Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31128250›Full record

ReviewBrain research bulletin2019

A roadmap for promoting endogenous in situ tissue restoration using inductive bioscaffolds after acute brain injury.

Michel Modo, Stephen F Badylak

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Brain research bulletin, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. A MinireviewFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Bioscaffold-Induced Brain Tissue Regeneration.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2019
    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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Michel ModoUniversity of Pittsburgh, McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; University of Pittsburgh, Department of Bioengineering, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; University of Pittsburgh, Department of Radiology, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. Electronic address: mmm154@pitt.edu.
Stephen F BadylakUniversity of Pittsburgh, McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; University of Pittsburgh, Department of Bioengineering, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; University of Pittsburgh, Department of Surgery, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine · USUniversity of Pittsburgh · US

Funding

Neurovascular RegenerationR01EB016629 · NIBIB · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI HIRSCHI, KAREN KEMPER · 2014 to 2018
$4.8M
Non-invasive Imaging of the In Situ Restoration of Brain TissueR01NS082226 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI MODO, MICHEL M. · 2014 to 2016
$921k
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB016629NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS082226
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The regeneration of brain tissue remains one of the greatest unsolved challenges in medicine and by many is considered unfeasible. Indeed, the adult mammalian brain does not regenerate tissue, but there is ongoing endogenous neurogenesis, which is upregulated after injury and contributes to tissue repair. This endogenous repair response is a conditio sine que non for tissue regeneration. However, scarring around the lesion core and cavitation provide unfavorable conditions for tissue regeneration in the brain. Based on the success of using extracellular matrix (ECM)-based bioscaffolds in peripheral soft tissue regeneration, it is plausible that the provision of an inductive ECM-based hydrogel inside the volumetric tissue loss can attract neural cells and create a de novo viable tissue. Following perturbation theory of these successes in peripheral tissues, we here propose 9 perturbation parts (i.e. requirements) that can be solved independently to create an integrated series to build a functional and integrated de novo neural tissue. Necessities for tissue formation, anatomical and functional connectivity are further discussed to provide a new substrate to support the improvement of behavioral impairments after acute brain injury. We also consider potential parallel developments of this tissue engineering effort that can support therapeutic benefits in the absence of de novo tissue formation (e.g. structural support to veterate brain tissue). It is envisaged that eventually top-down inductive "natural" bioscaffolds composed of decellularized tissues (i.e. ECM) will be replaced by bottom-up synthetic designer hydrogels that will provide very defined structural and signaling properties, potentially even opening up opportunities we currently do not envisage using natural materials.

Indexed as

AnimalsBrainBrain InjuriesExtracellular MatrixHumansHydrogelsNeurogenesisNeuronsRegenerationStrokeTissue EngineeringTissue ScaffoldsHydrogelsBiodegradationBioscaffoldBrainHydrogelMagnetic resonance imagingRegenerationStrokeTissue repair

Identifiers

PMID31128250
PMCPMC6626582
OpenAlexW2945411166

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.