ArticleCell and tissue banking2024
Processing methods for human amniotic membrane as scaffold for tissue engineering with mesenchymal stromal human cells.
Article in Cell and tissue banking, 2024. 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.
- De-Epithelization of the Human Amniotic Membrane Using a System Involving Ozonated Water and Ultrasound.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Dramatic improvement in the mechanical properties of polydopamine/polyacrylamide hydrogel mediated human amniotic membrane.RSC advances · 2023Article
- Femur bone marrow from brain death deceased donors as source of human mesenchymal stromal cells for cell therapy.Stem cell investigation · 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
12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Tissue engineering is an interdisciplinary field that applies the principles of engineering and life sciences toward the development of biological substitutes that restore, maintain, or improve tissue function. The aims of this work were to compare chemically and physically processed human Amniotic Membranes (hAM) and analyze the cytocompatibility and proliferation rate (PR) of two primary human mesenchymal stromal cell lines, from different sources and donor conditions seeded over these scaffolds. The evaluated hAM processes were: cold shock to obtain a frozen amniotic membrane (FEAM) with remaining dead epithelial cells, denudation of hAM with trypsin for 20/10 min (DEAM20/10) or treatment with sodium dodecyl sulfate to decellularized hAM (DAM). All samples were sterilized with gamma radiation. The selection of the treated hAM to then generate composites was performed by scanning and transmission electron microscopy and characterization by X-ray diffraction, selecting DEAM10 and FEAM as scaffolds for cell seeding. Two sources of primary human stromal cells were used, both developed by our researchers, human Dental Pulp Stem Cells (hDPSC) from living donors and human Mesenchymal Stromal Cells (hMSC) from bone marrow isolated from brain dead donors. This last line of cells conveys a novel source of human cells that, to our knowledge, have not been tested as part of this type of construct. We developed four in vitro constructs without cytotoxicity signs and with different PR depending on the scaffolds and cells. hDPSC and hMSC grew over both FEAM and DEAM10, but DEAM10 allowed higher PR.
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.