Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32103711›Full record

ArticleTissue engineering. Part A2020

Role of Region-Specific Brain Decellularized Extracellular Matrix on

Diego Reginensi, Didio Ortiz, Andrea Pravia, Andrea Burillo, Félix Morales, Carly Morgan, Lindsay Jimenez, Kunjan R Dave, Miguel A Perez-Pinzon, Rolando A Gittens

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tissue engineering. Part A, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Development of porcine skeletal muscle extracellular matrix-derived hydrogels with improved properties and low immunogenicity.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Diego ReginensiCentro de Neurociencias, Instituto de Investigaciones Científicas y Servicios de Alta Tecnología (INDICASAT AIP), City of Knowledge, Panama, Republic of Panama.
Didio OrtizCentro de Neurociencias, Instituto de Investigaciones Científicas y Servicios de Alta Tecnología (INDICASAT AIP), City of Knowledge, Panama, Republic of Panama.
Andrea PraviaCentro de Neurociencias, Instituto de Investigaciones Científicas y Servicios de Alta Tecnología (INDICASAT AIP), City of Knowledge, Panama, Republic of Panama.
Andrea BurilloCentro de Neurociencias, Instituto de Investigaciones Científicas y Servicios de Alta Tecnología (INDICASAT AIP), City of Knowledge, Panama, Republic of Panama.
Félix MoralesCentro de Neurociencias, Instituto de Investigaciones Científicas y Servicios de Alta Tecnología (INDICASAT AIP), City of Knowledge, Panama, Republic of Panama.
Carly MorganCREO-MIHRT Program, University of California, Santa Cruz, California.
Lindsay JimenezCREO-MIHRT Program, University of California, Santa Cruz, California.
Kunjan R DaveThe Peritz Scheinberg Cerebral Vascular Disease Research Laboratories, Neurology Department, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida.
Miguel A Perez-PinzonThe Peritz Scheinberg Cerebral Vascular Disease Research Laboratories, Neurology Department, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida.
Rolando A GittensCentro de Neurociencias, Instituto de Investigaciones Científicas y Servicios de Alta Tecnología (INDICASAT AIP), City of Knowledge, Panama, Republic of Panama.
Instituto de Investigaciones Científicas y Servicios de Alta Tecnología · PACity of Knowledge · PAUniversity of Miami · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent advancements in tissue engineering suggest that biomaterials, such as decellularized extracellular matrix (ECM), could serve to potentiate the localization and efficacy of regenerative therapies in the central nervous system. Still, what factors and which mechanisms are required from these ECM-based biomaterials to exert their effect are not entirely understood. In this study, we use the brain as a novel model to test the effects of particular biochemical and structural properties by evaluating, for the first time, three different sections of the brain (i.e., cortex, cerebellum, and remaining areas) side-by-side and their corresponding decellularized counterparts using mechanical (4-day) and chemical (1-day) decellularization protocols. The three different brain subregions had considerably different initial conditions in terms of cell number and growth factor content, and some of these differences were maintained after decellularization. Decellularized ECM from both protocols was used as a substrate or as soluble factor, in both cases showing good cell attachment and growth capabilities. Interestingly, the 1-day protocol was capable of promoting greater differentiation than the 4-day protocol, probably due to its capacity to remove a similar amount of cell nuclei, while better conserving the biochemical and structural components of the cerebral ECM. Still, some limitations of this study include the need to evaluate the response in other biologically relevant cell types, as well as a more detailed characterization of the components in the decellularized ECM of the different brain subregions. In conclusion, our results show differences in neuronal maturation depending on the region of the brain used to produce the scaffolds. Complex organs such as the brain have subregions with very different initial cellular and biochemical conditions that should be considered for decellularization to minimize exposure to immunogenic components, while retaining bioactive factors conducive to regeneration. [Figure: see text] Impact statement The present study offers new knowledge about the production of decellularized extracellular matrix scaffolds from specific regions of the porcine brain, with a direct comparison of their effect on

Indexed as

BrainExtracellular MatrixTissue EngineeringTissue ScaffoldsAnimalsBiocompatible MaterialsFemaleNeuronsBiocompatible Materialsbiomaterialbraindecellularized extracellular matrixECMin vitro modelneuronal differentiationneurotrophic factorstem cell

Identifiers

PMID32103711
PMCPMC7499894
OpenAlexW3008414802

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.