Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31980817›Full record

ArticleMolecular human reproduction2020

Towards uterus tissue engineering: a comparative study of sheep uterus decellularisation.

T T Tiemann, A M Padma, E Sehic, H Bäckdahl, M Oltean, M J Song, M Brännström, M Hellström

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular human reproduction, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Application of decellularized tissue for soft-hard interregional regeneration.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

T T TiemannLaboratory for Transplantation and Regenerative Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg SE-405 30, Sweden.
A M PadmaLaboratory for Transplantation and Regenerative Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg SE-405 30, Sweden.
E SehicLaboratory for Transplantation and Regenerative Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg SE-405 30, Sweden.
H BäckdahlBioscience and Materials-Medical Device Technology, RISE Research Institutes of Sweden, PO Box 857, 50115 Borås, Sweden.
M OlteanLaboratory for Transplantation and Regenerative Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg SE-405 30, Sweden.
M J SongLaboratory for Transplantation and Regenerative Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg SE-405 30, Sweden.
M BrännströmLaboratory for Transplantation and Regenerative Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg SE-405 30, Sweden.
M HellströmLaboratory for Transplantation and Regenerative Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg SE-405 30, Sweden.
University of Gothenburg · SEHeidelberg University · DERISE Research Institutes of Sweden · SEStockholm IVF · SEThe Catholic University of Korea Daejeon St. Mary's Hospital · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Uterus tissue engineering may dismantle limitations in current uterus transplantation protocols. A uterine biomaterial populated with patient-derived cells could potentially serve as a graft to circumvent complicated surgery of live donors, immunosuppressive medication and rejection episodes. Repeated uterine bioengineering studies on rodents have shown promising results using decellularised scaffolds to restore fertility in a partially impaired uterus and now mandate experiments on larger and more human-like animal models. The aim of the presented studies was therefore to establish adequate protocols for scaffold generation and prepare for future in vivo sheep uterus bioengineering experiments. Three decellularisation protocols were developed using vascular perfusion through the uterine artery of whole sheep uteri obtained from slaughterhouse material. Decellularisation solutions used were based on 0.5% sodium dodecyl sulphate (Protocol 1) or 2% sodium deoxycholate (Protocol 2) or with a sequential perfusion of 2% sodium deoxycholate and 1% Triton X-100 (Protocol 3). The scaffolds were examined by histology, extracellular matrix quantification, evaluation of mechanical properties and the ability to support foetal sheep stem cells after recellularisation. We showed that a sheep uterus can successfully be decellularised while maintaining a high integrity of the extracellular components. Uteri perfused with sodium deoxycholate (Protocol 2) were the most favourable treatment in our study based on quantifications. However, all scaffolds supported stem cells for 2 weeks in vitro and showed no cytotoxicity signs. Cells continued to express markers for proliferation and maintained their undifferentiated phenotype. Hence, this study reports three valuable decellularisation protocols for future in vivo sheep uterus bioengineering experiments.

Indexed as

Acellular DermisAnimalsDeoxycholic AcidExtracellular MatrixFemaleHEK293 CellsHematopoietic Stem CellsHumansModels, AnatomicOctoxynolOrgan PreservationPerfusionSheepSodium Dodecyl SulfateSolutionsTissue EngineeringDeoxycholic AcidOctoxynolSodium Dodecyl SulfateSolutionsbioengineeringdecellularisationfoetal cellsovinerecellularisationsheeputerus

Identifiers

PMID31980817
PMCPMC7103571
OpenAlexW3002776133

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.