The ability to replace organs and tissues on demand could save or improve millions of lives each year globally and create public health benefits on par with curing cancer. Unmet needs for organ and tissue preservation place enormous logistical limitations on transplantation, regenerative medicine, drug discovery, and a variety of rapidly advancing areas spanning biomedicine. A growing coalition of researchers, clinicians, advocacy organizations, academic institutions, and other stakeholders has assembled to address the unmet need for preservation advances, outlining remaining challenges and identifying areas of underinvestment and untapped opportunities. Meanwhile, recent discoveries provide proofs of principle for breakthroughs in a family of research areas surrounding biopreservation. These developments indicate that a new paradigm, integrating multiple existing preservation approaches and new technologies that have flourished in the past 10 years, could transform preservation research. Capitalizing on these opportunities will require engagement across many research areas and stakeholder groups. A coordinated effort is needed to expedite preservation advances that can transform several areas of medicine and medical science.

No abstract

The iridium/iodide-catalyzed carbonylation of methanol to acetic acid is promoted by carbonyl complexes of W, Re, Ru, and Os and simple iodides of Zn, Cd, Hg, Ga, and In. Iodide salts (LiI and Bu(4)NI) are catalyst poisons. In situ IR spectroscopy shows that the catalyst resting state (at H(2)O levels > or = 5% w/w) is fac,cis-[Ir(CO)(2)I(3)Me](-), 2. The stoichiometric carbonylation of 2 into [Ir(CO)(2)I(3)(COMe)](-), 6, is accelerated by substoichiometric amounts of neutral promoter species (e.g., [Ru(CO)(3)I(2)](2), [Ru(CO)(2)I(2)](n), InI(3), GaI(3), and ZnI(2)). The rate increase is approximately proportional to promoter concentration for promoter:Ir ratios of 0-0.2. By contrast anionic Ru complexes (e.g., [Ru(CO)(3)I(3)](-), [Ru(CO)(2)I(4)](2)(-)) do not promote carbonylation of 2 and Bu(4)NI is an inhibitor. Mechanistic studies indicate that the promoters accelerate carbonylation of 2 by abstracting an iodide ligand from the Ir center, allowing coordination of CO to give [Ir(CO)(3)I(2)Me], 4, identified by high-pressure IR and NMR spectroscopy. Migratory CO insertion is ca. 700 times faster for 4 than for 2 (85 degrees C, PhCl), representing a lowering of Delta G(++) by 20 kJ mol(-1). Ab initio calculations support a more facile methyl migration in 4, the principal factor being decreased pi-back-donation to the carbonyl ligands compared to 2. The fac,cis isomer of [Ir(CO)(2)I(3)(COMe)](-), 6a (as its Ph(4)As(+) salt), was characterized by X-ray crystallography. A catalytic mechanism is proposed in which the promoter [M(CO)(m)I(n)] (M = Ru, In; m = 3, 0; n = 2, 3) binds I(-) to form [M(CO)(m)I(n+1)](-)H(3)O(+) and catalyzes the reaction HI(aq) + MeOAc --> MeI + HOAc. This moderates the concentration of HI(aq) and so facilitates catalytic turnover via neutral 4.