ArticleCell journal2022
Quality Comparison of Decellularized Omentum Prepared by Different Protocols for Tissue Engineering Applications.
Article in Cell journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The introduction and evaluation of novel decellularized extracellular matrix/gellan gum bioprinting scaffolds for cartilage tissue engineering.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Bioengineering of vascularized porcine flaps using perfusion-recellularization.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Effects of Different Perfusing Routes through The Portal Vein, Hepatic Vein, and Biliary Duct on Whole Rat Liver Decellularization.Cell journal · 2023Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Decellularized greater omentum (GOM) is a good extracellular matrix (ECM) source for regenerative medicine applications. The aim of the current study was to compare the efficiency of three protocols for sheep GOM decellularization based on sufficient DNA depletion and ECM content retention for tissue engineering application. Materials and Methods: In this experimental study, in the first protocol, low concentrations of sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS 1%), hexane, acetone, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), and ethanol were used. In the second one, a high concentration of SDS (4%) and ethanol, and in the last one sodium lauryl ether sulfate (SLES 1%) were used to decellularize the GOM. To evaluate the quality of scaffold prepared with various protocols, histochemical staining, DNA, and glycosaminoglycan (GAGs) quantification, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), Raman confocal microscopy, Bradford assay, and ELISA were performed. Results: A comparison of DNA content showed that SDS-based protocols omitted DNA more efficiently than the SLESbased protocol. Histochemical staining showed that all protocols preserved the neutral carbohydrates, collagen, and elastic fibers; however, the SLES-based protocol removed the lipid droplets better than the SDS-based protocols. Although SEM images showed that all protocols preserved the ECM architecture, Raman microscopy, GAGs quantification, total protein, and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) assessments revealed that SDS 1% preserved ECM more efficiently than the others. Conclusion: The SDS 1% can be considered a superior protocol for decellularizing GOM in tissue engineering applications.
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.