Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32953138›Full record

ArticleNature reviews. Materials2020

Synthetic alternatives to Matrigel.

Elizabeth A Aisenbrey, William L Murphy

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature reviews. Materials, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 546 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
546citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
41.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

546 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 926 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Intestinal Organoids Culture in Synthetic Hydrogels.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2027
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Biomimetic Scaffold-Based 3D Models for Decoding Cancer Biology and Advancing Therapy.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

486 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 1 institution in 1 country.

Elizabeth A AisenbreyDepartment of Surgery, University of Wisconsin-Madison, WI, USA.
William L MurphyDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, WI, USA.
University of Wisconsin–Madison · US

Funding

Harnessing human brain and liver microphysiological systems for testing therapeutics for metastatic melanomaU01TR002383 · NCATS · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI MURPHY, WILLIAM L., TAYLOR, D. LANSING · 2018 to 2022
$7.6M
Biomaterials for local regulation of growth factor signalingR01HL093282 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI MURPHY, WILLIAM L. · 2009 to 2018
$3.3M
Vascular Surgery Research Training ProgramT32HL110853 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI MATSUMURA, JON STEVEN · 2012 to 2021
$2.6M
A Neurovascular Microphysiological SystemR01NS109427 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI MURPHY, WILLIAM L. · 2019 to 2023
$1.7M
NCATS NIH HHS U01 TR002383NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL093282NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL110853NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS109427
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Matrigel, a basement-membrane matrix extracted from Engelbreth-Holm-Swarm mouse sarcomas, has been used for more than four decades for a myriad of cell culture applications. However, Matrigel is limited in its applicability to cellular biology, therapeutic cell manufacturing and drug discovery owing to its complex, ill-defined and variable composition. Variations in the mechanical and biochemical properties within a single batch of Matrigel - and between batches - have led to uncertainty in cell culture experiments and a lack of reproducibility. Moreover, Matrigel is not conducive to physical or biochemical manipulation, making it difficult to fine-tune the matrix to promote intended cell behaviours and achieve specific biological outcomes. Recent advances in synthetic scaffolds have led to the development of xenogenic-free, chemically defined, highly tunable and reproducible alternatives. In this Review, we assess the applications of Matrigel in cell culture, regenerative medicine and organoid assembly, detailing the limitations of Matrigel and highlighting synthetic scaffold alternatives that have shown equivalent or superior results. Additionally, we discuss the hurdles that are limiting a full transition from Matrigel to synthetic scaffolds and provide a brief perspective on the future directions of synthetic scaffolds for cell culture applications.

Identifiers

PMID32953138
PMCPMC7500703
OpenAlexW3028768728

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.