Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27525199›Full record

ArticleProgress in biomaterials

Comparison of eri and tasar silk fibroin scaffolds for biomedical applications.

Muthumanickkam Andiappan, Tinesh Kumari, Subramanian Sundaramoorthy, Gowri Meiyazhagan, Prasath Manoharan, Ganesh Venkataraman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Progress in biomaterials. 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. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Silkworm Gut Fibres from Silk Glands ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    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

6 authors.

Muthumanickkam AndiappanDepartment of Textile Technology, Anna University, Chennai, India.
Tinesh KumariDepartment of Textile Technology, Anna University, Chennai, India.
Subramanian SundaramoorthyDepartment of Textile Technology, Anna University, Chennai, India.
Gowri MeiyazhaganSri Ramachandra Medical University, Chennai, India.
Prasath ManoharanSri Ramachandra Medical University, Chennai, India.
Ganesh VenkataramanSri Ramachandra Medical University, Chennai, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The cultivated silk, mulberry, is being used as biomaterial in different forms. Eri, tasar and muga are some of the known wild silk varieties. The studies on biomedical applications of electrospun mats produced from these wild silks are limited though few studies on eri silk are available. In this work, comparison was made between eri and tasar silk fibroin scaffolds for biomedical application. The scaffolds were produced from eri silk fibroin (ESF) and tasar silk fibroin (TSF) by electrospinning method and they were treated with ethanol to improve dimensional stability. Ethanol treatment increased the crystallinity% of both ESF and TSF scaffolds. The crystallinity percentage of the ESF and TSF scaffolds was found to be 46.7 and 42.8 % respectively. Thermal stability was higher for ESF than that of TSF scaffold. The hemolytic % of ESF and TSF scaffolds was found to be 1.3 and 7.7 % respectively. The platelet adhesion on the surface of ESF scaffold was lower than that found on TSF scaffold. Better fibroblast cell attachment, binding and spreading was found on the ESF scaffold. The cell viability on ESF scaffold was 83.78 % and in TSF was 78.01 % for 48 h. The results showed that ESF electrospun scaffold can be considered as a better biomaterial for biomedical applications compared to that of TSF scaffold.

Indexed as

BiomedicalBlood compatibilityEri silk fibroinProteinSterilizationTasar silk fibroinTissue cell culture

Identifiers

PMID27525199
PMCPMC4965488

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.