Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25057942›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Application of detergents or high hydrostatic pressure as decellularization processes in uterine tissues and their subsequent effects on in vivo uterine regeneration in murine models.

Erna G Santoso, Keita Yoshida, Yasushi Hirota, Masanori Aizawa, Osamu Yoshino, Akio Kishida, Yutaka Osuga, Shigeru Saito, Takashi Ushida, Katsuko S Furukawa

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

61 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 140 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Recent Advances in Scaffolds for Guided Bone Regeneration.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Erna G SantosoDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Keita YoshidaDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Yasushi HirotaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Masanori AizawaDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Osamu YoshinoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toyama, Toyama, Japan.
Akio KishidaDepartment of Material-based Medical Engineering, Division of Biofunctional Restoration, Institute of Biomaterials and Bioengineering, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan.
Yutaka OsugaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Shigeru SaitoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toyama, Toyama, Japan.
Takashi UshidaDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan; Department of Bioengineering, School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Katsuko S FurukawaDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan; Department of Bioengineering, School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
The University of Tokyo · JPUniversity of Toyama · JPTokyo Medical and Dental University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Infertility caused by ovarian or tubal problems can be treated using In Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer (IVF-ET); however, this is not possible for women with uterine loss and malformations that require uterine reconstruction for the treatment of their infertility. In this study, we are the first to report the usefulness of decellularized matrices as a scaffold for uterine reconstruction. Uterine tissues were extracted from Sprague Dawley (SD) rats and decellularized using either sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) or high hydrostatic pressure (HHP) at optimized conditions. Histological staining and quantitative analysis showed that both SDS and HHP methods effectively removed cells from the tissues with, specifically, a significant reduction of DNA contents for HHP constructs. HHP constructs highly retained the collagen content, the main component of extracellular matrices in uterine tissue, compared to SDS constructs and had similar content levels of collagen to the native tissue. The mechanical strength of the HHP constructs was similar to that of the native tissue, while that of the SDS constructs was significantly elevated. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) revealed no apparent denaturation of collagen fibers in the HHP constructs compared to the SDS constructs. Transplantation of the decellularized tissues into rat uteri revealed the successful regeneration of the uterine tissues with a 3-layer structure 30 days after the transplantation. Moreover, a lot of epithelial gland tissue and Ki67 positive cells were detected. Immunohistochemical analyses showed that the regenerated tissues have a normal response to ovarian hormone for pregnancy. The subsequent pregnancy test after 30 days transplantation revealed successful pregnancy for both the SDS and HHP groups. These findings indicate that the decellularized matrix from the uterine tissue can be a potential scaffold for uterine regeneration.

Indexed as

RegenerationTissue ScaffoldsAnimalsCells, CulturedDetergentsExtracellular MatrixFemaleFertilityHydrostatic PressurePregnancyRatsRats, Sprague-DawleySodium Dodecyl SulfateTissue EngineeringUterusDetergentsSodium Dodecyl Sulfate

Identifiers

PMID25057942
PMCPMC4109986
OpenAlexW2004741469

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.