ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Assessing the Biocompatibility of Tannic Acid-Based Biomaterials: Addressing Challenges in Standard Cytotoxic Assays.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. 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.
- Natural Biomaterials for Osteochondral Repair: From Source to Strategy.Advanced healthcare materials · 2026Review
- Plant derived tannic acid-based tissue adhesives: From mechanism to advanced design.Acta biomaterialia · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this comprehensive study, we delve into the intricate binding properties of tannic acid (TA) and examine their dual role in the realm of biomaterial development. While TA's properties can enhance the functionality and performance of biomaterials, they also raise concerns regarding potential biases in in vitro biocompatibility assessments. We focus on the relevance and constraints of several widely employed cell viability assays, namely the DNA-based PicoGreen assay, the PrestoBlue assay, and the Live/Dead staining technique utilizing fluorescein diacetate (FDA) and propidium iodide (PI). We investigate how these assays perform when applied to TA-coated scaffolds and cell sheets. Through a detailed presentation of our experimental findings, we juxtapose them through a critical review of the existing literature, allowing us to identify and elucidate the limitations these assays face when assessing TA-based biomaterials. In doing so, we aim not only to enhance the understanding of these potential assay biases but also to provide actionable recommendations for accurately evaluating the biocompatibility of TA-modified substances. This dual approach, combining empirical research with literature analysis, offers vital insights for the research community, ensuring that the assessment of TA-coated biomaterials is scientifically sound and reproducible.
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.