Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34603761›Full record

ArticleSovremennye tekhnologii v meditsine2021

Cytotoxicity of Xenogeneic Pericardium Preserved by Epoxy Cross-Linking Agents.

N A Bondarenko, M A Surovtseva, A P Lykov, I I Kim, I Yu Zhuravleva, O V Poveschenko

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Sovremennye tekhnologii v meditsine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

N A BondarenkoResearcher, Cell Technology Laboratory; Research Institute of Clinical and Experimental Lymphology - Branch of the Federal Research Center Institute of Cytology and Genetics, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, 2 Timakova St., Novosibirsk, 630117, Russia; Senior Researcher, Cell Technology Laboratory, Institute of Experimental Biology and Medicine; Meshalkin National Medical Research Center, Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, 15 Rechkunovskaya St., Novosibirsk, 630055, Russia.
M A SurovtsevaSenior Researcher, Cell Technology Laboratory; Research Institute of Clinical and Experimental Lymphology - Branch of the Federal Research Center Institute of Cytology and Genetics, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, 2 Timakova St., Novosibirsk, 630117, Russia; Senior Researcher, Cell Technology Laboratory, Institute of Experimental Biology and Medicine; Meshalkin National Medical Research Center, Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, 15 Rechkunovskaya St., Novosibirsk, 630055, Russia.
A P LykovLeading Researcher, Cell Technology Laboratory; Research Institute of Clinical and Experimental Lymphology - Branch of the Federal Research Center Institute of Cytology and Genetics, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, 2 Timakova St., Novosibirsk, 630117, Russia; Senior Researcher, Cell Technology Laboratory, Institute of Experimental Biology and Medicine; Meshalkin National Medical Research Center, Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, 15 Rechkunovskaya St., Novosibirsk, 630055, Russia.
I I KimResearcher, Cell Technology Laboratory; Research Institute of Clinical and Experimental Lymphology - Branch of the Federal Research Center Institute of Cytology and Genetics, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, 2 Timakova St., Novosibirsk, 630117, Russia; Senior Researcher, Cell Technology Laboratory, Institute of Experimental Biology and Medicine; Meshalkin National Medical Research Center, Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, 15 Rechkunovskaya St., Novosibirsk, 630055, Russia.
I Yu ZhuravlevaProfessor, Director of the Institute of Experimental Biology and Medicine; Meshalkin National Medical Research Center, Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, 15 Rechkunovskaya St., Novosibirsk, 630055, Russia.
O V PoveschenkoHead of the Cell Technology Laboratory; Research Institute of Clinical and Experimental Lymphology - Branch of the Federal Research Center Institute of Cytology and Genetics, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, 2 Timakova St., Novosibirsk, 630117, Russia; Head of the Cell Technology Laboratory, Institute of Experimental Biology and Medicine; Meshalkin National Medical Research Center, Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, 15 Rechkunovskaya St., Novosibirsk, 630055, Russia.
Institute of Clinical and Experimental Lymphology · RUMeshalkin National Medical Research Center · RU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

MATERIALS AND

methodsSamples of bovine and porcine pericardium were used in the work. Three different modes were employed for preservation: 1) 0.625% solution of glutaraldehyde (GA) and a two-fold change on days 2 and 7; 2) 5% solution of ethylene glycol diglycidyl ether (EGDE) changed on day 2; 3) 5% EGDE solution for 10 days, then 2% pentaepoxide solution also for 10 days. The cytotoxicity of the biomaterial was assessed by the extraction method. To determine the cytotoxicity of the biomaterial, EA.hy926 cells, multipotent mesenchymal stem cells (MMSCs), and fibroblasts were used. Cell viability was determined by the MTT test. The level of apoptosis and necrosis in the cell cultures was assessed by staining with acridine orange and ethidium bromide after cultivation with xenopericardial extracts employing different modes of preservation.

resultsExtracts of bovine and porcine pericardium preserved with GA have been found to have the greatest toxic effect on the cell cultures showing 20-33% reduction of cell viability. Extracts from bovine and porcine pericardium preserved with di- and pentaepoxy compounds do not have a toxic effect on endothelial cells, MMSCs, and fibroblasts since cell viability reduction is by no more than 15%. The lowest level of apoptosis and necrosis is observed in the cell cultures under the influence of extracts from the pericardium, preserved with diepoxide and pentaepoxide compounds.

conclusionAccording to the MTT test for cytotoxicity and determination of the level of apoptosis and necrosis in cell cultures, bovine and porcine pericardia treated with di- and pentaepoxides have been established to have no cytotoxic effect on the culture of endothelial EA.hy926 cells, MMSCs, fibroblasts

Indexed as

Endothelial CellsPericardiumAnimalsBiocompatible MaterialsCattleCross-Linking ReagentsGlutaralSwineBiocompatible MaterialsCross-Linking ReagentsGlutaraldiepoxide compoundsendothelial cellsfibroblastsglutaraldehydemultipotent mesenchymal stem cellspentaepoxide compoundsxenopericardium

Identifiers

PMID34603761
PMCPMC8482832
OpenAlexW3198908092

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.