ArticleCroatian medical journal2015
Synthetic vs natural scaffolds for human limbal stem cells.
Article in Croatian medical journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Limbal stem cell sheet bandage for short-term treatment of corneal regeneration.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Detection of Limbal Stem Cells Adhered to Melt Electrospun Silk Fibroin and Gelatin-Modified Polylactic Acid Scaffolds.Polymers · 2023Article
- Nanocarriers, Progenitor Cells, Combinational Approaches, and New Insights on the Retinal Therapy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Cellulose Composites with Graphene for Tissue Engineering Applications.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Poly(ε-caprolactone) Titanium Dioxide and Cefuroxime Antimicrobial Scaffolds for Cultivation of Human Limbal Stem Cells.Polymers · 2020Article
- Propagation of limbal stem cells on polycaprolactone and polycaprolactone/gelatin fibrous scaffolds and transplantation in animal model.BioImpacts : BI · 2020Article
- A nanofibrous electrospun patch to maintain human mesenchymal cell stemness.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo investigate the impact of synthetic electrospun polyurethane (PU) and polycaprolactone (PCL) nanoscaffolds, before and after hydrolytic surface modification, on viability and differentiation of cultured human eye epithelial cells, in comparison with natural scaffolds: fibrin and human amniotic membrane.
methodsHuman placenta was taken at elective cesarean delivery. Fibrin scaffolds were prepared from commercial fibrin glue kits. Nanoscaffolds were fabricated by electrospinning. Limbal cells were isolated from surpluses of human cadaveric cornea and seeded on feeder 3T3 cells. The scaffolds used for viability testing and immunofluorescence analysis were amniotic membrane, fibrin, PU, and PCL nanoscaffolds, with or without prior NaOH treatment.
resultsScanning electron microscope photographs of all tested scaffolds showed good colony spreading of seeded limbal cells. There was a significant difference in viability performance between cells with highest viability cultured on tissue culture plastic and cells cultured on all other scaffolds. On the other hand, electrospun PU, PCL, and electrospun PCL treated with NaOH had more than 80% of limbal cells positive for stem cell marker p63 compared to only 27%of p63 positive cells on fibrin.
conclusionNatural scaffolds, fibrin and amniotic membrane, showed better cell viability than electrospun scaffolds. On the contrary, high percentages of p63 positive cells obtained on these scaffolds still makes them good candidates for efficient delivery systems for therapeutic purposes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.