Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29383981›Full record

ArticleTissue engineering. Part A2018

Comparison of Different In Vivo Incubation Sites to Produce Tissue-Engineered Small Intestine.

Yanchun Liu, Barrett P Cromeens, Yijie Wang, Kelli Fisher, Jed Johnson, Jason Chakroff, Gail E Besner

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Tissue engineering. Part A, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yanchun Liu1 Department of Pediatric Surgery, The Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital , Columbus, Ohio.
Barrett P Cromeens1 Department of Pediatric Surgery, The Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital , Columbus, Ohio.
Yijie Wang1 Department of Pediatric Surgery, The Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital , Columbus, Ohio.
Kelli Fisher1 Department of Pediatric Surgery, The Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital , Columbus, Ohio.
Jed Johnson2 Nanofiber Solutions, Inc. , Hilliard, Ohio.
Jason Chakroff2 Nanofiber Solutions, Inc. , Hilliard, Ohio.
Gail E Besner1 Department of Pediatric Surgery, The Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital , Columbus, Ohio.
Nanofiber Solutions (United States) · US

Funding

Tissue Engineered IntestineR43DK107168 · NIDDK · NANOFIBER SOLUTIONS, LLC · PI JOHNSON, JED KIZER · 2015 to 2015
$250k
NIDDK NIH HHS R43 DK107168
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe objective of this study was to compare the impact of different in vivo incubation sites on the production of tissue-engineered small intestine (TESI). MATERIALS AND

methodsGreen fluorescent protein transgenic rat pups (3-5 days) were used as donors of intestinal organoids. Harvested intestine was exposed to enzymatic digestion to release intestinal stem cell-containing organoids. Organoids were purified, concentrated, and seeded onto tubular polyglycolic acid scaffolds. Seeded scaffolds were implanted in each of five locations in recipient female nude rats: wrapped with omentum, wrapped with intestinal mesentery, wrapped with uterine horn membrane, attached to the abdominal wall, and inserted into the subcutaneous space. After 4 weeks of in vivo incubation, specimens from each site were explanted for evaluation.

resultsWrapping seeded scaffolds with vascularized membranes produced TESI with variable lengths of vascularized pedicles, with the longest pedicle length from uterine horn membrane, the shortest pedicle length from intestinal mesentery, and intermediate length from omentum. The quantity of TESI, as expressed by volume and neomucosal length, was identical in TESI produced by wrapping with any of the three membranes. The smallest quantity of TESI was found in TESI produced from insertion into the subcutaneous space, with an intermediate quantity of TESI produced from attachment to the abdominal wall. Periodic acid-Schiff and immunofluorescence (IF) staining confirmed the presence of all intestinal epithelial cell lineages in TESI produced at all incubation sites. Additional IF staining demonstrated the presence of enteric nervous system components and blood vessels. Wrapping of seeded scaffolds with vascularized membranes significantly increased the density of blood vessels in the TESI produced.

conclusionWrapping of seeded scaffolds in vascularized membranes produced the largest quantity and highest quality of TESI. Attaching seeded scaffolds to the abdominal wall produced an intermediate quantity of TESI, but the quality was still comparable to TESI produced in vascularized membranes. Insertion of seeded scaffolds into the subcutaneous space produced the smallest quantity and lowest quality of TESI. In summary, wrapping seeded scaffolds with vascularized membranes is favorable for the production of TESI, and wrapping with omentum may produce TESI that is most easily anastomosed with host intestine.

Indexed as

AnimalsCell LineageCell ProliferationEnteric Nervous SystemEpithelial CellsForeign-Body ReactionIntestine, SmallRats, NudeRats, TransgenicTissue EngineeringTissue Scaffoldsanimal modelintestinal mesenterytissue-engineered intestinetissue maturationvascularized pedicle

Identifiers

PMID29383981
PMCPMC6033308
OpenAlexW2787040740

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.