Nanofeatured silk fibroin membranes for dermal wound healing applications
Open accessAbstract
As an effort to create the next generation of improved skin graft materials, in this study, we modified the surfaces of a previously investigated material, silk fibroin, using a NaOH alkaline treatment to obtain a biologically inspired nanofeatured surface morphology. Such surfaces were characterized for roughness, energy, and chemistry. In addition, keratinocyte (skin-forming cells) adhesion and proliferation on such nanofeatured silk fibroin wound dressings were studied in an initial attempt to determine the promotion of an epidermal cover on the wound bed to form a new epidermal barrier. Dermal fibroblast adhesion and proliferation were also studied to assess the ability of nanostructured silk fibroin to replace damaged dermal tissue in chronic wounds (i.e., for diabetic foot ulcers). Results demonstrated for the first time that keratinocyte and fibroblast cell density was greater on nanofeatured silk fibroin membranes compared with non-treated silk fibroin surfaces. The enhancement in cellular functions was correlated with an increase in silk surface nanotopography, wettability and change in chemistry after NaOH treatment. Due to the present promising results, the newly developed nanofeatured silk fibroin membranes are exciting alternative skin graft materials which should be further studied for various skin patch and wound dressing applications.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In vitro and in vivo studies have shown that SF supports cell adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation, making it an ideal substrate for scar healing.
“In vitro and in vivo studies have shown that SF supports cell adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation, making it an ideal substrate for scar healing.”
From Biomaterials in Postoperative Adhesion Barriers and Uterine Tissue Engineering (2025) · cites this paper as [94]
The study description in our copy (no section or page supplied) reports keratinocyte and fibroblast adhesion and proliferation on nanofeatured silk fibroin membranes, with greater cell density than on untreated membranes. It does not report cell differentiation, in vivo results, or scar healing; it describes the membranes as promising wound-dressing materials that warrant further study. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn vivo studies have shown that SF scaffolds can degrade entirely within 18 to 36 months, depending on their morphology, with nanofibers degrading as quickly as 8 weeks.
“In vivo studies have shown that SF scaffolds can degrade entirely within 18 to 36 months, depending on their morphology, with nanofibers degrading as quickly as 8 weeks [94,96].”
From Biomaterials in Postoperative Adhesion Barriers and Uterine Tissue Engineering (2025) · cites this paper as [94]
The available paper description (unlabeled, no page number) discusses NaOH-treated silk fibroin membranes and keratinocyte and fibroblast responses, not in vivo degradation. Searches for the 18–36-month and 8-week figures and for morphology-dependent biodegradation found no passage addressing the claim. (LLM, conf=0.72)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
High-strength silk protein scaffolds for bone repair
Mandal, B. B., Grinberg, A., Seok Gil, E., Panilaitis, B., & Kaplan, D. L. (2012) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1119474109 · Cited by 401 · see citing works
Cell-Extracellular Matrix Interactions in Normal and Diseased Skin
Watt, F. M., & Fujiwara, H. (2011) · Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology · doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a005124 · Cited by 384 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Biomaterials in Postoperative Adhesion Barriers and Uterine Tissue Engineering
Fazel Anvari-Yazdi, A., Badea, I., & Chen, X. (2025) · Gels · doi:10.3390/gels11060441 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
- Authors
- Karahaliloğlu, Z., Ercan, B., Denkbaş, E. B., & Webster, T. J.
- Affiliations
- Hacettepe University (TR)
- Northeastern University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Webster, Thomas J.
- Venue
- Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-03-20
- Volume
- 103
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 135-144
- ISSN
- 1549-3296 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1545335825
- Cited by
- 49
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4
- FWCI
- 1.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- OpenMETU (Middle East Technical University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Biomaterials › Silk-based biomaterials and applications
- Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Biomaterials › Electrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical Applications
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Wound Healing and Treatments
- Keywords
- silk fibroin, skin wound healing, surface nanotopography, wound dressings, keratinocyte adhesion, keratinocyte proliferation, fibroblast adhesion, fibroblast proliferation, diabetic foot ulcer, chronic wounds, wettability, surface chemistry
- MeSH terms
- Biocompatible Materials, Fibroins, Humans, Microscopy, Electron, Scanning, Surface Properties, Wound Healing, Microscopy, Atomic Force, Silk, Nanostructures
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
