Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30873477›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and translational research2017

Acellular porcine heart matrices: whole organ decellularization with 3D-bioscaffold & vascular preservation.

Alice S Ferng, Alana M Connell, Katherine M Marsh, Ning Qu, Annalisa O Medina, Naing Bajaj, Daniel Palomares, Jessika Iwanski, Phat L Tran, Kapil Lotun and 2 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and translational research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Development of a new decellularization protocol for the whole porcine heart.Journal of clinical and translational research · 2021
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. 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

12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alice S FerngDepartment of Surgery, Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona, United States.
Alana M ConnellDepartment of Surgery, Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona, United States.
Katherine M MarshDepartment of Surgery, Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona, United States.
Ning QuDepartment of Surgery, Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona, United States.
Annalisa O MedinaDepartment of Surgery, Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona, United States.
Naing BajajDepartment of Surgery, Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona, United States.
Daniel PalomaresDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona, United States.
Jessika IwanskiDepartment of Surgery, Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona, United States.
Phat L TranDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona, United States.
Kapil LotunUniversity of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona, United States.
Kitsie JohnsonDepartment of Surgery, Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona, United States.
Zain KhalpeyDepartment of Surgery, Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona, United States.
University of Arizona · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Regenerative medicine, particularly decellularization-recellularization methods via whole-organ tissue engineering, has been increasingly studied due to the growing donor organ shortage. Though numerous decellularization protocols exist, the ideal decellularization protocol for optimal recellularization is unclear. This study was performed to optimize existing heart decellularization protocols and compare current methods using the detergents SDS (sodium dodecyl sulfate), Triton X-100, OGP (octyl β-D-glucopyranoside), and CHAPS (3-[(3-cholamidopropyl) dimethylammonio]-1-propanesulfonate) through retrograde aortic perfusion via aortic cannulation of a whole porcine heart. The goal of decellularization is to preserve extracellular matrix integrity and architecture, which was analyzed in this study through histology, microscopy, DNA analysis, hydroxyproline content analysis, materials analysis and angiography. Effective decellularization was determined by analyzing the tissue organization, geometry, and biological properties of the resultant extracellular matrix scaffold. Using these parameters, optimal decellularization was achieved between 90 and 120 mmHg pressure with 3% SDS as a detergent.

Indexed as

acellularizationbioscaffolddecellularizationheartorganporcinevascular

Identifiers

PMID30873477
PMCPMC6410671
OpenAlexW2596040186

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.