Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26258796›Full record

ReviewJournal of functional biomaterials2015

Peptide Amphiphiles in Corneal Tissue Engineering.

Martina Miotto, Ricardo M Gouveia, Che J Connon

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of functional biomaterials, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Peptide-Based Functional Biomaterials for Soft-Tissue Repair.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2019
    Review
  3. Multicomponent peptide assemblies.Chemical Society reviews · 2018
    Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

3 authors.

Martina MiottoInstitute of Genetic Medicine, Newcastle University, International Centre for Life, Central Parkway, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 3BZ, UK. M.Miotto1@newcastle.ac.uk.
Ricardo M GouveiaInstitute of Genetic Medicine, Newcastle University, International Centre for Life, Central Parkway, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 3BZ, UK. Ricardo.Gouveia@newcastle.ac.uk.
Che J ConnonInstitute of Genetic Medicine, Newcastle University, International Centre for Life, Central Parkway, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 3BZ, UK. Che.Connon@newcastle.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The increasing interest in effort towards creating alternative therapies have led to exciting breakthroughs in the attempt to bio-fabricate and engineer live tissues. This has been particularly evident in the development of new approaches applied to reconstruct corneal tissue. The need for tissue-engineered corneas is largely a response to the shortage of donor tissue and the lack of suitable alternative biological scaffolds preventing the treatment of millions of blind people worldwide. This review is focused on recent developments in corneal tissue engineering, specifically on the use of self-assembling peptide amphiphiles for this purpose. Recently, peptide amphiphiles have generated great interest as therapeutic molecules, both in vitro and in vivo. Here we introduce this rapidly developing field, and examine innovative applications of peptide amphiphiles to create natural bio-prosthetic corneal tissue in vitro. The advantages of peptide amphiphiles over other biomaterials, namely their wide range of functions and applications, versatility, and transferability are also discussed to better understand how these fascinating molecules can help solve current challenges in corneal regeneration.

Indexed as

bioactive moleculescorneacorneal diseasescorneal tissue engineeringpeptide amphiphilestissue engineeringwound healing

Identifiers

PMID26258796
PMCPMC4598678

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.