Talk:Tissue engineering

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Engineering High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology Medicine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Someone should remove the whole carbon nanotube image/caption. Carbon nanotubes are not suitable for tissue engineering- they are highly toxic. See, for example: Crit Rev Toxicol. 2006 Mar;36(3):189-217 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.195.207.145 (talk) 13:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree, added a reference and pointed to the lab doing tissue engineering without a scaffold - www.case.edu/med/dotel and had it deleted twice should this go in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keantom (talk • contribs) 20:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, tissue engineering isnt just about cell seeded scaffolds. Also, the development from cells plus scaffold/proteins is complex and dependent on a lot of factors, most of which are not mentioned. There needs to be some semblance of a section on the conditioning, i.e. the feeding, stretching, shaping, the chemical environment, the temperature, the timing. I intend to work on this at some point. --Sam

I added the reference to Langer and vacanti Science 1993 and a snippet in the text about the definition. --Bedrupsbaneman

Some sections on this page copied from other literature of which I am the copyright holder - regards, Vincent Murphy

Tissue engineering isn't just about cell seeded scaffolds. There are other routes being investigated to achieve the formation of neo-organs which do not involve the use of engineering materials. - SB

Neither of the two definitions of TE state that TE (must) involve synthetic materials. Bedrupsbaneman 28 June 2005 15:28 (UTC)

I think that the definition of Tissue Engineering was first given by Skalak&Fox(1988). Langer&Vacanti used the above as a refererce --YNGer —Preceding unsigned comment added by YNGer (talk • contribs) 10:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tissue engineered approach should include the use of a scaffold for the formation of new viable tissue for a medical purpose. Some sort of scaffold is necessary in TE, otherwise we would be talking about something different, and cells are not always necessary: eg. in situ tissue engineered of the bone by Molly Stevens (2005), in which the own body is used as a bioreactor and in which only a scaffold is implanted in the body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.227.23.58 (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question: 'Agencies that Support Tissue Engineering Research'

• National Institutes of Health
• National Science Foundation

These both appear to be US agencies and it is against wikipedia policy to have a US bias on global articles. Suggest this is either expanded to cover funding sources in all more countries or removed? soflution 10:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Did a quick internet search: according to this old article [1] ESA should be interested in TE and possibly also the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) could be interested. Maybe a more thorough search could confirm this. Berserker79 11:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Are there any (biomedical) national research agencies that oppose tissue engineering? Making a complete list of agencies that support TE would soon be very exhaustive. From a reseach and business policy point of view it is of course of global interest what actions NSF and NIH (and of course FDA) are taking since the US is the largest market both for both research and clinical applications. Maybe make a separate article to monitor research policies regarding TE?

I just added a section on electrospinning. I'm not too familiar with how to do citations yet, but here's the article I used in case someone else can. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19661572 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahaque89 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section on Synthesis was really poorly worded, so I went ahead and cleaned it up so that it reflects grammatically correct English. Also, there is only one source for that entire section, so I'm going to try to find more. I've noticed grammar issues in the other areas of the page and am going to do my best to clean it up. BrianSfinasSSI (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The writing and grammar are horrible in many parts of this article, particularly the last section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.11.1.37 (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search on google shows that poragen with an a seems to be more widely used in the scientific literature. Should I change this? Jazzvibes (talk) 05:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are poragen and porogen two different things or just two different spellings of the same thing? DaffyBridge (talk) 05:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ak8978 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] 

The "earmouse" is in wikipedia at Vacanti mouse but not linked in here. It seems to me the Otology (EDIT: Otoplasty) and Ear articles should link to Tissue engineering as well as being addressed, even if peripherally? The "earmouse" was a rather famous viral image that focused public attention, and if related to tissue engineering it would be great if you guys would add something here, even just a link. What you have here is *way* over my head, so I would never dream of touching it! Thanks for your consideration.Ukrpickaxe (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: changed Otology to Otoplasty. I'm tired, lol. Ukrpickaxe (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi editors,

Long time reader first time editor.

Ive had a quick look through the page and have a few suggestions which I am just working out how best to bring up. In the meantime may i suggest the following section is deleted?

Section 4.2 - > Hydrogel-Biodegradable Hydrophobic Polymer Hybrids,

This section looks to me like self promotion, with only one reference. Also the use of a Interpenetrating polymer networks (IPNs) in TE is not new, which is essentially what the section describes.

The whole synthesis section is a little bit repetitive and promotional. I think it could be cleaned up, with a few stronger citations and edits. Happy to put forward some edits as I get more time. Cheers Tmahenderson (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The an initial instances of the term tissue scaffold placed in the lead has been boldfaced as a redirect target term (i.e. as a term in an article or section targeted by a redirect page; e.g. Tissue scaffold)—a practice recommended by WP:R#ASTONISH, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Other uses, and MOS:BOLD#Article title terms—so as to help orient readers arriving from redirect links elsewhere and as an example of best practice inline with Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

This is also done, at the first occurrence in running text, of a term that's redirected to the article or one of its sub-sections, whether the term appears in the lead or not.

— MOS:BOLD

Thanks for your time and attention, --A Fellow Editor-- 23:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been made aware that a graduate course has an assignment for students to contribute to this article, unfortunately without a campus ambassador as far as I'm aware - so if editors come across unconventional edits to this article (excess detail, etc.), that is due to this assignment, not a case of corporate COI or sockpuppeting or anything. I'm talking to one of the students to get more details on the assignment and what might be incoming. I've also added Template:Educational_assignment to this page. (CC @Drmies) ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Aha--that explains something. Thanks SuperHamster. BTW it is entirely possible that that huge amount of variously sourced information I removed can find a way into the article, but not in that way. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This edit added 3 times by Wittmane11 in less than 24 hr (edit warring), despite edit protests and request for discussion to gain consensus, has several major and minor problems. It is clear a term paper is the underlying source, and the content is being copied and transferred to the Wikipedia article. 1) the section under Skin function is unencyclopedic textbook information and not about engineering, WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. 2) the sources do not meet the standard of WP:MEDRS; 3) WP:REFPUNCT is ignored; 4) the section under Skin substitutes uses weak non-MEDRS sources with low impact factors and is mainly conjecture, i.e., unencyclopedic. 5) the sections under Examples and Current research are not supported by MEDRS reviews, are basically just news from preliminary research, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PRIMARY, and use conjecture about future importance, WP:CRYSTAL. I can see the value for a student to work through the literature and present a case for skin bioengineering in a term paper. That's fine and should be judged by the instructor accordingly, but this material and the weak sources are not ready for the encyclopedia, so am reverting again and warning the user about not warring and to engage on the talk page for consensus. --Zefr (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was editing the tissue engineering page for a school project. I was unaware that "edit warring" was a thing. I only edited 3 times in less than 24 hours because I was trying to format my sources correctly. I thought my page was being taken down because the sources were incorrectly formatted. This is my first time editing a Wikipedia page, so I do not know the "rules" in doing so. --User:Wittmane11 12:07, 17 April, 2019

That explanation impresses as a class project to write an essay and quickly "publish" it on Wikipedia; review WP:NOTPAPERS. Publishing essays is not what the Wikipedia project is about; see your talk page for guiding information on how to contribute to medical content on Wikipedia and for the strength of sources needed. Fellow students assumed to be in your class - Whey Yi, Cooraez12, Eefogle08, and Zesh64 - appear to be first-time users making large dumps of essay information without your instructor's supervision; connect with SuperHamster, if applicable. Also see the feedback for Wittmane11 here. Please get in-class guidance and be patient in learning how to edit on Wikipedia. There is enough information on this talk page to help you all get started. --Zefr (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zefr (and anyone else interested): I'd like to revisit the commercial products section, which was removed with the recent reverts of school assignment contribs. I've been discussing it with the authoring student, Whey Yi, and after removing the large lists of products, I think the linked section provides a solid sourced overview of the commercial industry and would be good to restore. Since this isn't my area of expertise, and I know there are important standards with medicine articles, I wanted to ask if there are any issues that should be fixed before restoring. I think one concern might be statements attributed solely to 510(K)s. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is some useful information that can be restored to the article, but overall, the draft posted by Whey Yi was too extensive, verbose, speculative (WP:CRYSTAL), and somewhat promotional, WP:PROMO. Notes: 1) Patent applications are not secondary sources, and should not be used. 2) Repeat ref format is discussed under WP:REFNAME. 3) Using commercial product sources should be replaced by FDA approval announcements or published reviews; search the PubMed review literature. I recommend a redraft be posted to the talk page for review by other editors. --Zefr (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Zefr; CCing @Whey Yi: if you'd like to set up your content in your sandbox (e.g. User:Whey Yi/sandbox), you can continue to make improvements there based on the above. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 14:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The market section is poorly written and sourced. For instance, the section Reemergence ends with a claim about the profitability of products until the 2010s. I can't access the article it cites myself, but it's from 2002. Even assuming the article directly claims "no products have been profitable yet", that leaves 8 years unaccounted for.

However, I'm not sure that the page should even have a "market" section. Personally, I think that if it's viewed as relevant historical background to the field, the claims should be integrated into the History section, and if it's not viewed as relevant it should be removed entirely.

I'll leave the floor open for comments before I remove the section entirely. Baneonplane (talk) 04:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]