Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32630456›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2020

In Vivo Analysis of the Biocompatibility and Immune Response of Jellyfish Collagen Scaffolds and its Suitability for Bone Regeneration.

Iris Flaig, Milena Radenković, Stevo Najman, Annica Pröhl, Ole Jung, Mike Barbeck

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Suitability ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
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

6 authors.

Iris FlaigBerlinAnalytix GmbH, 12109 Berlin, Germany.
Milena RadenkovićDepartment for Cell and Tissue Engineering, Faculty of Medicine, University of Niš, 18108 Niš, Serbia.
Stevo NajmanDepartment for Cell and Tissue Engineering and Department of Biology and Human Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Niš, 18108 Niš, Serbia.
Annica PröhlBerlinAnalytix GmbH, 12109 Berlin, Germany.
Ole JungClinic and Policlinic for Dermatology and Venereology, University Medical Center Rostock, 18057 Rostock, Germany.
Mike BarbeckBerlinAnalytix GmbH, 12109 Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3001-1347

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Jellyfish collagen, which can be defined as "collagen type 0" due to its homogeneity to the mammalian types I, II, III, V, and IX and its batch-to-batch consistent producibility, is of special interest for different medical applications related to (bone) tissue regeneration as an alternative to mammalian collagen-based biomaterials. However, no in vivo studies regarding the induction of M1- and M2-macrophages and their time-dependent ration as well as the analysis of the bone regeneration capacity of jellyfish collagen scaffolds have been conducted until now. Thus, the goal of this study was to determine the nature of the immune response to jellyfish collagen scaffolds and their bone healing capacities. Two in vivo studies using established implantation models, i.e., the subcutaneous and the calvarian implantation model in Wistar rats, were conducted. Furthermore, specialized histological, histopathological, and histomorphometrical methods have been used. As a control biomaterial, a collagen scaffold, originating from porcine pericardium, which has already been stated as biocompatible, was used for the subcutaneous study. The results of the present study show that jellyfish collagen scaffolds are nearly completely resorbed until day 60 post implantation by stepwise integration within the subcutaneous connective tissue mediated mainly by macrophages and single multinucleated giant cells. Interestingly, the degradation process ended in a vessel rich connective tissue that is understood to be an optimal basis for tissue regeneration. The study results showed an overall weaker immune response to jellyfish collagen than to porcine pericardium matrices by the induction of significantly lower numbers of macrophages together with a more balanced occurrence of M1- and M2-macrophages. However, both collagen-based biomaterials induced balanced numbers of both macrophage subtypes, which supports their good biocompatibility. Moreover, the histomorphometrical results for the calvarial implantation of the jellyfish scaffolds revealed an average of 46.20% de novo bone formation at day 60, which was significantly higher compared to the control group. Thereby, the jellyfish collagen scaffolds induced also significantly higher numbers of anti-inflammatory macrophages within the bony implantation beds. Altogether, the results show that the jellyfish collagen scaffolds allowed for a directed integration behavior, which is assumed to be in accordance with the concept of Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR). Furthermore, the jellyfish collagen scaffolds induced a long-term anti-inflammatory macrophage response and an optimal vascularization pattern within their implant beds, thus showing excellent biocompatibility and (bone) tissue healing properties.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiocompatible MaterialsBone and BonesBone RegenerationCollagenImmunityMacrophagesMaleOsteogenesisRatsRats, WistarScyphozoaTissue EngineeringTissue ScaffoldsWound HealingBiocompatible MaterialsCollagenbiomaterial integrationbone regenerationimmune responsejellyfish collagenmacrophagetissue regeneration

Identifiers

PMID32630456
PMCPMC7350248

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.