Decellularization methods for developing porcine corneal xenografts and future perspectives
Isidan A., Liu S., Li P., Lashmet M., Smith LJ., Hara H.
Narrative Review, published in Xenotransplantation (2019) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Narrative Review
- Journal
- Xenotransplantation (2019)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 31659811
- PMCID
- PMC6908750
- DOI
- 10.1111/xen.12564
- Citations
- 59
Abstract (original English)
Corneal transplantation is the only option to cure corneal opacities. However, there is an imbalance between supply and demand of corneal tissues in the world. To solve the problem of corneal shortage, corneal xenotransplantation studies have been implemented in the past years using porcine corneas. The corneal xenografts could come from (a) wild-type pigs, (b) genetically engineered pigs, (c) decellularized porcine corneas, and (d) decellularized porcine corneas that are recellularized with human corneal cells, eventually with patients' own cells, as in all type of xenografts. All approaches except, the former would reduce or mitigate recipient immune responses. Although several techniques in decellularization have been reported, there is still no standardized protocol for the complete decellularization of corneal tissue. Herein, we reviewed different decellularization methods for porcine corneas based on the mechanism of action, decellularization efficacy, biocompatibility, and the undesirable effects on corneal ultrastructure. We compared 9 decellularization methods including: (a) sodium dodecyl sulfate, (b) triton x-100, (c) hypertonic saline, (d) human serum with electrophoresis, (e) high hydrostatic pressure, (f) freeze-thaw, (h) nitrogen gas, (h) phospholipase A 2 , and (i) glycerol with chemical crosslinking methods. It appears that combined methods could be more useful
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.
Evidence level
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.