Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38079208›Full record

ArticleAdvanced healthcare materials2024

Comparative Analysis of Various Spider Silks in Regard to Nerve Regeneration: Material Properties and Schwann Cell Response.

Sarah Stadlmayr, Karolina Peter, Flavia Millesi, Anda Rad, Sonja Wolf, Sascha Mero, Martin Zehl, Axel Mentler, Claudia Gusenbauer, Johannes Konnerth and 4 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advanced healthcare materials, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

14 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Sarah StadlmayrDepartment of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, 1090, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-1461-6274
Karolina PeterInstitute for Physics and Materials Science, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, 1190, Austria.
Flavia MillesiDepartment of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, 1090, Austria.
Anda RadDepartment of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, 1090, Austria.
Sonja WolfDepartment of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, 1090, Austria.
Sascha MeroDepartment of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, 1090, Austria.
Martin ZehlDepartment of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Chemistry, University of Vienna, Vienna, 1090, Austria.
Axel MentlerInstitute of Soil Research, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, 1190, Austria.
Claudia GusenbauerInstitute of Wood Technology and Renewable Materials, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Tulln an der Donau, 3430, Austria.
Johannes KonnerthInstitute of Wood Technology and Renewable Materials, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Tulln an der Donau, 3430, Austria.
Hannes C SchnieppDepartment of Applied Science, William & Mary, Williamsburg, VA, 23185, USA.
Helga LichteneggerInstitute for Physics and Materials Science, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, 1190, Austria.
Aida NaghilouDepartment of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, 1090, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-4351-0620
Christine RadtkeDepartment of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, 1090, Austria.
BOKU University · ATAustrian Cluster for Tissue Regeneration · ATMedical University of Vienna · ATLeiden University · NLUniversity of Vienna · ATWilliam & Mary · US

Funding

Austrian Science Fund P 33613Austrian Science Fund P 34750
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Peripheral nerve reconstruction through the employment of nerve guidance conduits with Trichonephila dragline silk as a luminal filling has emerged as an outstanding preclinical alternative to avoid nerve autografts. Yet, it remains unknown whether the outcome is similar for silk fibers harvested from other spider species. This study compares the regenerative potential of dragline silk from two orb-weaving spiders, Trichonephila inaurata and Nuctenea umbratica, as well as the silk of the jumping spider Phidippus regius. Proliferation, migration, and transcriptomic state of Schwann cells seeded on these silks are investigated. In addition, fiber morphology, primary protein structure, and mechanical properties are studied. The results demonstrate that the increased velocity of Schwann cells on Phidippus regius fibers can be primarily attributed to the interplay between the silk's primary protein structure and its mechanical properties. Furthermore, the capacity of silk fibers to trigger cells toward a gene expression profile of a myelinating Schwann cell phenotype is shown. The findings for the first time allow an in-depth comparison of the specific cellular response to various native spider silks and a correlation with the fibers' material properties. This knowledge is essential to open up possibilities for targeted manufacturing of synthetic nervous tissue replacement.

Indexed as

Nerve TissueSpidersAnimalsNerve RegenerationSchwann CellsSilkSilkbiomaterialsmechanical propertiesmigrationmorphologytissue engineeringtranscriptomics

Identifiers

PMID38079208
PMCPMC11468126
OpenAlexW4389581091

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.