Decellularization Strategies for Regenerative Medicine: From Processing Techniques to Applications
Gilpin A., Yang Y.
Narrative Review, published in Biomed Res Int (2017) — 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
- Biomed Res Int (2017)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 28540307
- PMCID
- PMC5429943
- DOI
- 10.1155/2017/9831534
- Citations
- 465
Abstract (original English)
As the gap between donors and patients in need of an organ transplant continues to widen, research in regenerative medicine seeks to provide alternative strategies for treatment. One of the most promising techniques for tissue and organ regeneration is decellularization, in which the extracellular matrix (ECM) is isolated from its native cells and genetic material in order to produce a natural scaffold. The ECM, which ideally retains its inherent structural, biochemical, and biomechanical cues, can then be recellularized to produce a functional tissue or organ. While decellularization can be accomplished using chemical and enzymatic, physical, or combinative methods, each strategy has both benefits and drawbacks. The focus of this review is to compare the advantages and disadvantages of these methods in terms of their ability to retain desired ECM characteristics for particular tissues and organs. Additionally, a few applications of constructs engineered using decellularized cell sheets, tissues, and whole organs are discussed.
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.