Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38405516›Full record

ReviewACS omega2024

Decellularization and Their Significance for Tissue Regeneration in the Era of 3D Bioprinting.

Mrunmayi Gadre, Meghana Kasturi, Prachi Agarwal, Kirthanashri S Vasanthan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in ACS omega, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
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

4 authors.

Mrunmayi GadreManipal Centre for Biotherapeutics Research, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal 576104, Karnataka, India.
Meghana KasturiDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan, Dearborn, Michigan 48128, United States.
Prachi AgarwalManipal Centre for Biotherapeutics Research, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal 576104, Karnataka, India.
Kirthanashri S VasanthanManipal Centre for Biotherapeutics Research, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal 576104, Karnataka, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2115-153X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Three-dimensional bioprinting is an emerging technology that has high potential application in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Increasing advancement and improvement in the decellularization process have led to an increase in the demand for using a decellularized extracellular matrix (dECM) to fabricate tissue engineered products. Decellularization is the process of retaining the extracellular matrix (ECM) while the cellular components are completely removed to harvest the ECM for the regeneration of various tissues and across different sources. Post decellularization of tissues and organs, they act as natural biomaterials to provide the biochemical and structural support to establish cell communication. Selection of an effective method for decellularization is crucial, and various factors like tissue density, geometric organization, and ECM composition affect the regenerative potential which has an impact on the end product. The dECM is a versatile material which is added as an important ingredient to formulate the bioink component for constructing tissue and organs for various significant studies. Bioink consisting of dECM from various sources is used to generate tissue-specific bioink that is unique and to mimic different biometric microenvironments. At present, there are many different techniques applied for decellularization, and the process is not standardized and regulated due to broad application. This review aims to provide an overview of different decellularization procedures, and we also emphasize the different dECM-derived bioinks present in the current global market and the major clinical outcomes. We have also highlighted an overview of benefits and limitations of different decellularization methods and various characteristic validations of decellularization and dECM-derived bioinks.

Identifiers

PMID38405516
PMCPMC10883024

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.