ArticleACS omega2020
Using Humidity to Control the Morphology and Properties of Electrospun BioPEGylated Polyhydroxybutyrate Scaffolds.
Article in ACS omega, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Electrospinning produces nanofibrous scaffolds with potential for tissue engineering and wound repair. Spinning parameters control scaffold morphology and properties. BioPEGylation of polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) introduces terminal hydrophilic groups into the hydrophobic chain, making this natural-synthetic hybrid copolymer more susceptible to humidity. Varying the humidity from 10 to 50% RH during electrospinning had a relatively little effect on polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) average fiber and pore diameters, which remained around 3.0 and 8.7 μm, respectively. In contrast, fiber and pore diameters for electrospun bioPEGylated PHB scaffolds varied significantly with humidity, peaking at 30% RH (5.5 and 14.1 μm, respectively). While scaffolds showed little change, hydrophobicity decreased linearly with humidity during electrospinning. Compared to solvent-cast films, electrospun scaffolds showed significantly greater average cell spread. A 108% increase for olfactory ensheathing cells (OECs) cultivated on bioPEGylated PHB scaffolds was proportionally greater than their counterparts on electrospun PHB scaffolds, (70%). OECS grown on BioPEGylated PHB scaffolds were over twice the size, 260 ± 20 μm diameter, than those on PHB electrospun scaffolds, 110 ± 18 μm diameter. Electrospun scaffolds also promoted cell health compared to their solvent-cast counterparts, with increases in the mitochondrial activity of 165 ± 13 and 196 ± 13% for PHB and bioPEGylated PHB, respectively. OECS cultivated on electrospun scaffolds of bioPEGylated PHB had significantly better membrane integrities compared to their counterparts on solvent-cast films, 47 ± 5% reducing to 17 ± 6%. The combination of bioPEGylation and humidity during electrospinning permitted significant controllable changes to scaffold morphology and properties. These changes resulted in the significantly greater promotion of cell growth on electrospun bioPEGylated PHB scaffolds compared to their solvent-cast counterparts and electrospun PHB.
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.