Application of decellularization methods for scaffold production: advantages, disadvantages, biosafety and modifications
- PMID: 40606910
- PMCID: PMC12213722
- DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2025.1621641
Application of decellularization methods for scaffold production: advantages, disadvantages, biosafety and modifications
Abstract
The development of efficient, biocompatible scaffolds is an actual challenge in tissue engineering. Scaffolds derived from animal sources offer promising structural and biochemical properties but require thorough decellularization to minimize immunogenicity and maintain extracellular matrix integrity. Effective decellularization requires a synergistic combination of methods to ensure complete removal of immunogenic cellular components while preserving critical extracellular matrix elements such as glycosaminoglycans, collagens, and growth factors. This review covers the application of some decellularization methods (physical, chemical) in scaffold production, highlighting their respective advantages, limitations, and biosafety considerations. Moreover, the importance of scaffold sterilization: both physical techniques like gamma irradiation and chemical agents-are mentioned for their efficacy and cytotoxic risks. Furthermore, scaffold modifications, particularly recellularization strategies, are discussed as key enhancements to improve biocompatibility and functional integration. Overall, the selection and optimization of decellularization protocols are crucial for the safe and effective clinical implementation of bioengineered scaffolds.
Keywords: biocompatibility; decellularization; non-animal scaffold production; scaffold; scaffold modification.
Copyright © 2025 Shevchuk, Korcheva, Moskalenko, Kyryk, Kot and Krasnienkov.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Engineering Vascularized Composite Allografts Using Natural Scaffolds: A Systematic Review.Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 2022 Jun;28(3):677-693. doi: 10.1089/ten.TEB.2021.0102. Epub 2021 Oct 22. Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 2022. PMID: 34238047
-
Decellularized scaffolds and heart valve treatment: present techniques, long-standing hurdles and the challenging future.Biomater Adv. 2025 Dec;177:214367. doi: 10.1016/j.bioadv.2025.214367. Epub 2025 Jun 3. Biomater Adv. 2025. PMID: 40505382 Review.
-
[Liver engineering as a new source of donor organs : A systematic review].Chirurg. 2016 Jun;87(6):504-13. doi: 10.1007/s00104-015-0015-y. Chirurg. 2016. PMID: 25986672 German.
-
Computational Fluid Dynamics Modeling of Material Transport Through Triply Periodic Minimal Surface Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering.J Biomech Eng. 2025 Mar 1;147(3):031007. doi: 10.1115/1.4067575. J Biomech Eng. 2025. PMID: 39790065
-
Combinatorial Decellularization as a Better Approach to Porcine Liver Extracellular Matrix Scaffold Fabrication With Preserved Bioactivity: A Comparative Evaluation.Xenotransplantation. 2025 Jan-Feb;32(1):e70025. doi: 10.1111/xen.70025. Xenotransplantation. 2025. PMID: 39960357
References
-
- Abdul Samat A., Abdul Hamid Z. A., Jaafar M., Ong C. C., Yahaya B. H. (2023). Investigation of the in vitro and in vivo biocompatibility of a Three-Dimensional printed thermoplastic Polyurethane/Polylactic Acid blend for the development of tracheal scaffolds. Bioengineering . Bioeng. (Basel). 10 (4), 394. 10.3390/bioengineering10040394 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
-
- Albanna M. Z., Holmes J. H. (2016). Skin tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Oxford: Academic Press.
Publication types
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources