Polylysine for skin regeneration: A review of recent advances and future perspectives
Zarrintaj P., Ghorbani S., Barani M., Singh Chauhan NP., Khodadadi Yazdi M., Saeb MR.
Narrative Review, published in Bioeng Transl Med (2022) — 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
- Bioeng Transl Med (2022)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 35111953
- PMCID
- PMC8780928
- DOI
- 10.1002/btm2.10261
- Citations
- 37
Abstract (original English)
There have been several attempts to find promising biomaterials for skin regeneration, among which polylysine (a homopolypeptide) has shown benefits in the regeneration and treatment of skin disorders. This class of biomaterials has shown exceptional abilities due to their macromolecular structure. Polylysine-based biomaterials can be used as tissue engineering scaffolds for skin regeneration, and as drug carriers or even gene delivery vectors for the treatment of skin diseases. In addition, polylysine can play a preservative role in extending the lifetime of skin tissue by minimizing the appearance of photodamaged skin. Research on polylysine is growing today, opening new scenarios that expand the potential of these biomaterials from traditional treatments to a new era of tissue regeneration. This review aims to address the basic concepts, recent trends, and prospects of polylysine-based biomaterials for skin regeneration. Undoubtedly, this class of biomaterials needs further evaluations and explorations, and many critical questions have yet to be answered.
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.