ArticleBMC biotechnology2023
Effect of different decellularization protocols on reendothelialization with human cells for a perfused renal bioscaffold of the rat.
Article in BMC biotechnology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Current strategies on kidney regeneration using tissue engineering approaches: a systematic review.BMC nephrology · 2025Pooled it
- Recent Advances in Periodontal Regenerative Medicine: A Focus on the Role of Mechanical Stimulation.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundScaffolds for tissue engineering can be received by whole organ decellularization while maintaining the site-specific extracellular matrix and the vascular tree. One among other decellularization techniques is the perfusion-based method using specific agents e.g. SDS for the elimination of cellular components. While SDS can disrupt the composition of the extracellular matrix and impair the adherence and growth of site-specific cells there are indications that xenogeneic cell types may benefit from protein denaturation by using higher detergent concentrations. The aim of this work is to investigate the effect of two different SDS-concentrations (i.e. 0.66% and 3%) on the ability of human endothelial cells to adhere and proliferate in an acellular rat kidney scaffold. MATERIAL AND
methodsAcellular rat kidney scaffold was obtained by perfusion-based decellularization through the renal artery using a standardized protocol including SDS at concentrations of 0.66% or 3%. Subsequently cell seeding was performed with human immortalized endothelial cells EA.hy 926 via the renal artery. Recellularized kidneys were harvested after five days of pressure-controlled dynamic culture followed sectioning, histochemical and immunohistochemical staining as well as semiquantitative analysis.
resultsEfficacy of decellularization was verified by absence of cellular components as well as preservation of ultrastructure and adhesive proteins of the extracellular matrix. In semiquantitative analysis of recellularization, cell count after five days of dynamic culture more than doubled when using the gentle decellularization protocol with a concentration of SDS at 0.66% compared to 3%. Detectable cells maintained their endothelial phenotype and presented proliferative behavior while only a negligible fraction underwent apoptosis.
conclusionRecellularization of acellular kidney scaffold with endothelial cells EA.hy 926 seeded through the renal artery benefits from gentle decellularization procedure. Because of that, decellularization with a SDS concentration at 0.66% should be preferred in further studies and coculture experiments.
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.