Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25575526›Full record

ReviewStem cells translational medicine2015

Concise review: tailoring bioengineered scaffolds for stem cell applications in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine.

Steffen Cosson, Ellen A Otte, Hadi Hezaveh, Justin J Cooper-White

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Stem cells translational medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Cellular and Subcellular Contact Guidance on Microfabricated Substrates.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2020
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
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.

Steffen CossonTissue Engineering and Microfluidics Laboratory, Australian Institute for Bioengineering and Nanotechnology, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia; Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Material Science and Engineering, Clayton, Victoria, Australia; University of Queensland School of Chemical Engineering, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia.
Ellen A OtteTissue Engineering and Microfluidics Laboratory, Australian Institute for Bioengineering and Nanotechnology, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia; Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Material Science and Engineering, Clayton, Victoria, Australia; University of Queensland School of Chemical Engineering, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia.
Hadi HezavehTissue Engineering and Microfluidics Laboratory, Australian Institute for Bioengineering and Nanotechnology, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia; Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Material Science and Engineering, Clayton, Victoria, Australia; University of Queensland School of Chemical Engineering, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia.
Justin J Cooper-WhiteTissue Engineering and Microfluidics Laboratory, Australian Institute for Bioengineering and Nanotechnology, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia; Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Material Science and Engineering, Clayton, Victoria, Australia; University of Queensland School of Chemical Engineering, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia j.cooperwhite@uq.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The potential for the clinical application of stem cells in tissue regeneration is clearly significant. However, this potential has remained largely unrealized owing to the persistent challenges in reproducibly, with tight quality criteria, and expanding and controlling the fate of stem cells in vitro and in vivo. Tissue engineering approaches that rely on reformatting traditional Food and Drug Administration-approved biomedical polymers from fixation devices to porous scaffolds have been shown to lack the complexity required for in vitro stem cell culture models or translation to in vivo applications with high efficacy. This realization has spurred the development of advanced mimetic biomaterials and scaffolds to increasingly enhance our ability to control the cellular microenvironment and, consequently, stem cell fate. New insights into the biology of stem cells are expected to eventuate from these advances in material science, in particular, from synthetic hydrogels that display physicochemical properties reminiscent of the natural cell microenvironment and that can be engineered to display or encode essential biological cues. Merging these advanced biomaterials with high-throughput methods to systematically, and in an unbiased manner, probe the role of scaffold biophysical and biochemical elements on stem cell fate will permit the identification of novel key stem cell behavioral effectors, allow improved in vitro replication of requisite in vivo niche functions, and, ultimately, have a profound impact on our understanding of stem cell biology and unlock their clinical potential in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine.

Indexed as

Biomimetic MaterialsRegenerative MedicineStem CellsTissue EngineeringAnimalsHumansTissue ScaffoldsUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationBioengineeringHydrogelNicheScaffoldStem cellTissue engineering

Identifiers

PMID25575526
PMCPMC4303362

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.