ArticleBioResearch open access2016
In Vitro Testing of Biomaterials for Neural Repair: Focus on Cellular Systems and High-Content Analysis.
Article in BioResearch open access, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Influence of Pathological Extracellular Matrix on the Biological Properties of Stem Cells: Possible Hints for Cell Transplantation Therapies in Spinal Cord Injury.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Effect of Electrical Stimulation on PC12 Cells Cultured in Different Hydrogels: Basis for the Development of Biomaterials in Peripheral Nerve Tissue Engineering.Pharmaceutics · 2023Article
- Intra-individual variability in the neuroprotective and promyelinating properties of conditioned culture medium obtained from human adipose mesenchymal stromal cells.Stem cell research & therapy · 2023Article
- Oligodendrocytes in a dish for the drug discovery pipeline: the risk of oversimplification.Neural regeneration research · 2021Article
- A Novel Three-Dimensional Culture Device Favors a Myelinating Morphology of Neural Stem Cell-Derived Oligodendrocytes.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biomimetic materials are designed to stimulate specific cellular responses at the molecular level. To improve the soundness of in vitro testing of the biological impact of new materials, appropriate cell systems and technologies must be standardized also taking regulatory issues into consideration. In this study, the biological and molecular effects of different scaffolds on three neural systems, that is, the neural cell line SH-SY5Y, primary cortical neurons, and neural stem cells, were compared. The effect of poly(L-lactic acid) scaffolds having different surface geometry (conventional two-dimensional seeding flat surface, random or aligned fibers as semi3D structure) and chemical functionalization (laminin or ECM extract) were studied. The endpoints were defined for efficacy (i.e., neural differentiation and neurite elongation) and for safety (i.e., cell death/survival) using high-content analysis. It is demonstrated that (i) the definition of the biological properties of biomaterials is profoundly influenced by the test system used; (ii) the definition of the in vitro safety profile of biomaterials for neural repair is also influenced by the test system; (iii) cell-based high-content screening may well be successfully used to characterize both the efficacy and safety of novel biomaterials, thus speeding up and improving the soundness of this critical step in material science having medical applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.