Cited by 261Tissue Engineering and Regenerative MedicineBone Tissue Engineering MaterialsElectrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical Applications

Biologic scaffold composed of skeletal muscle extracellular matrix

Open access
Wolf, Matthew T., Daly, Kerry A., Reing, Janet E., Badylak, Stephen F.·2012·Biomaterials

Abstract

Biologic scaffolds prepared from the extracellular matrix (ECM) of decellularized mammalian tissues have been shown to facilitate constructive remodeling in injured tissues such as skeletal muscle, the esophagus, and lower urinary tract, among others. The ECM of every tissue has a unique composition and structure that likely has direct effects on the host response and it is plausible that ECM harvested from a given tissue would provide distinct advantages over ECM harvested from nonhomologous tissues. For example, a tissue specific muscle ECM scaffold may be more suitable for constructive remodeling of skeletal muscle than non-homologous ECM tissue sources. The present study describes an enzymatic and chemical decellularization process for isolating skeletal muscle ECM scaffolds using established decellularization criteria and characterized the structure and chemical composition of the resulting ECM. The results were compared to those from a non-muscle ECM derived from small intestine (SIS). Muscle ECM was shown to contain growth factors, glycosaminoglycans, and basement membrane structural proteins which differed from those present in SIS. Myogenic cells survived and proliferated on muscle ECM scaffolds in vitro, and when implanted in a rat abdominal wall injury model in vivo was shown to induce a constructive remodeling response associated with scaffold degradation and myogenesis in the implant area; however, the remodeling outcome did not differ from that induced by SIS by 35 days post surgery. These results suggest that superior tissue remodeling outcomes are not universally dependent upon homologous tissue derived ECM scaffold materials.

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.2011.12.055

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Following implantation, natural ECM scaffolds undergo degradation, releasing matricryptic peptides and growth factors, which triggers a shift in macrophage polarization from pro-inflammatory M1 to anti-inflammatory regenerative M2, promoting angiogenesis and recruiting stem/progenitor cells for constructive remodeling.

    “Following implantation, these natural ECM scaffolds undergo a degree of degradation, releasing matricryptic peptides and growth factors. This process triggers a shift in macrophage polarization from pro-inflammatory (M1) phenotype to an anti-inflammatory regenerative phenotype (M2 macrophages), promoting angiogenesis and recruiting stem/progenitor cell toward the implanted tissue for constructive”

    From Liver tissue engineering using decellularized scaffolds: Current progress, challenges, and opportunities (2024) · cites this paper as [58]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    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

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wolf, M. T., Daly, K. A., Reing, J. E., & Badylak, S. F.
Affiliations
University of Pittsburgh (US)
Corresponding author
Badylak, Stephen F.
Venue
Biomaterials
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-04
Volume
33
Issue
10
Pages
2916-2925
ISSN
0142-9612 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2050261148
Cited by
259
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 4
FWCI
24.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biomaterials (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Pittsburgh
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (T32-HL76124-6, T32HL076124)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Bone Tissue Engineering Materials
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Biomaterials › Electrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical Applications
Keywords
decellularization, biological scaffolds, small intestinal submucosa, tissue remodeling, myogenesis, abdominal wall injury, scaffold degradation, growth factors, glycosaminoglycans, basement membrane proteins
MeSH terms
Animals, DNA, Dogs, Extracellular Matrix, Glycosaminoglycans, Humans, Materials Testing, Oxazines, Staining and Labeling, Xanthenes, Reproducibility of Results, Muscle, Skeletal, Prosthesis Implantation, Sus scrofa, Abdominal Wall, Intercellular Signaling Peptides and Proteins, NIH 3T3 Cells, Mice, Rats, 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