↓ Skip to main content

An overview of tissue and whole organ decellularization processes

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Materials, February 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
10 X users
patent
114 patents
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
2688 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
2464 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
An overview of tissue and whole organ decellularization processes
Published in
Clinical Materials, February 2011
DOI 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.01.057
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter M. Crapo, Thomas W. Gilbert, Stephen F. Badylak

Abstract

Biologic scaffold materials composed of extracellular matrix (ECM) are typically derived by processes that involve decellularization of tissues or organs. Preservation of the complex composition and three-dimensional ultrastructure of the ECM is highly desirable but it is recognized that all methods of decellularization result in disruption of the architecture and potential loss of surface structure and composition. Physical methods and chemical and biologic agents are used in combination to lyse cells, followed by rinsing to remove cell remnants. Effective decellularization methodology is dictated by factors such as tissue density and organization, geometric and biologic properties desired for the end product, and the targeted clinical application. Tissue decellularization with preservation of ECM integrity and bioactivity can be optimized by making educated decisions regarding the agents and techniques utilized during processing. An overview of decellularization methods, their effect upon resulting ECM structure and composition, and recently described perfusion techniques for whole organ decellularization techniques are presented herein.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users 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 2,464 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 21 <1%
Germany 7 <1%
United Kingdom 7 <1%
Switzerland 3 <1%
Ireland 2 <1%
Italy 2 <1%
Russia 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
Other 14 <1%
Unknown 2402 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 513 21%
Student > Master 372 15%
Student > Bachelor 328 13%
Researcher 277 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 122 5%
Other 274 11%
Unknown 578 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 416 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 344 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 302 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 297 12%
Materials Science 108 4%
Other 295 12%
Unknown 702 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 81. 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 26 March 2024.
All research outputs
#530,621
of 25,462,162 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Materials
#93
of 10,771 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,236
of 194,896 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Materials
#2
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,462,162 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,771 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
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 194,896 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.