ReviewInternational journal of nanomedicine2024
The Physiological Inorganic Polymers Biosilica and Polyphosphate as Key Drivers for Biomedical Materials in Regenerative Nanomedicine.
Review in International journal of nanomedicine, 2024. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Polyphosphate in Bone Tissue Engineering: From Molecular Mechanisms to Material Design.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- Inorganic Polyphosphate and Alkaline Phosphatase/Adenylate Kinase: Key Components of the Physiological ATP-Dependent Wound Repair and Mode of Action.Progress in molecular and subcellular biology · 2026Review
- Polyphosphate from Lactic Acid Bacteria: A Functional Molecule for Food and Health Applications.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Innovation in Osteogenesis Activation: Role of Marine-Derived Materials in Bone Regeneration.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Review
- Energy level as a theranostic factor for successful therapy of tissue injuries with polyphosphate: the triad metabolic energy - mechanical energy - heat.Theranostics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is a need for novel nanomaterials with properties not yet exploited in regenerative nanomedicine. Based on lessons learned from the oldest metazoan phylum, sponges, it has been recognized that two previously ignored or insufficiently recognized principles play an essential role in tissue regeneration, including biomineral formation/repair and wound healing. Firstly, the dependence on enzymes as a driving force and secondly, the availability of metabolic energy. The discovery of enzymatic synthesis and regenerative activity of amorphous biosilica that builds the mineral skeleton of siliceous sponges formed the basis for the development of successful strategies for the treatment of osteochondral impairments in humans. In addition, the elucidation of the functional significance of a second regeneratively active inorganic material, namely inorganic polyphosphate (polyP) and its amorphous nanoparticles, present from sponges to humans, has pushed forward the development of innovative materials for both soft (skin, cartilage) and hard tissue (bone) repair. This energy-rich molecule exhibits a property not shown by any other biopolymer: the delivery of metabolic energy, even extracellularly, necessary for the ATP-dependent tissue regeneration. This review summarizes the latest developments in nanobiomaterials based on these two evolutionarily old, regeneratively active materials, amorphous silica and amorphous polyP, highlighting their specific, partly unique properties and mode of action, and discussing their possible applications in human therapy. The results of initial proof-of-concept studies on patients demonstrating complete healing of chronic wounds are outlined.
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.