ArticleRegenerative biomaterials2024
Determination of DNA content as quality control in decellularized tissues: challenges and pitfalls.
Article in Regenerative biomaterials, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Natural Biomaterials for Osteochondral Repair: From Source to Strategy.Advanced healthcare materials · 2026Review
- Article
- NovoMemHistology and histopathology · 2026Article
- Immunomodulatory role of decellularized extracellular matrix in skin wound healing.Materials today. Bio · 2026Review
- Preparation and characterization of decellularized bovine bone as a bioscaffold for bone tissue engineering applications.Iranian journal of basic medical sciences · 2026Article
- Physical decellularization of fish skin utilizing electrical fields.Regenerative biomaterials · 2026Article
- Decellularized lymph node sections with preserved extracellular matrix for stromal cell culture.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Determination of residual DNA in decellularised aortas- towards fluorescence-based quantification of DNA purified by various methods.Molecular biology reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Decellularized organs and tissues are emerging within the field of regenerative medicine to meet the growing demand for organ and tissue transplantation. Quality control of these acellular matrices prior to transplantation is of paramount importance to ensure the absence of an adverse reaction. In particular, thorough evaluation of the DNA content is essential but also poses technical challenges. Therefore, in this study, we compared different methods for quantitative and qualitative evaluation of DNA content in native and decellularized skeletal muscle tissue to identify strengths and weaknesses for each. Histological analysis revealed that Feulgen staining is more sensitive and robust than the commonly used hematoxylin-eosin and 4',6-diamidino-2-phenylindole staining for detection of remaining nuclear material. Furthermore, gel electrophoresis allowed to identify the quality and length of remaining DNA fragments. The results of the quantitative analysis indicated that direct measurement of DNA content in tissue lysates is preferred over silica-based extraction methods, since the latter resulted in the loss of small DNA fragments during extraction. Moreover, a weight loss correction factor should be implemented to take into account the impact of the decellularization on the extracellular matrix. With regard to the detection method, the results revealed that a fluorescence-based approach is more accurate than the use of UV/VIS absorbance. Through combination of the proposed methods, it should be possible to achieve a more standardized evaluation of novel acellular matrices in terms of DNA content and to enhance the predictability of clinical success.
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.