ReviewCell and tissue banking2021
Effect of different human tissue processing techniques on SARS-CoV-2 inactivation-review.
Review in Cell and tissue banking, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Impact of Sars-CoV-2 pandemic on the Veneto Region multitissue bank activity.Cell and tissue banking · 2022Article
- The potential of radiation sterilized and banked tissue allografts for management of nuclear casualties.Cell and tissue banking · 2022Article
- Evaluation of ethylene oxide, gamma radiation, dry heat and autoclave sterilization processes on extracellular matrix of biomaterial dental scaffolds.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Cardiovascular tissue banking activity during SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: evolution of national protocols and Lombardy experience.Cell and tissue banking · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The safety of the tissue transplant recipient is a top priority for tissue banks, and the emergence of the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has raised significant concerns about the risks of releasing tissue for clinical use. In the present study, we conducted a literature review about the potential infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 in different biological tissues and the influence of various tissue processing and sterilization procedures on viral inactivation. The search revealed that SARS-CoV-2 binds to the human angiotensin-converting enzyme receptor to penetrate human cells. These receptors are present in skin cells, musculoskeletal tissue, amniotic membranes, cardiovascular tissue and ocular tissues, including the cornea. In general, we found that coronaviruses are stable at low temperatures, and inactivated upon exposure to extreme heat and pH. Notably, gamma irradiation, which has already been employed to inactivate SARS and MERS, could be useful for sterilizing skin, amnion and musculoskeletal tissues against SARS-CoV-2. We conclude that due to the limited information about the effects of physical and chemical tissue processing methods on viral neutralization, rigorous donor screening is still essential for tissue transplant recipient safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.