Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26689371›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

In Vitro Evaluation of Spider Silk Meshes as a Potential Biomaterial for Bladder Reconstruction.

Anne Steins, Pieter Dik, Wally H Müller, Stephin J Vervoort, Kerstin Reimers, Jörn W Kuhbier, Peter M Vogt, Aart A van Apeldoorn, Paul J Coffer, Koen Schepers

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Defining the regenerative effects of native spider silk fibers on primary Schwann cells, sensory neurons, and nerve-associated fibroblasts.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2021
    Article
  9. Spider Silk for Tissue Engineering Applications.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Anne SteinsUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Wilhelmina Children's Hospital, Division of Pediatrics, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Pieter DikUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Wilhelmina Children's Hospital, Division of Pediatrics, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Wally H MüllerUtrecht University, Department of Chemistry, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Stephin J VervoortUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Department of Cell Biology, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Kerstin ReimersMedical School Hannover, Department of Plastic, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, Hannover, Germany.
Jörn W KuhbierMedical School Hannover, Department of Plastic, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, Hannover, Germany.
Peter M VogtMedical School Hannover, Department of Plastic, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, Hannover, Germany.
Aart A van ApeldoornUniversity of Twente, MIRA Institute for Biomedical Technology and Technical Medicine, Department of Developmental Bioengineering, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Paul J CofferUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Wilhelmina Children's Hospital, Division of Pediatrics, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Koen SchepersUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Department of Cell Biology, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
University Medical Center Utrecht · NLMedizinische Hochschule Hannover · DEUniversity of Twente · NLUtrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reconstruction of the bladder by means of both natural and synthetic materials remains a challenge due to severe adverse effects such as mechanical failure. Here we investigate the application of spider major ampullate gland-derived dragline silk from the Nephila edulis spider, a natural biomaterial with outstanding mechanical properties and a slow degradation rate, as a potential scaffold for bladder reconstruction by studying the cellular response of primary bladder cells to this biomaterial. We demonstrate that spider silk without any additional biological coating supports adhesion and growth of primary human urothelial cells (HUCs), which are multipotent bladder cells able to differentiate into the various epithelial layers of the bladder. HUCs cultured on spider silk did not show significant changes in the expression of various epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition and fibrosis associated genes, and demonstrated only slight reduction in the expression of adhesion and cellular differentiation genes. Furthermore, flow cytometric analysis showed that most of the silk-exposed HUCs maintain an undifferentiated immunophenotype. These results demonstrate that spider silk from the Nephila edulis spider supports adhesion, survival and growth of HUCs without significantly altering their cellular properties making this type of material a suitable candidate for being tested in pre-clinical models for bladder reconstruction.

Indexed as

Materials TestingSurgical MeshAnimalsHumansSilkSpidersUrinary BladderUrotheliumSilk

Identifiers

PMID26689371
PMCPMC4687005
OpenAlexW2283365043

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.