ArticleMolecular biology reports2025
Determination of residual DNA in decellularised aortas- towards fluorescence-based quantification of DNA purified by various methods.
Article in Molecular biology reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundDecellularisation of animal tissues is a promising strategy to obtain scaffolds for tissue engineering. However, double-stranded (ds)DNA of animal origin that may reside in tissue even after harsh decellularisation causes adverse reactions in patients. Thus, precise determination of residual dsDNA is essential, but challenging since the methods used for purification may affect quantification.
methodsTo elucidate the best method for purifying and quantifying residual dsDNA in decellularised vessels, rat thoracic aortas were perfused with detergents (sodium dodecyl sulfate/sodium deoxycholate) with or without DNase I. Native aortas were used as control. Three different methods for purifying DNA (tissue lysate, salting out, silica-based solid-phase) were applied to assess dsDNA by fluorescence-based methods (PicoGreen, real-time QPCR, gel electrophoresis) or UV-spectrophotometry. Using tissue sections, H&E and fluorescent DAPI stainings for quantifying DNA were done additionally.
resultsDNase I-perfused aortas contained significantly lower amounts of dsDNA compared to native controls or detergent-perfused aortas. PicoGreen on tissue lysate showed 85.2% and 80.8% reduction in residual DNA; salted out DNA showed 90.3% and 84.6% reduction. Similarly, DAPI showed 91.1% and 82.4% reduction in DNA. QPCR reflected decreased concentration and fragmentation of residual DNA for salted out DNA, but not for solid-phase DNA. Gel electrophoresis using both purifications confirmed decreased DNA concentration and increased fragmentation, whereas spectrophotometry showed limited overall usability.
conclusionFluorescence-based DNA quantification using PicoGreen is useful for all three DNA purifications from decellularised aortas, and the only method applicable to tissue lysate. In turn, salted out DNA can be used reliably for PicoGreen, real-time QPCR and gel electrophoresis. Spectrophotometry is not recommended irrespective of the DNA purification. Complementary DAPI-based DNA quantification using tissue sections is advisable.
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.