Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40564476›Full record

ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Assessing the Biocompatibility of Tannic Acid-Based Biomaterials: Addressing Challenges in Standard Cytotoxic Assays.

Silvia Cometta, Dietmar Werner Hutmacher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

2 authors.

Silvia ComettaFaculty of Engineering, School of Mechanical, Medical and Process Engineering, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8928-5337
Dietmar Werner HutmacherFaculty of Engineering, School of Mechanical, Medical and Process Engineering, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5678-2134

Funding

ARC Industrial Transformation Training Centre for Multiscale 3D Imaging, Modelling, and Manufacturing IC 180100008Max Planck Queensland Centre Max Planck Queensland CentreNHMRC NHMRC 2008018 - Transformation of the implant paradigm in breast rehabilitation
6 · The paper itself

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

biocompatibilitycytotoxicityDNAPrestoBluetannic acid

Identifiers

PMID40564476
PMCPMC12189109

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.