Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19497631›Full record

ReviewTrends in biotechnology2009

Production of self-assembling biomaterials for tissue engineering.

Stuart Kyle, Amalia Aggeli, Eileen Ingham, Michael J McPherson

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trends in biotechnology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed
10.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

56 citing papers in PubMed, 224 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Perspectives on Multiscale Colloid-Based Materials for Biomedical Applications.Langmuir : the ACS journal of surfaces and colloids · 2023
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Stuart KyleAstbury Centre for Structural Molecular Biology, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK. bmbsky@leeds.ac.uk
Amalia Aggeli
Eileen Ingham
Michael J McPherson
University of Leeds · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Self-assembling peptide-based biomaterials are being developed for use as 3D tissue engineering scaffolds and for therapeutic drug-release applications. Chemical synthesis provides custom-made peptides in small quantities, but production approaches based upon transgenic organisms might be more cost-effective for large-scale peptide production. Long lead times for developing appropriate animal clones or plant lines and potential negative public opinion are obstacles to these routes. Microbes, particularly safe organisms used in the food industry, offer a more rapid route to the large-scale production of recombinant self-assembling biomaterials. In this review, recent advances and challenges in the recombinant production of collagen, elastin and de novo designed self-assembling peptides are discussed.

Indexed as

AnimalsBacteriaBiocompatible MaterialsDrug CarriersFungiOrganisms, Genetically ModifiedPlantsTissue EngineeringBiocompatible MaterialsDrug Carriers

Identifiers

PMID19497631
PMCPMC2828541
OpenAlexW2008625423

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.