ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2019
Comparison of various reagents for preparing a decellularized porcine cartilage scaffold.
Article in American journal of translational research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Crosslinking strategies govern the morphology and biological performance of decellularized extracellular matrix particle-tyramine-modified hyaluronic acid hydrogels.RSC advances · 2026Article
- A Novel Decellularized Fibrocartilage Graft Promotes Tympanic Membrane Repair.Advanced healthcare materials · 2026Article
- From Cartilage to Matrix: Protocols for the Decellularization of Porcine Auricular Cartilage.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- An update on technical method of cartilage decellularization: A physical-based protocol.BioImpacts : BI · 2025Article
- Review
- Decellularized Tissue-Induced Cellular Recruitment for Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2024Article
- Decellularized extracellular matrix biomaterials for regenerative therapies: Advances, challenges and clinical prospects.Bioactive materials · 2024Review
- Vascular decellularization dynamics: Optimizing Triton X-100 and SDS concentration with incubation time.Journal of cardiovascular and thoracic research · 2024Article
- Review
- Pipeline for precise insoluble matrisome coverage in tissue extracellular matrices.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- ECM roles and biomechanics in cardiac tissue decellularization.American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2022Review
- Decellularized Avian Cartilage, a Promising Alternative for Human Cartilage Tissue Regeneration.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Novel advances in strategies and applications of artificial articular cartilage.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Review
- Preparation and Application of Decellularized ECM-Based Biological Scaffolds for Articular Cartilage Repair: A Review.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Review
- The Emerging Role of Decellularized Plant-Based Scaffolds as a New Biomaterial.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- A novel 3D histotypic cartilage construct engineered by supercritical carbon dioxide decellularized porcine nasal cartilage graft and chondrocytes exhibited chondrogenic capabilityInternational journal of medical sciences · 2021Article
- Potential of Soluble Decellularized Extracellular Matrix for Musculoskeletal Tissue Engineering - Comparison of Various Mesenchymal Tissues.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2020Article
- Decellularization for the retention of tissue niches.Journal of tissue engineeringReview
- 3D bioprinting of corneal models: A review of the current state and future outlook.Journal of tissue engineeringReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cartilage lesion repair is difficult due to the limited self-repair capability of cartilage and its lack of vascularization. Our previous study established a sandwich model for engineering cartilage with acellular cartilage sheets (ACSs) and chondrocytes. However, there is still debate over which agent achieves the optimal decellularization of cartilage sheets. In addition, changes in the extracellular matrix after decellularization are worth studying. We aimed to determine the optimal decellularization reagents and decellularization time for preparing cartilage sheets. This study compared the effects of 2 extraction chemicals [t-octylphenoxypolyethoxyethanol (Triton X-100) and sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS)] on cartilage sheets. The sheets were soaked in various concentrations (0.1-2%) of the extraction solutions for various time periods (24-72 h). After the decellularization process with the various treatments, we examined the cell removal and preservation of the matrix components and microstructure to determine which method was the most efficient while inducing minimal damage to the perichondrium. Both protocols achieved decellularization within an acceptable time. DNA analysis showed that the reagent removed nearly all of the DNA from the cartilage sheets. The growth factor contents in the Triton X-100 samples were higher than those in the SDS samples, quantified by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Furthermore, Triton X-100 decreased the glycosaminoglycan (GAG) and increased the chondromodulin-I contents compared with SDS. The results of a Cell Counting Kit-8 (CCK-8) assay revealed that the ACSs were not cytotoxic. In conclusion, our results demonstrate that cartilage sheets decellularized by 1% SDS for 24 h or by 2% Triton X-100 for 48 h may be suitable candidate scaffolds for cartilage tissue engineering.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30972171PMC6456528W2990844870What 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.