ArticleInternational journal of biomaterials2024
Effects of Various Decellularization Methods for the Development of Decellularized Extracellular Matrix from Tilapia (
Article in International journal of biomaterials, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in Decellularization of Fish Wastes for Extracellular Matrix Extraction in Sustainable Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Research Progress on the Preparation and Application of Decellularized Tendons.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tilapia, a widely farmed aquaculture fish, produces substantial waste, including viscera that contain extracellular matrix (ECM) utilized as a biomaterial for tissue regeneration applications. Extracting ECM from viscera requires a specific decellularization method, as no standardized protocol exists. This study performed three decellularization methods: sonication, orbital shaking at room temperature, and agitation at 4°C, using SDS and TX100 at concentrations of 0.1% and 0.3%. The effectiveness of each method was assessed through H&E staining, dsDNA quantification, and SEM imaging to verify cellular content removal and ECM structure preservation. Additional analyses, including ATR-FTIR, SDS-PAGE, protein quantification, HPLC, and detergent residue tests, were performed to examine functional groups, collagen composition, protein content, amino acid profiles, and detergent residues in the decellularized samples. The results of H&E staining showed a significant reduction in cellular components in all samples, which was confirmed through DNA quantification. Sonication with 0.3% SDS achieved the highest DNA removal rate (96.5 ± 1.1%), while SEM images revealed that agitation at 4°C with 0.3% TX100 better preserved ECM structure. Collagen was present in all samples, as confirmed by ATR-FTIR analysis, which revealed pronounced spectral peaks in the amide I, II, III, A, and B regions. Samples treated with agitation at 4°C using 0.1% SDS exhibited the highest protein content (875 ± 15
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.