Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26397030›Full record

ArticleCurrent eye research2016

Corneal Decellularization: A Method of Recycling Unsuitable Donor Tissue for Clinical Translation?

Samantha L Wilson, Laura E Sidney, Siobhán E Dunphy, Harminder S Dua, Andrew Hopkinson

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current eye research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 87 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Samantha L Wilsona Academic Ophthalmology, Division of Clinical Neuroscience, Queen's Medical Centre Campus, University of Nottingham , Nottingham , UK.
Laura E Sidneya Academic Ophthalmology, Division of Clinical Neuroscience, Queen's Medical Centre Campus, University of Nottingham , Nottingham , UK.
Siobhán E Dunphya Academic Ophthalmology, Division of Clinical Neuroscience, Queen's Medical Centre Campus, University of Nottingham , Nottingham , UK.
Harminder S Duaa Academic Ophthalmology, Division of Clinical Neuroscience, Queen's Medical Centre Campus, University of Nottingham , Nottingham , UK.
Andrew Hopkinsona Academic Ophthalmology, Division of Clinical Neuroscience, Queen's Medical Centre Campus, University of Nottingham , Nottingham , UK.
Queen's Medical Centre · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_13072Medical Research Council MC_PC_14102
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a clinical need for biomimetic corneas that are as effective, preferably superior, to cadaveric donor tissue. Decellularized tissues are advantageous compared to synthetic or semi-synthetic engineered tissues in that the native matrix ultrastructure and intrinsic biological cues including growth factors, cytokines and glycosaminoglycans may be retained. However, there is currently no reliable, standardized human corneal decellularization protocol.

methodsCorneal eye-bank tissue unsuitable for transplantation was utilized to systematically compare commonly used decellularization protocols. Hypertonic sodium chloride; an ionic reagent, sodium dodecyl sulphate; a non-ionic detergent, tert-octylphenol polyoxyethylene (Triton-X); enzymatic disaggregation using Dispase; mechanical agitation; and the use of nucleases were investigated. Decellularization efficacy, specifically for human corneal tissue, was extensively evaluated. Removal of detectable cellular material was evidenced by histological, immunofluorescence and biochemical assays. Preservation of macroscopic tissue transparency and light transmittance was evaluated. Retention of corneal architecture, collagen and glycosaminoglycans was assessed via histological, immunofluorescence and quantitative analysis. Biocompatibility of the resulting scaffolds was assessed using cell proliferation assays.

resultsNone of the decellularization protocols investigated successfully removed 100% of cellular components. The techniques with the least residual cellular material were most structurally compromised. Biochemical analysis of glycosaminoglycans demonstrated the stripping effects of the decellularization procedures.

conclusionThe ability to utilize, reprocess and regenerate tissues deemed "unsuitable" for transplantation allows us to salvage valuable tissue. Reprocessing the tissue has the potential to have a considerable impact on addressing the problems associated with cadaveric donor shortage. Patients would directly benefit by accessing greater numbers of corneal grafts and health authorities would fulfill their responsibility for the delivery of effective corneal reconstruction to alleviate corneal blindness. However, in order to progress, we may need to take a step back to establish a "decellularization" criterion; which should balance effective removal of immune reactive material with maintenance of tissue functionality.

Indexed as

Corneal TransplantationTissue DonorsTissue ScaffoldsCell ProliferationCorneaEye BanksHumansTissue EngineeringBiocompatibilitycollagencorneal decellularizationglycosaminoglycansresidual cellular materialstromal transparency

Identifiers

PMID26397030
PMCPMC4926783
OpenAlexW1789148173

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.