Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26192009›Full record

ArticleTissue engineering. Part A2015

Tissue-Specific Effects of Esophageal Extracellular Matrix.

Timothy J Keane, Aaron DeWard, Ricardo Londono, Lindsey T Saldin, Arthur A Castleton, Lisa Carey, Alejandro Nieponice, Eric Lagasse, Stephen F Badylak

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tissue engineering. Part A, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed
6.5field-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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 80 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Next-Generation Therapies for Gastrointestinal Repair: Converging Traditional Medicine and Tissue Engineering.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2025
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Extracellular matrix grafts: From preparation to application (Review).International journal of molecular medicine · 2021
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Timothy J Keane1 McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine , Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Aaron DeWard1 McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine , Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Ricardo Londono1 McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine , Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Lindsey T Saldin1 McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine , Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Arthur A Castleton1 McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine , Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Lisa Carey1 McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine , Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Alejandro Nieponice1 McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine , Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Eric Lagasse1 McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine , Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Stephen F Badylak1 McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine , Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine · USUniversity of Pittsburgh · USFundacion Favaloro Hospital Universitario · AR

Funding

University of Pittsburgh Clinical and Translational Science InstituteUL1TR000005 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI REIS, STEVEN E · 2012 to 2015
$50.8M
Cellular Approaches to Tissue Engineering/RegenerationT32EB001026 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI DUNCAN, ANDREW W, MONGA, SATDARSHAN SINGH · 2003 to 2024
$5.5M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000005NIBIB NIH HHS T32 EB001026
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biologic scaffolds composed of extracellular matrix (ECM) have been used to facilitate repair or remodeling of numerous tissues, including the esophagus. The theoretically ideal scaffold for tissue repair is the ECM derived from the particular tissue to be treated, that is, site-specific or homologous ECM. The preference or potential advantage for the use of site-specific ECM remains unknown in the esophageal location. The objective of the present study was to characterize the in vitro cellular response and in vivo host response to a homologous esophageal ECM (eECM) versus nonhomologous ECMs derived from small intestinal submucosa and urinary bladder. The in vitro response of esophageal stem cells was characterized by migration, proliferation, and three-dimensional (3D) organoid formation assays. The in vivo remodeling response was evaluated in a rat model of esophageal mucosal resection. Results of the study showed that the eECM retains favorable tissue-specific characteristics that enhance the migration of esophageal stem cells and supports the formation of 3D organoids to a greater extent than heterologous ECMs. Implantation of eECM facilitates the remodeling of esophageal mucosa following mucosal resection, but no distinct advantage versus heterologous ECM could be identified.

Indexed as

Organ SpecificityAnimalsCell ProliferationChemotaxisEsophagusExtracellular MatrixFemaleHydrogelsKeratinsMice, Inbred C57BLMice, TransgenicMucous MembraneOrganoidsRats, Sprague-DawleyStem CellsSus scrofaHydrogelsKeratins

Identifiers

PMID26192009
PMCPMC4556088
OpenAlexW1955224645

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.