Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34372114›Full record

ArticlePolymers2021

3D-Printed Gelatin Methacrylate Scaffolds with Controlled Architecture and Stiffness Modulate the Fibroblast Phenotype towards Dermal Regeneration.

Rita I R Ibañez, Ronaldo J F C do Amaral, Rui L Reis, Alexandra P Marques, Ciara M Murphy, Fergal J O'Brien

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Polymers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
–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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Advancements in Functional Polymeric Scaffolds for Scar-Free Skin Regeneration.Polymer science & technology (Washington, D.C.) · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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.

Rita I R IbañezTissue Engineering Research Group, Department of Anatomy and Regenerative Medicine, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, D02 YN77 Dublin, Ireland.
Ronaldo J F C do AmaralTissue Engineering Research Group, Department of Anatomy and Regenerative Medicine, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, D02 YN77 Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-2748-774X
Rui L Reis3B's Research Group, I3Bs-Research Institute on Biomaterials, Biodegradables and Biomimetics, Headquarters of the European Institute of Excellence on Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, AvePark-Parque de Ciência e Tecnologia, University of Minho, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal.
Alexandra P Marques3B's Research Group, I3Bs-Research Institute on Biomaterials, Biodegradables and Biomimetics, Headquarters of the European Institute of Excellence on Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, AvePark-Parque de Ciência e Tecnologia, University of Minho, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal.
Ciara M MurphyTissue Engineering Research Group, Department of Anatomy and Regenerative Medicine, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, D02 YN77 Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-9653-5477
Fergal J O'BrienTissue Engineering Research Group, Department of Anatomy and Regenerative Medicine, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, D02 YN77 Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0003-2030-8005

Funding

Science Foundation Ireland Transnational Call 2016 (17/US/3437; Ireland)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Impaired skin wound healing due to severe injury often leads to dysfunctional scar tissue formation as a result of excessive and persistent myofibroblast activation, characterised by the increased expression of α-smooth muscle actin (αSMA) and extracellular matrix (ECM) proteins. Yet, despite extensive research on impaired wound healing and the advancement in tissue-engineered skin substitutes, scar formation remains a significant clinical challenge. This study aimed to first investigate the effect of methacrylate gelatin (GelMA) biomaterial stiffness on human dermal fibroblast behaviour in order to then design a range of 3D-printed GelMA scaffolds with tuneable structural and mechanical properties and understand whether the introduction of pores and porosity would support fibroblast activity, while inhibiting myofibroblast-related gene and protein expression. Results demonstrated that increasing GelMA stiffness promotes myofibroblast activation through increased fibrosis-related gene and protein expression. However, the introduction of a porous architecture by 3D printing facilitated healthy fibroblast activity, while inhibiting myofibroblast activation. A significant reduction was observed in the gene and protein production of αSMA and the expression of ECM-related proteins, including fibronectin I and collagen III, across the range of porous 3D-printed GelMA scaffolds. These results show that the 3D-printed GelMA scaffolds have the potential to improve dermal skin healing, whilst inhibiting fibrosis and scar formation, therefore potentially offering a new treatment for skin repair.

Indexed as

3D printingbiomaterial stiffnessfibroblastfibrosis inhibitionGelMAporositywound healing

Identifiers

PMID34372114
PMCPMC8347286

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.