↓ Skip to main content

Effect of pulsatile flow perfusion on decellularization

Overview of attention for article published in BioMedical Engineering OnLine, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effect of pulsatile flow perfusion on decellularization
Published in
BioMedical Engineering OnLine, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12938-018-0445-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sung Min Park, Seran Yang, Se-Min Rye, Seong Wook Choi

Abstract

Decellularized animal organs have been used as scaffolds for tissue engineering. To make a properly functioning scaffolds, the extracellular matrix (ECM) components must be preserved after decellularization. Because pulsatile flow is known to be beneficial for tissue perfusion, pulsatile perfusion of a detergent might decrease the exposure time of the tissues to the detergent used for decellularization. Using Energy Equivalent Pressure (EEP) as a pulsatility parameter, the effect of pulsatile flow in decellularization process is studied. Twelve rat hearts were decellularization with 1% sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) solution for 2 h. They are divided into two groups, one with pulsatile perfusion (n = 6), the other with non-pulsatile perfusion (n = 6) of SDS. The initial mean perfusion pressures were same in both group. The result indicated that the EEP and the perfusion flow were increased significantly in the pulsatile group compared to the non-pulsatile group. Photographs taken during the decellularization showed more profound decellularization in the pulsatile group. The residual DNA content in the scaffolds was significantly lower in the pulsatile group. However, the level of ECM components, collagen and GAG showed no significant differences between the groups. Decellularization is more efficient in pulsatile flow than in non-pulsatile flow but still preserves the ECM molecules.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 21%
Researcher 4 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 7 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 8 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 12%
Chemistry 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 7 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 February 2018.
All research outputs
#15,490,822
of 23,020,670 outputs
Outputs from BioMedical Engineering OnLine
#425
of 824 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269,545
of 440,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioMedical Engineering OnLine
#10
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,020,670 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 824 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 440,103 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.