Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33667231›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Comparison of porcine corneal decellularization methods and importance of preserving corneal limbus through decellularization.

Abdulkadir Isidan, Shaohui Liu, Angela M Chen, Wenjun Zhang, Ping Li, Lester J Smith, Hidetaka Hara, David K C Cooper, Burcin Ekser

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Pig Models in Retinal Research and Retinal Disease.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2024
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Abdulkadir IsidanTransplant Division, Department of Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indianapolis, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-6655-1268
Shaohui LiuDepartment of Ophthalmology, Glick Eye Institute, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indianapolis, United States of America.
Angela M ChenTransplant Division, Department of Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indianapolis, United States of America.
Wenjun ZhangTransplant Division, Department of Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indianapolis, United States of America.
Ping LiTransplant Division, Department of Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indianapolis, United States of America.
Lester J Smith3D Bioprinting Core, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indianapolis, United States of America.
Hidetaka HaraXenotransplantation Program, Department of Surgery, University of Birmingham at Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama, United States of America.
David K C CooperXenotransplantation Program, Department of Surgery, University of Birmingham at Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama, United States of America.
Burcin EkserTransplant Division, Department of Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indianapolis, United States of America.
Indiana University School of MedicineUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham · US

Funding

Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences InstituteUL1TR001108 · NCATS · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI DENNE, SCOTT C., SHEKHAR, ANANTHA · 2013 to 2017
$23.3M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001108
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this study is to compare the three previously applied, conventional porcine corneal decellularization methods and to demonstrate the importance of preserving the corneal limbus through decellularization.

methodsFresh, wild-type (with or without) limbus porcine corneas were decellularized using three different methods, including (i) sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), (ii) hypertonic saline (HS), and (iii) N2 gas (NG). Post-treatment evaluation was carried out using histological, residual nuclear material, and ultrastructural analyses. Glycerol was used to help reduce the adverse effects of decellularization. The corneas were preserved for two weeks in cornea storage medium.

resultsAll three decellularization methods reduced the number of keratocytes at different rates in the stromal tissue. However, all methods, except SDS, resulted in the retention of large numbers of cells and cell fragments. The SDS method (0.1% SDS, 48h) resulted in almost 100% decellularization in corneas without limbus. Low decellularization capacity of the NG method (<50%) could make it unfavorable. Although HS method had a more balanced damage-decellularization ratio, its decellularization capacity was lower than SDS method. Preservation of the corneoscleral limbus could partially prevent structural damage and edema, but it would reduce the decellularization capacity.

conclusionOur results suggest that SDS is a very powerful decellularization method, but it damages the cornea irreversibly. Preserving the corneoscleral limbus reduces the efficiency of decellularization, but also reduces the damage.

Indexed as

AnimalsCorneaExtracellular MatrixGasesLimbus CorneaeMicroscopyNitrogenSaline Solution, HypertonicSodium Dodecyl SulfateSwineTissue EngineeringGasesNitrogenSaline Solution, HypertonicSodium Dodecyl Sulfate

Identifiers

PMID33667231
PMCPMC7935270
OpenAlexW3133612307

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.