Cited by 254Tissue Engineering and Regenerative MedicineXenotransplantation and immune responseBone Tissue Engineering Materials

Immunogenicity in xenogeneic scaffold generation: Antigen removal vs. decellularization

Open access
Wong, Maelene L., Griffiths, Leigh G.·2014·Acta Biomaterialia

Abstract

Decades of research have been undertaken towards the goal of tissue engineering using xenogeneic scaffolds. The primary advantages associated with use of xenogeneic tissue-derived scaffolds for in vitro development of replacement tissues and organs stem from the inherent extracellular matrix (ECM) composition and architecture. Native ECM possesses appropriate mechanical properties for physiological function of the biomaterial and signals for cell binding, growth and differentiation. Additionally, xenogeneic tissue is readily available. However, translation of xenogeneic scaffold-derived engineered tissues or organs into clinical therapies requires xenoantigenicity of the material to be adequately addressed prior to implantation. Failure to achieve this goal will result in a graft-specific host immune rejection response, jeopardizing in vivo survival of the resultant scaffold, tissue or organ. This review explores (i) the appropriateness of scaffold acellularity as an outcome measure for assessing reduction of the immunological barriers to the use of xenogeneic scaffolds for tissue engineering applications and (ii) the need for tissue engineers to strive for antigen removal during xenogeneic scaffold generation.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.actbio.2014.01.028

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 111 · Cited by 254

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [106]Koolman J Roehm K-H Isolation and analysis of proteins Color Atlas of Biochemistry 2005 2nd ed. Stuttgart and New York Thieme 78 79

Authors
Wong, M. L., & Griffiths, L. G.
Affiliations
University of California, Davis (US)
Corresponding author
Griffiths, Leigh G.
Venue
Acta Biomaterialia
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-05
Volume
10
Issue
5
Pages
1806-1816
ISSN
1742-7061 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2158722130
Cited by
254
References
111
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 8
FWCI
3.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Acta Biomaterialia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL115205)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Xenotransplantation and immune response
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Bone Tissue Engineering Materials
Keywords
immunogenicity, antigen removal, decellularization, extracellular matrix, graft rejection, tissue engineering, xenotransplantation
MeSH terms
Animals, Antigens, Humans, Transplantation Immunology, Transplantation, Heterologous, Tissue Engineering, Tissue Scaffolds

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