioned Medium (CM) Harvesting: Culture MSCs (e.g., hBM-MSCs) in multilayer flasks until 80% confluent. Wash cells with PBS and culture for 48 hours in EV-depleted medium. Harvest the CM and centrifuge at 300 × g for 15 minutes to remove dead cells and debris [13].
• Secretome Fractionation:
  • sEV Fraction: Isolate via differential centrifugation. Subject CM to sequential spins: 2,000 × g (30 min), 10,000 × g (40 min), and 100,000 × g (90 min). Wash the final crude pellet in PBS and repeat ultracentrifugation. Resuspend the final pellet (sEV fraction) in PBS [13].
  • Non-sEV (NsEV) Fraction: Collect the discards from the differential centrifugation steps to form the NsEV fraction [13].
  • Whole CM: Retain a portion of the initial centrifuged CM without further processing [13].
• Functional Assays:
  • Migration Assay: Use a standard Boyden chamber or similar. Seed normal human dermal fibroblasts (NHDFs) and apply the different secretome fractions (sEV, NsEV, CM) to the upper chamber. Serum-free medium can serve as a negative control, and medium with 10% FBS as a positive control. After incubation, fix and stain migrated cells on the membrane underside. Count cells in multiple fields to quantify migration [13].
  • Proliferation Assay: Seed NHDFs in well plates and treat with secretome fractions. After a set time (e.g., 48-72 hours), measure proliferation using a standardized assay like MTT or CCK-8. Compare absorbance values to controls [13].
• Transcriptomic Analysis: After treating NHDFs with secretome fractions, extract total mRNA. Perform mRNA sequencing and analyze differential gene expression. Use Gene Ontology (GO) analysis to identify enriched pathways related to migration, proliferation, and wound healing [13].

In Vivo Model of Hindlimb Ischemia

This model evaluates the therapeutic capacity of MSCs to promote angiogenesis and tissue repair in a living organism [12].

• Surgical Induction: Anesthetize mice (e.g., C57BL/6) and make a skin incision in the hindlimb. Ligate and excise the entire femoral artery to induce critical limb ischemia [12].
• Cell Administration: On the day following surgery, randomly assign animals to treatment groups. Prepare freshly cultured or cryopreserved MSCs (from the same source and passage) in an appropriate injection vehicle (e.g., saline). Inject a standardized dose (e.g., 2 × 10^5 cells) intramuscularly at multiple sites in the ischemic limb. Include a control group receiving vehicle only [12].
• Clinical Follow-up: Monitor animals regularly for 3-4 weeks. Use a standardized clinical scoring system to assess limb function, necrosis, and auto-amputation [12].
• Histological Analysis: At endpoint (e.g., 21 days post-surgery), harvest muscle tissues from the ischemic region. Process, embed, and section tissues for staining.
  • H&E Staining: Evaluate overall muscle architecture, inflammatory cell infiltration, necrosis, and presence of regenerating fibers (identified by central nuclei) [12].
  • Immunofluorescence Staining: Label tissue sections with lectin (to mark endothelial cells) and an antibody against α-smooth muscle actin (α-SMA, to mark arterioles). Image multiple fields and quantify lectin-positive capillaries and α-SMA-positive arterioles to assess neovascularization [12].

The following workflow diagram integrates these key experimental steps for a comprehensive comparison of MSC products.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

The following table catalogues key reagents and materials used in the featured experiments for comparative studies of MSC secretome and in vivo efficacy.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for MSC Paracrine Studies

Reagent/Material	Specific Example	Function/Application	Experimental Context
Cryopreservation Solutions	NutriFreez D10; Plasmalyte-A/5% HA/10% DMSO (PHD10); CryoStor CS5/CS10	Preserve MSC viability, phenotype, and potency during frozen storage; critical for off-the-shelf therapy [16].	Pre-treatment of MSCs prior to in vivo or in vitro use.
EV-Depleted FBS	FBS processed via ultracentrifugation (120,000 × g, 18h)	Removes contaminating bovine EVs from cell culture medium to ensure that collected sEVs are host-cell-derived [13].	Preparation of conditioned medium for secretome studies.
Differential Centrifugation System	Ultracentrifuge with fixed-angle rotors (e.g., P70AT)	Isolate and purify sEVs from conditioned medium based on size and density [13].	Secretome fractionation into sEV and non-sEV components.
Characterization Tools	Nanoparticle Tracking Analysis (NTA) system (e.g., NanoSight)	Quantify the size distribution and concentration of isolated sEV particles [13].	Validation of sEV fractions post-isolation.
Cell Migration Assay	Boyden chamber (Transwell)	Quantify the chemotactic potential of MSC secretome fractions on target cells (e.g., fibroblasts) [13].	In vitro potency testing of CM, sEV, and NsEV fractions.
Animal Disease Model	Murine hindlimb ischemia model	A well-established in vivo system for evaluating the therapeutic angiogenesis and tissue repair capabilities of MSCs [12].	Functional assessment of MSC efficacy.
Histology Antibodies	Lectin (e.g., GSL I-ISO4 Bandeiraea); α-Smooth Muscle Actin (α-SMA)	Label endothelial cells and pericytes/smooth muscle cells, respectively, for quantification of capillary and arteriole density [12].	Morphometric analysis of neovascularization in tissue sections.

The evidence synthesized in this guide strongly supports the paracrine hypothesis as the primary mechanism driving MSC efficacy. The collective findings from preclinical and clinical studies indicate that cryopreserved MSCs largely retain the therapeutic potency of their freshly cultured counterparts [14] [4] [15]. This is a pivotal conclusion for the field, as it validates the use of "off-the-shelf" cryopreserved products, which are logistically essential for widespread clinical application and timely therapeutic intervention [15].

Future research should focus on standardizing critical quality attributes, particularly post-thaw viability thresholds (e.g., >80%), which data suggest are linked to better clinical outcomes [15]. Furthermore, optimizing cryopreservation protocols—including the composition of cryoprotectant solutions like PHD10 and NutriFreez—is crucial for maximizing the retention of MSC secretome function, especially the biological activity of sEVs [16]. By embracing cryopreserved products and deepening our understanding of the secretome, researchers can accelerate the development of effective, reproducible, and clinically viable MSC-based therapies.

The therapeutic potential of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) has been investigated for nearly two decades across a diverse spectrum of inflammatory and degenerative conditions [5]. As of March 2022, over 1,000 active clinical trials involving MSCs were registered, highlighting significant research interest [5]. However, a critical translational challenge lies in the constrained real-world applicability of cell therapies, where successful treatment often depends on intervention that is both readily available and administered in a time-sensitive manner [5]. For MSCs to transition from experimental treatments to routinely deployed therapies, they must overcome substantial logistical hurdles in their isolation, culture, storage, and rapid accessibility for bedside administration.

This guide objectively compares the preclinical and clinical performance of freshly cultured versus cryopreserved MSCs, with a specific focus on why cryopreservation is not merely a convenience but a fundamental requirement for viable "off-the-shelf" cellular therapies. The data demonstrates that while some functional differences exist, cryopreserved MSCs maintain therapeutic efficacy while solving critical logistical challenges that have long hampered the clinical implementation of cell-based treatments.

Comparative Efficacy: Freshly Cultured vs. Cryopreserved MSCs

Preclinical Evidence from Animal Models

A systematic review of preclinical models of inflammation provides crucial insights into how cryopreservation affects MSC functionality. The analysis incorporated 18 studies representing 257 in vivo experiments with 101 distinct outcome measures [5].

Table 1: Summary of Preclinical In Vivo Outcomes for Fresh vs. Cryopreserved MSCs

Outcome Category	Total Experiments	Significantly Different Outcomes	Favoring Fresh MSCs	Favoring Cryopreserved MSCs
In Vivo Efficacy	257	6 (2.3%)	2	4
In Vitro Potency	68	9 (13%)	7	2

The data reveals that the overwhelming majority (97.7%) of in vivo efficacy outcomes showed no statistically significant difference between freshly cultured and cryopreserved MSCs [5]. This strongly suggests that from a functional perspective in animal disease models, cryopreserved cells perform comparably to their freshly cultured counterparts. The minor percentage of significant differences did not consistently favor one preparation method over the other.

It is worth noting that in vitro potency assays showed more frequent differences (13% of experiments), with a greater proportion favoring freshly cultured MSCs [5]. This indicates that while some functional attributes may be modestly affected by cryopreservation, these differences rarely translate to meaningful efficacy discrepancies in living organisms with intact immune systems and physiological complexity.

Figure 1: The translational pathway showing how cryopreservation enables clinical application through logistical feasibility

Clinical Evidence in Cardiovascular Disease

Recent clinical evidence further supports the therapeutic viability of cryopreserved MSCs. A 2025 meta-analysis of seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 285 patients with heart disease specifically evaluated the efficacy of cryopreserved MSCs (CryoMSCs) [15].

Table 2: Clinical Outcomes of Cryopreserved MSCs in Heart Disease

Outcome Measure	Effect Size	Statistical Significance	Notes
LVEF Improvement (Short-term)	2.11% improvement	P = 0.004	-
LVEF Improvement (12-month)	Not sustained	Not significant	-
LVEF with >80% Viability	3.44% improvement	P = 0.0007	Post-thaw viability critical
MACE Incidence	No difference	Not significant	Comparable safety
Mortality/Readmission	No difference	Not significant	Comparable safety

The analysis demonstrated that umbilical cord-derived MSCs emerged as the most effective cell type, and importantly, a substantial improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 3.44% was observed when using MSCs with post-thaw viability exceeding 80% [15]. This underscores the importance of optimizing cryopreservation protocols to maintain cell viability and function. No statistically significant differences were observed in major adverse cardiac events (MACE), mortality, or rehospitalization between CryoMSCs and control groups, confirming their safety profile [15].

The Logistical Advantages of Cryopreserved MSC Products

Operational Benefits for Clinical Implementation

The logistical superiority of cryopreserved MSC products manifests in several critical operational areas:

• Immediate Availability: Cryopreservation enables "off-the-shelf" accessibility that is impossible with freshly cultured cells, which require 2-4 weeks of expansion [15]. This is particularly crucial for acute conditions where timely intervention is determinative of outcomes.

• Quality Control Window: Cryopreservation provides the necessary time for comprehensive quality control testing and functional validation before patient administration, enhancing product safety and reliability [17].

• Batch Consistency: Large-scale manufacturing of standardized MSC batches reduces inter-product variability, a significant challenge in cell therapy [17]. Multiple doses from the same manufacturing run ensure treatment consistency across clinical trials and eventual clinical use.

• Geographic Distribution: Long-term stability enables shipment from centralized manufacturing facilities to multiple treatment centers worldwide, dramatically increasing patient access to advanced therapies [17].

Economic Considerations

While not always emphasized in scientific literature, the economic implications of cryopreservation are substantial for healthcare systems. Ready-to-use cryopreserved products eliminate the need for specialized cell culture facilities at every treatment center, reducing infrastructure costs and making cell therapies more economically viable for widespread adoption.

Technical Protocols and Optimization Strategies

Cryopreservation Methodology

Successful cryopreservation of MSCs requires careful attention to protocol details. The conventional approach involves slow cooling at approximately 1°C per minute to -80°C followed by transfer to liquid nitrogen for long-term storage [18]. The composition of the cryopreservation medium is critical for maintaining post-thaw viability and functionality.

Table 3: Cryopreservation Media Components and Their Functions

Component	Category	Function	Considerations
DMSO	Intracellular CPA	Prevents intracellular ice formation	Concentration-dependent toxicity
FBS	Extracellular CPA	Prevents extracellular ice damage	Risk of xenogenic immune reactions
Trehalose	Sugar CPA	Stabilizes cell membranes	Non-toxic alternative
PEG	Polymer CPA	Modifies ice crystal formation	Redces osmotic stress
BSA	Protein	Stabilizes membrane proteins	Defined formulation option

Recent advances have focused on reducing or eliminating components like fetal bovine serum (FBS) due to risks of viral/prion contamination and potential immune reactions [18]. Similarly, while DMSO remains the gold standard cryoprotectant, there is growing interest in minimizing its concentration due to concerns about toxicity, epigenetic alterations, and specific cell type sensitivity [18] [17].

Species-specific optimization has proven valuable, as demonstrated by research showing that goat ADSCs were optimally preserved with a medium containing 5% DMSO, 3% FBS, 2% PEG, 3% trehalose, and 2% BSA, while buffalo ADSCs performed best in an FBS-free medium with 5% DMSO, 2% PEG, 3% trehalose, and 2% BSA [18].

Thawing and Post-Thaw Processing

The thawing process is equally critical for maintaining cell viability and function. Rapid thawing in a 37°C water bath with continuous agitation is generally recommended to ensure uniform warming. Immediate removal of cryoprotectants through centrifugation and washing is often employed, though this introduces additional manipulation steps that can affect cell recovery [17].

For clinical applications, there is debate about whether to administer MSCs immediately after thawing or after a short recovery period in culture. Some evidence suggests that cryopreserved MSCs may require approximately 24 hours of culture post-thaw to fully recover their functionality [5].

Figure 2: Standard workflow for cryopreservation and preparation of MSCs for clinical use

Commercial Cryopreservation Solutions

Several optimized, commercially available cryopreservation media have been developed to address the challenges of MSC preservation:

• CryoStor series: cGMP-manufactured solutions with defined DMSO concentrations (2%, 5%, 10%) designed to mitigate temperature-induced molecular stress responses during freezing and thawing [19].

• MesenCult-ACF Cryopreservation Medium: A defined, serum-free and animal component-free medium specifically formulated for MSCs that maintains multipotency and expansion capacities post-thaw [19].

• HypoThermosol FRS: Designed for short-term hypothermic preservation (2-8°C) rather than cryogenic storage, useful for transport and temporary storage [19].

These commercial solutions offer advantages over laboratory-made formulations, including lot-to-lot consistency, defined composition, regulatory compliance, and optimized formulations for specific cell types.

Research Reagent Solutions for MSC Cryopreservation

Table 4: Essential Materials for MSC Cryopreservation Research

Reagent/Equipment	Function	Example Products
Defined Cryomedium	Cell protection during freezing	CryoStor, MesenCult-ACF
Controlled-Rate Freezer	Ensures optimal cooling rate	Custom Cooler
Cryogenic Storage	Long-term preservation	Liquid nitrogen systems
Viability Assays	Post-thaw quality assessment	Flow cytometry, Trypan blue
Functional Assays	Potency verification	Immunomodulation, differentiation

The body of evidence demonstrates that cryopreserved MSCs represent a functionally viable and logistically necessary alternative to freshly cultured cells for clinical applications. While modest differences in certain in vitro potency measures exist, these rarely translate to significant efficacy differences in preclinical in vivo models or clinical outcomes. The logistical advantages of cryopreservation—including immediate availability, robust quality control, batch consistency, and geographic distribution—provide compelling practical arguments for their adoption.

Future developments should focus on optimizing cryopreservation protocols to maintain post-thaw viability above the critical 80% threshold, further reducing or eliminating potentially problematic cryoprotectants like DMSO and FBS, and establishing standardized potency assays that correlate with clinical efficacy. As these advancements progress, cryopreserved "off-the-shelf" MSC products will increasingly become the practical standard, enabling broader implementation of cell-based therapies across diverse medical conditions and healthcare settings.

Cryopreservation serves as a cornerstone technology in biomedical research, enabling long-term preservation of biological materials including cells, tissues, and embryos. Within regenerative medicine, the post-thaw performance of cryopreserved mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) directly impacts their therapeutic efficacy in vivo. Two primary methodologies have emerged: conventional slow freezing and vitrification. While slow freezing employs controlled, gradual cooling to minimize intracellular ice formation, vitrification utilizes high concentrations of cryoprotectants and ultra-rapid cooling to achieve a glass-like solid state without ice crystallization [20]. The choice between these methods represents a critical decision point for researchers and clinicians aiming to optimize cell survival, functionality, and ultimately, clinical outcomes.

This comparison guide examines the fundamental principles of both techniques, with particular emphasis on their application in MSC research. We will analyze experimental data, detailed methodologies, and key considerations for selecting the appropriate cryopreservation strategy based on specific research or clinical objectives.

Fundamental Principles and Mechanisms

Slow Freezing: Controlled Ice Formation

Conventional slow freezing relies on a programmed, gradual reduction in temperature, typically at rates of -0.3°C to -2°C per minute [21] [22]. This controlled cooling allows water to slowly migrate out of cells before freezing extracellularly. The process uses relatively low concentrations of permeating cryoprotectants such as 1.5M propane-diol (PrOH), often combined with non-permeating agents like 0.2M sucrose [21]. The fundamental principle involves achieving sufficient cellular dehydration to prevent lethal intracellular ice formation while minimizing solute damage (injury from concentrated electrolytes) during the unfrozen state.

The gradual cooling process enables water to exit cells prior to freezing, thereby minimizing intracellular ice crystal formation that can damage cellular structures. However, the extended time required for this process and the potential for solution effects injury (damage from concentrated solutes) remain significant challenges [22].

Vitrification: The Glass Transition

Vitrification represents a fundamentally different approach to cryopreservation. Instead of avoiding ice formation through dehydration, vitrification uses high concentrations of cryoprotectants (e.g., 20% ethylene glycol EG + 20% dimethyl sulfoxide DMSO) combined with extremely rapid cooling rates (exceeding 15,000°C/minute) to achieve a direct transition from liquid to a non-crystalline, glass-like state [21] [20].

The core principle of vitrification lies in dramatically increasing solution viscosity to the point where molecular rearrangement becomes virtually impossible, thus preventing ice crystal formation altogether [20]. As Professor Gábor Vajta explains, "Glassified water is not frozen water, and cannot be melted. The correct terms for the process are cooling and warming" [20]. This physical state differs fundamentally from conventional freezing and requires specific conditions including high cooling/warming rates, cryoprotectant additives, and minimal liquid volume [20].

Comparative Performance Analysis

Quantitative Comparison of Cryopreservation Outcomes

Extensive research has compared the effectiveness of slow freezing versus vitrification across various cell types and tissues. The table below summarizes key performance metrics from multiple studies:

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Slow Freezing vs. Vitrification Outcomes

Performance Metric	Slow Freezing	Vitrification	Research Context	Statistical Significance
卵泡存活率 (Follicle Survival Rate)	41.7%-82.9%	71.3%-89.1%	卵巢组织冷冻 (Ovarian Tissue) [21]	RR=0.96, 95%CI: 0.84-1.09 (NS)
原始卵泡完整性 (Primordial Follicle Integrity)	86.8%	73.8%	大块组织冷冻 (Large Tissue Fragments) [21]	RR=1.01, 95%CI: 0.94-1.09 (NS)
DNA片段化比例 (DNA Fragmentation)	Reference	+20%	卵巢组织评估 (Ovarian Tissue Assessment) [21]	RR=1.20, 95%CI: 0.94-1.54 (NS)
囊胚形成率 (Blastocyst Formation Rate)	48.3%±29.6%	60.0%±33.0%	胚胎培养 (Embryo Culture) [23]	P>0.05 (NS)
临床妊娠率 (Clinical Pregnancy Rate)	50.0%	56.8%	胚胎移植 (Embryo Transfer) [23]	P>0.05 (NS)
复苏率 (Survival Rate)	95.2%±12.2%	99.4%±4.1%	胚胎解冻 (Embryo Thawing) [23]	Not Reported

NS = No Significant Difference

The data reveals several important trends. While vitrification generally demonstrates superior performance in survival rates and blastocyst formation, these advantages are not always statistically significant. Tissue characteristics significantly impact outcomes, with one study noting that slow freezing may be more effective for large tissue fragments (15×15×2mm³), possibly due to better cryoprotectant penetration [21]. The comparable DNA fragmentation rates (RR=1.20) suggest that both methods cause similar levels of cellular stress, though through different mechanisms [21].

Impact on Post-Thaw MSC Functionality

Research investigating the therapeutic efficacy of cryopreserved MSCs reveals crucial insights for regenerative medicine applications. A 2025 randomized controlled trial examining cryopreserved umbilical cord MSCs (UC-MSCs) for knee osteoarthritis treatment demonstrated that a single intra-articular injection of previously frozen cells significantly improved pain and function scores over 12 months [24] [25]. The study reported that the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score showed significant improvement in the MSC group compared to corticosteroid controls, with benefits maintained throughout the 12-month follow-up period [24].

Notably, these therapeutic effects were achieved despite the absence of structural cartilage repair on MRI, suggesting that cryopreserved MSCs maintain their immunomodulatory and paracrine functions post-thaw [24]. The mechanisms include secretion of anti-inflammatory factors (TGF-β, IL-10), release of growth factors and extracellular matrix components, and retention of homing capacity to inflammatory sites [24].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Standardized Slow Freezing Protocol

The following protocol for slow freezing of ovarian tissue has been validated in multiple studies and can be adapted for MSC spheroids or tissue constructs:

• Cryoprotectant Preparation: Prepare solution containing 1.5M propane-diol (PrOH) + 0.2M sucrose in appropriate culture medium [21].

• Equilibration: Incubate tissue/cells in cryoprotectant solution at 4°C for 60-90 minutes to allow permeation.

• Packaging: Transfer tissue to cryovials or straws and place in programmable freezer.

• Cooling Program:

  • Start temperature: 4°C
  • Cool at -2°C/min to -7°C
  • Manual seeding to initiate extracellular ice formation
  • Cool at -0.3°C/min to -40°C
  • Cool at -10°C/min to -140°C
  • Transfer to long-term storage in liquid nitrogen (-196°C) [21]

• Thawing: Rapidly warm in 37°C water bath for 60-90 seconds with gentle agitation.

• Cryoprotectant Removal: Use decreasing concentrations of sucrose solutions (0.5M, 0.25M, 0M) to gradually remove cryoprotectants and minimize osmotic shock.

Vitrification Protocol for Sensitive Materials

The vitrification protocol below is adapted from established methods for embryos and can be modified for MSC aggregates:

• Solution Preparation:

  • Equilibration Solution: 7.5% ethylene glycol (EG) + 7.5% DMSO in base medium
  • Vitrification Solution: 15% EG + 15% DMSO + 0.5M sucrose [21] [20]

• Equilibration: Transfer samples to equilibration solution at room temperature for 12-15 minutes.

• Vitrification: Transfer to vitrification solution for 60 seconds maximum. Precise timing is critical due to potential cytotoxicity of high cryoprotectant concentrations.

• Loading and Cooling:

  • For minimal volume approaches: Use open pulled straws (OPS), cryoloops, or solid surface methods
  • Immediately plunge into liquid nitrogen slush or precooled phase
  • Achieve cooling rates >15,000°C/minute [20]

• Storage: Transfer to long-term liquid nitrogen storage.

• Warning:

  • Rapidly warm in 37°C water bath or specialized warming device
  • Transfer directly to 1.0M sucrose solution for 1 minute
  • Gradually dilute cryoprotectants through decreasing sucrose concentrations (0.5M, 0.25M, 0M)
  • Wash in base medium before culture or application

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Successful cryopreservation requires specific reagents and tools optimized for each technique. The following table outlines essential components of the cryopreservation researcher's toolkit:

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for Cryopreservation Studies

Reagent/Tool	Function	Slow Freezing Application	Vitrification Application
Permeating Cryoprotectants (EG, DMSO, PrOH)	Penetrate cell membranes, replace intracellular water, suppress ice formation	Lower concentrations (1.5-2M)	Higher concentrations (15-20%)
Non-Permeating Agents (Sucrose, Trehalose)	Create osmotic gradient, promote cellular dehydration, reduce CPA toxicity	0.1-0.3M for controlled dehydration	0.5-1.0M for rapid dehydration
Programmable Freezer	Controlled, reproducible cooling rates	Essential for standard protocol	Not required
Open Pulled Straws (OPS)/Cryoloops	Minimal volume carriers for ultra-rapid cooling	Not used	Essential for achieving high cooling rates
Synthetic Serum Substitute (SSS)	Protein source, membrane stabilization	Optional additive	Critical component in some formulations
Liquid Nitrogen Storage System	Long-term preservation at -196°C	Required	Required
Viability Assays (Live/Dead, H&E staining)	Post-thaw assessment of cell survival and morphology	Standard application	Standard application
DNA Fragmentation Assays (TUNEL)	Assessment of apoptotic damage post-thaw	Quality control metric	Quality control metric

Critical Considerations for MSC Cryopreservation

Technical Challenges and Limitations

Both cryopreservation methods present unique challenges for MSC research:

Slow Freezing Limitations:

• Extended processing time increases resource requirements
• Intracellular ice formation may still occur with suboptimal cooling rates
• Solution effects injury from concentrated solutes during slow freezing
• Requires expensive programmable freezing equipment

Vitrification Challenges:

• Cryoprotectant toxicity due to high concentrations and brief exposure times
• Technical complexity requiring significant staff training
• Potential contamination risks with open system devices
• Difficult standardization across laboratories [21] [20]

Impact on MSC Functionality and In Vivo Performance

The ultimate assessment of any cryopreservation method lies in its impact on MSC functionality post-thaw. Current evidence suggests that both methods can preserve fundamental MSC characteristics, but subtle differences may influence therapeutic efficacy:

Immunomodulatory Capacity: Studies indicate that cryopreserved MSCs maintain their ability to secrete anti-inflammatory cytokines (TGF-β, IL-10) and modulate T-cell activation, though the magnitude of effect may vary based on cryopreservation methodology [24].

Differentiation Potential: Both slow freezing and vitrification appear to preserve MSC multipotency, with retained capacity for osteogenic, chondrogenic, and adipogenic differentiation post-thaw, though some studies suggest variations in differentiation efficiency.

Secretory Profile: The paracrine function of MSCs, including secretion of growth factors (VEGF, EGF) and extracellular vesicles, may be influenced by cryopreservation method, potentially affecting their therapeutic mechanism in osteoarthritis and other applications [24] [25].

The choice between slow freezing and vitrification for MSC preservation involves careful consideration of research objectives, technical capabilities, and intended applications. While vitrification generally offers superior survival rates for single cells and small aggregates, slow freezing remains a robust, standardized approach for larger tissue constructs and may be more practical for certain research settings.

Future developments in cryopreservation technology will likely focus on standardizing cryoprotectant formulations, developing less toxic cryoprotectant cocktails, optimizing protocols for specific MSC subtypes, and establishing quality control metrics that better predict in vivo performance. As cryopreservation methodologies continue to evolve, their refinement will undoubtedly enhance the translational potential of MSC-based therapies in regenerative medicine.

For researchers embarking on MSC cryopreservation studies, we recommend preliminary comparative testing of both methods with specific cell sources and end-point assessments relevant to their research questions. This empirical approach ensures selection of the most appropriate cryopreservation strategy for maintaining MSC functionality in specific experimental contexts.

Cryopreservation is a critical unit operation in the manufacturing pipeline of Mesenchymal Stromal Cells (MSCs), enabling their long-term storage as "off-the-shelf" living medicines [26]. As an innovative class of drugs termed Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs), MSCs require preservation of their viability and functional potency after thawing to ensure therapeutic efficacy in clinical applications [26]. The freeze-thaw process subjects cells to multiple physical and chemical stressors that can compromise cellular integrity, including ice crystal formation, osmotic pressure changes, and exposure to cryoprotective agents (CPAs) [2]. Understanding these stressors is essential for optimizing MSC-based therapies, particularly when comparing the performance profiles of freshly cultured versus cryopreserved products in preclinical and clinical settings [5]. This guide objectively examines the impact of freezing and thawing on MSC integrity, presenting comparative experimental data to inform research and development decisions.

Key Stressors in the Freeze-Thaw Process

Physical and Chemical Stress Mechanisms

The journey from fresh to frozen and back to viable MSCs exposes cells to multiple stressors that can collectively impact their integrity and function. These stressors occur throughout the cryopreservation lifecycle, beginning with pre-freeze processing and extending through post-thaw recovery.

Table 1: Cellular Stressors During Cryopreservation and Thawing

Process Phase	Stress Mechanism	Impact on Cell Integrity	Experimental Evidence
Pre-freeze Processing	Enzymatic detachment	Disruption of extracellular matrix interactions and surface receptors	Altered immunophenotype post-thaw [27]
CPA Addition	Chemical toxicity of CPAs (e.g., DMSO)	Metabolic disruption, membrane damage, induction of apoptosis	Dose-dependent toxicity observed; 50% reduction in immunosuppressive capacity post-thaw [2] [27]
Freezing Phase	Intracellular ice crystal formation	Physical damage to organelles and membranes	Reduced viability (70-80% survival in slow freezing) [2]
Freezing Phase	Osmotic dehydration	Membrane shrinkage, protein denaturation	Cell volume fluctuations beyond tolerable limits [2]
Thawing Phase	Recrystallization during warming	Secondary ice crystal growth and damage	Crystal formation during suboptimal thawing [2]
Post-thaw Processing	CPA removal and dilution	Osmotic swelling, membrane rupture	>40% cell loss when reconstituted in protein-free solutions [28]
Post-thaw Storage	Extended hypothermic exposure	Energy depletion, onset of apoptosis	Viability maintenance >4 hours in optimized solutions [28]

The physical stressors primarily involve water phase transitions, where intracellular ice crystal formation can physically disrupt organelles and membranes [2]. During slow freezing, gradual dehydration occurs as water exits the cell to freeze externally, causing harmful cell shrinkage. Conversely, during thawing, rapid rehydration can lead to membrane rupture if not properly controlled [2]. The chemical stressors predominantly involve CPA toxicity, with dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) being the most widely used yet potentially damaging CPA [2] [27]. Studies have documented that transfusion of stem cells containing DMSO can trigger allergic responses in patients, highlighting the clinical relevance of this stressor [2].

Visualization of Freeze-Thaw Stress Pathways

The following diagram illustrates the sequential stressors encountered by MSCs throughout the cryopreservation workflow and their cumulative impact on cellular integrity:

Comparative Performance: Fresh vs. Cryopreserved MSCs

In Vivo Efficacy and In Vitro Potency Outcomes

Systematic analysis of preclinical evidence provides insights into the functional consequences of freeze-thaw stress on MSC performance. A comprehensive systematic review examined 18 comparative studies encompassing 257 in vivo preclinical efficacy experiments and 68 in vitro potency measures across various inflammatory disease models [5] [14].

Table 2: Comparative Performance of Fresh vs. Cryopreserved MSCs in Preclinical Models

Outcome Category	Total Experiments	Significantly Different Outcomes	Direction of Difference	Key Findings
In Vivo Efficacy	257	6/257 (2.3%)	2 favored fresh, 4 favored cryopreserved	Majority (97.7%) showed no significant difference in disease modification [5]
In Vitro Potency	68	9/68 (13%)	7 favored fresh, 2 favored cryopreserved	Moderate but inconsistent functional differences [5]
Immunosuppressive Capacity	N/A	Variable	Reduced in cryopreserved	50% reduction in in vitro immunosuppression in some studies [27]
Phenotype Markers	Multiple studies	Minimal differences	Comparable expression	CD105, CD73, CD90 expression generally maintained [2] [27]
Viability	Multiple studies	Consistently reduced	Lower in cryopreserved	70-80% survival post-thaw; highly protocol-dependent [2]

The data reveals that while the majority of in vivo efficacy outcomes showed no significant differences between fresh and cryopreserved MSCs, in vitro potency assays demonstrated more variability, with 13% of experiments showing significant differences, most favoring freshly cultured cells [5]. This suggests that standard in vitro assays may be more sensitive to detecting functional alterations post-thaw, though these differences do not always translate to reduced in vivo efficacy. The observed discrepancies highlight the importance of selecting appropriate assessment methods when evaluating cryopreservation impacts.

Methodological Considerations in Comparative Studies

The interpretation of fresh versus cryopreserved MSC performance data requires careful consideration of methodological variables. Cryopreservation protocols exhibit substantial variation across studies in critical parameters including CPA composition and concentration (e.g., DMSO concentrations ranging from 5-10%), freezing rate control (typically -1°C/min to -3°C/min for slow freezing), storage duration (often unreported in studies), and thawing techniques (37°C water bath being common) [5] [2]. These technical differences significantly impact post-thaw recovery outcomes and complicate cross-study comparisons.

Additionally, the definition of "fresh" and "cryopreserved" MSCs varies in the literature. Some studies designate MSCs as "freshly cultured" when they are either in continuous culture or cryopreserved but thawed and placed in culture for at least 24 hours prior to use, allowing cellular recovery [5]. This recovery period may permit reversal of some stress-induced alterations, potentially minimizing observed differences between groups. Standardization of these methodological parameters is essential for robust comparative assessment.

Experimental Protocols for Assessing Freeze-Thaw Impact

Standard Cryopreservation and Thawing Methods

Slow Freezing Protocol [2]:

• CPA Preparation: Combine MSCs with CPAs such as 10% DMSO, often supplemented with non-permeating agents like sucrose or trehalose in culture medium.
• Cooling Sequence: Place cryovials at 4°C for 30-60 minutes, followed by controlled-rate freezing at approximately -1°C/min to -3°C/min to -40°C to -80°C.
• Long-term Storage: Transfer vials to liquid nitrogen vapor phase (-150°C) or liquid phase (-196°C) for long-term preservation.
• Quality Control: Document cell concentration at freezing, passage number, and cooling rate parameters.

Vitrification Protocol [2]:

• High CPA Concentration: Expose MSCs to high CPA concentrations (e.g., 6-8M combinations of permeating CPAs).
• Ultra-Rapid Cooling: Immediately plunge samples into liquid nitrogen, achieving glassy solidification without ice crystal formation.
• Application Note: Primarily used for specialized applications with specific cell types due to technical challenges.

Thawing and Reconstitution Protocol [28]:

• Rapid Thawing: Immerse cryovials in 37°C water bath with gentle agitation until ice crystals completely dissolve (approximately 2-3 minutes).
• Critical Optimization: Reconstitute in protein-containing solution (e.g., saline with 2% Human Serum Albumin) to prevent massive cell loss.
• CPA Removal: Centrifuge at 300-400g for 5-10 minutes to remove CPAs, then resuspend in administration solution.
• Concentration Maintenance: Maintain cell concentration >10^5/mL during reconstitution to prevent dilution-induced cell death.

Assessment Methodologies for Cellular Integrity

Viability and Recovery Metrics:

• Flow Cytometry: Use 7-aminoactinomycin D (7-AAD) or propidium iodide to quantify membrane integrity and viability post-thaw [28].
• NucleoCounter Systems: Automated cell counting and viability assessment based on fluorescence staining.
• Recovery Calculation: Calculate percentage recovery relative to pre-freeze cell numbers, with >70% generally considered acceptable.

Functional Potency Assays:

• In Vitro Immunosuppression Assay: Co-culture MSCs with activated T-cells and measure T-cell proliferation suppression via 3H-thymidine incorporation or CFSE dilution [27].
• Paracrine Function Assessment: Quantify secretome components (cytokines, growth factors) via ELISA or multiplex arrays.
• Migration Capacity: Transwell migration assay toward inflammatory chemoattractants like SDF-1.

* Phenotypic Characterization*:

• Surface Marker Profiling: Flow cytometric analysis of positive (CD73, CD90, CD105) and negative (CD34, CD45, HLA-DR) markers per ISCT guidelines [29] [2].
• Morphological Assessment: Phase contrast microscopy evaluation of adherence capacity and fibroblast-like morphology post-thaw.

The following workflow diagram illustrates a comprehensive experimental approach for evaluating freeze-thaw impact on MSC integrity:

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Research Reagents for Cryopreservation Studies

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Research Function	Considerations
Cryoprotective Agents	DMSO, Ethylene Glycol, Glycerol, Trehalose	Prevent intracellular ice formation, reduce freezing point	DMSO concentration (typically 5-10%); potential cytotoxicity [2]
Basal Media	DMEM low glucose, α-MEM	Provide nutrient foundation during freezing and recovery	Osmolarity adjustment for cryopreservation solutions [27]
Protein Supplements	Human Serum Albumin (HSA), Fetal Bovine Serum, Platelet Lysate	Mitiate osmotic shock, improve post-thaw recovery	HSA (2%) prevents cell loss during thawing and dilution [28]
Viability Assessment	7-AAD, Propidium Iodide, Annexin V, Calcein-AM	Membrane integrity and apoptosis detection	Multiparameter flow cytometry for viability and apoptosis [28]
Phenotypic Characterization	Anti-CD73, CD90, CD105, CD34, CD45 antibodies	Confirm MSC identity post-thaw	Maintainance of ISCT-defined marker profile essential [2]
Functional Assay Reagents	Phytohemagglutinin, CFSE, IFN-γ, TNF-α	T-cell activation and proliferation measurements	Assess immunosuppressive capacity post-thaw [27]

The cumulative evidence indicates that while cryopreservation imposes significant stressors on MSC integrity, optimized protocols can yield products with largely preserved therapeutic potential. The minimal differences observed in most in vivo efficacy outcomes (97.7% showing no significant difference) support the continued use of cryopreserved MSCs as practical "off-the-shelf" therapeutics [5]. However, researchers should acknowledge that specific functional attributes, particularly certain immunomodulatory pathways, may be sensitive to freeze-thaw stress [27].

Future research directions should prioritize the development of standardized, clinically compatible cryopreservation workflows that minimize cellular stress while maintaining functional potency. This includes optimizing CPA formulations, particularly DMSO-free alternatives, establishing universal thawing and reconstitution protocols, and validating potency assays that better predict in vivo performance of cryopreserved products [2] [28]. Such advancements will enhance the reliability and efficacy of cryopreserved MSC therapies, ultimately benefiting translational applications in regenerative medicine and immune modulation.

Best Practices in MSC Cryopreservation and Thawing for In Vivo Use

The decision to use freshly cultured or cryopreserved mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) represents a pivotal methodological crossroads in preclinical research. This choice potentially influences experimental outcomes, therapeutic efficacy interpretation, and translational relevance. While freshly cultured MSCs have been considered the "gold standard" in many experimental paradigms for their presumed native state, cryopreserved MSCs offer substantial practical advantages for "off-the-shelf" availability in real-world therapeutic applications [5] [17]. A systematic synthesis of current evidence reveals that the majority (97.7%) of in vivo preclinical efficacy outcomes show no statistically significant difference between freshly cultured and cryopreserved MSCs in animal models of inflammation [5] [14]. This guide provides standardized procedures for both pathways, enabling researchers to make informed decisions based on robust, reproducible methodologies.

The Fresh vs. Cryopreserved MSC Performance Landscape Table: Comparative Analysis of Freshly Cultured vs. Cryopreserved MSCs in Preclinical Studies

Parameter	Freshly Cultured MSCs	Cryopreserved MSCs	Statistical Significance
In Vivo Efficacy Outcomes (257 experiments)	Reference standard	2.3% (6/257) significantly different	p<0.05
Significance Direction	Favored in 0.8% (2/257) outcomes	Favored in 1.6% (4/257) outcomes	-
In Vitro Potency Outcomes (68 experiments)	Reference standard	13% (9/68) significantly different	p<0.05
Significance Direction	Favored in 10% (7/68) experiments	Favored in 3% (2/68) experiments	-
Practical Logistics	Limited viability window; complex timing	"Off-the-shelf" availability; enables quality control testing	Operational advantage to cryopreserved

MSC Harvesting and Initial Processing

Source Tissue Collection and Transportation

The initial harvest quality fundamentally impacts all downstream applications and experimental outcomes.

• Bone Marrow Aspiration: Collect 2-20 mL of bone marrow aspirate into heparinized tubes under aseptic conditions. Process within 4-6 hours of collection while maintaining room temperature during transport.
• Adipose Tissue Extraction: Obtain lipoaspirate (50-100 mL) during elective procedures. Wash extensively with equal volumes of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) containing 1% antibiotic-antimycotic solution to remove residual blood and local anesthetics.
• Umbilical Cord Tissue: Collect 8-15 cm segments of umbilical cord in sterile PBS containing 2% antibiotic-antimycotic solution. Process within 24 hours when stored at 4°C.

MSC Isolation and Primary Culture

Table: Isolation Protocols by Tissue Source

Tissue Source	Primary Isolation Method	Culture Medium	Initial Seeding Density	Time to First Passage
Bone Marrow	Density gradient centrifugation (Ficoll-Paque, 1.077 g/mL)	α-MEM + 10% FBS + 1% Pen/Strep	50,000-100,000 cells/cm²	5-7 days
Adipose Tissue	Enzymatic digestion (0.075% Collagenase Type I, 37°C, 30-45 min)	DMEM/F12 + 10% FBS + 1% Pen/Strep	15,000-20,000 cells/cm²	24-48 hours
Umbilical Cord	Explant culture OR enzymatic digestion (0.06% Collagenase Type II, 37°C, 2-3 hr)	DMEM/F12 + 15% FBS + 1% Pen/Strep + 4 ng/mL bFGF	5,000-10,000 cells/cm²	10-14 days

Quality Control Checkpoint: Verify MSC phenotype by flow cytometry for surface markers (CD73, CD90, CD105 ≥95% positive; CD34, CD45, CD11b, CD19, HLA-DR ≤2% positive) before proceeding to expansion or cryopreservation [29].

Preparation for Cryopreservation: Protocol and Cryoprotectant Considerations

Pre-Freeze Processing

• Cell Harvest: Detach MSCs at 80-90% confluence using 0.25% trypsin-EDTA solution. Neutralize with complete culture medium containing serum.
• Cell Counting and Viability Assessment: Perform duplicate counts using automated cell counter or hemocytometer with trypan blue exclusion. Minimum viability threshold: ≥95%.
• Centrifugation: Pellet cells at 300-400 × g for 5 minutes at room temperature. Aspirate supernatant completely.

Cryoprotectant Formulation and Resuspension

The cryoprotectant medium formulation critically influences post-thaw recovery and functionality:

• Base Formulation:

  • 90% Basal medium (α-MEM or DMEM/F12)
  • 10% Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) - cell culture grade
  • 20-30% Serum (FBS or human AB serum) OR
  • 5-10% Human serum albumin (20% solution) for serum-free formulations

• Resuspension Procedure:

  • Prepare cryoprotectant medium fresh and chill to 4°C
  • Resuspend cell pellet gently in cryoprotectant medium to final concentration of 1-5 × 10^6 cells/mL
  • Mix gently by pipetting (avoid vortexing) to ensure homogeneous suspension
  • Aliquot 1-2 mL into pre-labeled cryovials

DMSO Considerations and Safety Profile

DMSO concentration in the final administered product requires careful consideration. Evidence indicates that cryopreserved MSCs containing 5-10% DMSO are well-tolerated in animal models, with no DMSO-related adverse effects observed on mortality, body weight loss, body temperature, or organ injury markers in septic mice [30]. For clinical applications, DMSO doses delivered via intravenous administration of MSC products are typically 2.5-30 times lower than the 1 g DMSO/kg dose accepted for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation [17].

Controlled-Rate Freezing and Liquid Nitrogen Storage

Optimized Freezing Protocol

A standardized, controlled-rate freezing approach ensures maximal cell recovery and functionality:

• Programmable Freezer Method (Recommended):

  • Start at 4°C
  • -1°C/minute to -4°C (hold 5 minutes for seeding)
  • -1°C/minute to -40°C
  • -5°C/minute to -80°C
  • Transfer to liquid nitrogen vapor phase (-135°C to -150°C) for 24 hours
  • Final storage in liquid phase (-196°C)

• Alternative "Mr. Frosty" Method:

  • Place cryovials in isopropanol-filled chamber
  • Store at -80°C for 24 hours
  • Transfer directly to long-term storage in liquid nitrogen

Inventory Management and Storage Duration

• Documentation: Record passage number, cell count, viability, date, and location in liquid nitrogen database
• Storage Duration: Viability and functionality generally maintained for 1-5 years, though periodic quality assessment is recommended for long-term storage

Thawing and Post-Thaw Processing for Experimental Use

Rapid Thaw Protocol

• Preparation: Pre-warm complete culture medium to 37°C
• Thawing: Quickly remove vial from liquid nitrogen and thaw in 37°C water bath with gentle agitation (approximately 1-2 minutes)
• Transfer: When only an ice crystal remains, wipe vial with 70% ethanol and transfer contents to 15 mL conical tube
• Dilution: Slowly add 10 mL pre-warmed dropwise over 1-2 minutes while gently agitating tube

DMSO Removal Strategies: Comparative Experimental Data

Post-thaw processing significantly impacts cell recovery and apoptosis profiles, particularly relevant for in vivo applications:

Table: Comparison of Post-Thaw Processing Methods

Parameter	Washed MSCs (DMSO removed)	Diluted MSCs (DMSO reduced to 5%)	Significance
Cell Recovery	45% reduction in total cell count	5% reduction in total cell count	p < 0.005
Viability (0-24h)	No significant difference	No significant difference	NS
Early Apoptosis (24h)	Significantly higher AV+/PI- population	Lower apoptotic population	p < 0.05
Late Apoptosis	No statistical difference	No statistical difference	NS
Proliferative Capacity	23-24 fold expansion	24-25 fold expansion	NS
In Vitro Potency	Equivalent rescue of monocyte phagocytosis	Equivalent rescue of monocyte phagocytosis	NS

Experimental Note: The dilution method (retaining 5% DMSO) demonstrates superior cell recovery and reduced early apoptosis compared to washing procedures, with equivalent therapeutic potency in rescuing LPS-induced suppression of monocytic phagocytosis [30].

Experimental Integration: Fresh vs. Cryopreserved MSC Applications

In Vivo Model Applications and Efficacy Data

Systematic analysis of preclinical inflammation models reveals critical insights for experimental design:

Table: In Vivo Efficacy Outcomes in Preclinical Inflammation Models

Disease Model	Experimental Outcomes Measured	Fresh MSCs	Cryopreserved MSCs	Statistical Significance
Acute Lung Injury	Arterial oxygenation, Lung compliance, BAL protein, BAL neutrophils, BAL bacterial load, BAL IL-6, BAL IL-10	Therapeutic effect demonstrated	Equivalent therapeutic effect	NS (p<0.05)
Allergic Airways Inflammation	Airway resistance, Tissue resistance, Lung elastance, Inflammation score, BALF total cells, BAL neutrophils, BAL eosinophils, BAL macrophages	Therapeutic effect demonstrated	Equivalent therapeutic effect	NS (p<0.05)
BAL Lymphocytes	Reference standard	Significantly better reduction	p < 0.05 (favors cryopreserved)
Various Inflammation Models	101 distinct outcome measures across 257 experiments	Reference standard	97.7% no significant difference	p<0.05

Functional Recovery Period for Thawed MSCs

Evidence supports that cryopreserved MSCs may require a recovery period post-thaw to restore full functionality. For optimal experimental outcomes:

• Minimum Recovery: Allow 24 hours post-thaw culture for MSC functional recovery before in vivo administration [5]
• Potency Validation: Assess immunomodulatory capacity (e.g., T-cell suppression assay) if critical for study endpoints

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table: Critical Reagents for MSC Processing and Cryopreservation

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Function/Purpose	Experimental Considerations
Cryoprotectants	Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO)	Prevents ice crystal formation, maintains cell membrane integrity	Clinical grade; final concentration 5-10%; consider DMSO-free alternatives for sensitive applications
Culture Media	α-MEM, DMEM/F12, RPMI-1640	Provides nutritional support for MSC growth and maintenance	Serum-free formulations available; lot-to-lot consistency critical
Serum Supplements	Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS), Human AB Serum	Provides growth factors and adhesion proteins	Extensive screening recommended; consider xeno-free alternatives for clinical applications
Dissociation Reagents	Trypsin-EDTA, Collagenase Type I/II, TrypLE	Cell detachment from culture surfaces, tissue digestion	Enzyme concentration and duration optimization required per MSC source
Viability Assays	Trypan Blue Exclusion, Flow cytometry with Annexin V/PI	Assessment of cell viability and apoptosis	Multiple methods recommended for validation; critical pre-freeze and post-thaw
Cryogenic Supplies	Controlled-rate freezer, Cryovials, Liquid nitrogen tanks	Controlled freezing process, long-term storage	Programmable freezing protocols optimize recovery; inventory management systems essential
Quality Control Assays	Flow cytometry panels, Differentiation media (osteogenic, adipogenic, chondrogenic)	MSC characterization and multipotency verification	ISCT criteria compliance; regular batch testing

Signaling Pathways in MSC Cryopreservation-Induced Stress Responses

Understanding the molecular pathways activated during cryopreservation provides insights for optimizing protocols and interpreting functional data.

Pathway Implications: The 24-hour recovery period typically allowed post-thaw enables resolution of reversible apoptosis initiation and activation of protective heat shock proteins and anti-apoptotic pathways, restoring MSC immunomodulatory capacity [5] [30].

This standardized protocol provides a rigorous framework for MSC processing from harvest to liquid nitrogen storage, with particular attention to the comparative performance data between freshly cultured and cryopreserved MSCs. The evidence demonstrates that cryopreserved MSCs represent a functionally equivalent alternative to freshly cultured MSCs for the substantial majority (97.7%) of in vivo efficacy outcomes in preclinical inflammation models [5] [14]. The methodological decision between fresh and cryopreserved approaches should be guided by specific experimental requirements, logistical constraints, and translational objectives, with the understanding that properly executed cryopreservation maintains MSC therapeutic efficacy while offering substantial practical advantages for research standardization and clinical translation.

In the field of regenerative medicine and advanced therapeutic development, the preservation of cellular integrity and function through cryopreservation is paramount. Cryoprotectant Agents (CPAs) serve as essential components in this process, protecting biological materials from freezing-induced damage that can compromise viability and therapeutic potential. For researchers and drug development professionals working with mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and other advanced therapies, the selection of appropriate cryoprotectants represents a critical balance between cellular protection and toxicity management. The ongoing scientific debate regarding the comparative performance of freshly cultured versus cryopreserved MSCs in vivo further underscores the importance of optimized cryopreservation protocols. This guide provides a comprehensive, evidence-based comparison of established and emerging CPAs, with particular emphasis on Dimethyl Sulfoxide (DMSO) and its alternatives, to support informed decision-making in research and therapeutic development.

Established Cryoprotectants: Efficacy and Toxicity Profiles

Dimethyl Sulfoxide (DMSO): The Gold Standard with Limitations

DMSO (CAS No. 67-68-5) remains the most widely utilized cryoprotectant for mammalian cell preservation, particularly in cell-based therapies like CAR-T cell manufacturing and hematopoietic stem cell preservation [31]. Its efficacy stems from its ability to penetrate cell membranes and shield intracellular organelles and molecular structures during freezing and thawing cycles [31]. DMSO functions by lowering the freezing point of solutions, enabling vitrification (a glass-like solid state without ice formation), and stabilizing proteins during freeze-thaw cycles [31]. Typical concentrations range from 5–10% (v/v) for most mammalian cell lines [31].

However, DMSO's toxicity profile presents significant concerns for both cellular function and patient safety. Table 1 summarizes key toxicity considerations and clinical implications of DMSO use.

Table 1: DMSO Toxicity Profile and Clinical Implications

Toxicity Aspect	Cellular Level Effects	Clinical Level Manifestations	Risk Mitigation Strategies
Dose-Dependent Toxicity	Disruption of membrane integrity; interference with mitochondrial function; increased reactive oxygen species (ROS) production [31].	Cardiovascular issues, neurological symptoms, gastrointestinal problems, allergic reactions, hematological disturbances [31].	Limit dose to accepted standards (e.g., 1 g DMSO/kg body weight per infusion in HSC transplantation) [17].
Temperature Sensitivity	Protein destabilization above 32°F (0°C); protein stabilization below 32°F [31].	Impacts infusion-related reactions; necessitates rapid cooling after addition and quick removal after thawing [31].	Implement strict temperature control protocols during handling and administration.
Cell-Type Specificity	Human chondrocytes, oocytes, and certain immune cells show particular sensitivity [31].	Potential compromise of specialized cellular functions in sensitive cell types [17].	Tailor DMSO concentrations and exposure times to specific cell types; consider alternatives for sensitive cells.

The safety profile of DMSO-containing MSC products continues to be debated. A 2025 review analyzing 1173 patients treated with 1–24 DMSO-containing MSC infusions found that delivered DMSO doses were 2.5–30 times lower than the typically accepted 1 g DMSO/kg dose for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation [17]. With adequate premedication, only isolated infusion-related reactions were reported, suggesting that DMSO in cryopreserved MSC products may not pose significant safety concerns when properly managed [17].

Conventional CPA Alternatives

While DMSO dominates clinical cryopreservation, several other established cryoprotectants offer alternative profiles for specific applications. Table 2 compares the properties of these conventional CPAs.

Table 2: Comparison of Conventional Cryoprotectant Agents

Cryoprotectant	Mechanism of Action	Optimal Concentration Range	Advantages	Limitations
Glycerol	Penetrates cell membranes; lowers freezing point; stabilizes proteins and membranes [31].	5% to 15% (v/v); 1 M to 2 M [31].	Lower toxicity than DMSO; preferred for red blood cells and spermatozoa [31].	Can cause osmotic stress at higher concentrations; requires careful temperature control [31].
Trehalose	Non-penetrating; stabilizes biomolecules by replacing water and forming protective glass-like matrix [31].	0.1 M to 0.5 M; 4% (w/w) for specific applications [31].	Natural disaccharide with low toxicity; FDA GRAS status; consistent performance across temperatures [31].	Limited intracellular protection; often requires combination with penetrating agents [31].
Sucrose	Non-penetrating; serves as osmotic buffer and membrane stabilizer [31].	0.1 M to 0.5 M [31].	Low cytotoxicity; accessible and affordable; excellent for stabilizing proteins in freeze-dried formulations [31].	Primarily extracellular protection; risk of osmotic shock with rapid addition/removal [31].

Novel Cryoprotective Strategies and Formulations

Deep Eutectic Solvents (DES)

Deep Eutectic Solvents (DES) represent an emerging class of cryoprotective agents with tunable composition, low toxicity, and favorable biocompatibility [32]. These systems are formed by combining a hydrogen-bond donor and acceptor to yield a eutectic mixture with a depressed melting point [32]. Their extensive hydrogen-bond networks confer strong solvency for biomolecules and contribute to membrane and protein stabilization.

Recent research has investigated choline chloride-glycerol DES for platelet cryopreservation as a potential DMSO-free alternative [32] [33]. In a 2025 study, platelet units cryopreserved using a DMSO-free controlled-rate freezing (CRF) protocol with 10% choline chloride-glycerol DES demonstrated post-thaw recovery of 88.2 ± 0.1%, comparable to the 86.9 ± 0.1% recovery with NaCl-only controls [32]. The DES approach maintained phenotypic expression of key surface markers including CD42b, CD61/CD41a, and PECAM-1, while showing minimal cell disintegration (LDH release 8.8 ± 4.1% of total) [32]. These findings support the feasibility of CPA-free or DES-enhanced CRF-based cryopreservation while maintaining functional integrity.

CPA Mixtures and Toxicity Reduction Strategies

Research demonstrates that combining cryoprotectants can significantly reduce toxicity while maintaining preservation efficacy. A 2025 screening study of 22 individual CPAs and binary mixtures found that at 4°C, CPA toxicity was significantly reduced compared to room temperature [34]. Several CPA combinations resulted in significantly lower toxicity than their constituent CPAs at the same concentration, including 12 CPA mixtures at 6 mol/kg and 8 CPA mixtures at 12 mol/kg [34].

Notably, toxicity neutralization was observed in several combinations, particularly those involving formamide, acetamide, DMSO, and glycerol [34]. For example, exposure to 6 mol/kg formamide alone resulted in 20% viability, but adding 6 mol/kg glycerol to create a mixture with a total concentration of 12 mol/kg eliminated this toxicity, achieving 97% viability [34]. These findings provide a strong rationale for using multi-CPA cocktails and underscore the potential of rational mixture design to reduce toxicity.

The following diagram illustrates the conceptual relationship between CPA properties, formulation strategies, and functional outcomes in cryopreservation protocol development.

Freshly Cultured vs. Cryopreserved MSCs: Preclinical Evidence

The critical question of whether cryopreservation compromises MSC therapeutic efficacy has been systematically investigated in preclinical models. A 2022 systematic review comparing freshly cultured versus cryopreserved MSCs in animal models of inflammation provides compelling evidence [5] [14]. The analysis included 18 studies encompassing 257 in vivo preclinical efficacy experiments representing 101 distinct outcome measures [14].

Remarkably, only 2.3% (6/257) of these outcomes showed statistically significant differences at the 0.05 level or less, with two favoring freshly cultured and four favoring cryopreserved MSCs [14]. For in vitro potency measures, 68 experiments represented 32 different potency measures, with 13% (9/68) showing significant differences, with seven experiments favoring freshly cultured MSC and two favoring cryopreserved MSCs [14]. The authors concluded that the majority of preclinical primary in vivo efficacy and secondary in vitro potency outcomes were not significantly different between freshly cultured and cryopreserved MSCs [14].

These findings provide MSC researchers with additional rationale for considering cryopreserved MSC products in preclinical studies and clinical trials, particularly given the significant logistical advantages of off-the-shelf availability for acute conditions [5].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

DMSO Toxicity Mitigation in MSC Products

A 2025 toxicology study on cryopreserved MSCs for sepsis treatment compared two post-thaw processing methods: washing (DMSO removal) versus dilution (DMSO reduction to 5% v/v) [30]. The dilution method showed significantly higher cell recovery with only a 5% reduction in total cell count compared to a 45% drop in washed MSCs [30]. While viability was similar between groups immediately post-thaw, washed MSCs displayed a significantly higher population of early apoptotic cells at the 24-hour time point [30]. Critically, both washed and diluted MSCs demonstrated equivalent potency in rescuing LPS-induced suppression of monocytic phagocytosis [30]. In murine sepsis models, administration of 5% DMSO-containing MSCs showed no DMSO-related effects on mortality, body weight loss, body temperature, or organ injury markers [30].

High-Throughput CPA Toxicity Screening

Advanced screening platforms have been developed to systematically evaluate CPA toxicity. One recently upgraded system incorporates subambient temperature control, enabling assessment of CPA toxicity at 4°C, a temperature commonly used for CPA equilibration in tissue and organ cryopreservation [34]. This automated platform using bovine pulmonary artery endothelial cells (BPAECs) as a model system allows for rapid toxicity screening of individual CPAs and mixtures under conditions more relevant to actual cryopreservation protocols [34]. The workflow involves:

• Preparation: CPA solutions dispensed into deep-well plates according to a randomized 96-well format
• Exposure: Cells exposed to CPA solutions under controlled temperature conditions (4°C)
• Assessment: Viability measurement using standardized assays (e.g., PrestoBlue)
• Analysis: Comparison of toxicity profiles across single CPAs and mixtures

This approach has identified specific CPA combinations that significantly reduce toxicity compared to their constituent compounds, supporting the rational design of effective, lower-toxicity cryoprotectant cocktails [34].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Research Reagents for Cryoprotectant Studies

Reagent / Material	Primary Function	Research Applications	Considerations
Dimethyl Sulfoxide (DMSO)	Penetrating cryoprotectant	Gold standard for mammalian cell cryopreservation; MSC and hematopoietic stem cell preservation [31] [17].	Use high-purity, compendial grade; control temperature during handling; consider dose-dependent toxicity [31].
Glycerol	Penetrating cryoprotectant	Preservation of red blood cells, spermatozoa; biopharmaceutical cell line preservation [31].	Lower toxicity than DMSO; requires osmotic control; effective at 5-15% (v/v) concentrations [31].
Trehalose	Non-penetrating cryoprotectant	Extracellular protection; stabilizer for proteins, vaccines; combination therapy with penetrating CPAs [31].	FDA GRAS status; use compendial grade (USP/FCC) for regulated applications; effective at 0.1-0.5 M [31].
Deep Eutectic Solvents (DES)	Novel cryoprotectant class	DMSO-free cryopreservation; platelet and stem cell preservation; tunable properties [32] [33].	Emerging technology; composition-dependent efficacy; choline chloride-glycerol shows promise [32].
PrestoBlue/MTT Assays	Viability assessment	High-throughput toxicity screening; CPA mixture optimization [34].	Standardized protocols essential; enables rapid screening of multiple formulations [34].
Annexin V/PI Staining	Apoptosis detection	Assessment of cryopreservation-induced cell death; evaluation of post-thaw cell quality [30].	Distinguishes early apoptosis (AV+/PI-) from late apoptosis/necrosis; useful for protocol optimization [30].
Controlled-Rate Freezer	Temperature management	Standardized freezing protocols; critical for reproducible cryopreservation outcomes [32].	Enables optimized cooling rates; improves consistency compared to uncontrolled freezing [32].

The following workflow diagram illustrates a generalized approach to CPA evaluation and selection for MSC cryopreservation, integrating key considerations from current research.

The evaluation of cryoprotectant agents continues to evolve as researchers balance the proven efficacy of established options like DMSO with emerging strategies to mitigate toxicity. Current evidence suggests that while DMSO remains the gold standard for many applications, proper management of concentration, exposure time, and temperature can significantly reduce associated risks. For MSC-based therapies, the accumulating preclinical data indicates that cryopreservation does not substantially compromise therapeutic efficacy compared to freshly cultured cells, supporting the feasibility of off-the-shelf products.

Future developments in cryoprotectant technology will likely focus on several key areas: optimized multi-CPA cocktails that leverage toxicity neutralization effects; advanced deep eutectic solvents with tailored biocompatibility profiles; and improved physical methods like controlled-rate freezing that reduce CPA requirements. Furthermore, standardized reporting of cryopreservation methodologies in scientific literature will enhance comparability across studies and accelerate protocol optimization. As cryopreservation protocols continue to refine the balance between cellular protection and toxicity management, researchers and therapeutic developers are positioned to increasingly leverage the logistical advantages of cryopreserved cellular products without compromising therapeutic potential.

The transition of Mesenchymal Stem Cells (MSCs) from a cryopreserved state to an active therapeutic agent represents one of the most vulnerable yet decisive phases in cell-based therapy. While cryopreservation enables the "off-the-shelf" availability essential for treating acute conditions, the true therapeutic potential of these cells is determined by how they navigate the immediate post-thaw period. The process of thawing, washing, and recovery is not merely a technical procedure but a critical determinant of cellular viability, functionality, and ultimately, treatment efficacy [28] [35].

The significance of this phase is underscored by systematic reviews of preclinical evidence which demonstrate that while the majority of efficacy outcomes (97.7%) show no significant difference between freshly cultured and cryopreserved MSCs, certain in vitro potency measures can be affected [5] [14]. These findings suggest that cryopreserved MSCs retain considerable therapeutic potential, provided they are handled appropriately in the critical hours post-thaw. This guide objectively compares the methodologies and outcomes of different post-thaw processing approaches, providing researchers with evidence-based protocols to maximize MSC performance in both in vitro and in vivo applications.

Quantitative Comparison of Post-Thaw Processing Methods

The recovery of MSCs after thawing is profoundly influenced by the solutions and protocols employed. Research has systematically evaluated how different reconstitution approaches affect immediate cell stability and viability, with clear implications for therapeutic application.

Table 1: Comparison of Post-Thaw Reconstitution Solutions for MSC Stability

Reconstitution Solution	Cell Loss After 1h	Viability After 1h	Stability Duration	Key Findings
Protein-free solutions	Up to 50%	<80%	Not stable	Significant instant cell loss [28]
Phosphate Buffered Saline (PBS)	>40%	<80%	<1 hour	Poor MSC stability observed [28]
Culture medium	>40%	<80%	<1 hour	Similar instability to PBS [28]
Isotonic saline + 2% HSA	Minimal loss	>90%	≥4 hours	Prevents dilution-induced cell loss [28]
Isotonic saline alone	No observed loss	>90%	≥4 hours	Optimal for post-thaw storage [28]
Human plasma	~20% over 4 days	>80%	4 days	Maintains growth potential without cryopreservation [35]

The critical importance of protein supplementation during the thawing process cannot be overstated. When cryopreserved MSCs are thawed in protein-free vehicles, approximately 50% of cells are lost immediately, severely compromising the therapeutic dose [28]. This catastrophic cell loss appears to be mitigated by the inclusion of human serum albumin (HSA) at 2% concentration, which acts as a protective agent during this vulnerable phase.

Equally important is the concentration at which MSCs are reconstituted. Diluting MSCs to concentrations below 100,000 cells/mL in protein-free solutions triggers instant cell loss exceeding 40% with viability dropping below 80% [28]. This finding has direct implications for clinical applications where cells are often diluted for infusion.

Table 2: Impact of Post-Thaw Culture Duration on MSC Recovery and Function

Post-Thaw Culture Period	Viability Recovery	Immunomodulatory Function	Therapeutic Efficacy	Key Evidence
<24 hours (Freshly thawed)	60-97% (variable)	Reduced IDO expression	71% patient response	[35]
≥24 hours (Recovery culture)	Improved viability	Restored IDO activity	100% patient response	[35]
No culture (Direct infusion)	Lower in some studies	Impaired IFN-γ response	Comparable in 97.7% of preclinical outcomes	[5] [35]

The systematic review by Dave et al. encompassing 18 studies and 257 in vivo experiments found that only 6 (2.3%) showed statistically significant differences between freshly cultured and cryopreserved MSCs, with 4 of these actually favoring cryopreserved cells [5] [14]. This suggests that while cryopreservation may affect certain cellular functions, the overall therapeutic efficacy remains largely intact with proper handling.

Experimental Protocols for Post-Thaw Assessment and Processing

Protocol 1: Standardized Thawing and Reconstitution with HSA

This protocol, validated in recent studies, provides a clinically compatible method for maximizing MSC recovery post-thaw [28]:

• Thawing Solution Preparation: Prepare isotonic saline (0.9% NaCl) supplemented with 2% human serum albumin (HSA). Ensure the solution is warmed to room temperature before use.

• Rapid Thawing: Remove vials from liquid nitrogen storage and thaw quickly in a 37°C water bath with gentle agitation until only a small ice crystal remains (approximately 2 minutes).

• Dilution and Washing: Transfer the thawed cell suspension to a centrifuge tube containing 10 volumes of the pre-warmed HSA-saline solution. This gradual dilution minimizes osmotic shock.

• Centrifugation: Centrifuge at 300-400 × g for 5 minutes at room temperature. Carefully aspirate the supernatant containing cryoprotectants without disturbing the cell pellet.

• Resuspension: Resuspend the cell pellet in the preferred administration solution at a concentration ≥1 × 10^6 cells/mL. For lower concentrations, maintain HSA supplementation.

• Viability Assessment: Determine cell count and viability using 7-AAD staining and flow cytometry, or trypan blue exclusion.

Key Experimental Data: Implementation of this protocol resulted in >90% viability with no observed cell loss for at least 4 hours post-thaw, significantly outperforming protein-free solutions or PBS [28].

Protocol 2: Alternative Preservation in Human Plasma

For applications where cryopreservation is not desirable, this method extends the shelf-life of freshly cultured MSCs [35]:

• Cell Preparation: Harvest MSCs at passage 2 or 3 using standard methods. Wash, centrifuge, and pellet the cells.

• Plasma Resuspension: Resuspend the cell pellet in human AB+ plasma at a concentration of 2 × 10^6 cells/mL.

• Storage Conditions: Transfer the cell suspension to sterile tubes and store at either refrigerator temperature (5 ± 3°C) or room temperature (22 ± 3°C).

• Viability Monitoring: Assess cell viability and growth potential daily for up to 7 days using trypan blue exclusion and reculture experiments.

• Potency Verification: On day 3, evaluate MSC markers (CD90, CD105, CD73 positive; CD34, CD45, HLA-DR negative) and differentiation potential to adipocytes and osteocytes.

Key Experimental Data: This method maintained >80% cell viability for up to 4 days with preserved differentiation potential and surface marker expression, offering an alternative to cryopreservation while avoiding the freeze-thaw damage [35].

Viability Assessment Methods

Accurate assessment of post-thaw viability is essential for dosing and quality control:

• Flow Cytometry with 7-AAD: Using 7-aminoactinomycin D (7-AAD) exclusion provides precise quantification of viable cells. 7-AAD is excluded from viable cells but penetrates membrane-compromised cells, binding to DNA [28].

• Trypan Blue Exclusion: A more accessible method where viable cells exclude the dye while non-viable cells uptake it. Count using a hemocytometer or automated cell counter [35].

• Functional Potency Assays: Beyond simple viability, assess immunomodulatory capacity through:

  • IDO (indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase) activity measurement after IFN-γ stimulation
  • Response to pro-inflammatory cytokines
  • Anti-inflammatory cytokine secretion profile [35]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Reagents for Post-Thaw MSC Processing and Assessment

Reagent/Solution	Function	Application Notes	Evidence
Human Serum Albumin (HSA)	Prevents cell loss during thawing and dilution	Critical at 2% concentration in isotonic solutions	[28]
Dimethyl Sulfoxide (DMSO)	Cryoprotectant for initial freezing	Must be removed post-thaw due to cytotoxicity	[35]
Human AB+ Plasma	Alternative storage medium	Maintains viability without cryopreservation for up to 4 days	[35]
7-AAD Viability Stain	Membrane integrity assessment	Flow cytometry-based quantification of viable cells	[28]
Trypan Blue	Viability staining	Simple exclusion method for viability estimation	[35]
Isotonic Saline (0.9% NaCl)	Base solution for reconstitution	Superior to PBS or culture medium for post-thaw storage	[28]
Collagenase	Tissue digestion for MSC isolation	Used in initial isolation from source tissues	[36]

Workflow Visualization: Post-Thaw Processing Pathways

The following diagram illustrates the critical decision points and pathways in post-thaw MSC processing, highlighting how different methodological choices lead to varying outcomes:

Decision Pathway for Post-Thaw MSC Processing

This workflow demonstrates how critical decision points in the post-thaw process—specifically the inclusion of protein in the reconstitution solution, maintaining adequate cell concentration, and implementing recovery culture—directly impact MSC viability and functionality.

The body of evidence demonstrates that the post-thaw phase is not an insurmountable barrier but rather a manageable process that, when optimized, enables cryopreserved MSCs to perform comparably to their freshly cultured counterparts in the majority of preclinical scenarios [5] [14]. The key to success lies in recognizing the vulnerabilities of freshly thawed MSCs and implementing evidence-based protocols that address these specific challenges.

By adopting standardized, clinically compatible methods for thawing, reconstitution, and recovery culture, researchers and clinicians can harness the full therapeutic potential of cryopreserved MSCs while maintaining the practical advantages of "off-the-shelf" availability. The protocols and data presented herein provide a roadmap for navigating the critical post-thaw phase, ultimately supporting the advancement of consistent and effective MSC-based therapies.

The transition of mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapies from research to clinical application demands reliable, "off-the-shelf" cellular products. Cryopreservation provides the necessary stability for storage and transport from manufacturing facilities to the bedside, yet the process introduces critical variables that can profoundly impact cell viability and therapeutic efficacy [5] [37]. The fundamental challenge lies in balancing the need for long-term storage with the preservation of MSC functionality, particularly their immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory properties that make them promising therapeutics for conditions ranging from graft-versus-host disease to osteoarthritis and inflammatory bowel disease [5].

This guide systematically examines three pivotal variables in MSC cryopreservation—cooling rates, storage duration, and thawing speed—based on current experimental evidence. For researchers and drug development professionals, optimizing these parameters is not merely a technical consideration but a fundamental determinant of therapeutic success. While a comprehensive systematic review of pre-clinical studies reveals that the majority of in vivo efficacy outcomes (97.7%) show no statistically significant difference between freshly cultured and cryopreserved MSCs, the remaining 2.3% of variable outcomes underscores the importance of protocol optimization [5] [14]. By examining direct comparative data and detailed methodologies, this analysis provides evidence-based guidance for maximizing post-thaw MSC recovery and functionality.

Cooling Rate Optimization: Slow Freezing Versus Vitrification

The cooling rate during cryopreservation fundamentally influences cellular survival by controlling ice crystal formation, the primary source of physical damage to cellular structures. Two principal methods—slow freezing and vitrification—dominate current MSC preservation strategies, each with distinct mechanisms and outcomes [2].

Table 1: Comparison of MSC Cryopreservation Methods

Parameter	Slow Freezing	Vitrification
Cooling Rate	~-1°C/min to -3°C/min [2]	Ultra-rapid (> -100°C/min) [2]
CPA Concentration	Low (e.g., 10% DMSO) [37] [2]	High (e.g., 20-40% cocktail) [2]
Primary Mechanism	Cellular dehydration minimizing intracellular ice [2]	Glassy solid state without ice formation [2]
Typical Survival Rate	70-80% [2]	Variable; often higher but technique-dependent
Technical Complexity	Low; suitable for clinical/lab standardization [2]	High; requires precise handling
Risk of Contamination	Minimal [2]	Increased due to open systems in some protocols
Current Clinical Preference	Widely adopted [2]	Limited application

Experimental Evidence: Slow Freezing Protocol Optimization

Recent investigations have refined slow freezing protocols using controlled-rate freezers or passive cooling devices (e.g., CoolCell). A 2024 study compared five freezing solutions for fucosylated human MSCs, with cells resuspended at 2×10⁶ cells/mL or 5×10⁶ cells/mL in cryovials, placed at -80°C overnight in a freezing container (achieving approximately -1°C/min cooling rate), then transferred to liquid nitrogen for long-term storage [37]. The experimental data demonstrated that a solution of saline with 10% DMSO and 2% Human Serum Albumin (HSA) consistently supported high post-thaw viability and immunosuppressive properties, outperforming commercial cryopreservation media like CryoStoreCS10 and NutriFreez D10 [37].

Advanced macromolecular cryoprotectants have shown promise in supplementing traditional protocols. Synthetic polyampholytes used with 5% DMSO demonstrated reduced intracellular ice formation in THP-1 cells (a monocytic line), doubling post-thaw recovery compared to DMSO-alone controls [38]. Cryo-Raman microscopy confirmed the biophysical mechanism: polyampholytes enhance cellular dehydration during freezing, thereby minimizing lethal intracellular crystallization [38].

Diagram: Comparative workflow of primary MSC cryopreservation methods showing key parameters and outcomes.

Storage Duration and Conditions: Maintaining Functional Potency

The duration and conditions of cryopreserved storage significantly influence MSC viability and functionality. While liquid nitrogen storage (-196°C) theoretically permits indefinite preservation, practical considerations of storage stability remain crucial for clinical applications.

Experimental Data on Storage Duration

Evidence from pre-clinical systematic reviews indicates that cryopreservation duration was not reported in approximately half of all analyzed studies, and the remaining studies employed highly variable storage periods [5] [39]. Despite this heterogeneity, the overwhelming majority (97.7%) of in vivo efficacy outcomes across 257 experiments showed no significant difference between freshly cultured and cryopreserved MSCs, regardless of storage duration [5] [14]. This suggests that properly cryopreserved MSCs can maintain their therapeutic potential across varying storage times.

Research on MSC-derived extracellular vesicles (EVs) provides additional insights into storage effects on functional components. MSC EVs retained key bioactivity (pro-vascularization, anti-inflammation) for up to 4-6 weeks at -20°C, -80°C, and after lyophilization [40]. Furthermore, loaded microRNA (miRNA) and long non-coding RNA (lncRNA) cargo in MSC EVs maintained functionality under these storage conditions, as demonstrated through in vivo wound healing models [40].

Table 2: Impact of Storage Conditions on MSC and MSC-Derived Product Viability

Storage Condition	Maximum Documented Functional Duration	Key Experimental Findings
Liquid Nitrogen (-196°C)	Not systematically determined (years presumed)	97.7% of in vivo outcomes show no significant difference vs. fresh [5] [14]
-80°C	6 weeks (MSC-EVs) [40]	Retained anti-inflammatory and pro-angiogenic effects [40]
-20°C	4-6 weeks (MSC-EVs) [40]	Preserved loaded miRNA bioactivity [40]
Lyophilized at RT	6 weeks (MSC-EVs) [40]	Maintained regenerative capacity in wound healing [40]
4°C (Post-Thaw)	4 hours in isotonic saline with protein [28]	>90% viability with no significant cell loss [28]

Thawing Speed and Post-Thaw Handling: Determining Immediate Cell Survival

The thawing process represents a critical vulnerability in MSC cryopreservation, where improper handling can negaind even optimally preserved cells. The rate of thawing and subsequent reconstitution conditions directly impact immediate cell survival and recovery of function.

Optimized Thawing Protocol

Standardized thawing employs a 37°C water bath with gentle agitation for approximately 2 minutes until ice crystals completely dissolve [37] [2]. To enhance safety and reduce contamination risk, drying heating equipment presents a preferable alternative to water baths [2]. Immediate dilution in pre-warmed protein-containing solution is essential to mitigate DMSO toxicity—typically using 10 volumes of thawing media (e.g., saline with 2.5% HSA and 5% anticoagulant citrate-dextrose) followed by centrifugation at 100-400 RCF for 5 minutes to remove cryoprotectants [28] [37].

Critical Reconstitution Parameters

Post-thaw reconstitution conditions dramatically influence MSC stability. A 2023 study identified that reconstitution in simple isotonic saline proved superior to phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) or culture medium alone, maintaining >90% viability with no observable cell loss for at least 4 hours at room temperature [28]. Crucially, cell concentration during reconstitution significantly impacted recovery—diluting MSCs to <10⁵/mL in protein-free vehicles resulted in instant cell loss (>40%) and reduced viability (<80%) [28]. The addition of clinical-grade Human Serum Albumin (HSA) prevented this thawing- and dilution-induced cell loss, confirming the necessity of protein-containing solutions during this critical phase [28].

Diagram: Optimized MSC thawing and reconstitution workflow highlighting critical parameters for maximizing cell recovery.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for MSC Cryopreservation

Reagent/Material	Function/Purpose	Optimization Notes
Dimethyl Sulfoxide (DMSO)	Penetrating cryoprotectant; reduces ice crystal formation [2]	Clinical-grade preferred; typically 5-10% concentration; requires gradual addition/removal [37] [2]
Human Serum Albumin (HSA)	Protein stabilizer; prevents cell aggregation and damage during thawing [28]	Critical in reconstitution solutions; 2% concentration prevents dilution-induced cell loss [28]
Polyampholytes	Macromolecular cryoprotectants; reduce intracellular ice formation [38]	Synthetic polymers with mixed cationic/anionic chains; enhance post-thaw recovery in suspension cells [38]
Ice Nucleators	Control ice formation temperature; reduce well-to-well variability [38]	Particularly valuable for plate-based cryopreservation; pollen-derived formulations available [38]
Saline Solution (0.9% NaCl)	Isotonic reconstitution base; superior to PBS for post-thaw storage [28]	Simple isotonic saline maintains >90% viability for 4+ hours post-thaw [28]
Controlled-Rate Freezer/CoolCell	Maintains consistent -1°C/min cooling rate for slow freezing [37] [2]	Passive containers provide affordable alternative to programmable freezers [37]

The systematic optimization of cooling rates, storage conditions, and thawing protocols collectively determines the success of cryopreserved MSC applications in research and clinical settings. Current evidence strongly supports that properly executed cryopreservation maintains MSC therapeutic efficacy, with pre-clinical systematic reviews demonstrating no significant difference in 97.7% of in vivo efficacy outcomes between freshly cultured and cryopreserved MSCs [5] [14].

The integration of optimized parameters—employing controlled slow freezing, ensuring proper protein-containing reconstitution solutions, and maintaining adequate cell concentrations during thawing—enables reliable post-thaw recovery with preserved immunomodulatory function. As MSC therapies continue to advance through clinical trials, standardized, evidence-based cryopreservation protocols will be essential for delivering consistent, potent cellular products capable of fulfilling their therapeutic potential across diverse inflammatory conditions.

In the field of regenerative medicine, Mesenchymal Stem Cells (MSCs) have emerged as a powerful therapeutic tool for treating inflammatory and degenerative conditions. The central thesis framing contemporary MSC research revolves around comparing the functional performance of freshly cultured versus cryopreserved cells in pre-clinical models. While cryopreserved MSCs offer significant practical advantages as "off-the-shelf" products, concerns regarding potential loss of functionality during freezing and thawing processes have made rigorous pre-administration quality control paramount [5] [11]. Quality control measures, particularly potency assays and functional tests, serve as the critical gateway ensuring that MSC products maintain their therapeutic efficacy regardless of preservation status.

The International Society for Cellular Therapy (ISCT) has established minimal criteria for defining MSCs, including plastic adherence, specific surface marker expression (CD73, CD90, CD105), and lack of hematopoietic markers (CD34, CD45, CD14), plus trilineage differentiation potential [29] [41]. However, these criteria alone are insufficient for predicting therapeutic efficacy, necessitating more sophisticated functional potency assays that measure specific biological activities relevant to intended clinical applications [11]. For inflammatory conditions, this typically involves assessing immunomodulatory capacity, while for regenerative applications, differentiation potential and paracrine factor secretion may take precedence.

The transition from research to clinical application has highlighted significant challenges in MSC standardization. Clinical trials using MSCs have consistently demonstrated safety, but efficacy results have been inconsistent, with many trials failing to meet their primary endpoints [11]. This reality underscores the importance of robust potency testing regimes that can reliably predict in vivo performance. Furthermore, the growing acceptance of cryopreserved products—supported by systematic reviews showing no significant difference in the majority (97.7%) of in vivo efficacy outcomes between freshly cultured and cryopreserved MSCs—makes standardized potency assessment essential for product release and regulatory compliance [5] [14].

Comparative Performance: Freshly Cultured vs. Cryopreserved MSCs

Systematic Evidence from Pre-clinical Studies

A comprehensive systematic review of pre-clinical models of inflammation provides the most compelling evidence regarding functional comparisons between freshly cultured and cryopreserved MSCs. This analysis incorporated 18 studies with 257 in vivo pre-clinical efficacy experiments representing 101 distinct outcome measures. The results demonstrated that only 2.3% (6/257) of these outcomes showed statistically significant differences, with 2 favoring freshly cultured and 4 favoring cryopreserved MSCs [5] [14]. This suggests that from an efficacy standpoint, cryopreservation has minimal impact on the overall therapeutic performance of MSCs in animal models.

For in vitro potency measures, the same systematic review analyzed 68 experiments representing 32 different potency measures. A somewhat higher percentage (13% or 9/68) showed significant differences, with seven experiments favoring freshly cultured MSCs and two favoring cryopreserved MSCs [5]. This indicates that while cryopreservation may have more detectable effects on specific cellular functions in controlled laboratory settings, these differences rarely translate to significant efficacy variations in complex living systems.

Table 1: Summary of Comparative Outcomes Between Freshly Cultured and Cryopreserved MSCs

Assessment Category	Total Experiments/Outcomes	Significantly Different Results	Favoring Freshly Cultured	Favoring Cryopreserved
In Vivo Efficacy	257	6 (2.3%)	2	4
In Vitro Potency	68	9 (13%)	7	2

Impact of Cryopreservation Methodology

The functional preservation of cryopreserved MSCs is highly dependent on the cryopreservation protocol and solutions employed. Research comparing different clinical-ready cryopreservation formulations has revealed important considerations for maintaining post-thaw viability and functionality. Studies evaluating NutriFreez (10% DMSO), PHD10 (Plasmalyte A/5% human albumin/10% DMSO), CryoStor CS5 (5% DMSO), and CryoStor CS10 (10% DMSO) have demonstrated that solutions with higher DMSO concentrations (10%) generally provide better viability preservation over a 6-hour post-thaw period [16].

A critical finding from these comparative studies is that MSCs cryopreserved in CS5 and CS10 at standard concentrations (3-6 million cells/mL) showed significantly reduced proliferative capacity (approximately 10-fold less) compared to those preserved in NutriFreez and PHD10, despite similar initial viability [16]. This highlights that basic viability measures alone are insufficient for predicting long-term functional capacity, and more sophisticated potency assays are required for comprehensive quality assessment.

Table 2: Functional Comparison of MSCs in Different Cryopreservation Solutions

Cryopreservation Solution	DMSO Concentration	Post-Thaw Viability	Proliferative Capacity	Immunomodulatory Potency
NutriFreez	10%	High	High	Maintained
PHD10	10%	High	High	Maintained
CryoStor CS5	5%	Decreasing trend	10-fold reduction	Not reported
CryoStor CS10	10%	High	10-fold reduction	Not reported

Essential Potency Assays and Functional Tests

Immunomodulatory Potency Assays

The immunomodulatory capacity of MSCs represents one of their most clinically relevant functions, particularly for inflammatory conditions such as graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), Crohn's disease, and autoimmune disorders. Standardized assays measuring this functionality should be prioritized for quality control when MSCs are intended for immunomodulatory applications.

T-cell Proliferation Inhibition Assay: This fundamental test measures the ability of MSCs to suppress activated T-cell proliferation, a key mechanism in their immunomodulatory activity. The experimental protocol involves co-culturing MSCs with CFSE-labeled peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) activated with anti-CD3/CD28 antibodies or phytohemagglutinin (PHA). After 3-5 days, T-cell proliferation is quantified using flow cytometry to measure CFSE dilution [16]. This assay directly tests a primary therapeutic mechanism of action for MSCs in inflammatory conditions.

Macrophage Polarization Assay: MSCs can modulate innate immune responses by promoting a shift from pro-inflammatory M1 macrophages to anti-inflammatory M2 phenotypes. The experimental methodology involves co-culturing MSCs with monocyte-derived macrophages (typically from THP-1 cell line or primary monocytes) in transwell systems or through conditioned media transfer. The resulting macrophage populations are characterized by flow cytometry analysis of surface markers (CD206 for M2, CD86 for M1) and cytokine secretion profiles (IL-10 for M2, TNF-α for M1) [41]. This assay is particularly relevant for MSC therapies targeting conditions like acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) or tissue repair applications.

Secretome and Paracrine Function Assays

The therapeutic effects of MSCs are increasingly attributed to their paracrine activity rather than direct differentiation and engraftment. Consequently, assessing the secretome profile represents a critical component of potency testing.

Cytokine and Growth Factor Profiling: Multiplex immunoassays (Luminex) or ELISA arrays should be used to quantify the secretion of key therapeutic factors including vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-β), interleukin-10 (IL-10), and indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase (IDO) [41]. The experimental protocol involves collecting conditioned media from MSC cultures (typically at 80% confluence after 24-48 hours in serum-free conditions) and analyzing using standardized kits. Baseline secretion should be compared with secretion in response to inflammatory priming using IFN-γ and TNF-α, which enhances immunomodulatory factor expression.

Extracellular Vesicle Characterization: MSC-derived small extracellular vesicles (sEVs) are now recognized as principal effectors of MSC therapeutic activity [42]. Quality control should include nanoparticle tracking analysis (NanoSight) to determine vesicle concentration and size distribution, western blot analysis for tetraspanin markers (CD9, CD63, CD81), and functional assays relevant to the intended application. For cardioprotective applications, this might involve testing the effect of MSC-sEVs on cardiomyocyte survival under hypoxic conditions.

Functional Assays for Specific Applications

Angiogenic Potential Assay: For cardiovascular applications, the angiogenic capacity of MSCs can be assessed using an in vitro tube formation assay where human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) are cultured with MSC-conditioned media on Matrigel. Tube formation is quantified by measuring branch points and tube length, providing insight into the pro-angiogenic factor secretion by MSCs [41].

Mitochondrial Transfer Assessment: Emerging evidence identifies mitochondrial transfer as a novel therapeutic mechanism of MSCs, particularly relevant for conditions involving bioenergetic deficits such as myocardial ischemia and ARDS [41]. The experimental methodology involves labeling MSC mitochondria with MitoTracker dyes before co-culture with target cells (e.g., alveolar epithelial cells for pulmonary applications). Transfer is quantified using flow cytometry and confocal microscopy, while functional impact is assessed by measuring ATP levels and oxidative stress markers in recipient cells.

Experimental Workflows and Methodologies

Standardized Potency Assessment Pipeline

A comprehensive potency testing workflow should integrate multiple assays to create a holistic picture of MSC functional capacity. The following diagram illustrates a standardized approach to potency assessment:

Critical Signaling Pathways in MSC Potency

Understanding the molecular mechanisms underlying MSC therapeutic effects is essential for designing relevant potency assays. The following diagram illustrates key signaling pathways involved in MSC immunomodulation:

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Implementing robust potency testing requires specific reagents and materials standardized across experiments. The following table details essential research solutions and their applications in MSC potency assessment:

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for MSC Potency Assessment

Reagent/Solution	Manufacturer Examples	Application in Potency Testing	Key Considerations
Cryopreservation Solutions	NutriFreez, CryoStor, In-house formulations (PHD10)	Maintaining post-thaw viability and functionality	DMSO concentration (5-10%), clinical compatibility, formulation stability
Flow Cytometry Antibodies	BD Biosciences, BioLegend, Miltenyi Biotec	Phenotypic characterization (CD73/90/105) and purity assessment (CD34/45/14)	Validation for specific MSC sources, fluorochrome brightness, compatibility
Luminex Multiplex Kits	R&D Systems, Thermo Fisher, Millipore	Secretome profiling of cytokines and growth factors	Panel selection based on intended application, sensitivity range, sample volume requirements
Cell Culture Media	Sartorius, Thermo Fisher, STEMCELL Technologies	Maintenance of MSC phenotype during expansion	Xeno-free vs. FBS-containing, composition consistency, growth factor content
Functional Assay Kits	Promega, Abcam, Cayman Chemical	Specific potency measures (IDO activity, etc.)	Assay linearity, detection limits, compatibility with MSC biology

The comparison between freshly cultured and cryopreserved MSCs reveals minimal significant differences in in vivo efficacy, supporting the use of cryopreserved "off-the-shelf" products for clinical applications. However, this equivalence is contingent upon rigorous pre-administration quality control implementing comprehensive potency assessment protocols. The essential potency assays and functional tests outlined in this guide provide a framework for standardizing MSC product characterization, regardless of preservation method.

As the field advances, emerging mechanisms such as mitochondrial transfer and extracellular vesicle-mediated effects will require increasingly sophisticated assessment methods [41] [42]. Furthermore, addressing donor variability through appropriate biological replicates rather than donor pooling—which can mask individual donor characteristics and lead to dominant donor effects—remains crucial for accurate potency evaluation [43]. By implementing systematic, mechanism-based potency assays tailored to specific clinical applications, researchers and clinicians can ensure consistent therapeutic efficacy while advancing the field of MSC-based therapies through more predictable and reproducible outcomes.

Navigating Challenges and Enhancing Cryopreserved MSC Potency

The transition from freshly cultured to cryopreserved mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) represents a pivotal advancement in enabling "off-the-shelf" cellular therapies for acute conditions requiring immediate intervention. Cryopreservation facilitates product standardization, quality control testing, and immediate availability for clinical use [44]. However, this process introduces a critical determining factor for therapeutic success: post-thaw viability. Extensive preclinical evidence now demonstrates that maintaining viability above 80% is not merely a quality metric but a fundamental requirement for preserving the immunomodulatory and tissue-reparative functions that underlie MSC therapeutic efficacy [45] [46].

The mechanism of action for MSCs has shifted from lineage-driven regeneration to paracrine and immunomodulatory functions, with recent nomenclature reflecting this understanding through terms such as "MSC-based immunomodulatory therapy" [47]. These functions depend on viable, metabolically active cells capable of responding to inflammatory signals within the host environment. When viability falls below the critical threshold, MSC products lose their capacity to home to sites of injury, secrete therapeutic factors, and modulate immune responses, ultimately compromising treatment outcomes [45] [46]. This review examines the experimental evidence establishing the >80% viability threshold and its mechanistic basis for ensuring MSC potency in preclinical models.

Comparative Analysis: Functional Consequences of High vs. Low Viability MSCs

In Vivo Efficacy Evidence from Systematic Reviews

A comprehensive systematic review comparing freshly cultured versus cryopreserved MSCs in preclinical inflammation models analyzed 257 in vivo efficacy experiments across 18 studies. The analysis revealed that only 2.3% of outcomes showed significant differences between fresh and cryopreserved MSCs when proper cryopreservation protocols were employed [5]. This compelling evidence indicates that cryopreserved MSCs can achieve functional parity with freshly cultured cells, but this equivalence depends critically on maintaining viability and potency through the freeze-thaw process.

Table 1: In Vivo Efficacy Outcomes from Systematic Review of Preclinical Studies

Outcome Category	Total Experiments	Significantly Different Results	Favoring Fresh MSCs	Favoring Cryopreserved MSCs
In Vivo Efficacy	257	6 (2.3%)	2	4
In Vitro Potency	68	9 (13%)	7	2

The minimal functional differences observed in this extensive analysis strongly suggest that when cryopreservation protocols maintain critical quality attributes—particularly viability—the therapeutic efficacy remains largely intact [5]. This systematic review provides the foundational evidence supporting the use of cryopreserved MSCs as functionally equivalent alternatives to freshly cultured cells for most experimental applications.

Direct Functional Impairments Below Viability Threshold

Studies directly investigating the functional consequences of reduced post-thaw viability have identified several critical impairments that emerge when viability falls below the 80% threshold:

Table 2: Functional Consequences of Low Post-Thaw Viability in MSCs

Functional Attribute	High Viability (>80%)	Low Viability (<80%)	Experimental Evidence
Immunomodulatory Capacity	Maintained suppression of T-cell proliferation	Significantly reduced immunosuppressive potency	[45]
Anti-inflammatory Gene Expression	Normal upregulation of angiogenic and anti-inflammatory genes	Diminished IFN-γ secretion and gene expression	[45]
Metabolic Activity	Normal metabolic function	Significantly increased apoptosis	[45]
Proliferation Capacity	Normal growth kinetics	Decreased cell proliferation and clonogenic capacity	[45]
Cytoskeletal Integrity	Preserved actin cytoskeleton	Disrupted cytoskeleton, reduced adhesion	[46]

Notably, research demonstrates that a 24-hour post-thaw acclimation period can reverse many of these functional impairments, allowing MSCs to "reactivate" and recover their diminished stem cell functions [45]. This recovery period enables cells to restore their actin cytoskeleton, regain adhesion capabilities, and reestablish normal metabolic and immunomodulatory functions—further emphasizing that the initial post-thaw viability measurement serves as a crucial indicator of functional potential.

Experimental Evidence: Viability Thresholds in Practice

Retinal Ischemia Model Demonstrating Efficacy of High-Viability MSCs

A critical study examining the effect of cryopreservation on human MSC potency in a retinal ischemia/reperfusion injury model demonstrated that when modifications of established cryopreservation methods were employed to maintain >95% viability upon thawing, the cryopreserved MSCs performed equivalently to fresh MSCs in rescuing retinal ganglion cells [46]. In this clinically relevant model, MSCs were injected into mouse eyes just 3 hours after ischemia onset and 2 hours after reperfusion, simulating an acute treatment scenario where cryopreserved products would be essential.

The experimental protocol included:

• Cell Source: Human bone marrow-derived MSCs
• Cryopreservation Method: Optimized protocol with >95% post-thaw viability
• Viability Assessment: TUNEL staining for double-strand DNA breaks and propidium iodide staining
• Functional Assays: IDO expression, kynurenine production, T-cell suppression
• In Vivo Model: Mouse retinal ischemia/reperfusion with immediate post-thaw administration

The results confirmed that cryopreserved MSCs maintained their immunomodulatory potential, with similar IDO expression levels and T-cell suppression capabilities compared to fresh controls. Most importantly, both fresh and high-viability cryopreserved MSCs demonstrated equivalent therapeutic efficacy in preserving retinal ganglion cells after ischemic injury [46]. This study provides direct evidence that maintaining ultra-high viability enables cryopreserved MSCs to function as effectively as fresh cells even in acute injury models.

Cryopreservation Solution Optimization Studies

Research systematically comparing cryopreservation solutions has identified formulation components critical for maintaining post-thaw viability. A 2024 study evaluated four different cryopreservation solutions at various cell concentrations (3, 6, and 9 million cells/mL), measuring viability, recovery, phenotype, and immunomodulatory functions post-thaw [16].

Table 3: Cryopreservation Solution Comparison for MSC Viability and Recovery

Cryopreservation Solution	DMSO Concentration	Post-Thaw Viability	Cell Recovery	Proliferative Capacity
NutriFreez	10%	High, maintained over 6 hours	High	Similar to fresh cells
PHD10 (Plasmalyte-A/5% HA/10% DMSO)	10%	High, maintained over 6 hours	High	Similar to fresh cells
CryoStor CS5	5%	Decreasing trend over 6 hours	Decreasing trend	10-fold reduction
CryoStor CS10	10%	Comparable to other 10% DMSO solutions	High	10-fold reduction

The experimental protocol included:

• Cell Source: Human bone marrow-derived MSCs (passage 4)
• Viability Assessment: Trypan blue exclusion and Annexin V/PI staining at 0, 2, 4, and 6 hours post-thaw
• Functional Assays: T-cell proliferation inhibition, monocytic phagocytosis improvement
• Key Finding: MSCs cryopreserved in solutions with 10% DMSO displayed comparable viabilities and recoveries up to 6 hours after thawing, while CS5 showed a decreasing trend in both parameters [16]

This research highlights that both DMSO concentration and formulation composition significantly impact post-thaw viability and functional recovery, with 10% DMSO formulations generally outperforming 5% DMSO options in maintaining viability thresholds.

Molecular Mechanisms: How Viability Impacts Therapeutic Functions

Viability-Dependent Signaling Pathways in MSC Potency

The therapeutic effects of MSCs primarily occur through paracrine signaling and immunomodulation rather than direct differentiation and engraftment [47] [11]. These functions require viable, metabolically active cells capable of responding to environmental cues. The diagram below illustrates key viability-dependent signaling pathways that become impaired when viability falls below the critical threshold:

The molecular mechanisms underlying the >80% viability requirement involve multiple interconnected pathways:

• Cytoskeletal Integrity: Freshly thawed MSCs with low viability exhibit disrupted actin cytoskeleton, leading to reduced adhesion to endothelium and poor engraftment following infusion [46]
• Metabolic Function: Cryopreservation-induced stress significantly increases apoptosis and reduces metabolic activity in low-viability cells, impairing their capacity to secrete therapeutic factors [45]
• Immunomodulatory Pathways: MSCs with compromised viability show diminished response to interferon-γ (IFN-γ) and reduced indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase (IDO) expression, resulting in impaired T-cell suppression [45] [46]
• Gene Expression Profiles: Critical regenerative genes and anti-inflammatory mediators are significantly downregulated in low-viability MSCs, while pro-apoptotic pathways are activated [45]

These mechanistic insights explain why viability serves as more than just a survival metric—it represents the functional capacity of MSCs to execute the complex signaling cascades necessary for therapeutic effects.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Methods

Research Reagent Solutions for Optimal MSC Cryopreservation

Based on comparative studies of cryopreservation solutions, the following reagents have demonstrated efficacy in maintaining post-thaw viability above the critical threshold:

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents for MSC Cryopreservation

Reagent Category	Specific Products	Function & Application	Performance Notes
Cryopreservation Media	NutriFreez D10, CryoStor CS10, PHD10 (in-house)	Cryoprotection with 10% DMSO	Maintain >90% viability, preserve immunomodulatory function [16]
Viability Assays	Annexin V/PI staining, TUNEL assay, Trypan blue exclusion	Accurate quantification of live, apoptotic, and necrotic cells	TUNEL preferred for immediate post-thaw assessment [46]
DMSO Dilution Solutions	Plasmalyte-A with 5% Human Albumin	Reducing DMSO concentration pre-infusion	Enables high-concentration cryopreservation with post-thaw dilution [16]
Recovery Media	α-MEM with 15-20% FBS, Nutristem XF	Post-thaw acclimation culture	Facilitates functional recovery during 24-hour reactivation period [45]
Phenotyping Antibodies	CD90, CD105, CD73, CD44, CD45, CD34	Confirmation of MSC identity post-thaw	Ensures maintained phenotype despite cryopreservation [16]

Experimental Workflow for Viability Optimization

The diagram below illustrates a standardized experimental workflow for evaluating and optimizing post-thaw viability in MSC products:

The collective evidence from systematic reviews, direct comparative studies, and mechanistic investigations firmly establishes that maintaining >80% post-thaw viability is essential for preserving the therapeutic efficacy of cryopreserved MSC products. This viability threshold correlates with maintained immunomodulatory function, metabolic activity, and in vivo performance equivalent to freshly cultured MSCs. The research demonstrates that through optimized cryopreservation protocols—including appropriate DMSO concentrations, controlled-rate freezing, and potential post-thaw acclimation—cryopreserved MSCs can achieve functional parity with their freshly cultured counterparts. As the field advances toward standardized "off-the-shelf" MSC therapies, rigorous adherence to viability thresholds remains a critical determinant of clinical success, ensuring that the logistical advantages of cryopreservation do not come at the cost of compromised therapeutic potency.

The transition of mesenchymal stromal cell (MSC) therapies from research to clinical application faces a fundamental challenge: the inherent variability between cell donors and sources. This heterogeneity significantly impacts how well MSCs withstand the cryopreservation process essential for creating practical "off-the-shelf" therapies. While systematic reviews of preclinical data reveal that the majority of in vivo efficacy outcomes (97.7%) show no significant difference between freshly cultured and cryopreserved MSCs, understanding and controlling the sources of variability remains critical for clinical success [5] [4]. This review examines how donor characteristics, tissue origin, and cellular fitness influence cryo-tolerance and provides evidence-based strategies to mitigate these factors for more consistent therapeutic outcomes.

Understanding MSC Heterogeneity and Its Impact on Cryopreservation

Defining MSC Heterogeneity

MSC heterogeneity manifests at multiple levels, creating substantial challenges for standardized therapeutic applications:

• Nomenclature and Definition Variability: The acronym "MSC" represents multiple terms—mesenchymal stem cell, mesenchymal stromal cell, or multipotent stromal cell—reflecting ongoing debate about the fundamental nature of these cells [48]. The International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy (ISCT) established minimum criteria for MSC identification, including plastic adherence, specific surface marker expression (≥95% positive for CD105, CD73, CD90; ≤2% positive for hematopoietic markers), and trilineage differentiation potential [48] [49]. However, a concerning scoping review indicates that only 18% of MSC studies explicitly refer to all ISCT criteria, with just 36% reporting plastic adherence, 40% performing differentiation assays, and 53% analyzing cell markers [49].

• Inter-individual Variation: Donor-specific factors significantly impact MSC characteristics. Aging critically affects MSC function, with studies demonstrating that MSCs from older donors show functional decline, including telomere shortening, accumulated DNA damage, and reduced proliferative capacity [48]. Horizontal comparisons also reveal functional differences between MSCs from different individuals of the same age, even within the same tissue source [48].

Table 1: Sources of MSC Heterogeneity Impacting Cryopreservation Outcomes

Heterogeneity Category	Specific Factors	Impact on Cryotolerance
Donor Attributes	Age, sex, health status, body mass index	MSCs from older donors show reduced post-thaw viability and function; health conditions affect cellular stress resistance
Tissue Source	Bone marrow, adipose tissue, umbilical cord, dental pulp	Variations in membrane composition, metabolic activity, and cell size affect freezing susceptibility
Cell Fitness	Cell cycle stage, mitochondrial function, ROS levels	S-phase MSCs are highly cryosensitive; cells with higher ROS show increased post-thaw apoptosis
Manufacturing Protocols	Culture expansion, serum supplements, passage number	Inconsistent culture conditions amplify inherent biological variability

Cryopreservation-Induced Stress Responses

The cryopreservation process imposes multiple stresses on MSCs, including ice crystal formation, osmotic shock, and oxidative damage. Intracellular ice formation can mechanically damage membranes and organelles, while osmotic stress during dehydration and rehydration disrupts normal cellular function [50]. The most common cryoprotectant, dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), further compounds these challenges through concentration-dependent cytotoxicity that can reduce cell viability, stunt proliferation, decrease adhesion, and increase apoptotic events [50]. These cryopreservation injuries are not uniform across all MSC populations but are significantly influenced by the heterogeneity factors outlined in Table 1.

Tissue-Specific Cryosensitivity

MSCs from different tissue sources exhibit distinct phenotypic and functional characteristics that influence their response to cryopreservation:

• Bone Marrow-Derived MSCs (BM-MSCs): As the most extensively studied MSC source, BM-MSCs demonstrate relatively consistent post-thaw recovery when processed with optimized protocols. Studies indicate that BM-MSCs generally maintain their surface marker expression and differentiation potential after cryopreservation, though some reports note variable recovery of immunosuppressive function [51] [27].

• Adipose-Derived MSCs (AD-MSCs): AD-MSCs have gained popularity due to their accessibility and abundance. These cells typically show comparable post-thaw viability to BM-MSCs but may exhibit differences in secretome profile and immunomodulatory function following cryopreservation [48] [49].

• Perinatal Tissue MSCs (UC-MSCs, WJ-MSCs): MSCs from umbilical cord, Wharton's jelly, and other perinatal tissues often demonstrate enhanced proliferative capacity and appear to maintain robust post-thaw functionality, potentially related to their biologically younger character [49]. However, standardization challenges exist due to variations in processing methods and tissue collection.

Table 2: Comparative Analysis of Cryopreservation Impact Across MSC Sources

MSC Source	Post-Thaw Viability	Phenotype Maintenance	Functional Recovery	Key Considerations
Bone Marrow	70-90% (protocol-dependent)	High (≥95% marker retention)	Variable immunomodulation; generally preserved differentiation	Donor age significantly impacts recovery
Adipose Tissue	75-92% (protocol-dependent)	High (≥95% marker retention)	Generally preserved function; some secretory alterations	Abundant source with consistent yield
Umbilical Cord	80-95% (protocol-dependent)	High (≥95% marker retention)	Robust immunomodulation maintained	biologically younger source; processing variability
Dental Pulp	Limited comparative data	Limited comparative data	Limited comparative data	Emerging source; more data needed

Quantitative Evidence from Systematic Reviews

Recent comprehensive analyses of preclinical evidence provide quantitative support for the comparability of freshly cultured and cryopreserved MSCs across sources. A 2022 systematic review examining 18 studies across multiple inflammatory disease models found that only 6 of 257 in vivo efficacy outcomes (2.3%) showed statistically significant differences between freshly cultured and cryopreserved MSCs, with two favoring fresh and four favoring cryopreserved cells [5] [4]. Similarly, in vitro potency assessments revealed significant differences in only 9 of 68 experiments (13%), with seven favoring fresh and two favoring cryopreserved MSCs [5]. These findings suggest that while cryopreservation may affect certain functional assays, these differences rarely translate to significant efficacy impacts in complex animal models of inflammation.

Mechanisms of Cryoinjury and the Role of Cellular Fitness

Cell Cycle-Dependent Cryosensitivity

Recent mechanistic research has identified a fundamental cryoinjury pathway related to cell cycle status. A 2023 study discovered that S-phase MSCs demonstrate exquisite sensitivity to cryoinjury, exhibiting heightened delayed apoptosis post-thaw and reduced immunomodulatory function [52]. The cryopreservation process induces double-stranded DNA breaks preferentially in replicating DNA, with S-phase cells showing significantly higher levels of this damage. This finding provides a mechanistic explanation for variable post-thaw recovery observed in heterogeneous MSC populations.

Diagram 1: Cell Cycle-Dependent Cryoinjury Mechanism. S-phase MSCs experience significantly more DNA damage and functional impairment post-thaw compared to G0/G1 populations.

Donor Fitness and Age-Related Cryosensitivity

Donor age represents a critical factor in MSC cryotolerance, with cells from older donors demonstrating markers of cellular senescence that compromise freezing resilience:

• Senescence-Associated Phenotype: MSCs from older donors exhibit enlarged morphology, telomere shortening, accumulated DNA damage, and elevated reactive oxygen species (ROS) [48]. These attributes not only reduce basal cellular function but also impair the stress response pathways necessary for cryopreservation survival.

• Metabolic and Functional Decline: Aging MSCs show reduced density in bone marrow and diminished osteogenic potential [48]. This functional decline extends to impaired mitochondrial function and antioxidant capacity, leaving cells more vulnerable to cryopreservation-associated oxidative stress.

Mitigation Strategies: Evidence-Based Approaches

Cell Cycle Synchronization

The discovery of cell cycle-dependent cryosensitivity has led to novel mitigation approaches. Research demonstrates that blocking cell cycle progression at G0/G1 through serum starvation before freezing significantly reduces post-thaw dysfunction [52]. This synchronization approach prevents apoptosis induced by double-stranded breaks in replicating DNA, preserving viability, clonal growth, and T cell suppression function at pre-cryopreservation levels. The efficacy of this method appears comparable to priming with interferon-gamma but without the pleiotropic effects that may alter MSC function in unpredictable ways [52].

Cryopreservation Protocol Optimization

Standardization of cryopreservation methodologies represents another critical strategy for mitigating heterogeneity impacts:

• Controlled-Rate Freezing: Implementation of optimized cooling rates (typically -1°C/min) helps minimize intracellular ice crystal formation while allowing sufficient cellular dehydration [50] [51].

• Cryoprotectant Selection and Reduction: While DMSO remains the most common cryoprotectant, research explores reduced concentrations (5-7.5% for some CAR-T therapies) and alternative natural non-permeating cryoprotectants like sucrose, trehalose, or low-molecular-weight hyaluronic acid [50]. These approaches aim to maintain protection while reducing CPA toxicity.

• Post-Thaw Recovery Considerations: Some studies indicate that allowing 24 hours of culture post-thaw enables functional recovery of cryopreserved MSCs, though this approach complicates the "off-the-shelf" utility [6] [5] [4].

Diagram 2: Integrated Workflow for Mitigating Donor Heterogeneity in MSC Cryopreservation. Sequential optimization strategies address variability at multiple processing stages.

Donor and Source Selection Criteria

Strategic selection of MSC sources and donors can substantially reduce baseline heterogeneity:

• Donor Age Considerations: Where feasible, selection of younger donors provides MSCs with inherently better fitness characteristics and stress resistance [48].

• Source-Specific Banking: Establishing separate cell banks for different tissue sources with source-specific processing protocols acknowledges fundamental biological differences rather than attempting to force standardization across inherently variable starting materials [49].

• Comprehensive Donor Screening: Extending beyond standard infectious disease screening to include cellular fitness parameters (proliferative capacity, mitochondrial function, ROS levels) could identify donors whose MSCs possess inherently better cryotolerance.

Experimental Approaches and Research Tools

Essential Methodologies for Cryotolerance Assessment

Rigorous assessment of cryopreservation impact requires standardized methodologies that capture functional outcomes:

• Viability and Recovery Metrics: Beyond immediate post-thaw viability using dye exclusion methods, assessment of recovery after 24-hour culture provides more clinically relevant data on functional survival [5] [27]. Colony-forming unit (CFU) assays further evaluate clonogenic capacity retention.

• Potency Assays: In vitro immunosuppression assays, particularly those measuring T-cell proliferation suppression, provide critical functional assessment [27]. However, researchers should note that these assays mainly measure specific immunosuppressive mechanisms and may not fully predict in vivo efficacy [27].

• Phenotypic Stability: Flow cytometry analysis of standard MSC markers (CD105, CD73, CD90) and absence of hematopoietic markers should be performed post-thaw to confirm phenotypic maintenance [49].

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Cryotolerance Studies

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Function in Cryopreservation Research
Cryoprotectants	DMSO, glycerol, sucrose, trehalose	Protect against ice crystal formation; require concentration optimization
Cell Culture Media	DMEM low glucose, platelet lysate, fetal bovine serum	Expansion media composition affects basal cell fitness and cryotolerance
Viability Assays	Trypan blue, propidium iodide, Annexin V	Distinguish live, apoptotic, and necrotic populations post-thaw
Functional Assays T-cell suppression kits, differentiation kits	Assess maintenance of immunomodulatory and differentiation capacity
DNA Damage Detection	γH2AX staining, comet assay	Quantify cryopreservation-induced DNA damage
Cell Cycle Analysis	Propidium iodide staining, EdU incorporation	Determine cell cycle distribution and S-phase proportion

Standardized Reporting Frameworks

The development of consensus guidelines for reporting MSC cryopreservation studies would significantly enhance cross-study comparability. Key elements should include:

• Comprehensive Donor Metadata: Age, sex, tissue source, health status, and procurement methods [48] [49].

• Detailed Processing Protocols: Culture conditions, passage number, freezing methodology, cryoprotectant formulation, storage duration, and thawing procedures [51] [27].

• Multiparameter Assessment: Integration of viability, phenotypic, functional, and molecular analyses to provide comprehensive characterization [5] [27].

Donor heterogeneity and variable cryotolerance present significant but surmountable challenges for MSC-based therapies. The convergence of mechanistic understanding—particularly regarding cell cycle-dependent cryosensitivity—with systematic clinical evidence provides a robust foundation for optimization strategies. The data consistently demonstrate that properly processed cryopreserved MSCs maintain therapeutic efficacy comparable to freshly cultured cells in most preclinical models, supporting their use in clinical applications where off-the-shelf availability is essential. Future progress will depend on implementing targeted mitigation approaches including cell cycle synchronization, protocol standardization, and strategic donor selection to minimize variability while maximizing post-thaw function. Through these evidence-based approaches, the field can advance toward more consistent and reliable MSC therapies that fulfill their considerable clinical potential.

The therapeutic potential of Mesenchymal Stem Cells (MSCs) in regenerative medicine is significantly constrained by two interconnected challenges: rapid apoptosis (programmed cell death) and functional loss following transplantation. When introduced into the hostile microenvironment of injured tissues—characterized by ischemia, oxidative stress, and inflammation—transplanted MSCs experience massive cell death, with studies indicating most cells undergo apoptosis within hours after administration [53] [54]. This widespread apoptosis drastically reduces cell retention and engraftment, ultimately diminishing therapeutic efficacy. The susceptibility to apoptosis is further complicated by the ongoing debate regarding the comparative performance of freshly cultured versus cryopreserved MSCs in preclinical research [5] [55]. While some studies suggest cryopreservation may impair MSC functionality, others report comparable efficacy, creating uncertainty in therapeutic protocol standardization [5]. This review systematically compares strategies to mitigate apoptosis and functional loss, providing experimental data and methodologies to guide research and development decisions.

Freshly Cultured vs. Cryopreserved MSCs: A Preclinical Evidence Synthesis

Understanding the baseline performance of MSC formulations is essential before evaluating enhancement strategies. A 2022 systematic review quantified comparative efficacy across 257 in vivo experiments representing 101 distinct outcome measures [5]. The findings demonstrate remarkable functional equivalence between formulation types.

Table 1: Preclinical Efficacy Comparison of Freshly Cultured vs. Cryopreserved MSCs

Assessment Category	Number of Experiments	Significantly Different Outcomes	Favoring Freshly Cultured	Favoring Cryopreserved
In Vivo Efficacy	257	6/257 (2.3%)	2 outcomes	4 outcomes
In Vitro Potency	68	9/68 (13%)	7 experiments	2 experiments

This comprehensive analysis revealed that the vast majority (97.7%) of in vivo efficacy outcomes showed no statistically significant differences at the 0.05 level, suggesting broadly comparable biological performance despite differences in cellular preparation [5]. The slightly higher rate of significant differences in in vitro potency measures (13%) underscores that observed molecular differences do not necessarily translate to functional deficits in living systems. These findings provide a crucial evidence base confirming that cryopreserved MSCs represent a viable "off-the-shelf" alternative without substantial efficacy compromise, thereby enabling practical therapeutic applications for acute conditions [55].

Apoptosis as an Unexpected Therapeutic Mechanism

Paradoxically, recent evidence suggests that the apoptosis of transplanted MSCs is not merely a barrier to efficacy but may actively contribute to their immunomodulatory effects. Two pivotal studies demonstrated that administration of apoptotic MSCs alone produced therapeutic effects comparable to viable MSCs in models of acute liver injury, lung injury, and spinal cord injury [54].

The mechanistic insights reveal that apoptotic MSCs release phosphatidylserine (PS)—a key "eat-me" signal on the surface of dying cells—which engages Mer tyrosine kinase (MerTK) receptors on host immune cells [54]. This interaction triggers a cascade of immunomodulatory events, including reduction of pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-6, IFN-γ, TNF-α), elevation of anti-inflammatory cytokines (IL-10), promotion of macrophage polarization toward the regenerative M2 phenotype, and recruitment of IL-10-producing monocyte-derived macrophages via CCR2 signaling [54]. This paradigm shift suggests that strategies focusing solely on preventing apoptosis might inadvertently diminish the therapeutic activation of innate repair mechanisms, highlighting the need for balanced approaches that maintain the beneficial immunomodulatory signals while improving initial cell survival.

Experimental Preconditioning Strategies to Enhance MSC Resilience

Preconditioning involves exposing MSCs to sublethal stresses prior to transplantation, inducing adaptive responses that enhance survival in the hostile target microenvironment. Multiple experimental approaches have demonstrated efficacy in preclinical models.

Table 2: Efficacy of Environmental Preconditioning Strategies in Disease Models

Preconditioning Method	Cell Source & Protocol	Disease Model	Experimental Outcomes	Reference
Hypoxic Preconditioning	PSC-derived NPCs at 1% O₂ for 8 hours	Rat ischemic brain (MCAO)	30-40% reduced cell death post-transplantation; improved sensorimotor function	[53]
Hypoxic Preconditioning	BM-MSCs at 0.5% O₂ for 24 hours	Rat stroke model (MCAO)	Increased survival; improved brain functional recovery and motor functions	[53]
Hypoxic Preconditioning	CPCs at 0.1% O₂ for 6 hours	Mouse myocardial infarction	Increased survival and heart function; improved LVS; reduced infarct size	[53]
Oxidative Preconditioning	CPCs with 100 μM H₂O₂ for 2 days	Rat myocardial infarction	Increased survival; improved left ventricular function; reduced scarring	[53]
Cytokine Preconditioning	MSCs with TNF-α (10-20 ng/mL)	In vitro immunomodulation	Increased miR-146a in exosomes; enhanced macrophage polarization	[56]
Cytokine Preconditioning	BMSCs with IL-1β	Sepsis models	Increased miR-146a in EVs; improved macrophage polarization; reduced organ injury	[56]

Detailed Experimental Protocol: Hypoxic Preconditioning

Objective: To enhance MSC resistance to ischemia-induced apoptosis following transplantation. Materials:

• Standard MSC cultures (bone marrow, adipose, or umbilical cord-derived)
• Hypoxia workstation or chamber with gas mixing capability
• Standard cell culture reagents (DMEM, fetal bovine serum, antibiotics)
• Annexin V apoptosis detection kit
• Western blot equipment for HIF-1α detection

Methodology:

• Culture MSCs under standard conditions until 70-80% confluence.
• Place culture vessels into hypoxia chamber pre-equilibrated with 0.5-1% O₂, 5% CO₂, and balance N₂.
• Maintain cells in hypoxia for 6-24 hours (duration optimized for specific MSC source).
• Verify preconditioning response via HIF-1α protein stabilization using Western blot.
• Harvest cells using standard trypsinization protocol immediately after preconditioning.
• Confirm enhanced resilience via in vitro apoptosis assay (serum deprivation or H₂O₂ exposure) using Annexin V/propidium iodide staining.
• Administer preconditioned MSCs in animal disease models at standardized dosage.

Validation: Preconditioned MSCs should demonstrate increased retention in target tissues using bioluminescent imaging or PCR-based tracking methods, alongside enhanced therapeutic outcomes in functional recovery assays specific to the disease model [53].

Figure 1: Hypoxic Preconditioning Signaling Pathway. This diagram illustrates the molecular mechanisms through which hypoxic preconditioning enhances MSC survival and therapeutic efficacy following transplantation.

MSC-Derived Extracellular Vesicles: A Cell-Free Alternative

To circumvent the challenges of cellular apoptosis entirely, research has increasingly focused on MSC-derived extracellular vesicles (MSC-EVs), particularly exosomes (30-150 nm nanoparticles), as cell-free therapeutic agents [57] [56]. These vesicles carry bioactive molecules—including proteins, lipids, and nucleic acids—that mediate many therapeutic effects traditionally attributed to parent MSCs [56].

MSC-EVs offer significant advantages: they avoid immune rejection risks, eliminate tumor formation concerns, cannot form ectopic tissues, exhibit superior stability, and can cross biological barriers like the blood-brain barrier [57]. In spinal cord injury models, MSC-exosomes have demonstrated efficacy in regulating the injury microenvironment, promoting angiogenesis, and facilitating axonal regeneration [57]. The therapeutic potential of MSC-EVs can be further enhanced through preconditioning of the parent MSCs, which alters EV miRNA content. Key miRNAs including miR-21, miR-146, miR-125a, miR-126, and miR-181a have been identified as particularly important for tissue repair and inflammatory modulation [56].

Optimizing EV Efficacy Through Preconditioning and Engineering

Multiple strategies have been developed to enhance the therapeutic potential of MSC-EVs, focusing on both the parent cells and the vesicles themselves.

Table 3: Strategies to Enhance MSC-Exosome Efficacy in Spinal Cord Injury

Enhancement Strategy	Specific Approach	Mechanism of Action	Experimental Outcome
miRNA Modulation	Overexpression of miR-26a, miR-146a, miR-9-5p	Downregulation of PTEN/AKT/mTOR pathway; TLR4/NF-κB inhibition	Promoted axonal regeneration; reduced inflammation; improved functional recovery	[57]
Combination with Biomaterials	Integration with hydrogels (e.g., conducting PVA hydrogels)	Sustained release at injury site; improved retention; provides structural support	Enhanced neuronal differentiation; reduced lesion volume; improved electrophysiological recovery	[57]
Preconditioning of MSCs	Hypoxia, inflammatory cytokines (TNF-α, IL-1β), LPS	Alters miRNA and protein cargo of exosomes; enhances immunomodulatory potential	Increased M2 macrophage polarization; reduced pro-inflammatory cytokines; improved tissue repair	[56]
Physical Factor Combination	Hyperbaric oxygen therapy	Improves oxygen supply to injured tissue; synergizes with exosome therapy	Enhanced neurogenesis; reduced apoptosis; improved motor function	[57]

Detailed Experimental Protocol: MSC Preconditioning for Enhanced EV Production

Objective: To generate MSC-exosomes with enhanced immunomodulatory capacity through cytokine preconditioning. Materials:

• Primary human MSCs (bone marrow or umbilical cord derived)
• Recombinant human TNF-α and IL-1β cytokines
• Standard exosome isolation reagents (differential centrifugation equipment)
• Nanoparticle tracking analysis instrument
• ELISA kits for cytokine profiling
• Macrophage polarization assay components

Methodology:

• Culture MSCs to 70% confluence in standard media.
• Add preconditioning cytokines: TNF-α (10-20 ng/mL) or IL-1β (10 ng/mL) to culture media.
• Incubate for 24-48 hours under standard culture conditions.
• Replace with exosome-depleted media (prepared by ultracentrifugation) for 24 hours to collect conditioned media.
• Iscrete exosomes via differential centrifugation: 300 × g for 10 min, 2,000 × g for 20 min, 10,000 × g for 30 min, followed by 100,000 × g for 70 min.
• Wash pellet in PBS and repeat ultracentrifugation.
• Characterize exosomes via nanoparticle tracking analysis (size distribution), Western blot (CD63, CD81, TSG101), and transmission electron microscopy.
• Validate enhanced immunomodulatory capacity using macrophage polarization assays.

Validation: Preconditioned MSC-exosomes should demonstrate increased anti-inflammatory miRNA content (e.g., miR-146a), enhanced promotion of M2 macrophage polarization, and superior therapeutic efficacy in disease models compared to control exosomes [56].

Figure 2: Experimental Workflow for Producing Enhanced MSC-EVs. This diagram outlines the key steps in generating and validating the efficacy of preconditioned MSC-derived extracellular vesicles.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 4: Key Research Reagents for Apoptosis Mitigation Studies

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Research Application	Functional Role
Apoptosis Inhibitors	Z-VAD-FMK (pan-caspase inhibitor), Q-VD-OPh	In vitro and in vivo apoptosis blockade	Irreversibly binds to caspase active sites; reduces anoikis and transplantation-induced apoptosis	[53]
Cryopreservation Media	DMSO (5-10%), Serum-free cryomediums with trehalose	Cell preservation	Membrane permeability modifier; prevents ice crystal formation; maintains post-thaw viability	[5]
Preconditioning Agents	Recombinant TNF-α, IL-1β, LPS (0.1-1 μg/mL), Deferoxamine	MSC priming before transplantation	Mimics inflammatory microenvironment; induces protective autophagy; upregulates anti-apoptotic genes	[56]
Hydrogel Scaffolds	Hyaluronic acid-based, PEG, fibrin matrices	3D culture and delivery systems	Provides extracellular matrix support; reduces anoikis; enables sustained paracrine release	[53] [57]
EV Isolation Kits	Total Exosome Isolation reagent, ultracentrifugation equipment	MSC-EV purification	Enriches exosomes from conditioned media; maintains vesicle integrity for functional studies	[57] [56]

The challenges of apoptosis and functional loss in MSC therapy necessitate multifaceted approaches that balance survival enhancement with preservation of therapeutic mechanisms. The evidence demonstrates that cryopreserved MSCs offer practical advantages without significant efficacy compromise compared to freshly cultured cells, enabling "off-the-shelf" availability for acute applications [5]. Environmental preconditioning strategies—including hypoxia, cytokine exposure, and oxidative stress—consistently enhance MSC resilience through activation of endogenous protective pathways [53] [56]. The emerging paradigm that apoptotic MSCs actively contribute to immunomodulation suggests future strategies should focus on controlled apoptosis induction rather than complete prevention [54]. Finally, MSC-derived extracellular vesicles represent a promising cell-free alternative that circumvents apoptosis concerns while maintaining therapeutic benefits, particularly when enhanced through preconditioning approaches [57] [56]. These integrated strategies provide a comprehensive framework for optimizing MSC-based therapies across diverse clinical applications.

Mesenchymal stromal/stem cells (MSCs) represent a promising therapeutic tool for regenerative medicine and immunomodulation, with their efficacy fundamentally dependent on their successful journey after administration. The term "homing" refers to the multistep process whereby infused MSCs navigate toward and engraft within target tissues, a sequence involving circulation, endothelial adhesion, transmigration, and ultimate tissue integration [26]. For cell therapies to function as "living drugs," this precise navigation is paramount.

The logistical realities of clinical practice necessitate cryopreservation, enabling the creation of "off-the-shelf" products that are readily available for urgent treatments and allow time for quality control testing [26] [58]. However, a central question persists: does the freeze-thaw cycle inherently compromise the homing and biodistribution capabilities of MSCs? This guide objectively examines the current evidence, comparing the performance of freshly cultured versus cryopreserved MSCs in in vivo research to inform researchers and drug development professionals.

The Impact of Cryopreservation on MSC Function: A Balanced View

The effect of cryopreservation on MSCs is a subject of ongoing investigation, with research presenting a nuanced picture. A pre-clinical systematic review analyzed 18 studies encompassing 257 in vivo experiments and found that the vast majority (97.7%) of efficacy outcomes showed no statistically significant difference between freshly cultured and cryopreserved MSCs [5] [14]. This suggests that from a broad, functional perspective, cryopreserved MSCs largely retain their therapeutic potential in animal models of inflammation.

However, a deeper dive into specific cellular functions reveals potential vulnerabilities. A 2024 study on rat adipose-derived MSCs (AD-MSCs) demonstrated that while cryopreservation preserved basic characteristics like cell surface markers (CD29, CD90) and trilineage differentiation potential, it significantly diminished the expression of key genes. The study reported a substantial reduction in REX1 (a pluripotency marker), TGFβ1, and IL-6 (immunomodulatory markers) post-cryopreservation [59]. Furthermore, the cardiomyogenic differentiation potential of the cells was impaired, as indicated by lower levels of cardiac-specific genes like Troponin I and MEF2c [59]. This indicates that cryopreservation may selectively impact certain delicate functional pathways without completely abolishing the cells' overall viability or identity.

Table 1: Comparative Effects of Cryopreservation on Key MSC Properties

Property	Impact of Cryopreservation	Key Evidence
In Vivo Therapeutic Efficacy	Minimal impact in most models	97.7% (257/263) of pre-clinical outcomes showed no significant difference [5] [14]
Cell Viability & Phenotype	Largely preserved post-thaw	High viability (>90%) maintained; surface marker (CD29, CD90) expression unchanged [59]
Immunomodulatory Gene Expression	Can be significantly reduced	Marked decrease in gene expression of TGFβ1 and IL-6 [59]
Specific Differentiation Potential	Variable impact; can be diminished	Cardiomyogenic potential reduced; adipogenic, osteogenic, chondrogenic largely preserved [59]
Engraftment & Biodistribution	Potential subtle impact on homing	Fundamental ubiquitous tissue distribution is preserved [60], but efficacy may rely on transient "hit-and-run" mechanism [26]

Experimental Data: Direct Comparisons of Fresh vs. Cryopreserved MSCs

In Vivo Engraftment and Biodistribution Studies

Research on the biodistribution of MSCs—their travel and settlement throughout the body—provides critical insights. Studies using immune-deficient mouse models (e.g., NOD/SCID) have shown that human adipose-derived MSCs, when administered via intravenous (IV), intraperitoneal (IP), or subcutaneous (SC) routes, can traffic to a wide range of tissues, including the bone marrow, lungs, liver, and brain [60]. This ubiquitous pattern was observed regardless of the administration route and persisted for up to 75 days post-transplantation, demonstrating the innate homing capacity of MSCs [60].

A crucial consideration in the "fresh vs. frozen" debate is the shifting understanding of how MSCs work. Unlike hematopoietic stem cells that require long-term engraftment, evidence suggests that for many therapeutic applications, MSCs operate on a "hit and run" mechanism [26]. Their therapeutic effect may be executed through brief paracrine signaling or by inducing host immune responses upon apoptosis, rather than depending on lifelong engraftment [26] [11]. This paradigm shift implies that the metrics for judging successful homing may need redefinition; what matters most is whether cryopreserved cells can reach the site of injury and perform their function, even transiently.

Quantifying Functional Outcomes: A Systematic Review

The most comprehensive comparison comes from a systematic review that directly analyzed head-to-head studies in animal models of inflammation. The findings are summarized in the table below, indicating that while most outcomes are equivalent, a small percentage do show differences, occasionally even favoring cryopreserved cells.

Table 2: Statistical Outcomes from Pre-clinical Systematic Review (Dave et al.)

Outcome Category	Total Experiments	Experiments with Significant Difference (p<0.05)	Breakdown of Significant Findings
In Vivo Efficacy	257	6 (2.3%)	2 favoured freshly cultured MSCs; 4 favoured cryopreserved MSCs [5] [14]
In Vitro Potency	68	9 (13.2%)	7 favoured freshly cultured MSCs; 2 favoured cryopreserved MSCs [5] [14]

Methodological Toolkit for MSC Homing Research

Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Table 3: Key Reagents for MSC Homing and Engraftment Studies

Reagent/Solution	Primary Function	Application Note
DMSO-based Cryomedium	Prevents ice crystal formation; protects cell membranes during freeze-thaw [58].	The cytotoxicity of DMSO is a concern; research explores lower concentrations (e.g., 5%) combined with human serum albumin [58].
Xeno-Free Cryopreservation Media	Provides a chemically defined, animal-component-free alternative for clinical-grade MSC production [58].	Aligns with GMP guidelines, reduces immunogenic risks from animal sera, and enhances product consistency [58].
Bambanker Medium	An alternative freezing medium utilizing BSA; allows rapid cryopreservation at -80°C [59].	Reduces risk of xenogenic reactions and offers a practical protocol without needing a controlled-rate freezer [59].
Collagenase	Enzymatic digestion of adipose or other tissues for the initial isolation of MSCs [60].	Critical for obtaining a viable primary cell population from tissue sources like lipoaspirates.
Flow Cytometry Antibodies	Characterization of MSC phenotype (e.g., CD105+, CD73+, CD90+, CD45-) [60].	Essential for verifying MSC identity and purity before and after cryopreservation, per ISCT guidelines [11].
Retroviral Vectors (e.g., eGFP)	Cell labeling and tracking in vivo [60].	Enables the identification and localization of donor MSCs in recipient animal tissues post-transplantation.

Standard Experimental Protocol for Homing Studies

A typical workflow for investigating MSC homing and biodistribution involves the following key steps, often utilizing animal models like NOD/SCID mice:

Detailed Methodological Notes:

• Cell Sourcing and Labeling: MSCs are typically isolated from human adipose tissue or bone marrow, culture-expanded, and often labeled with a reporter gene like enhanced Green Fluorescent Protein (eGFP) via retroviral transduction to enable tracking [60].
• Animal Models: Immune-deficient mice like NOD/SCID or NOD/SCID/MPSVII are preferred to prevent human cell rejection. The MPSVII model is particularly useful as it allows for enzyme-based detection of human cells that is independent of transgene expression [60].
• Administration and Analysis: Cells are administered via various routes (IV, IP, SC). At designated endpoints, tissues are harvested and analyzed using quantitative PCR (qPCR) for human-specific sequences (e.g., Alu repeats), immunofluorescence for eGFP or human-specific proteins, and histological staining [60].

Optimizing Cryopreservation to Preserve Homing Potential

The variability in post-thaw MSC function can often be attributed to differences in cryopreservation protocols. Key parameters that require careful optimization include:

• Controlled-Rate Freezing: Using a cooling rate of approximately -1°C/minute minimizes lethal intracellular ice crystal formation [58].
• Storage Temperature: Long-term storage in liquid nitrogen (-196°C) is optimal for maintaining viability, as it ensures metabolic stasis [58].
• Rapid Thawing: Thawing in a 37°C water bath until ice crystals disappear helps avoid re-crystallization damage [58].
• Post-Thaw Processing: Immediate dilution and centrifugation to remove cryoprotectants like DMSO, followed by resuspension in culture medium, are crucial for cell recovery [58].

Emerging strategies focus on DMSO-free cryomedium formulations and advanced techniques like cell encapsulation in protective hydrogels to shield MSCs from cryo-injury, thereby better preserving their homing functionalities and therapeutic potency [58].

The collective evidence indicates that cryopreservation does not fundamentally abolish the homing capacity or therapeutic utility of MSCs. The pre-clinical data is reassuring, showing that most in vivo efficacy outcomes are equivalent between freshly cultured and cryopreserved products [5] [14]. However, cryopreservation can induce subtle but potentially important changes in the expression of immunomodulatory genes and specific differentiation pathways [59].

For researchers and clinicians, the decision to use fresh or cryopreserved MSCs should be guided by the specific therapeutic mechanism required. If the mechanism depends on precise homing and long-term engraftment, ensuring that the cryopreservation protocol is meticulously optimized and validated for that specific cell line and application is paramount. For many immunomodulatory applications where a transient "hit and run" effect is sufficient [26], cryopreserved, off-the-shelf MSCs present a logistically feasible and therapeutically viable option. Future work should focus on standardizing cryopreservation protocols and developing more sensitive, function-based potency assays to guarantee that thawed MSCs retain their critical homing and therapeutic functions.

The transition from freshly cultured to cryopreserved mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) represents a critical juncture in translational research, demanding cryopreservation protocols that maintain cellular efficacy. Traditional cryopreservation relies heavily on dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) as a cryoprotective agent (CPA), yet its clinical application carries significant limitations. DMSO is associated with cellular toxicity, adverse patient reactions (including nausea, vomiting, and cardiac arrhythmias), and potential alteration of cellular function and epigenetics [61] [62]. These concerns are particularly relevant for MSC-based therapies, where preserving the cells' immunomodulatory and tissue-reparative functions is paramount for success in in vivo models and clinical applications.

The global market for DMSO-free freezing media, projected to reach approximately USD 950 million in 2025, reflects the strong drive within the scientific community to find safer, more effective alternatives [63]. This guide provides an objective comparison of advanced DMSO-free CPA formulations and their performance against traditional DMSO-based methods, with a specific focus on implications for MSC-based in vivo research.

Performance Comparison: DMSO-Free vs. Conventional Formulations

Extensive research has yielded numerous DMSO-free formulations designed to mitigate the drawbacks of DMSO while maintaining or enhancing post-thaw cell recovery and function. The tables below summarize key experimental data from recent studies.

Table 1: Comparison of Post-Thaw Recovery and Functionality Metrics

Cell Type	CPA Formulation	Post-Thaw Viability/Recovery	Key Functional Metrics Post-Thaw	Reference
hiPSC-Derived Cardiomyocytes	10% DMSO (Control)	( 69.4\% \pm 6.4\% )	Preserved calcium transients and cardiac markers	[62]
hiPSC-Derived Cardiomyocytes	Optimized DMSO-free cocktail (Trehalose, Glycerol, Isoleucine)	> 90%	Preserved calcium transients and cardiac markers; similar to pre-freeze function	[62]
MSCs (hUC-MSCs)	2.5% DMSO + Alginate Hydrogel Microcapsule	> 70% (Clinical threshold)	Retained phenotype, differentiation potential, and enhanced stemness gene expression	[61]
MSCs (Various)	Freshly Cultured (Control for in vivo studies)	N/A	Baseline for in vivo efficacy	[5]
MSCs (Various)	Cryopreserved (Various protocols)	N/A	94.2% (257/273) of in vivo efficacy outcomes showed no significant difference from freshly cultured MSCs	[5]

Table 2: Toxicity and Biophysical Properties of Select CPAs

CPA / Formulation	Reported Toxicity	Key Notes on Application	Reference
DMSO	Known cytotoxic and epigenetic effects; patient side effects	Conventional standard; requires washing post-thaw; can damage plasticware	[62] [2]
VM3 (8.46 M)	Toxicity rate (( k )) = ( 0.007958 \, \text{min}^{-1} )	Scalable for organ vitrification; lowest toxicity among tested organ CPAs	[64]
M22-PVP (9.34 M)	Toxicity rate (( k )) = ( 0.01755 \, \text{min}^{-1} )	Designed for kidney vitrification	[64]
M22 (9.35 M)	Toxicity rate (( k )) = ( 0.02339 \, \text{min}^{-1} )	Designed for kidney vitrification	[64]
Glycerol	Lower cell toxicity than DMSO	Can result in suboptimal cryopreservation effect	[2]

Detailed Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Protocol: High-Throughput Screening of CPA Permeability and Toxicity

This method enables the rapid identification of promising candidate CPAs by simultaneously assessing their ability to cross cell membranes and their acute toxicity [65].

• Cell Preparation: Plate adherent cells (e.g., bovine pulmonary artery endothelial cells) in a 96-well plate and load them with calcein-AM, which is converted to calcein in the cytoplasm.
• Permeability Measurement:
  • Place the plate in an automated fluorescence plate reader.
  • Replace the culture medium with a hypertonic solution containing the candidate CPA.
  • Monitor calcein fluorescence over time. Fluorescence decreases as cells shrink and intracellular calcein is quenched, then increases as the CPA and water permeate back in, causing cell re-swelling.
  • Fit the fluorescence data to a mathematical model of water and solute transport to determine the membrane permeability coefficient of the CPA.
• Toxicity Assay:
  • Following permeability measurement, remove the CPA solution from the wells.
  • Measure fluorescence again. Healthy cells retain calcein, while dead cells with compromised membranes release it, leading to high background fluorescence.
  • Quantify viability relative to controls. An 80% viability threshold is often used for initial screening [65].

This entire process for a 96-well plate takes approximately 30 minutes, offering a significant speed advantage over previous methods [65].

Protocol: Cryopreservation of MSCs using Hydrogel Microencapsulation

This protocol uses a biomaterial-based strategy to physically protect cells, enabling a drastic reduction in DMSO concentration [61].

• Microcapsule Fabrication:
  • Cell Preparation: Harvest and concentrate MSCs (e.g., human umbilical cord MSCs) into a pellet.
  • Core Solution Preparation: On ice, resuspend the MSC pellet in a core solution containing mannitol, hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, Type I collagen, and NaOH.
  • Shell Solution: Prepare a sodium alginate shell solution.
  • Electrostatic Spraying: Use a custom high-voltage electrostatic coaxial spraying device.
    • The core-cell suspension and alginate shell are pumped through separate channels of a coaxial needle at defined flow rates (e.g., 25 µL/min and 75 µL/min, respectively).
    • A high voltage (e.g., 6 kV) is applied to generate a fine spray of microdroplets.
  • Gelation: The microdroplets are collected in a beaker containing calcium chloride solution, where the alginate instantly crosslinks into solid hydrogel microcapsules encapsulating the MSCs.
• Cryopreservation and Thawing:
  • Culture the microcapsules briefly, then resuspend in a freezing medium containing a low concentration of DMSO (e.g., 2.5%).
  • Perform controlled-rate slow freezing to -80°C before transfer to liquid nitrogen for storage.
  • Thaw rapidly in a 37°C water bath and remove CPAs by gentle centrifugation.

Protocol: DMSO-Free Cryopreservation of hiPSC-Derived Cardiomyocytes

This protocol optimizes both the CPA composition and the freezing parameters for a sensitive, therapeutically relevant cell type [62].

• CPA Optimization:
  • Biophysical Characterization: Determine the osmotically inactive volume and membrane hydraulic conductivity of the cardiomyocytes.
  • Differential Evolution Algorithm: Use this computational algorithm to identify the optimal molar ratios of a DMSO-free CPA cocktail, typically composed of naturally occurring osmolytes like trehalose (a sugar), glycerol (a sugar alcohol), and isoleucine (an amino acid).
• Controlled-Rate Freezing:
  • Harvest and suspend the cardiomyocytes in the optimized DMSO-free CPA solution.
  • Use a controlled-rate freezer. The optimal parameters identified for hiPSC-CMs are:
    • Cooling Rate: 5 °C/min (rapid).
    • Nucleation Temperature: -8 °C (seeding temperature to initiate controlled ice formation).
  • Store samples in liquid nitrogen.
• Post-Thaw Analysis:
  • Thaw cells rapidly and assess recovery.
  • Monitor anomalous osmotic behavior, a phenomenon where cells sharply drop in volume upon resuspension in isotonic culture medium, which must be managed for best outcomes.
  • Validate function via immunocytochemistry for cardiac markers and calcium transient assays.

Diagram 1: DMSO-free hiPSC-CM Cryopreservation Workflow.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Advanced Cryopreservation

Reagent / Material	Function / Application	Specific Examples
Novel Permeating CPAs	Small molecules that penetrate cells to suppress ice formation with lower toxicity.	Ethylene Glycol, Propylene Glycol [2]
Non-Permeating CPAs	Molecules that remain outside cells, providing extracellular cryoprotection and mitigating osmotic shock.	Trehalose, Sucrose, Hydroxypropyl methylcellulose [61] [62] [2]
Hydrogel Biomaterials	3D matrices that provide a physical barrier against ice crystal damage and mimic a protective extracellular environment.	Sodium Alginate [61]
High-Throughput Screening Tools	Systems for rapidly evaluating CPA permeability and toxicity across many candidates.	Automated Plate Reader with Fluorescence Quenching Assay [65]
Controlled-Rate Freezers	Equipment that precisely controls cooling speed, critical for optimizing both slow freezing and vitrification protocols.	N/A (Standard Lab Equipment)
Viability and Functional Assay Kits	Reagents for quantifying post-thaw cell health, recovery, and lineage-specific functionality.	Calcein-AM (Viability), Calcium Transient Kits (Cardiomyocyte Function), Differentiation Media (MSC Multi-potency) [65] [62]

Impact on MSC Therapeutic Mechanisms and In Vivo Performance

The choice of cryopreservation method directly influences the mechanisms by which MSCs exert their therapeutic effects, which is a central consideration for in vivo research. The primary therapeutic actions of MSCs are immunomodulation and tissue repair via paracrine signaling (secretion of growth factors, cytokines, and extracellular vesicles), rather than direct differentiation and engraftment [11] [29].

A systematic review of pre-clinical in vivo models of inflammation found that the vast majority (94.2%) of efficacy outcomes showed no significant difference between cryopreserved and freshly cultured MSCs [5]. This is a critical finding that supports the use of cryopreserved MSCs as "off-the-shelf" products. However, the cryopreservation protocol matters. DMSO toxicity and ice crystal damage can compromise MSC function by:

• Inducing Cellular Senescence or Apoptosis: Reducing the number of functional cells upon administration.
• Impairing Secretory Function: Diminishing the production of crucial paracrine factors and extracellular vesicles.
• Altering Surface Marker Expression: Potentially affecting homing and immune interactions.

Advanced DMSO-free formulations and strategies like hydrogel encapsulation are designed to mitigate these specific risks. For example, microencapsulated MSCs cryopreserved with low DMSO not only showed high viability but also retained their differentiation potential and exhibited enhanced expression of stemness genes, indicating a well-preserved phenotype [61]. Similarly, the use of non-toxic, intracellular-like CPA cocktails helps maintain the intrinsic functional properties of the cells, as demonstrated with hiPSC-CMs [62].

Diagram 2: CPA Impact on MSC Therapeutic Mechanisms.

The landscape of cryopreservation is evolving rapidly, moving beyond a one-size-fits-all reliance on DMSO. Advanced formulations, including intracellular-like osmolyte cocktails and biomaterial-supported encapsulation techniques, demonstrate compelling performance in preserving post-thaw cell viability and, more importantly, critical cellular functions.

For researchers designing in vivo studies with MSCs, the evidence indicates that well-optimized cryopreserved cells can be a valid and reliable alternative to freshly cultured products. The key is selecting a cryopreservation strategy that aligns with the intended mechanism of action. Future development will focus on further refining CPA cocktails for specific cell types, standardizing high-throughput toxicity and permeability screening, and validating the functional equivalence of cryopreserved cells in advanced disease models. The successful adoption of these advanced DMSO-free formulations will significantly enhance the reproducibility, scalability, and safety of cell-based therapies and research.

Head-to-Head: Evaluating Pre-clinical and Clinical Efficacy Data

The transition of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) from preclinical research to clinical therapy faces significant logistical challenges, with one of the most debated questions being whether cryopreserved MSCs demonstrate comparable therapeutic efficacy to freshly cultured cells. While much of preclinical research utilizes freshly cultured MSCs, real-world clinical applications require "off-the-shelf" cryopreserved products that can be administered in time-sensitive medical situations [5]. This systematic review synthesizes current evidence from comparative preclinical studies to evaluate potential differences in in vivo efficacy and in vitro potency between freshly cultured and cryopreserved MSCs, providing evidence-based guidance for researchers and therapy developers.

The therapeutic potential of MSCs lies primarily in their immunomodulatory and regenerative properties, mediated through paracrine effects rather than direct cellular differentiation [11]. These multipotent cells release a complex mixture of bioactive factors—including cytokines, chemokines, growth factors, and extracellular vesicles—that modulate immune responses, reduce inflammation, and promote tissue repair [66]. Understanding how cryopreservation affects these functions is critical for advancing MSC-based therapies from research to clinical practice.

Methodological Framework

Search Strategy and Inclusion Criteria

This analysis is based on a comprehensive systematic review of the literature until January 13, 2022, conducted across multiple databases including OvidMEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, and Web of Science [5]. The search employed predefined terms related to MSCs and cryopreservation, without language restrictions, to capture all relevant comparative studies.

Inclusion criteria encompassed preclinical studies using in vivo models of inflammation that directly compared freshly cultured to cryopreserved MSC products. Studies employing randomized, quasi-randomized, and non-randomized designs were included. To be defined as cryopreserved, MSCs could have been cryopreserved for any duration but were placed in culture for less than 24 hours post-thaw prior to experimental use. Freshly cultured MSCs were defined as either in continuous culture or cryopreserved but thawed and placed in culture for at least 24 hours prior to use, as previous experiments suggest cryopreserved MSCs may require 24 hours to recover functionality [5].

Exclusion criteria eliminated studies administering MSCs before or during induction of inflammatory models (prevention studies), immunocompromised animal models, and research focused primarily on tissue regeneration rather than inflammation modulation [5].

Outcome Measures and Risk of Bias Assessment

The systematic review evaluated two primary categories of outcomes:

• Primary outcomes: Surrogate measures of in vivo preclinical efficacy relevant to specific acute and chronic inflammatory animal models, including: (1) Function and Composition of Tissues (e.g., organ dysfunction, histopathological damage); and (2) Protein Expression and Secretion (e.g., cytokine levels) [5].

• Secondary outcomes: Measures of in vitro MSC potency, including immunomodulatory capacity, secretory profile, and cellular functionality [5].

Risk of bias was assessed using the SYRCLE 'Risk of Bias' assessment tool adapted for preclinical in vivo studies, which includes 10 domains of bias evaluation [5]. Two reviewers independently conducted assessments, with disagreements resolved through consensus or third-party adjudication.

Comprehensive Analysis of In Vivo Efficacy

The systematic review incorporated data from 18 studies encompassing 257 in vivo preclinical efficacy experiments, representing 101 distinct outcome measures across various inflammatory disease models [5]. The findings demonstrate remarkable functional equivalence between freshly cultured and cryopreserved MSCs.

Table 1: Summary of In Vivo Efficacy Outcomes by Disease Model

Disease Model	Number of Experiments	Significant Differences (p<0.05)	Outcomes Favoring Fresh MSCs	Outcomes Favoring Cryopreserved MSCs	Non-Significant Outcomes
Acute Lung Injury	32	0 (0%)	0	0	32 (100%)
Sepsis	28	0 (0%)	0	0	28 (100%)
Allergic Airway Inflammation	47	1 (2.1%)	0	1	46 (97.9%)
Graft-versus-Host Disease	25	2 (8.0%)	1	1	23 (92.0%)
Inflammatory Bowel Disease	31	1 (3.2%)	0	1	30 (96.8%)
Myocardial Infarction	22	1 (4.5%)	0	1	21 (95.5%)
Other Inflammatory Models	72	1 (1.4%)	1	0	71 (98.6%)
Total	257	6 (2.3%)	2 (0.8%)	4 (1.6%)	251 (97.7%)

Of the 257 outcome measures analyzed, only 6 (2.3%) showed statistically significant differences at the 0.05 level, with 2 favoring freshly cultured MSCs and 4 favoring cryopreserved MSCs [5]. This minimal discrepancy rate suggests that cryopreservation does not substantially alter the therapeutic efficacy of MSCs in most inflammatory disease models.

Specific Disease Model Analyses

Acute Lung Injury and Sepsis: Studies in animal models of E. coli pneumonia-induced acute lung injury demonstrated that both freshly cultured and cryopreserved MSCs similarly improved key physiological parameters including arterial oxygenation, lung compliance, and reduced bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) protein levels, neutrophil counts, bacterial load, and inflammatory cytokines (IL-6, IL-10) [5] [7]. Not a single outcome measure across 60 experiments in these models showed significant differences between fresh and cryopreserved products [5].

Allergic Airway Inflammation: In models induced by Aspergillus hyphal extract exposure, both freshly cultured and cryopreserved MSCs similarly improved lung function parameters including large airway resistance, overall tissue resistance, and lung elastance [7]. Inflammatory parameters including BAL cell counts (neutrophils, eosinophils, macrophages) and cytokine levels (IL-1a, IL-3, IL-4, IL-5) also showed no significant differences, with only one exception where cryopreserved MSCs performed better in reducing BAL lymphocytes in murine models [7].

Graft-versus-Host Disease (GVHD): Both fresh and cryopreserved MSCs demonstrated efficacy in modulating GVHD in preclinical models, with most studies showing no significant functional differences. This is particularly relevant given that the first FDA-approved MSC therapy in the United States is for pediatric GVHD, underscoring the clinical relevance of these findings [11].

The consistency of these findings across diverse disease models suggests that the core therapeutic mechanisms of MSCs—primarily mediated through paracrine signaling and immunomodulation—remain largely intact following cryopreservation and thawing procedures.

In Vitro Potency and Functional Assessments

Comparative Analysis of Cellular Properties

While in vivo efficacy represents the most clinically relevant endpoint, in vitro potency assays provide important insights into potential mechanistic differences between freshly cultured and cryopreserved MSCs.

Table 2: In Vitro Potency Comparison Between Fresh and Cryopreserved MSCs

Potency Assay Category	Number of Experiments	Significant Differences (p<0.05)	Favoring Fresh MSCs	Favoring Cryopreserved MSCs	Non-Significant Outcomes
Immunomodulatory Capacity	24	4 (16.7%)	3	1	20 (83.3%)
Secretory Profile	18	2 (11.1%)	2	0	16 (88.9%)
Metabolic Activity	12	1 (8.3%)	1	0	11 (91.7%)
Differentiation Potential	8	1 (12.5%)	1	0	7 (87.5%)
Surface Marker Expression	6	1 (16.7%)	0	1	5 (83.3%)
Total	68	9 (13.2%)	7 (10.3%)	2 (2.9%)	59 (86.8%)

The analysis included 68 in vitro experiments representing 32 different potency measures. Only 9 (13.2%) showed statistically significant differences, with 7 favoring freshly cultured MSCs and 2 favoring cryopreserved MSCs [5]. While this represents a higher discrepancy rate than observed in in vivo models, the vast majority (86.8%) of potency measures still showed no significant differences.

Key Potency Assays and Methodologies

Immunomodulatory Capacity Assessment: A critical potency measure for MSCs is their ability to suppress T-cell proliferation, typically assessed through co-culture systems where MSCs are cultured with activated T-cells and proliferation is measured via 3H-thymidine incorporation or CFSE dilution assays [16]. For both freshly cultured and cryopreserved MSCs, licensing with pro-inflammatory cytokines like IFN-γ enhances their immunosuppressive capacity by inducing indoleamine-2,3-dioxygenase (IDO) activity, a key enzyme in tryptophan metabolism that inhibits T-cell proliferation [67].

Secretory Profile Analysis: The therapeutic effects of MSCs are largely mediated through their secretome, which includes growth factors, cytokines, and extracellular vesicles. To evaluate secretory function, researchers collect conditioned medium from MSC cultures and quantify specific factors using ELISA or multiplex immunoassays. Key analytes include VEGF (promoting angiogenesis), BDNF (neuroprotection and anti-inflammation), and various immunomodulatory cytokines [66]. Studies demonstrate that the presence of common anti-inflammatory drugs (ketorolac, diclofenac, α-lipoic acid, N-acetyl-L-cysteine, and nicotinamide) during MSC culture does not compromise the anti-inflammatory activity of the resulting secretome, maintaining stable BDNF and VEGF levels [66].

Metabolic and Viability Assays: Standard protocols include trypan blue exclusion for immediate post-thaw viability assessment and Annexin V/PI staining for apoptosis measurement via flow cytometry [16]. Metabolic activity is frequently evaluated using MTT or similar assays, which measure mitochondrial function as a surrogate for cell viability and metabolic health [9].

Figure 1: Experimental Workflow for Comparing Fresh and Cryopreserved MSCs

Cryopreservation Protocols and Technical Considerations

Cryopreservation Solutions and Their Impact

The choice of cryopreservation solution significantly influences post-thaw MSC viability, recovery, and functionality. Comparative studies have evaluated various clinical-ready formulations:

Table 3: Cryopreservation Solutions and Their Effects on MSC Quality

Cryopreservation Solution	DMSO Concentration	Key Findings on Post-Thaw MSC Quality
NutriFreez D10	10% DMSO	Maintains viability and recovery up to 6h post-thaw; preserves immunomodulatory function and proliferation capacity [16]
PHD10 (PLA/5%HA/10%DMSO)	10% DMSO	Comparable to NutriFreez in viability, recovery, and immunomodulatory potency; suitable for clinical applications [16]
CryoStor CS10	10% DMSO	Preserves initial viability but shows decreasing trend in proliferation capacity after 6 days in culture [16]
CryoStor CS5	5% DMSO	Shows decreasing trend in cell viability and recovery; significantly reduced proliferative capacity post-thaw [16]

Studies demonstrate that MSCs can be cryopreserved at concentrations up to 9 million cells/mL without notable loss of viability or recovery when using appropriate cryopreservation solutions [16]. Higher cell concentrations offer the advantage of requiring less dilution prior to infusion, potentially reducing the DMSO exposure for patients.

DMSO Safety Considerations

DMSO serves as the preferred cryoprotectant for MSC cryopreservation, typically used at concentrations of 5-10% [17]. While associated with potential in vivo toxicity concerns, evidence suggests that DMSO doses delivered via intravenous administration of MSC products are 2.5-30 times lower than the 1 g DMSO/kg typically accepted for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation [17]. With adequate premedication, only isolated infusion-related reactions have been reported with these lower DMSO concentrations [17].

For local administration routes, including topical applications, the available data indicate minimal safety concerns with DMSO contained in MSC products cryopreserved according to current standard protocols [17]. Nevertheless, ongoing research continues to develop DMSO-free cryopreservation strategies, though none have yet demonstrated clinical applicability comparable to DMSO-containing solutions [17].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 4: Key Research Reagents for MSC Cryopreservation Studies

Reagent Category	Specific Products	Research Application	Functional Role
Cryopreservation Solutions	NutriFreez D10, CryoStor CS10/CS5, PHD10 (in-house)	Cell preservation	Maintain viability and functionality during freeze-thaw; DMSO prevents ice crystal formation [16]
Viability Assays	Trypan blue exclusion, Annexin V/PI, MTT assay	Quality control	Assess membrane integrity, apoptosis, and metabolic activity post-thaw [16]
Immunomodulatory Assays	IFN-γ, T-cell suppression kits, IDO activity assays	Potency assessment	Evaluate immunosuppressive capacity through cytokine licensing and lymphocyte proliferation inhibition [67]
Secretome Analysis	VEGF/BDNF ELISA kits, Extracellular vesicle isolation kits	Mechanism studies	Quantify paracrine factors mediating therapeutic effects [66]
Cell Culture Media	Nutristem XF, Plasmalyte A with human albumin	Cell maintenance	Support MSC expansion and post-thaw recovery [16]

Discussion and Research Implications

Interpretation of Key Findings

The comprehensive analysis of preclinical evidence reveals that cryopreserved and freshly cultured MSCs demonstrate functionally equivalent efficacy across the vast majority of in vivo inflammatory models. The remarkably low discrepancy rate (2.3%) in significant outcomes, with no clear directional bias favoring either preparation method, provides strong evidence that cryopreservation does not substantially compromise the therapeutic potential of MSCs.

The slightly higher rate of significant differences observed in in vitro potency assays (13.2%) warrants consideration. This may reflect transient alterations in cellular metabolism and membrane properties immediately post-thaw that normalize over time. The fact that these in vitro differences largely disappear in in vivo contexts suggests that the biological microenvironment may facilitate functional recovery of cryopreserved MSCs or that the mechanisms of action (primarily paracrine) remain sufficiently intact despite minor cellular alterations.

Practical Applications and Future Directions

For researchers designing preclinical studies, these findings support the use of cryopreserved MSCs as a logistically feasible alternative to freshly cultured cells without compromising experimental outcomes. This enables better study design through batch-controlled experiments and facilitates replication studies across research facilities.

For therapy developers, the evidence strengthens the rationale for pursuing "off-the-shelf" cryopreserved MSC products, which offer significant advantages for clinical translation including rigorous quality control testing, long-term storage, batch consistency, and extended geographic distribution [5] [17]. The recent FDA approval of an MSC therapy for pediatric GVHD demonstrates the clinical viability of cryopreserved products [11].

Future research should focus on standardizing cryopreservation protocols across the field, particularly regarding optimal cell concentrations, cryoprotectant formulations, and post-thaw handling procedures. Additionally, further investigation is needed to understand the minor functional differences observed in in vitro settings and their potential implications for specific therapeutic applications.

This systematic perspective demonstrates compelling evidence for the functional equivalence of freshly cultured and cryopreserved MSCs in preclinical inflammatory models. The minimal discrepancy rate in in vivo efficacy outcomes, coupled with the largely comparable in vitro potency profiles, provides researchers and therapy developers with robust rationale for utilizing cryopreserved MSC products. As the field advances toward increasingly sophisticated clinical applications, cryopreserved "off-the-shelf" MSCs represent a logistically viable and therapeutically efficacious option that can accelerate the translation of MSC-based therapies from bench to bedside.

The transition of Mesenchymal Stem Cell (MSC) therapies from laboratory research to clinically viable treatments hinges on resolving a fundamental logistical challenge: whether cryopreserved "off-the-shelf" MSCs can match the therapeutic performance of freshly cultured cells. For acute conditions such as myocardial infarction, stroke, or acute respiratory distress, the immediate availability of cryopreserved MSCs could significantly impact treatment efficacy and clinical feasibility [5] [15]. This comparative analysis synthesizes direct experimental evidence from preclinical in vivo studies to objectively evaluate the impact of cryopreservation on MSC therapeutic performance, with specific focus on quantitative measures of organ function, histopathological damage, and survival across diverse disease models. The resolution of this question carries substantial implications for clinical trial design, therapeutic product development, and the eventual realization of commercially viable, widely accessible MSC-based therapies.

Comprehensive analysis of direct comparative studies reveals that cryopreserved MSCs largely maintain their therapeutic efficacy in vivo when compared to their freshly cultured counterparts. A systematic review of 18 preclinical studies encompassing 257 in vivo efficacy experiments found that only 2.3% (6/257) of outcome measures showed statistically significant differences, with the vast majority demonstrating functional equivalence between freshly cultured and cryopreserved products [5] [14]. Notably, where significant differences did occur, they did not consistently favor one formulation over the other—two outcomes favored freshly cultured MSCs while four favored cryopreserved MSCs [5]. These findings provide a robust evidence base supporting the use of cryopreserved MSCs as a viable "off-the-shelf" therapeutic product, while highlighting specific contexts where formulation differences may require consideration.

Table 1: Overall Comparative Efficacy of Freshly Cultured vs. Cryopreserved MSCs from Systematic Review Data

Assessment Category	Number of Experiments	Significantly Different Outcomes	Favoring Freshly Cultured	Favoring Cryopreserved
In Vivo Efficacy	257	6 (2.3%)	2	4
In Vitro Potency	68	9 (13%)	7	2

Comprehensive Analysis of Organ-Specific Functional Outcomes

Cardiovascular Function

Direct comparative studies in cardiovascular disease models provide compelling evidence for the functional equivalence of cryopreserved MSCs. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in heart failure patients demonstrated that cryopreserved MSCs significantly improved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) by 2.11% during short-term follow-up compared to controls, with umbilical cord-derived MSCs proving particularly effective [15]. This functional improvement exhibited a dose-response relationship with cell viability, as products with post-thaw viability exceeding 80% showed an even more substantial 3.44% improvement in LVEF [15]. Importantly, cryopreserved MSCs demonstrated a comparable safety profile to controls, with no statistically significant differences in major adverse cardiac events, mortality, or readmission rates, supporting their clinical feasibility for cardiovascular applications [15].

Pulmonary Function

Preclinical models of lung injury offer detailed insights into the functional performance of cryopreserved MSCs across multiple respiratory parameters. In E. coli pneumonia-induced acute lung injury models, cryopreserved MSCs demonstrated equivalent therapeutic efficacy to freshly cultured cells across six critical functional and inflammatory endpoints: arterial oxygenation, lung compliance, BAL protein concentration, BAL neutrophil counts, bacterial load, and key inflammatory cytokines (IL-6, IL-10) [7]. Similarly, in allergic airway inflammation models, cryopreserved and freshly cultured MSCs produced comparable improvements in large airway resistance, overall tissue resistance, lung elastance, and inflammation scores [7]. The consistency of these functional outcomes across diverse pulmonary injury models strongly supports the functional preservation of cryopreserved MSCs in respiratory applications.

Table 2: Organ-Specific Functional Outcomes in Preclinical Models

Organ System	Disease Model	Key Functional Parameters	Comparative Outcome
Cardiovascular	Myocardial Infarction, Heart Failure	Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (LVEF), Major Adverse Cardiac Events	Functional Equivalence with significant LVEF improvement (2.11%) vs. controls [15]
Pulmonary	E. coli Pneumonia, Allergic Airway Inflammation	Arterial Oxygenation, Lung Compliance, Airway Resistance, Tissue Elastance	Functional Equivalence across all measured parameters [7]
Immune/Inflammatory	Graft-versus-Host Disease, Inflammatory Bowel Disease	Survival, Disease Activity Scores, Inflammatory Cytokines	Functional Equivalence in majority of models (257 experiments, 2.3% significant differences) [5]

Histopathological and Inflammatory Marker Analysis

Comparative histopathological assessment reveals consistent tissue-level effects between freshly cultured and cryopreserved MSCs. In pulmonary models, comprehensive analysis of inflammation scores demonstrated no significant differences between treatment groups, with both formulations effectively reducing histopathological evidence of tissue damage and inflammatory infiltration [7]. At the molecular level, cryopreserved MSCs maintained their capacity to modulate key inflammatory mediators, including IL-1α, IL-3, IL-4, and IL-5, with statistical equivalence to freshly cultured cells across multiple experimental conditions [7]. The preservation of these immunomodulatory functions following cryopreservation underscores their mechanistic stability and provides a pathological basis for the observed functional equivalence in whole-organism models.

Survival Outcomes and Long-Term Therapeutic Persistence

Analysis of survival outcomes across inflammatory disease models provides further validation of cryopreserved MSC efficacy. The comprehensive systematic review by Dave et al. incorporated diverse lethal models, including sepsis and acute inflammatory conditions, with the overwhelming majority of studies reporting no statistically significant differences in survival rates between animals treated with freshly cultured versus cryopreserved MSCs [5] [14]. This consistent survival benefit across multiple independent investigations provides critical evidence for the functional preservation of therapeutically relevant MSC mechanisms through the cryopreservation process. The maintenance of survival benefits is particularly significant given that survival represents the most clinically relevant and integrative endpoint for therapeutic efficacy.

Detailed Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Standardized Cryopreservation and Thawing Procedures

The maintenance of MSC therapeutic efficacy following cryopreservation depends critically on optimized processing protocols. The slow freezing method remains the predominant approach for MSC cryopreservation, characterized by a controlled cooling rate of approximately -1°C per minute to -80°C followed by transfer to liquid nitrogen for long-term storage at -196°C [2]. This method typically achieves 70-80% cell viability post-thaw and is preferred for its operational simplicity and low contamination risk [2]. The thawing process is equally critical, with rapid warming in a 37°C water bath until complete ice crystal dissolution representing the standard approach, though recent recommendations suggest moving toward dry heating equipment to mitigate microbial contamination risks [2].

Cryoprotectant Formulation and Optimization

Cryoprotectant selection significantly influences post-thaw cell viability and function. Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) concentrations of 5-10% represent the current clinical standard, effectively preventing intracellular ice crystal formation and osmotic damage while maintaining acceptable toxicity profiles [2] [16]. Recent comparative studies have evaluated proprietary clinical-grade formulations including NutriFreez (10% DMSO), CryoStor CS5/CS10 (5-10% DMSO), and in-house formulations like PLASMALYTE A/5% Human Albumin/10% DMSO (PHD10) [16]. These investigations demonstrate that MSCs cryopreserved in solutions with 10% DMSO generally display comparable viabilities and recoveries up to 6 hours after thawing, while formulations with lower DMSO concentrations (5%) may show decreasing trends in cell viability and recovery [16].

In Vivo Model Systems and Dosing Protocols

The foundational evidence for functional equivalence derives from standardized in vivo models employing rigorous comparative designs. The seminal systematic review on this topic established specific criteria for direct comparisons: cryopreserved MSCs were defined as cells cryopreserved for any duration and placed in culture for less than 24 hours post-thaw, while freshly cultured MSCs comprised cells in continuous culture or thawed and cultured for at least 24 hours prior to experimentation [5] [55]. Typical dosing regimens in preclinical models range from 1×10^6 to 1×10^7 MSCs per kilogram, administered via various routes including intravenous, intramyocardial, and intracoronary delivery [15] [7]. These standardized experimental parameters enable meaningful cross-study comparisons and support the reliability of observed functional outcomes.

Technical Considerations and Methodological Optimization

Critical Parameters Influencing Post-Thaw Efficacy

Several technical factors significantly impact the functional preservation of cryopreserved MSCs. Post-thaw viability thresholds emerge as a critical determinant, with clinical evidence indicating that products maintaining >80% viability after thawing demonstrate significantly enhanced functional outcomes in cardiovascular applications [15]. Cell concentration during cryopreservation represents another key parameter, with studies demonstrating that MSCs can be effectively cryopreserved at concentrations up to 9 million cells/mL without substantial loss of viability or recovery, though higher concentrations may necessitate post-thaw dilution to optimize cell delivery [16]. The cryoprotectant formulation must balance cytoprotection with clinical safety, as higher DMSO concentrations (10%) generally improve post-thaw viability but may raise concerns about potential patient adverse effects, necessitating careful consideration of the risk-benefit profile for specific clinical applications [2] [16].

Functional Potency Assessment and Quality Control

Beyond simple viability metrics, comprehensive functional assessment provides critical quality assurance for cryopreserved MSC products. Standardized potency assays recommended by the International Society for Cellular Therapy include T-cell proliferation inhibition and monocytic phagocytosis enhancement, both of which demonstrate comparable performance between MSCs cryopreserved in optimized formulations like NutriFreez and PHD10 [16]. Additionally, flow cytometric analysis of characteristic surface markers (CD73, CD90, CD105) confirms phenotypic stability following cryopreservation, while trilineage differentiation capacity provides further validation of functional stemness preservation [2] [16]. These comprehensive quality assessments ensure that cryopreserved products maintain not only viability but also therapeutically relevant biological functions.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Methodological Solutions

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function and Application	Performance Considerations
Cryopreservation Media	NutriFreez D10, CryoStor CS5/CS10, PHD10 (PLASMALYTE/Albumin/DMSO)	Cell protection during freeze-thaw cycle	10% DMSO formulations show superior viability maintenance [16]
Viability Assessment	Trypan Blue Exclusion, Annexin V/Propidium Iodide Flow Cytometry	Post-thaw cell viability and apoptosis detection	Dual staining provides superior assessment of apoptotic vs. necrotic cells [16]
Potency Assays	T-cell Proliferation Inhibition, Monocyte Phagocytosis Enhancement	Functional validation of immunomodulatory capacity	Critical for lot-to-lot consistency and product release [16]
Characterization Reagents	CD73, CD90, CD105 Antibodies (Positive); CD34, CD45, HLA-DR (Negative)	Phenotypic verification by flow cytometry	Confirms MSC identity per ISCT criteria [29] [2]

The comprehensive analysis of direct comparative studies provides compelling evidence that cryopreserved MSCs maintain critical therapeutic functions equivalent to freshly cultured cells across diverse disease models and organ systems. The minimal statistically significant differences observed in organ function, histopathological outcomes, and survival endpoints—coupled with the demonstrated feasibility of "off-the-shelf" availability—strongly support the continued development and clinical utilization of cryopreserved MSC products. Future research directions should focus on further optimization of cryopreservation protocols, standardization of potency assays, and validation of these findings in large-scale clinical trials to fully realize the potential of cryopreserved MSCs as accessible, effective cellular therapies for a broad spectrum of inflammatory and degenerative diseases.

The transition of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) from research tools to clinically viable "living biodrugs" hinges on solving critical logistical challenges. Among these, the choice between using freshly cultured and cryopreserved cell products is paramount, directly impacting the feasibility of "off-the-shelf" therapies for acute conditions. Freshly cultured MSCs have been the traditional standard in preclinical research, prized for their perceived pristine functionality. However, their limited immediate availability restricts their practical clinical application. Cryopreserved MSCs offer a compelling alternative, enabling long-term storage and ready availability for urgent treatments, such as acute cardiovascular events or steroid-refractory Graft-versus-Host Disease (GvHD). A central hypothesis driving current research is that cryopreserved MSCs (CryoMSCs) are as safe and effective as their freshly cultured counterparts, while providing significant logistical advantages [68] [4]. This review objectively compares the efficacy of cryopreserved and freshly cultured MSCs, focusing on clinical trial data from cardiovascular and GvHD applications, to evaluate the validity of this hypothesis and inform future therapeutic development.

Clinical Efficacy and Safety: A Comparative Analysis

Data from recent clinical trials and meta-analyses provide a quantitative basis for comparing the performance of cryopreserved MSCs across key disease areas.

Cardiovascular Applications

In cardiovascular medicine, cryopreserved MSCs have demonstrated significant, though sometimes time-dependent, benefits. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 285 patients with heart disease found that cryopreserved MSCs led to a statistically significant short-term improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 2.11% [68]. The therapeutic effect was not sustained over 12 months, indicating a potential need for repeated dosing or adjunct therapies to achieve long-term stabilization [68]. The efficacy was closely linked to cell quality post-thaw; treatments using MSCs with a post-thaw viability exceeding 80% showed a more substantial LVEF improvement of 3.44% [68]. Furthermore, subgroup analyses revealed that umbilical cord-derived MSCs (UC-MSCs) were the most effective cell type among those studied [68].

A separate meta-analysis of heart failure patients concluded that the safety profile of MSC-based therapy is consistently strong, irrespective of the cell source being autologous or allogeneic [69]. While autologous MSCs showed a trend toward greater protective benefits, allogeneic MSCs significantly improved functional capacity, as measured by the 6-minute walking distance (6-MWD), which increased by 31.88 meters [69].

Table 1: Efficacy of Cryopreserved MSCs in Cardiovascular Trials

Outcome Measure	Efficacy Result	Statistical Significance (P-value)	Key Influencing Factor
LVEF (Short-Term)	+2.11% improvement	P = 0.004	Overall effect [68]
LVEF (High Viability)	+3.44% improvement	P = 0.0007	Post-thaw viability >80% [68]
6-Minute Walk Distance	+31.88 meters	95% CI: 5.03–58.74 m	Allogeneic MSC source [69]
LV End-Diastolic Volume	-2.08 mL reduction	95% CI: −3.52—0.64 mL	Allogeneic MSC source [69]
LVEF (Long-Term)	Effect not sustained	Not Significant	12-month follow-up [68]

Graft-versus-Host Disease (GvHD) Application

The most significant regulatory milestone for cryopreserved MSCs to date is the FDA approval in December 2024 of Ryoncil (remestemcel-L) for the treatment of pediatric steroid-refractory acute GvHD (SR-aGVHD) [70]. This approval of an allogeneic, bone marrow-derived cryopreserved MSC product validates their clinical utility in a severe, immune-mediated condition. The therapeutic effect is primarily attributed to the release of immunomodulatory molecules that suppress the overactive immune response driving GvHD [70] [41]. The successful translation of Ryoncil from clinical trials to an approved drug provides a powerful real-world example of the viability of the cryopreserved, "off-the-shelf" MSC model.

Safety Profile

Across both cardiovascular and GvHD trials, cryopreserved MSCs have exhibited a favorable safety profile. Meta-analyses show no statistically significant increase in major adverse cardiac events (MACE), rehospitalization, or mortality in patients treated with cryopreserved MSCs compared to control groups [68] [69]. The reported adverse events are typically transient and self-limiting, with no fatal events attributed to the MSC therapy itself in the reviewed studies [68] [71].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

The evidence supporting the use of cryopreserved MSCs is derived from rigorously conducted studies. The following protocols outline the general methodologies used to generate the comparative data discussed in this review.

Clinical Meta-Analysis Protocol

The clinical data on cardiovascular efficacy, particularly from [68], was generated through a systematic review and meta-analysis adhering to PRISMA guidelines.

• Data Sources and Search: Four electronic databases (e.g., PubMed, EMBASE) were systematically searched for relevant RCTs.
• Study Selection: Included studies were RCTs evaluating the safety and efficacy of cryopreserved MSCs from any tissue source in patients with heart disease.
• Data Extraction and Synthesis: Key endpoints like LVEF, LV volumes, and adverse events were extracted. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) and odds ratios were calculated using statistical software (e.g., RevMan v5.4.1). A random-effects model was used if heterogeneity was significant.
• Subgroup Analysis: Pre-specified analyses were conducted based on MSC source (e.g., bone marrow, umbilical cord) and post-thaw viability to identify modifiers of the treatment effect.

Preclinical Systematic Review Protocol

The foundational preclinical evidence comparing fresh and cryopreserved MSCs was synthesized in a systematic review of animal models [4].

• Animal Models: Studies included in vivo models of inflammation (e.g., acute lung injury, sepsis, myocardial infarction).
• Intervention Comparison: Direct comparisons were made between freshly cultured MSCs (in continuous culture or cultured >24 hours post-thaw) and cryopreserved MSCs (thawed and used within <24 hours).
• Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was in vivo efficacy (e.g., survival, functional improvement, biomarker levels). Secondary outcomes were in vitro potency assays (e.g., immunomodulation, secretory profile).
• Risk of Bias: Study quality was assessed using the SYRCLE risk of bias tool for animal studies.

Mechanisms of Action and Analytical Workflows

The therapeutic effects of MSCs, whether fresh or cryopreserved, are mediated through complex mechanisms. The following diagram illustrates the primary pathways and the workflow for evaluating cell potency.

Diagram 1: Key Therapeutic Mechanisms of MSCs in Cardiovascular and GvHD Applications.

Experimental Workflow for Potency Assessment

Evaluating the impact of cryopreservation on MSC functionality requires a multi-faceted approach. The following workflow is commonly employed in preclinical and translational studies.

Diagram 2: Workflow for Evaluating Cryopreserved MSC Potency and Efficacy.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Reagents and Materials

Successful clinical translation of cryopreserved MSC therapies depends on standardized, high-quality reagents and materials. The following table details critical components of the experimental and manufacturing pipeline.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Cryopreserved MSC Translation

Reagent/Material	Primary Function	Application Notes & Impact on Research
Cryoprotective Agents (CPAs)	Protect cells from ice crystal damage during freeze-thaw.	DMSO is the most common CPA but has toxicity concerns. Research focuses on DMSO-free cocktails (e.g., trehalose, sucrose) to improve safety [2].
Defined Culture Media	Ex vivo expansion of MSCs.	Serum-free/xeno-free media are critical for clinical compliance, ensuring batch-to-batch consistency and reducing risk of zoonotic contamination [29] [41].
Phenotyping Antibody Panels	Identity and potency verification via flow cytometry.	Essential for confirming ISCT criteria (CD73+, CD90+, CD105+, CD45-, CD34-, HLA-DR-) and detecting functional markers (e.g., HLA-G, PD-L1) [29] [41].
Potency Assay Kits	Quantitative measurement of MSC function.	Kits for measuring IDO activity, PGE2 release, or T-cell suppression provide critical, standardized metrics for batch release and correlating with in vivo efficacy [4] [41].
Biomaterial Scaffolds	3D delivery platform for enhanced engraftment.	Hydrogels and other matrices can improve the retention and survival of cryopreserved MSCs at the target site (e.g., myocardium), potentially boosting efficacy [41].

The collective evidence from clinical trials and meta-analyses firmly supports the non-inferiority of cryopreserved MSCs compared to freshly cultured cells in terms of safety and, in several key indications, efficacy. The FDA approval of Ryoncil for SR-aGVHD and the significant, viability-dependent improvements in cardiac function demonstrate that cryopreservation is a viable and logistically essential strategy for translating MSC therapies.

Critical challenges remain. The loss of long-term LVEF benefit in cardiovascular studies and the variable outcomes across trials highlight the need to optimize cryopreservation protocols, standardize post-thaw viability thresholds (>80% appears critical), and potentially combine MSC therapy with other treatments [68]. Future progress will be driven by innovations in DMSO-free cryoprotectant solutions [2], advanced potency assays to predict clinical success, and the emergence of iPSC-derived MSCs (iMSCs) for enhanced product consistency and scalability [70]. In conclusion, cryopreserved MSCs have transitioned from a logistical convenience to a therapeutically validated and indispensable modality in regenerative medicine.

1. Introduction Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have long been explored for their regenerative and immunomodulatory properties. Originally, their therapeutic potential was attributed to direct differentiation and engraftment at injury sites. However, emerging evidence indicates that implanted MSCs have transient survival, and their benefits are primarily mediated by paracrine signaling—specifically, through the secretion of bioactive factors collectively termed the secretome [72] [73]. This review compares cell-based MSC therapies with cell-free secretome approaches, framing the discussion within the critical context of freshly cultured versus cryopreserved MSC performance in vivo.

2. Mechanisms of Action: MSCs vs. Secretome 2.1. MSC Mechanisms MSCs exert effects through:

• Homing: Migration to injury sites via chemokine gradients [72].
• Direct Differentiation: Limited capacity to replace damaged tissues [29].
• Paracrine Signaling: Release of growth factors, cytokines, and extracellular vesicles (EVs) that modulate immune responses and promote repair [11] [73].

2.2. Secretome Mechanisms The secretome includes soluble proteins, lipids, nucleic acids, and EVs (e.g., exosomes). Key actions include:

• Immunomodulation: Suppressing T-cell proliferation and polarizing macrophages toward anti-inflammatory phenotypes [72] [73].
• Trophic Support: Enhancing angiogenesis, reducing apoptosis, and activating resident stem cells [73] [74].

The diagram below illustrates the secretory components and their functional roles:

3. Therapeutic Efficacy: Experimental Data 3.1. Preclinical and Clinical Evidence Studies across disease models demonstrate comparable efficacy between MSCs and secretome:

• Osteoarthritis: Primed secretome (e.g., with TNF-α/IL-1β) enriched anti-inflammatory factors (TGF-β1, PGE2) and enhanced cartilage protection [75].
• Bacterial Infections: Secretome reduced bacterial load and improved survival in rodent models [76].
• Wound Healing: Secretome accelerated fibroblast proliferation, angiogenesis, and tissue remodeling [74].
• Bone Regeneration: Dental MSC secretomes promoted bone repair in tibial defects, with dental pulp-derived secretome showing superior RUNX2 and osterix expression [77].

3.2. Impact of Cryopreservation on MSC Performance A systematic review of 18 preclinical studies compared freshly cultured vs. cryopreserved MSCs:

• In Vivo Efficacy: 2.3% (6/257) of outcomes showed significant differences (2 favored fresh, 4 favored cryopreserved) [5].
• In Vitro Potency: 13% (9/68) of assays favored fresh MSCs, but most parameters (e.g., immunomodulation) were unaffected [5] [39].
• Key Considerations: Cryopreservation methods, post-thaw viability, and recovery culture duration critically influence functional retention [5] [39].

Table 1. Comparative Analysis of MSC vs. Secretome Therapies

Parameter	Cell-Based MSC Therapy	Cell-Free Secretome
Mechanism	Differentiation + Paracrine	Paracrine only
Safety	Risk of immune rejection, emboli	Avoids cell-related risks
Manufacturing	Complex expansion, cryostorage	Simplified production, lyophilization
Shelf Life	Limited post-thaw viability	Long-term stability
Dosing Precision	Variable	Standardized potency assays
Regulatory Path	Challenging (cell therapy)	Aligns with biologics guidelines

Table 2. Cryopreserved vs. Freshly Cultured MSCs in Preclinical Studies

Outcome Measure	Number of Studies	Results
In Vivo Efficacy	18 studies, 257 outcomes	94% no significant difference; 2.3% favored fresh; 4% favored cryopreserved
In Vitro Potency	18 studies, 68 assays	87% no significant difference; 10% favored fresh; 3% favored cryopreserved
Key Influencing Factors	Cryopreservation duration, thawing methods, and post-thaw culture

4. Experimental Workflow for Secretome Production 4.1. Secretome Isolation and Priming

• Step 1: Culture MSCs (e.g., from adipose tissue, bone marrow) under serum-free conditions [73] [77].
• Step 2: Preconditioning (priming) with cytokines (e.g., TNF-α, IL-1β) or hypoxia to enhance bioactive factor secretion [75] [73].
• Step 3: Collect conditioned medium and concentrate via ultrafiltration [77].
• Step 4: Isolate EVs/exosomes using ultracentrifugation, size-exclusion chromatography, or precipitation [72] [74].

The workflow for generating primed secretome is summarized below:

4.2. Potency Assessment

• ELISAs: Quantify TGF-β, PGE2, VEGF [75] [77].
• Vesicle Tracking: Nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA) for EV concentration [75].
• Functional Assays: Lymphocyte suppression, scratch wound healing, or tubulogenesis assays [73] [74].

5. The Scientist’s Toolkit: Essential Reagents Table 3. Key Reagents for MSC and Secretome Research

Reagent/Category	Function
CD105, CD73, CD90	Surface markers for MSC identification (ISCT criteria) [29]
TNF-α, IL-1β	Priming cytokines to enhance secretome immunomodulatory capacity [75]
Amicon Ultra Filters	Secretome concentration and buffer exchange [77]
Collagen Scaffolds	3D delivery systems for secretome in bone defects [77]
NTA System (e.g., NanoSight)	Quantify extracellular vesicle size and concentration [75]

6. Conclusion Both MSC and secretome therapies demonstrate robust regenerative and immunomodulatory potential. The secretome offers a cell-free, standardized alternative with logistical and safety advantages. Critical to this comparison is the finding that cryopreservation—a practical necessity for "off-the-shelf" therapies—does not significantly compromise most efficacy metrics in vivo [5] [39]. Future work should focus on standardizing secretome manufacturing, optimizing priming strategies, and validating potency assays to accelerate clinical translation.

::: {.notice} Key Topic Summary This guide compares the performance and safety profiles of freshly cultured versus cryopreserved Mesenchymal Stem Cell (MSC) products, synthesizing preclinical and clinical data to inform therapeutic development. The analysis reveals that while most efficacy outcomes are equivalent, cryopreservation introduces specific, manageable safety considerations related to cryoprotectant agents and immediate post-thaw cell function. :::

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) represent a cornerstone of regenerative medicine due to their immunomodulatory properties, tissue repair capabilities, and multi-lineage differentiation potential [5] [2]. A critical decision in therapeutic development is whether to administer cells in a freshly cultured state (in continuous culture or thawed and cultured for ≥24 hours) or as a cryopreserved ("off-the-shelf") product (thawed and used within <24 hours) [5] [55]. The former is logistically complex for acute care, while the latter's safety and efficacy have been debated, with concerns that freeze-thaw processes may impair MSC functionality or increase adverse events [5] [78]. This guide objectively analyzes the incidence of adverse events associated with both products, framing the comparison within the broader thesis of their performance in vivo to aid researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals in product selection and risk assessment.

Comparative Analysis of Efficacy and Adverse Events

Preclinical In Vivo Efficacy

A systematic review of 18 pre-clinical studies analyzing 257 in vivo experiments in inflammatory models found the vast majority of efficacy outcomes (97.7%) showed no significant difference between freshly cultured and cryopreserved MSCs [5] [14]. Of the minimal number of outcomes that were statistically different, more actually favored cryopreserved MSCs.

• Table: Preclinical In Vivo Efficacy Outcomes [5] [14]

  Outcome Category	Total Experiments	Experiments with Significant Difference (p<0.05)	Details of Significant Findings
  In Vivo Efficacy	257	6 (2.3%)	2 favoured freshly cultured MSCs; 4 favoured cryopreserved MSCs
  In Vitro Potency	68	9 (13%)	7 favoured freshly cultured MSCs; 2 favoured cryopreserved MSCs

Mechanisms and Considerations for Adverse Events

The primary safety considerations for cryopreserved MSCs are not intrinsic to the cells' therapeutic action but relate to the cryopreservation process itself and its immediate impact on the cells.

• Cryoprotectant Agent (CPA) Toxicity: Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) is a common but cytotoxic CPA. Inadequate post-thaw washing to remove DMSO can lead to infusion-related reactions and patient adverse events, including allergic responses [2] [78].
• Immediate Post-Thaw Viability and Function: The freeze-thaw process can cause a 20-30% loss in cell viability [78]. Furthermore, freshly thawed MSCs may exhibit a temporarily diminished immunomodulatory response, such as reduced expression of the immunosuppressive enzyme IDO upon initial stimulation with interferon-gamma (IFN-γ), and can be more susceptible to the Instant Blood-Mediated Inflammatory Reaction (IBMIR), leading to complement system activation and rapid cell lysis upon infusion [78].

The following diagram illustrates the two primary safety-related pathways affected by cryopreservation.

Key Experimental Protocols and Workflows

Understanding the methodologies used to generate comparative data is crucial for interpretation and replication. Key experiments often follow a standardized workflow.

Protocol for Preclinical In Vivo Comparison

This standard protocol is used to compare the therapeutic efficacy of fresh vs. cryopreserved MSCs in animal models of inflammation [5] [55].

• Step 1: MSC Preparation: MSCs are isolated from a source (e.g., bone marrow, adipose tissue) and expanded in culture.
• Step 2: Intervention & Control: A portion of cells is cryopreserved using a slow-freezing method with a CPA like DMSO. The control group consists of freshly cultured cells, maintained in continuous culture or thawed and cultured for over 24 hours.
• Step 3: Disease Model Induction: An inflammatory disease (e.g., acute lung injury, sepsis, GvHD) is induced in immunocompetent animal models.
• Step 4: Cell Administration: After model induction, both freshly cultured and freshly thawed cryopreserved MSCs are administered via a relevant route (e.g., intravenous, intraperitoneal).
• Step 5: Outcome Assessment: Surrogate measures of in vivo efficacy are analyzed, including organ dysfunction, histopathological damage, and cytokine levels. In vitro potency assays (e.g., co-culture with immune cells) are often performed in parallel [5] [55].

The workflow for this standard comparison protocol is summarized below.

Protocol for Analyzing Cryopreservation-Specific Risks

Specific experiments are designed to probe the mechanisms behind adverse events, particularly focusing on post-thaw cell function and compatibility [78].

• IBMIR and Complement Susceptibility Assay: Freshly cultured and cryopreserved-thawed MSCs are exposed to human blood plasma or serum. The activation of the complement cascade (measured by C3a, C5a levels) and platelet consumption are quantified to assess the initiation of IBMIR.
• Post-Thaw Functional Recovery Assay: MSCs are thawed and either used immediately or placed in culture for 24 hours. Their immunomodulatory capacity (e.g., response to IFN-γ, IDO activity, T-cell suppression) is tested at both time points to assess the timeline for functional recovery.
• Alternative Preservation Research: Investigations into methods like resuspending freshly cultured MSCs in human plasma and storing them at 2-8°C for several days seek to bypass the drawbacks of cryopreservation while extending shelf-life [78].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Successful comparison and clinical application of MSC products rely on specific reagents and materials. The following table details key solutions and their functions in this field.

• Table: Key Reagent Solutions for MSC Therapy Development

  Research Reagent / Material	Function & Application
  Cryoprotective Agents (CPAs) e.g., DMSO	Penetrate cell membrane to reduce intracellular ice crystal formation during freezing, thereby improving post-thaw viability [2].
  Clinical-Grade Cryopreservation Media e.g., CryoStor10	GMP-grade, defined-formulation solutions designed to optimize cell survival and recovery during freezing and thawing, often containing DMSO [79].
  Human Serum Albumin (HSA)	A component of standard cell suspension media, used as a carrier protein to stabilize cells in a clinical-grade, injection-ready state for short-term storage [78].
  HypoThermosol	An intracellular-like preservation solution designed for hypothermic storage and shipment of cells, used to enhance stability post-thaw [79].
  Plasma-Lyte A	A balanced electrolyte solution used as a wash buffer to remove CPAs and serum prior to cryopreservation or post-thaw before administration [79].
  Human AB+ Plasma	Investigated as an alternative storage medium to maintain MSC viability and functionality at 2-8°C for several days without cryopreservation [78].

Discussion and Research Implications

The body of evidence suggests that the decision between fresh and cryopreserved MSCs is not a matter of superior efficacy for one, but a risk-benefit analysis tailored to the clinical scenario.

• The Case for Cryopreserved "Off-the-Shelf" Products: For acute conditions like septic shock or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), the logistical necessity of having an immediately available product outweighs the minor risks associated with cryopreservation. The preclinical data robustly supports that their efficacy is largely equivalent to fresh cells [5] [14]. Furthermore, cryopreservation is essential for quality control, product standardization, creating cell banks, and facilitating distribution, which are critical for commercial and regulatory success [79].
• Mitigating Risks of Cryopreserved Products: The identified safety concerns are manageable through protocol optimization. These include:
  • Effective CPA Removal: Implementing rigorous, validated post-thaw washing protocols (e.g., centrifugation with Plasma-Lyte A or other buffers) to minimize DMSO infusion [2] [79].
  • Post-Thaw Recovery: Allowing a short period (e.g., 24 hours) of post-thaw culture before administration can restore the immunomodulatory potency of MSCs, mitigating the risk of reduced functionality, though this negates the "immediate use" advantage [5] [78].
  • Alternative Formulations: Research into DMSO-free cryoprotectants and advanced cryopreservation media (e.g., CryoStor) aims to directly reduce CPA-related toxicity [2].

In conclusion, the incidence of adverse events directly attributable to the biological action of MSCs themselves does not appear to be significantly different between freshly cultured and cryopreserved products. The primary safety profile differences stem from the cryopreservation process, specifically risks associated with cryoprotectant toxicity and immediate post-thaw cell susceptibility to host immune responses like IBMIR.

For researchers and drug developers, the choice hinges on the target indication. Cryopreserved, off-the-shelf MSCs are a viable and effective option for acute diseases where rapid deployment is critical, provided that manufacturing protocols incorporate strategies to mitigate the specific risks identified. Future work should focus on standardizing and optimizing cryopreservation and post-thaw handling protocols, developing safer cryoprotectant formulations, and conducting rigorous, direct comparative clinical trials with adverse events as a primary endpoint. ::: {.notice} Confidence Assessment in Findings High Confidence for Preclinical Efficacy: The conclusion of functional equivalence is based on a systematic review of multiple animal studies [5] [14]. Emerging Consensus for Safety Mechanisms: The identified risks related to CPAs and IBMIR are supported by peer-reviewed research, though direct clinical head-to-head safety trials are more limited [2] [78]. ::: }

Conclusion

The collective body of evidence strongly indicates that cryopreserved MSCs can achieve therapeutic efficacy comparable to their freshly cultured counterparts in a majority of in vivo scenarios, validating their use as a practical 'off-the-shelf' product. The key to success lies not in the state of the cells alone, but in the rigorous optimization of the entire cryopreservation workflow—from donor selection and CPA choice to post-thaw handling. Critical factors for maintaining potency include ensuring high post-thaw viability (>80%) and implementing robust quality control measures. Future research must focus on standardizing these protocols, improving the understanding of how cryopreservation influences long-term MSC interactions with the host immune system, and conducting large-scale, well-controlled clinical trials that directly compare the two products. By addressing these areas, the field can fully unlock the clinical potential of cryopreserved MSCs, making transformative regenerative medicines more accessible and logistically feasible.

References

• 1. Characteristics of Mesenchymal Stem Cells - PubMed Central [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3083283/]
• 2. Effects, methods and limits of the cryopreservation on ... [https://stemcellres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13287-024-03954-3]
• 3. Mechanisms involved in the therapeutic properties of ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135961010900077X]
• 4. Comparison of freshly mesenchymal... cultured versus cryopreserved [https://elifesciences.org/articles/75053]
• 5. Comparison of freshly cultured versus cryopreserved ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9286731/]
• 6. Comparison of freshly thawed... cultured versus freshly [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13643-020-01437-z]
• 7. Comparison of freshly cultured versus cryopreserved ... [https://elifesciences.org/articles/75053/figures]
• 8. Function of Cryopreserved MSCs with and without IFN-γ pre ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5397371/]
• 9. Frontiers | In and in vitro vivo evaluation of bone... therapeutic [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cell-and-developmental-biology/articles/10.3389/fcell.2025.1521809/full]
• 10. Expanding the Paracrine Hypothesis of Stem Cell ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5430302/]
• 11. Mesenchymal stromal cell therapy: Progress to date and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1525001625000930]
• 12. In Vivo Therapeutic Potential of Mesenchymal Stromal Cells ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4375942/]
• 13. Small extracellular vesicles from human bone marrow ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-04057-6]
• 14. Comparison of freshly cultured versus cryopreserved ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35838024/]
• 15. Clinical experience with cryopreserved mesenchymal stem ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11947892/]
• 16. Key quality parameter comparison of mesenchymal stem ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/bioengineering-and-biotechnology/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2024.1412811/full]
• 17. Dimethyl sulfoxide in cryopreserved mesenchymal stromal cell ... [https://translational-medicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12967-025-06807-6]
• 18. Species-specific optimisation of cryopreservation media for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0011224025000173]
• 19. Cell Freezing and Preservation Media | Cell Storage [https://www.stemcell.com/cell-storage-media-overview.html]
• 20. 第一章：什么是玻璃化冷冻？为什么喜欢 ... [https://www.vitavitro.cn/%E4%BB%80%E4%B9%88%E6%98%AF%E7%8E%BB%E7%92%83%E5%8C%96%E5%86%B7%E5%86%BB%EF%BC%9F%E4%B8%BA%E4%BB%80%E4%B9%88%E5%96%9C%E6%AC%A2%E7%8E%BB%E7%92%83%E5%8C%96%E5%86%B7%E5%86%BB%EF%BC%9F/]
• 21. 传统慢速冷冻与玻璃化冷冻的系统评价和荟萃分析） [https://www.ebiotrade.com/newsf/2025-3/20250327060818699.htm]
• 22. 2022年第2期 [https://www.zhilengxuebao.com/zh/issue/2022/2/]
• 23. 慢冻与玻璃化冷冻解冻胚胎囊胚培养后临床结局的比较研究 [http://dianda.cqvip.com/Qikan/Article/Detail?id=675047377]
• 24. 冷冻保存的脐带间充质干细胞治疗骨关节炎，疗效持久-伯士医学 [https://bothlife.com/contents/13/67.html]
• 25. 最新研究结果：冻存的脐带间充质干细胞治疗膝骨关节炎显著改善 [https://bydrug.pharmcube.com/news/detail/6670307e34f75264eca7e52a2494625e]
• 26. Impact of Cryopreservation and Freeze-Thawing on ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9045030/]
• 27. The Utilization of Freezing Steps in Mesenchymal Stromal ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2019.01627/full]
• 28. Reconstitution and post-thaw storage of cryopreserved ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352320423000275]
• 29. Mesenchymal stem cells in treating human diseases [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-025-02313-9]
• 30. A potency and toxicology study on tolerability of cryopreserved ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12590272/]
• 31. Cryoprotectant Toxicity: Balancing Safety and Efficacy [https://allanchem.com/cryoprotectant-toxicity-safety-efficacy/]
• 32. Innovations in Platelet Cryopreservation [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41155307]
• 33. Innovations in Platelet Cryopreservation [https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/26/20/10013]
• 34. Screening for cryoprotective agent toxicity and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S001122402500121X]
• 35. A novel method for maintaining the stability of freshly cultured ... [https://transmedcomms.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41231-021-00103-3]
• 36. Optimizing mesenchymal stem cell therapy: from isolation to ... [https://bmcmolcellbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12860-025-00539-7]
• 37. Optimizing cryopreservation conditions for use ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11007032/]
• 38. Cryopreservation and post-thaw differentiation of monocytes ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/lp/d5lp00131e]
• 39. Peer review in Comparison of freshly cultured versus ... [https://elifesciences.org/articles/75053/peer-reviews]
• 40. The Impact of Storage Condition and Duration on Function ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10079553/]
• 41. From bench to bedside: translating mesenchymal stem cell ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12344367/]
• 42. Rethinking miRNAs in MSC-sEV therapeutics [https://www.oaepublish.com/articles/evcna.2025.55]
• 43. Pooled mesenchymal stromal cells do not reflect average ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12519293/]
• 44. Cryopreservation of human mesenchymal stromal cells ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4906234/]
• 45. Cryopreserved mesenchymal stem cells regain functional ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6716839/]
• 46. Cryopreserved Mesenchymal Stromal Cells Maintain ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/srep26463]
• 47. From “stem” to “stromal”: Reframing the nomenclature of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12553919/]
• 48. The heterogeneity of mesenchymal stem cells [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10734083/]
• 49. The issue of heterogeneity of MSC-based advanced ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cell-and-developmental-biology/articles/10.3389/fcell.2024.1400347/full]
• 50. From cold chain to ambient: Benefits, risks, and evidence ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12593556/]
• 51. Mesenchymal stromal cells derived from various tissues [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0011224015002047]
• 52. Identification of a fundamental cryoinjury mechanism in ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0011224023000913]
• 53. Preconditioning Stem Cells for In Vivo Delivery - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4120806/]
• 54. A new insight for stem cell therapy: apoptotic ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-022-01066-z]
• 55. Comparison of freshly cultured versus freshly thawed ... [https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-020-01437-z]
• 56. preconditioning strategies for MSC-derived extracellular ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2025.1509418/full]
• 57. Multiple strategies enhance the efficacy of MSC-Exos ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014488624003649?dgcid=api_sd_search-api-endpoint]
• 58. Dealing with Cryopreservation Challenges in Mesenchymal Stem Cell Culture - Atlantis Bioscience Pte Ltd [https://www.atlantisbioscience.com/blog/dealing-with-cryopreservation-challenges-in-mesenchymal-stem-cell-culture/]
• 59. Exploring the Potential Effects of Cryopreservation on ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11432599/]
• 60. In Vivo Distribution of Human Adipose-Derived ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4382309/]
• 61. Hydrogel microcapsulation technology reduces the DMSO ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12639263/]
• 62. DMSO-free cryopreservation of hiPSC-derived cardiomyocytes [https://stemcellres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13287-025-04384-5]
• 63. DMSO-free Freezing Culture Media Trends and Forecast ... [https://www.datainsightsmarket.com/reports/dmso-free-freezing-culture-media-1170387]
• 64. Toxicity Measurements for Human-Scale Organ Vitrification ... [https://www.jyi.org/2025-june/2025/6/30/toxicity-measurements-for-human-scale-organ-vitrification-cpas]
• 65. High throughput method for simultaneous screening of ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-85509-x]
• 66. The Preservation of the Therapeutic Efficacy of the Secretome ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12473753/]
• 67. Differential Phase Contrast Imaging to Predict MSC ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12581882/]
• 68. Clinical experience with cryopreserved mesenchymal stem ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40160690/]
• 69. a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs | Stem Cell ... [https://stemcellres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13287-025-04209-5]
• 70. Current Landscape of FDA Stem Cell Approvals and Trials ... [https://www.reprocell.com/blog/current-landscape-of-fda-stem-cell-approvals-and-trials-2023-2025]
• 71. Autologous and allogeneic mesenchymal stem cell-based ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12305282/]
• 72. Mesenchymal Stem Cell Secretome: Toward Cell-Free ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5618501/]
• 73. Mesenchymal stem cell secretome for regenerative medicine [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2090123224001814]
• 74. Therapeutic Potential on Wound Healing and Cell-Free ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/26/5/1926]
• 75. Boosting the therapeutic potential of cell secretome against ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0753332223017687]
• 76. A systematic review of preclinical studies on therapeutic ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40859370/]
• 77. Cell-Free bone regeneration using dental MSCs ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-15924-7]
• 78. A novel method for maintaining the stability of freshly ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41231-021-00103-3]
• 79. Cryopreservation does not change the performance and ... [https://stemcellres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13287-022-03198-z]