ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2025
Autofluorescence Quenching in Decellularized Plant Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering.
Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Comprehensive Review on Food-Grade Electrospinning of Natural Biopolymers for Cultivated Meat Applications.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Plant-Based Scaffolds in Tissue Engineering: Structure-Function, Processing, and Clinical Outlook-A Review.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Review
- Implantation of Bioreactor-Conditioned Plant-Based Vascular Grafts.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Tools of the trade: leveraging 3DFrontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- Improving the Biocompatibility of Plant-Derived Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering Using Heat Treatment.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAutofluorescence in plant-derived scaffolds interferes with fluorescence imaging by overlapping with commonly used fluorophores such as Hoechst and FITC. This limits the ability to visualize cell behavior and scaffold integration in tissue engineering applications. This study evaluated whether copper sulfate, ammonium chloride, or sodium borohydride can reduce autofluorescence in decellularized plant scaffolds without compromising mechanical integrity or cell viability.
methodsThe effectiveness of the three quenching agents was evaluated in decellularized leatherleaf viburnum, spinach, and parsley scaffolds. Spectral scans were used to characterize baseline autofluorescence. Treated and untreated scaffolds were imaged in Hoechst, FITC, and 633 nm channels. Autofluorescence intensity, quenching stability over 24 h, mechanical properties, and endothelial cell viability were assessed. Imaging of cell seeded scaffolds evaluated improvements in visualization after treatment.
resultsSpectral scans revealed strong autofluorescence in the blue and green channels, overlapping with Hoechst and FITC. Copper sulfate reduced autofluorescence more effectively than ammonium chloride or sodium borohydride and improved nuclear visualization, with consistent performance across scaffold types. However, endothelial cell viability declined in copper-treated leatherleaf and parsley scaffolds but remained high in spinach. No significant changes in tensile strength or elastic modulus were observed after treatment.
conclusionCopper sulfate is a highly effective and stable quenching agent for reducing autofluorescence in plant-derived scaffolds. While suitable for post-fixation imaging, scaffold-specific effects on viability limit its use in live-cell applications. Autofluorescence reduction was achieved without compromising scaffold mechanics. Ammonium chloride and sodium borohydride may be preferable when preserving cell viability is a priority.
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.