Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39061802›Full record

ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Chitosan Scaffolds from Crustacean and Fungal Sources: A Comparative Study for Bone-Tissue-Engineering Applications.

Neelam Iqbal, Payal Ganguly, Lemiha Yildizbakan, El Mostafa Raif, Elena Jones, Peter V Giannoudis, Animesh Jha

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Development of a gene-activated matrix for enhanced AAV gene deliveryFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

7 authors.

Neelam IqbalSchool of Chemical and Process Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2801-707X
Payal GangulyLeeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds LS9 7JT, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1042-5910
Lemiha YildizbakanSchool of Chemical and Process Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1914-5205
El Mostafa RaifFaculty of Medicine and Health, School of Dentistry, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK.
Elena JonesLeeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds LS9 7JT, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9365-2283
Peter V GiannoudisAcademic Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5205-7696
Animesh JhaSchool of Chemical and Process Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3150-5645

Funding

EPSRC 1787225Medical Research Council MRC-CIC-L42017/ PO4050781788The Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) NIHR-20331
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chitosan (CS), a biopolymer, holds significant potential in bone regeneration due to its biocompatibility and biodegradability attributes. While crustacean-derived CS is conventionally used in research, there is growing interest in fungal-derived CS for its equally potent properties in bone regenerative applications. Here, we investigated the physicochemical and biological characteristics of fungal (MDC) and crustacean (ADC)-derived CS scaffolds embedded with different concentrations of tricalcium phosphate minerals (TCP), i.e., 0(wt)%: ADC/MDC-1, 10(wt)%: ADC/MDC-2, 20(wt)%: ADC/MDC-3 and 30(wt)%: ADC/MDC-4. ADC-1 and MDC-1 lyophilised scaffolds lacking TCP minerals presented the highest zeta potentials of 47.3 ± 1.2 mV and 55.1 ± 1.6 mV, respectively. Scanning electron microscopy revealed prominent distinctions whereby MDC scaffolds exhibited striation-like structural microarchitecture in contrast to the porous morphology exhibited by ADC scaffold types. With regard to the 4-week scaffold mass reductions, MDC-1, MDC-2, MDC-3, and MDC-4 indicated declines of 55.98 ± 4.2%, 40.16 ± 3.6%, 27.05 ± 4.7%, and 19.16 ± 5.3%, respectively. Conversely, ADC-1, ADC-2, ADC-3, and ADC-4 presented mass reductions of 35.78 ± 5.1%, 25.19 ± 4.2%, 20.23 ± 6.3%, and 13.68 ± 5.4%, respectively. The biological performance of the scaffolds was assessed through in vitro bone marrow mesenchymal stromal cell (BMMSCs) attachment via indirect and direct cytotoxicity studies, where all scaffold types presented no cytotoxic behaviours. MDC scaffolds indicated results comparable to ADC, where both CS types exhibited similar physiochemical properties. Our data suggest that MDC scaffolds could be a potent alternative to ADC-derived scaffolds for bone regeneration applications, particularly for 10(wt)% TCP concentrations.

Indexed as

bone regenerationchitosancrustaceanfungaltissue engineering

Identifiers

PMID39061802
PMCPMC11273506

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.