ArticleMolecular biology reports2026
Enhanced decellularization of human amniotic membrane: optimizing dna clearance and protein retention for clinical applications.
Article in Molecular biology reports, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe clinical efficacy of decellularized human amniotic membrane (dHAM) as a bioactive scaffold depends on the thorough removal of immunogenic components while maintaining the functional integrity of the extracellular matrix (ECM). This study aims to evaluate the impact of chemical and hypotonic decellularization protocols, specifically comparing 1 h and 24 h exposures on DNA clearance, protein retention, and growth factor accessibility. METHODS AND
resultshAM samples were subjected to decellularization using 0.5% Triton X-100, 0.02% EDTA, and hypotonic saline solutions (0.2%, 0.3%, and 0.4%), followed by sonication (30 s) and gentle mechanical scraping. Decellularization efficiency was evaluated by genomic DNA quantification, whereas extracellular matrix preservation was assessed by total protein determination, SDS-PAGE analysis of retained protein profiles, histological staining (H&E, PAS, and Masson's Trichrome), and growth factor analysis (bFGF, EGF, KGF, HGF, and TGF-β1) using ELISA. Quantitative analyses demonstrated that EDTA-based hypotonic protocols, particularly the EDTA + 0.3 H group, achieved efficient cellular removal while maintaining extracellular matrix integrity. Genomic DNA content decreased to values below the accepted decellularization threshold of 50 ng/mg after 24 h, whereas total protein concentrations remained unchanged, indicating minimal matrix loss. Histological and biochemical analyses further confirmed effective decellularization with preservation of collagen architecture and endogenous growth factors.
conclusionThe optimized EDTA-based hypotonic decellularization protocols (24 h) achieved efficient cellular removal while preserving extracellular matrix integrity and endogenous growth factor content. Compared with shorter incubation, the 24 h protocol exhibited higher detectable levels of bFGF and EGF, suggesting improved preservation and/or extractability of matrix-associated bioactive molecules. Collectively, these findings indicate that optimized hypotonic decellularization generates a structurally preserved and biologically active dHAM scaffold with considerable potential for future tissue engineering and regenerative medicine applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42606656What 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.