ArticleRegenerative biomaterials2026
Physical decellularization of fish skin utilizing electrical fields.
Article in Regenerative biomaterials, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Decellularized tissues have attracted considerable attention in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine due to their diverse sources and excellent biocompatibility. However, current decellularization techniques often compromise the integrity of the extracellular matrix, leaving harmful chemical residues or inadequately removing immunogenic cellular components. Consequently, the biocompatibility and clinical efficacy of decellularized tissues are undermined. To address these issues, a novel decellularization technique employing an electrical field has been proposed. In the resulting decellularized tissue, the residual DNA concentration was measured at 27.44 ± 7.27 ng/mg, satisfying the evaluation criteria (<50 ng/mg) in a significantly shorter process compared to chemical/enzymatic decellularization (∼2 h vs. ∼15 h) and without the use of toxic reagents. The microstructure was better preserved in electrically decellularized skin than in chemically/enzymatically decellularized skin, maintaining an interconnected porous microstructure that facilitates neo-tissue ingrowth. Cytotoxicity assessments confirmed the non-cytotoxic nature of electrically decellularized fish skin, with a cell survival rate (115.84 ± 10.78%) higher than that of chemically/enzymatically decellularized and native skins (105.57 ± 3.43% and 118.69 ± 6.53%, respectively). The hemolysis rate of decellularized skin using electrical techniques was the lowest (0.35 ± 0.26%) compared to that of chemically/enzymatically decellularized and native skins (1.089 ± 0.03% and 1.11 ± 0.06%), indicating non-hemolytic material. Furthermore, subcutaneous implantation demonstrated that electrically decellularized skin did not elicit severe immune responses and exhibited faster tissue integration than chemically/enzymatically decellularized skin. Therefore, electrical decellularization effectively removes cellular components while preserving the natural architecture without the use of harmful reagents, establishing a secure foundation for extensive applications in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine using decellularized tissues in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.