ReviewAdvanced healthcare materials2025
A Comparison of the Mechanical Properties of ECM Components and Synthetic Self-Assembling Peptides.
Review in Advanced healthcare materials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ultra-thin elastin-based membranes as an innovative dressing to enhance skin wound healing.Materials today. Bio · 2026Article
- Mechanobiology of hippocampal neurogenesis: directing neural stem cell fate through physical cues.Frontiers in molecular neuroscience · 2026Review
- Multicellularity, Culture Duration, and Hydrogel Stiffness Guide Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell-Derived Endothelial Progenitor Cell Contractility.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- A Comparison of the Mechanical Properties of ECM Components and Synthetic Self-Assembling Peptides.Advanced healthcare materials · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The field of tissue engineering is increasingly moving away from a one-size-fits-all approach of simple synthetic homogeneous gels, and embracing more tailored designs to optimize cell function and differentiation for the organ of interest. Extracellular matrix (ECM) proteins are still the optimal route for controlling cell function, while a field of great promise is that of synthetic self-assembling peptides (SSAPs), which are fully biocompatible, biodegradable, and offer both the hierarchical structure and dynamic properties displayed by protein networks found in natural tissue. However, the mechanical properties of neither group have been comprehensively reviewed. In this review, rheological data and the Young's modulus of the most prevalent proteins involved in the ECM (collagen I, elastin, and fibronectin) are collated for the first time, and compared against the most widely researched SSAPs: peptide amphiphiles (PAs), β-sheets, β-hairpin peptides, and Fmoc-based gels (with a focus on PA-E3, RADA16, MAX1, and FmocFF, respectively).
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.