ReviewFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2025
Application of decellularization methods for scaffold production: advantages, disadvantages, biosafety and modifications.
Review in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2025. 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.
- Comparative Analysis of Decellularization Protocols for Human Placenta: Balancing Cell Removal with Extracellular Matrix Preservation for Hydrogel Applications.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Natural Biomaterials for Osteochondral Repair: From Source to Strategy.Advanced healthcare materials · 2026Review
- Development of a Scaffold from the Cob ofJournal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Autologous Extracellular Matrix-Based Cell-Free Therapy for Tissue Regeneration Through Trem2Exploration (Beijing, China) · 2026Article
- From biological scaffold to multifunctional bioplatform: research progress and applications of decellularized extracellular matrix.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
- Decellularized lymph node sections with preserved extracellular matrix for stromal cell culture.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Development of Acellular Hepatic Scaffolds Through a Low-Cost Gravity-Assisted Perfusion Decellularization Method.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Acellular Extracellular Matrix Scaffolds in Regenerative Medicine: Advances in Decellularization and Clinical Applications.Journal of functional biomaterials · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The development of efficient, biocompatible scaffolds is an actual challenge in tissue engineering. Scaffolds derived from animal sources offer promising structural and biochemical properties but require thorough decellularization to minimize immunogenicity and maintain extracellular matrix integrity. Effective decellularization requires a synergistic combination of methods to ensure complete removal of immunogenic cellular components while preserving critical extracellular matrix elements such as glycosaminoglycans, collagens, and growth factors. This review covers the application of some decellularization methods (physical, chemical) in scaffold production, highlighting their respective advantages, limitations, and biosafety considerations. Moreover, the importance of scaffold sterilization: both physical techniques like gamma irradiation and chemical agents-are mentioned for their efficacy and cytotoxic risks. Furthermore, scaffold modifications, particularly recellularization strategies, are discussed as key enhancements to improve biocompatibility and functional integration. Overall, the selection and optimization of decellularization protocols are crucial for the safe and effective clinical implementation of bioengineered scaffolds.
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.