TABLE 2.
Characteristics of different AC decellularization methods.
| Methods | Principles | Advantages | Disadvantages | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physical | Using physical principles to cleave the cells and destroy any cell matrix adhesion proteins | 1. Convenient | 1. Inadequate decellularization efficiency | Pulver et al. (2014), Hiemer et al. (2016), Hiemer et al. (2019), Chen et al. (2021), Shen et al. (2020) |
| 2. Low immune response | 2. Destroying the ultrastructure of ECM | |||
| 3. Low toxicity | ||||
| 4. Maintaining part of the structure | ||||
| Chemical | Using chemical detergents to destroy the structure of cell membrane and separate DNA from proteins, removing cellular substances from the tissue | 1. High decellularization efficiency | 1. Reducing specific component content and bioactivity of ECM | Gawlitta et al. (2015), Schneider et al. (2016), Gilpin and Yang, (2017), Browe et al. (2019), Ghassemi et al. (2019), Luo et al. (2019) |
| 2. Retaining the structure and composition of ECM to a large extent | 2. High toxicity of residual chemicals | |||
| Biological | Using enzymatic reagents to remove cell residues and tissue components | 1. Removal of residual cells and antigens specifically | 1. Longer processing time | Rana et al. (2017), Kim et al. (2018) |
| 2. Less damage to other bioactive components | 2. Immune response caused by residual enzyme reagents |