Significance
For the past three decades the anhydrobiosis field has lived with a paradox, while vitrification is necessary for survival in the dry state, it is not sufficient. Understanding what property(s) distinguishes a desiccation tolerant from an intolerant vitrified system and how anhydrobiotic organisms survive drying is one of the enduring mysteries of organismal physiology. Here we show in vitro the enzyme-protective capacity of different vitrifying sugars can be correlated with distinct material properties. However, in vivo, diverse desiccation tolerant organisms appear to combine these material properties to promote their survival in a dry state.
Statement of significance
For the past three decades the anhydrobiosis field has lived with a paradox, while vitrification is necessary for survival in the dry state, it is not sufficient. Understanding what property(s) distinguishes a desiccation tolerant from an intolerant vitrified system and how anhydrobiotic organisms survive drying is one of the enduring mysteries of organismal physiology. Here we show in vitro the enzyme-protective capacity of different vitrifying sugars can be correlated with distinct material properties. However, in vivo, diverse desiccation tolerant organisms appear to combine these material properties to promote their survival in a dry state.