Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 474

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The effects of processing methods upon mechanical and biologic properties of porcine dermal extracellular matrix scaffolds

Open access
Reing, Janet E., Brown, Bryan N., Daly, Kerry A., Freund, John M., Gilbert, Thomas W., Hsiong, Susan X., Huber, Alexander, Kullas, Karen E., Tottey, Stephen, Wolf, Matthew T., Badylak, Stephen F.·2010·Biomaterials

Abstract

Biologic materials from various species and tissues are commonly used as surgical meshes or scaffolds for tissue reconstruction. Extracellular matrix (ECM) represents the secreted product of the cells comprising each tissue and organ, and therefore provides a unique biologic material for selected regenerative medicine applications. Minimal disruption of ECM ultrastructure and content during tissue processing is typically desirable. The objective of this study was to systematically evaluate effects of commonly used tissue processing steps upon porcine dermal ECM scaffold composition, mechanical properties, and cytocompatibility. Processing steps evaluated included liming and hot water sanitation, trypsin/SDS/TritonX-100 decellularization, and trypsin/TritonX-100 decellularization. Liming decreased the growth factor and glycosaminoglycan content, the mechanical strength, and the ability of the ECM to support in vitro cell growth (p ≤ 0.05 for all). Hot water sanitation treatment decreased only the growth factor content of the ECM (p ≤ 0.05). Trypsin/SDS/TritonX-100 decellularization decreased the growth factor content and the ability of the ECM to support in vitro cell growth (p ≤ 0.05 for both). Trypsin/TritonX-100 decellularization also decreased the growth factor content of the ECM but increased the ability of the ECM to support in vitro cell growth (p ≤ 0.05 for both). We conclude that processing steps evaluated in the present study affect content, mechanical strength, and/or cytocompatibility of the resultant porcine dermal ECM, and therefore care must be taken in choosing appropriate processing steps to maintain the beneficial effects of ECM in biologic scaffolds.

Overview

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.biomaterials.2010.07.083

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Reing, J. E., Brown, B. N., Daly, K. A., Freund, J. M., Gilbert, T. W., Hsiong, S. X., Huber, A., Kullas, K. E., Tottey, S., Wolf, M. T., & Badylak, S. F.
Venue
Biomaterials
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-11
Volume
31
Issue
33
Pages
8626-8633
ISSN
0142-9612 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2011590786
Cited by
474
References
6
FWCI
15.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.