ArticleCell journal2023
A Combination of Physical and Chemical Treatments Is More Effective in The Preparation of Acellular Uterine Scaffolds.
Article in Cell journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Standardizing decellularization protocols for optimized uterine tissue bioengineering.Regenerative therapy · 2025Review
- Decellularization of various tissues and organs through chemical methods.Tissue & cell · 2024Review
- Comparative analysis of porcine-uterine decellularization for bioactive-molecule preservation and DNA removal.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Effect of Pressure Conditions in Uterine Decellularization Using Hydrostatic Pressure on Structural Protein Preservation.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Decellularized extracellular matrix for organoid and engineered organ culture.Journal of tissue engineeringReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDecellularized uterine scaffold, as a new achievement in tissue engineering, enables recellularization and regeneration of uterine tissues and supports pregnancy in a fashion comparable to the intact uterus. The acellular methods are methods preferred in many respects due to their similarity to normal tissue, so it is necessary to try to introduce an acellularization protocol with minimum disadvantages and maximum advantages. Therefore, this study aimed to compare different protocols to achieve the optimal uterus decellularization method for future in vitro and in vivo bioengineering experiments. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this experimental study, rat uteri were decellularized by four different protocols (P) using sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), with different doses and time incubations (P1 and P2), SDS/Triton-X100 sequentially (P3), and a combination of physical (freeze/thaw) and chemical reagents (SDS/Triton X-100). The scaffolds were examined by histopathological staining, DNA quantification, MTT assay, blood compatibility assay, FESEM, and mechanical studies.
resultsHistology assessment showed that only in P4, cell residues were completely removed. Masson's trichrome staining demonstrated that in P3, collagen fibers were decreased; however, no damage was observed in the collagen bundles using other protocols. In indirect MTT assays, cell viabilities achieved by all used protocols were significantly higher than the native samples. The percentage of red blood cell (RBC) hemolysis in the presence of prepared scaffolds from all 4 protocols was less than 2%. The mechanical properties of none of the obtained scaffolds were significantly different from the native sample except for P3.
conclusionUteri decellularized with a combination of physical and chemical treatments (P4) was the most favorable treatment in our study with the complete removal of cell residue, preservation of the three-dimensional structure, complete removal of detergents, and preservation of the mechanical property of the scaffolds.
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.