| Literature DB >> 28671618 |
Eline E van Haaften1,2, Carlijn V C Bouten3,4, Nicholas A Kurniawan5,6.
Abstract
The paradigm of regenerative medicine has recently shifted from in vitro to in situ tissue engineering: implanting a cell-free, biodegradable, off-the-shelf available scaffold and inducing the development of functional tissue by utilizing the regenerative potential of the body itself. This approach offers a prospect of not only alleviating the clinical demand for autologous vessels but also circumventing the current challenges with synthetic grafts. In order to move towards a hypothesis-driven engineering approach, we review three crucial aspects that need to be taken into account when regenerating vessels: (1) the structure-function relation for attaining mechanical homeostasis of vascular tissues, (2) the environmental cues governing cell function, and (3) the available experimental platforms to test instructive scaffolds for in situ tissue engineering. The understanding of cellular responses to environmental cues leads to the development of computational models to predict tissue formation and maturation, which are validated using experimental platforms recapitulating the (patho)physiological micro-environment. With the current advances, a progressive shift is anticipated towards a rational and effective approach of building instructive scaffolds for in situ vascular tissue regeneration.Entities:
Keywords: growth and remodeling; in situ tissue engineering; mechanosensing; mechanotransduction; regeneration; scaffolds; tissue homeostasis; vessels
Year: 2017 PMID: 28671618 PMCID: PMC5617965 DOI: 10.3390/cells6030019
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cells ISSN: 2073-4409 Impact factor: 6.600
Mechanical properties, measured in terms of compliance and burst pressure, and structural properties, measured in terms of wall thickness, inner diameter, and vessel wall thickness-to-radius (T:R) ratio, from a selection of studies concerning native tissue, synthetic grafts, in vitro tissue-engineered grafts, and in situ tissue-engineered grafts. Compliance is measured in the physiological range, i.e., 80–120 mmHg, unless indicated otherwise.
| Artery | Material | Design | Model | Compliance | Burst | Thickness ( | Inner | T:R (-) | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Native | AA | n.a. | rat | 6.7 | 3415 | 150 | 1 | 0.3 | [ |
| CA | n.a. | porcine | 18.7 * | 3320 | 614 | n.d. | n.d. | [ | |
| IMA | n.a. | porcine | 11.2 | 2100 | 231 | n.d. | n.d. | [ | |
| FA | n.a. | sheep | 3.3 | 2297 | 770 | n.d. | n.d. | [ | |
| FA | n.a. | sheep | 8.52 † | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | [ | |
| CA | n.a. | sheep | 11.98 | 10,950 | 750 | 2.25 | 0.67 | [ | |
| FA | n.a. | human | 2.6 | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | [ | |
| IMA | n.a. | human | 4.5–6.2 | 2031–4225 | 350–710 | n.d. | n.d. | [ | |
| IMA | n.a. | human | 11.5 | 3196 | 300–800 | 1.5–4.5 | 0.35–0.40 | [ | |
| Synthetic | PGA or PLLA + PLCL | non-woven porous graft | n.a. | n.d. | 2710–2790 | 150–250 | 0.7–0.9 | 0.33–0.71 | [ |
| PCL | e-spun microfibrous graft | n.a. | 0.58–0.92 | 850–1800 | 415 | 6 | 0.14 | [ | |
| PLLA | e-spun microfibrous graft | n.a. | 0.93 | n.d. | 390 | 4.9 | 0.16 | [ | |
| PLLA/PLCL | bi-layered graft with inner e-spun and outer weft-knitted layer | n.a. | 1.8 | 21,750 | 330 | 3.2 | 0.21 | [ | |
| PLLA/PHD | bi-layered graft with different blend rations | n.a. | 1.12 | 1775 | 230 | 5 | 0.09 | [ | |
| PEUU | bi-layered graft with large inner pores and dense outer pores | n.a. | 4.6 | 2300 | 743 | 4.7 | 0.32 | [ | |
| poly(diol citrate) | non-woven porous graft | n.a. | 12.7 | 250 | 160 | 3.65 | 0.09 | [ | |
| In vitro | PGA | non-woven porous graft | 10 weeks under pulsatile conditions | n.d. | 1300–1337 | 442 | 3 | 0.29 | [ |
| PGA | non-woven porous graft | 1 week static, 4 weeks dynamic strain (1%) | n.d. | 906 | 1000 | 3 | 0.67 | [ | |
| human fibroblast sheets | sheet-based | 8 weeks static, 10 weeks maturation | 1.5 | 3468 | 407 | 4.2 | 0.19 | [ | |
| fibrin | fibroblast-seeded fibrin gel | 2 weeks static, 5–7 weeks dynamic strain (7%) | 2.4–4.4 | 1366–1542 | 280–430 | 2–4 | 0.22–0.28 | [ | |
| PGA | non-woven porous graft | 7–10 weeks dynamic strain (2.5%) | 3.3 | 3337 | 1000 | 6 | 0.33 | [ | |
| PGA | non-woven porous graft | 7–8 weeks dynamic strain (1.5%) | 3.5 * | 800 | 220 | 3 | 0.15 | [ | |
| human fibroblast sheets | sheet-based | 6–8 weeks static, 12 weeks maturation | 3.54 | 3490 | 200–600 | 2.4–6.6 | 0.18 | [ | |
| In situ | PCL/CS | e-spun nanofibrous graft | sheep (CA), 6 months | 6.58 | 10,275 | 1180 | 2.9 | 0.81 | [ |
| PEOT/BPT/PCL | PEOT/BPT solid rod with external e-spun PCL sheet | porcine (SC), 4 weeks | 7.46 | 3947 | 700 | 2 | 0.70 | [ | |
| PCL | e-spun nano/microfibrous graft | rat (AA), 1.5–18 months | 7.8 | 3280 | 650 | 2 | 0.65 | [ | |
| PGS/PCL | porous PGS reinforced with PCL sheet | rat (AA), 3 months | 11 | 2360 | 290 | 0.72 | 0.81 | [ |
AA, abdominal artery; CA, carotid artery; FA, femoral artery; IMA, internal mammary artery; PGA, polyglycolic acid; PLLA,poly-L-lactic acid; PLCL, 50:50 copolymer solution of L-lactide and -caprolactone; PCL, poly(caprolactone); PEUU, poly(esterure-thane)urea; CS, chitosan; PEOT/BPT, poly(ethylene oxide terephthalate)-poly(butylene terephthalate; SC, subcutaneous; PGS, poly(glycerol sebacate); n.a., not applicable; n.d., not determined; *, 80–200 mmHg; †, 60–190 mmHg.
Figure 1Collagen microstructure of the three different layers of the aortic wall visualized with second harmonic generation microscopy (reproduced with permission from [33]). Mimicking the native collagen organization in fibrous scaffolds should be one of the strategies in the design of instructive scaffolds. Scalebar = 100 m.
Figure 2Interrelationships between structure and function: functionality (in terms of mechanical properties) follows directly from structure, which is regulated by cell-mediated growth and remodeling in response to mechanical loading (in terms of stress and strain).
Figure 3Mechanical homeostasis is a delicate balance between tissue growth, degradation, and remodeling. A perturbation of the equilibrium will result in a relative upregulation of one of these processes (indicated in red), in an attempt to restore the balance.
Selection of in vivo studies applying the in situ TE approach, with a specific focus on long-term functionality.
| In-Vivo Model | Material | Design | Implantation Time | Main Outcome | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| human | PLCL/PGA or PLLA | knitted PGA or PLLA fibers with PLCL sponge * | 4.3–7.3 years | no graft related deaths, TEVGs are technically feasible | [ |
| mouse | PGS/PCL | microfibrous PGS core with PCL outer sheet | 12 months | perfect patency, progressive luminal enlargement due to PGS degradation | [ |
| mouse | PGA/PLCL | non-woven porous graft with outer PLCL sheet | 24 months | biomechanical diversity among implanted vascular grafts due to variations in the ratio collagen type I/III | [ |
| rat | PCL | e-spun nano/microfibrous graft | 18 months | perfect patency with excellent structural integrity, but calcifications appeared in the IH layers | [ |
| mouse | PLCL/PLA | non-woven porous graft | 12 months | well-organized neotissue formation, but mos mice developed aneurysms | [ |
| dog | PGA/PLCL/ P(GA-CL) | knitted PGA fibres with PLCL sponge and outer P(GA/CL) reinforcement | 12 months | no aneurysmal change or stenosis, but underdeveloped VSMCs | [ |
PLCL, copolymer solution of L-lactide and -caprolactone; PGA, polyglycolic acid; PLLA, poly-L-lactic acid; TEVG, tissue-engineered vascular graft; PGS, poly(glycerol sebacate); PCL, polycaprolactone; PLA, poly-lactic acid; P(GA-CL), copolymer solution of glycolic acid and -caprolactone; *, pre-seeded with autologous mononuclear cells.
Figure 4Passive and active cues in the context of scaffold design parameters and cardiovascular systems. Passive cues define the physical environment in which the cells reside, such as fibre diameter (nano-fibres vs. micro-fibres), topography (isotropic vs. anisotropic), and substrate stiffness. Active cues directly impose mechanical stimulations to the cell, such as shear stress (), cyclic strain (), and residual stress ().
Selection of currently available experimental platforms that are used to delineate the role of passive and active cues in the context of optimizing key scaffold properties.
| Key Scaffold Properties | Mechanostimulation | Technique to Study | Variables | Current Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| fibre diameter, fibre topography | • microgrooves | • groove width (nm– | groove-depth as confounding parameter | |
| • dimension/topography | ||||
| • micropatterning | • pattern size ( | range of pattern-size | ||
| fibre stiffness, macroscopic stiffness, scaffold density | • substrate stiffness | • polyacrylamide gels (2D) [ | • 1 Pa–100 kPa | unable to capture fibrous 3D morphology |
| • hydrogels (3D) [ | • <1 Pa–few kPa | low stiffness magnitude | ||
| anisotropy, geometry | • shear stress | • parallel plates [ | • shear stress (<1 Pa–few Pa) | pressure as confounding parameter |
| • orbital shaker [ | • shear stress (<1 Pa–few Pa) | temporal and spatial variations in shear stress | ||
| anisotropy, geometry, macroscopic stiffness | • strain | • motor/pressure driven distensible membrane [ | • strain (1–20%) | spatial variations in strain |
| anisotropy, geometry, macroscopic stiffness | • shear stress & strain | • mock artery [ | • shear stress (<1 Pa) | no independent control of variables |
| • microfluidic device [ | • shear stress (<1 Pa–few Pa) | lack of 3D environment | ||
| fibre diameter, anisotropy, pore size | • scaffold + shear stress | • parallel plates in mesofluidic device [ | • shear stress (<1 Pa–few Pa) | pressure as confounding parameter |
| anisotropy, pore size, connectivity, macroscopicstiffness, degradation rate | • scaffold + strain | • motor/pressure driven distensible membrane [ | • strain (1–20%) | spatial variations in strain |
| fibre diameter, anisotropy, pore size, connectivity, macroscopic stiffness, degradation rate | • scaffold + shear stress & strain | • perfusion bioreactor [ | • shear stress (<1 Pa–few Pa) | no independent control of active variables |
Figure 5A rational design of a scaffold should provide the right passive cues and transmit the right active cues to guide cells towards a mechanical homeostasis via growth and remodeling. The process of growth and remodeling is both active (cell-mediated) and passive (e.g., dilatation of the vessel wall and micro-structure dictated by degree of axial pre-stress). Following this approach results in controlled in situ regeneration.