Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31398392›Full record

ReviewMethods (San Diego, Calif.)2020

Decellularization techniques and their applications for the repair and regeneration of the nervous system.

Michael J Buckenmeyer, Tyler J Meder, Travis A Prest, Bryan N Brown

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Methods (San Diego, Calif.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
6.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Peripheral Nerve Decellularization forACS biomaterials science & engineering · 2022
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Michael J BuckenmeyerDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh, 450 Technology Drive, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, United States. Electronic address: mjb235@pitt.edu.
Tyler J MederDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh, 450 Technology Drive, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, United States. Electronic address: tjm153@pitt.edu.
Travis A PrestDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh, 450 Technology Drive, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, United States. Electronic address: tap56@pitt.edu.
Bryan N BrownDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh, 450 Technology Drive, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, United States; McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, 450 Technology Drive, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, United States; Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Magee-Womens Research Institute, University of Pittsburgh, 450 Technology Drive, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, United States. Electronic address: brownb@upmc.edu.
University of Pittsburgh · USMcGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine · US

Funding

Training in Biomechanics in Regenerative MedicineT32EB003392 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI WOO, SAVIO L-Y. · 2005 to 2020
$4.0M
NIBIB NIH HHS T32 EB003392
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A variety of surgical and non-surgical approaches have been used to address the impacts of nervous system injuries, which can lead to either impairment or a complete loss of function for affected patients. The inherent ability of nervous tissues to repair and/or regenerate is dampened due to irreversible changes that occur within the tissue remodeling microenvironment following injury. Specifically, dysregulation of the extracellular matrix (i.e., scarring) has been suggested as one of the major factors that can directly impair normal cell function and could significantly alter the regenerative potential of these tissues. A number of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine-based approaches have been suggested to intervene in the process of remodeling which occurs following injury. Decellularization has become an increasingly popular technique used to obtain acellular scaffolds, and their derivatives (hydrogels, etc.), which retain tissue-specific components, including critical structural and functional proteins. These advantageous characteristics make this approach an intriguing option for creating materials capable of stimulating the sensitive repair mechanisms associated with nervous system injuries. Over the past decade, several diverse decellularization methods have been implemented specifically for nervous system applications in an attempt to carefully remove cellular content while preserving tissue morphology and composition. Each application-based decellularized ECM product requires carefully designed treatments that preserve the unique biochemical signatures associated within each tissue type to stimulate the repair of brain, spinal cord, and peripheral nerve tissues. Herein, we review the decellularization techniques that have been applied to create biomaterials with the potential to promote the repair and regeneration of tissues within the central and peripheral nervous system.

Indexed as

Tissue EngineeringAnimalsExtracellular MatrixHumansHydrogelsNervous SystemRegenerative MedicineTissue ScaffoldsHydrogelsAcellular scaffoldsDecellularizationHydrogelsNervous systemPNISCITBI

Identifiers

PMID31398392
PMCPMC11948521
OpenAlexW2965381753

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.