ArticleBMC research notes2026
Biochemical and mechanical effects of biopreservation methods on decellularized porcine skin grafts.
Article in BMC research notes, 2026. 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
Abstract
objectiveAs the demand for tissue and organ transplantation increases, the field of regenerative medicine is rapidly evolving to meet this critical need through innovative methods, such as employing decellularized tissues and organs, for creating engineered transplantable organ and tissue alternatives. This study aims to investigate the decellularization of porcine skin to create biological scaffolds that preserve essential extracellular matrix (ECM) properties and assesses different biopreservation techniques that best preserve morphological, biochemical and mechanical characteristics of the scaffold.
resultsWe established a decellularization protocol using 1% sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) for efficient cellular removal, followed by an evaluation of two biopreservation methods: slow-cooling and freeze-drying. Our results indicate that slow-cooling preserves ECM integrity and composition more effectively than freeze-drying, confirmed by hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining and biochemical assays for key ECM components. Quantitative analyses revealed sufficient retention of collagen, glycosaminoglycans (GAGs), and enhanced mechanical properties in slow-cooled samples, which closely resembled fresh decellularized controls. These findings underscore the critical need for optimized preservation techniques to ensure the viability of tissue grafts in regenerative medicine.
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.