Indeed, the survival of cryogenic pathogens in LN
2 generates the possibility of cross-contamination between LN
2 and stored samples because sterile LN
2 can get contaminated from stored contaminated semen samples thus become a source of contamination itself [
50,
54,
58]. The ingredients used during cryopreservation, especially the cryoprotectants and media increase the survivability of these pathogens. Furthermore, repeated freezing and warming could affect the survival of pathogens in different ways [
59]. Relatively, fungi are sensitive to freezing while bacteria have a high tolerance. Piasecka-Serafin [
60] reported translocation of bacteria from infected semen pellets, to sterile LN
2, and then to sterile semen pellets. Within only 2 hours of cryostorage, as many as 94% of the sterile samples became contaminated with
E. coli and
S. aureus [
60]. The ability of pathogens to survive in LN
2 was further demonstrated in LN
2 contaminated with infectious vesicular stomatitis virus [
61] and then cross contamination with hepatitis B from cryostored bone marrow due to a packaging leak. This leak affected 4 patients receiving cryostored bone marrow [
62].
Surprisingly, Cobo et al. [
63] screened the culture medium and LN
2 used to vitrify oocytes and embryos of 24 women for viral RNA and DNA. They found that none of 33 used culture media samples or 27 used LN
2 samples was positive with any HIV, hepatitis B virus (HBV) or hepatitis C virus (HCV) contamination, even using an open device for vitrification [
63]. A total of 6, 11, and 6 patients were seropositive for HIV, HCV, and HBV, respectively, whereas 1 patient showed a coinfection with HCV and HBV. Seven patients presented positive blood viral load (1 HIV, 1 HBV, 5 HCV). The results of this study may be limited due to the relatively low sample size.
Molina et al. [
64] directly compared the contamination risk of bacteria and fungi between open and closed vitrification devices with human oocytes and embryos. Interestingly, they also found that the bacteria cross-contamination risk was no greater for open containers than for closed containers in vitrification and no bacterial or fungal contamination was observed in either open or closed devices storing human oocytes and embryos after 1–2 years storage [
64]. To identify the bacteria, suspected samples were inoculated on different agar plates and cultured 2–3 days. If any colonies were presented following innoculation, each was sub-cultured to a new plate for purity. Pure cultures were then Gram stained for morphology and identified. Fungal detection was carried out on Sabouraud dextrose agar with chloranphenicol and the filamentous fungi were identified on the basis of macroscopic and microscopic morphologic features. They found all the five containers used to store oocytes and embryos for 1–17 years were contaminated with bacteria, mainly
Bacillus spp,
Stenotrophomonas maltophilia and
Enterobacter spp., before and after LN
2 filling, but none with fungi although the media, device or the LN
2 used were free from either bacteria or fungi before use. There were
Acinetobacter lwoffii,
Alcaligenes faecalis ssp. faecalis, and
Sphingomonas paucimobilis at the bottom of storage containers but no fungi were observed. The contamination had no correlation to the number of samples stored or to the time the container had been used. The source of these pathogens could be the cryopreservation environment [
64].
Contamination control
No freezing method is absolutely safe. Frequent cleaning of used utensils should be the basic measure, including dry shippers, tanks, dewars, canisters, canes, and sample carriers. However, such maintenance may require samples to be removed from storage, which could put the stored specimen at risk [
54‐
56,
58,
67]. Another basic rule to avoid contamination is to store contaminated samples separately in quarantine to minimize the risk of cross contamination if possible. Commercially produced LN
2 itself could contain cryogenic pathogens and become the source of contamination. However, obtaining a small amount of sterile LN
2 is feasible by sterilizing the air used to create LN
2. For instance, McBurnie and Bardo [
68] demonstrated that air filtration with 0.22 μm polytetrafluoroethylene efficiently retained
Brevundimonas diminuta with extreme temperatures, high pressures, high flow rates, and high concentration of bacteria before LN
2 manufacturing. Alternatively, filtration of regular but non-sterile LN
2 before the samples are exposed could be even simpler. Indeed, a device called CLAir was developed for use in vitrification of human oocytes and mouse embryos [
69]. A 0.22-μm filter equipped inside the canister can produce sterile liquid air at similar temperature to LN
2 so that the samples saved in a sealed canister (esther) are only exposed to sterile liquid air. Liquid air showed the same vitrification outcome with human oocytes and mouse embryos but with no contamination while large amounts of contamination with regular LN
2 were observed. Presumably, such device could be used to prevent contamination in the sperm vitrification process.
Another basic strategy to control contamination is to avoid direct contact with LN
2. It is therefore understandable that closed carriers as used in conventional freezing show lower incidence of contamination in comparison to open ones. Cryoloop, a widely used device in which the specimen is directly submerged into LN
2, generates considerable vitrification effects at the expense of severe sample contamination [
55]. As using a closed carrier in the vitrification process is not always feasible, evidence has shown that using liquid nitrogen vapor, instead of LN
2 itself, to store human sperm samples can lower the risk of viral cross-contamination [
70]. Fortunately, efforts to improve the use of closed carriers in sperm vitrification have been made and have shown encouraging results. For example, Isachenko et al. [
18,
19] developed an aseptic technology for human spermatozoa vitrification. They used in 0.5 mL insemination straws for immediate intrauterine insemination and achieved satisfactory outcome with normozoospermic and severely oligozoospermic samples [
18]. Slabbert et al. [
20] used 0.5 ml straws to load 300 μl sample to allow sufficient air space inside the straw to prevent rupturing when immersed into LN
2. This method worked successfully with 35 vitrified human semen samples [
20]. Diaz-Jimenez et al. [
71] cryopreserved six donkey ejaculates, which were vitrified with either 30 μl sperm solution sphere suspensions or 100 μl in 0.25 ml straws with 0.1 M sucrose without glycerol. They found the straw method resulted in higher total and progressive motility while no difference in plasma membrane integrity [
71]. It appears that sperm vitrification does not compromise post-thaw motility when using a closed carrier. Straw-in-straw design, or double straw, allows the inner straw contain the specimen and then it is sealed and inserted to outer straw, and then the whole unit is submerged to LN
2 so there is no direct exposure to LN
2. The design showed considerable vitrification results with 82 mouse D2/D3 embryos in 30 μl solution [
72] and 113 human oocytes and 93 blastocysts using 1 μl medium [
73]. Still, when loaded, the inner straw containing specimen could explode during freezing and warming due to the air pressure fluctuations. Therefore, a thin, narrow-walled capillary was developed to speed up the temperature conduction and reduce the air volume [
74‐
76]. The contamination incidence of this double straw method should be no greater than that of conventional method.
Intermediate methods exist that are a hybrid of open and closed systems to achieve the benefits of each method. Samples can be vitrified by direct contact to a small amount of purified LN
2, and are then sealed and stored in large quantities regular LN
2. This method has been reported in human embryo vitrification [
77], and could be tested for efficacy in sperm vitrification.
Ultraviolet (UV) light could also be a possible solution to reduce the contamination risk to vitrified sperm samples. Treating a small volume of LN
2 with UV light at a suitable dose of radiation has been demonstrated to effectively reduce the number of pathogens, including bacteria, viruses, and fungi [
78]. It was reported that 8, 000 μW/cm
2 of UV light could destroy hepatitis B virus while 330, 000 μW/cm2 destroyed the fungus
Aspergillus niger. Most virus become inactivated by UV light at dose of 200, 000 μW/cm
2 [
79] while Zika virus may have higher resistance to UV light [
79]. Therefore, UV light could be a viable solution to reducing contamination rates in non-sterile LN
2.
Unfortunately, the application of UV light to LN
2 containing human samples is controversial. The UV light used could also cause severe genetic aberrations to stored spermatozoa, and further to fertilized embryos, although a study with human oocytes has demonstrated no adverse effects [
80]. A simple solution is to sterilize LN
2 with UV light before it is used to freeze and store semen samples. Rinsing contaminated samples with sterile LN
2 can significantly reduce the contaminant pathogens. Parmegiani et al. [
75] washed human oocytes and embryos purposely contaminated with bacteria (
P. aeruginosa,
E. coli, and
S. maltophilia) and a fungus
(A. Niger) three times in LN
2 sterilized by UV light. Washing these samples in sterilized LN
2 eliminated the contamination of both bacteria (0/65) and the fungus (0/25) while the unwashed samples remained highly contaminated with both bacteria (92/117) and fungi (25/25) [
75]. Another concern with the use of UV light to sterilize LN
2 is the generation of ozone, which could have detrimental effects on the buffering system in which the cryogenic samples are stored. Luckily, the formation of ozone from UV light is insignificant as ozone is formed by the breakdown of oxygen molecules by the action of UV radiation. When these oxygen atoms separate, they combine with other oxygen molecules to form ozone. However, as LN
2 is virtually free from oxygen, this should not be an issue with UV light sterilization of LN
2 [
80].
Generally, there is no easy but cost-effective way to completely eliminate all the potential risks of contamination in sperm vitrification. But based on the improvements in past years, it is possible to control the contamination risk of vitrification to the level of conventional freezing.
Is there a universal vitrification protocol for all types of sperm samples?
Careful optimization of preservation protocols can be tedious, confusing and expensive due to the specific devices and reagents required. Is it possible to develop a universal protocol for all the species and all the samples? It sounds impossible since the cryotolerance of spermatozoa depends on sperm features such as size, shape, and lipid composition, which makes it challenging to generate a single standardized freezing procedure for all species. Even in humans, there is a variety of sperm specimens, such as normospermic, oligospermic, azoospermic samples, testicular sperm aspiration (TESA), and percutaneous epididymal sperm aspiration (PESA) samples with different parameters such as volume, concentration, motility, and seminal plasma features. Furthermore, it is difficult to establish a universal stereotyped model to serve different cryopreservation purposes at human clinic. Rozati et al. [
81] reviewed the pitfalls of human sperm cryopreservation, especially the sperm banking for cancer patients [
81].
In fact, there was an effort to establish a universal vitrification method for almost all the samples including oocytes, primary cells, stem cells, and genetically modified cells. The method proposed low concentrations of cryoprotectants including 1.5 M propanediol and 0.5 M trehalose in industrial grade microcapillaries made of highly conductive fused silica. It was demonstrated that this universal protocol achieved high recovery and viability rates after vitrification for human mammary epithelial cells, rat hepatocytes, tumor cells from pleural effusions, and multiple cancer cell lines [
82]. Unfortunately, due to the different characteristics of spermatozoa from the cell types tested, this method would not likely be superior to the specialized sperm cryopreservation protocols that exist presently.