| Literature DB >> 29710813 |
Mario Enrique Alvarèz Fallas1,2, Martina Piccoli3, Chiara Franzin4, Alberto Sgrò5, Arben Dedja6, Luca Urbani7, Enrica Bertin8, Caterina Trevisan9,10, Piergiorgio Gamba11, Alan J Burns12,13, Paolo De Coppi14, Michela Pozzobon15,16.
Abstract
Skeletal muscle tissue engineering (TE) aims to efficiently repair large congenital and acquired defects. Biological acellular scaffolds are considered a good tool for TE, as decellularization allows structural preservation of tissue extracellular matrix (ECM) and conservation of its unique cytokine reservoir and the ability to support angiogenesis, cell viability, and proliferation. This represents a major advantage compared to synthetic scaffolds, which can acquire these features only after modification and show limited biocompatibility. In this work, we describe the ability of a skeletal muscle acellular scaffold to promote vascularization both ex vivo and in vivo. Specifically, chicken chorioallantoic membrane assay and protein array confirmed the presence of pro-angiogenic molecules in the decellularized tissue such as HGF, VEGF, and SDF-1α. The acellular muscle was implanted in BL6/J mice both subcutaneously and ortotopically. In the first condition, the ECM-derived scaffold appeared vascularized 7 days post-implantation. When the decellularized diaphragm was ortotopically applied, newly formed blood vessels containing CD31⁺, αSMA⁺, and vWF⁺ cells were visible inside the scaffold. Systemic injection of Evans Blue proved function and perfusion of the new vessels, underlying a tissue-regenerative activation. On the contrary, the implantation of a synthetic matrix made of polytetrafluoroethylene used as control was only surrounded by vWF⁺ cells, with no cell migration inside the scaffold and clear foreign body reaction (giant cells were visible). The molecular profile and the analysis of macrophages confirmed the tendency of the synthetic scaffold to enhance inflammation instead of regeneration. In conclusion, we identified the angiogenic potential of a skeletal muscle-derived acellular scaffold and the pro-regenerative environment activated in vivo, showing clear evidence that the decellularized diaphragm is a suitable candidate for skeletal muscle tissue engineering and regeneration.Entities:
Keywords: angiogenesis; microenvironment; skeletal muscle; tissue engineering
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29710813 PMCID: PMC5983670 DOI: 10.3390/ijms19051319
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1Characterization of diaphragmatic acellular scaffold angiogenic potential. (A) Chorion allantoic membrane (CAM) assay appearance after 7 days of incubation with negative control, positive control, and decellularized diaphragm. Scale bar = 1 mm; (B) Number of vessels converging towards each sample at baseline (0d) and after 7 days; vessels were counted in a blinded fashion; (C) Immunoblotted membrane array of fresh and decellularized tissue homogenate. 53 angiogenic factors were detected; (D) Pixel intensity of some of the principal angiogenic factors. Intensity was calculated using UVITEC Cambridge software (mean ± SD). Quantification of (E) VEGF; (F) SDF-1a; (G) HGF; and (H) EGF from fresh and decellularized tissue homogenate (mean ± SD). Ctrl− = Negative Control (inert polyester only); Ctrl+ = Positive Control (polyester with VEGF); DD = Decellularized Diaphragm; FD = Fresh Diaphragm. * p < 0.01; *** p < 0.0001
Figure 2Scaffold subcutaneous implantation and vessel after DET treatment. (A) Macroscopic appearance of the implanted DD at day 0 (red circle) and of DD explanted after 7 and 15 days of implantation; (B) Quantification of hemoglobin over total protein content in control (skin) and DD after 7 and 15 days of implantation (mean ± SD); (C) Immunofluorescence staining against αSMA and GFP performed in explanted DD after 7 and 15 days from implantation (upper panel) and CD31 (lower panel); nuclei were counterstained with DAPI; (D) Immunofluorescence staining against αSMA and Laminin performed in fresh diaphragm (FD) and DD; nuclei were counterstained with DAPI; (E) Immunofluorescence staining against αSMA and Laminin or CD31 performed in DD after 48 h of incubation with HUVECs; nuclei were counterstained with DAPI; Scale bar = 100 µm.
Figure 3Comparison of angiogenic response after orthotropic implantation of DD vs. ePTFE. White line marks the normal diaphragm (ND) versus the patch (decellularized diaphragm –DD- or plastic –ePTFE- or capsule expanded –cePTFE-) (A) Immunofluorescence staining against CD31 and Laminin performed in explanted DD and ePTFE after 7 and 15 days from implantation; nuclei were counterstained with DAPI; (B) Quantification of CD31+ cells over total cell content in explanted DD and ePTFE after 7 and 15 days from implantation (mean ± SD); (C) Immunofluorescence staining against vWF and αSMA performed in explanted DD and ePTFE after 7 and 15 days from implantation; nuclei were counterstained with DAPI; (D) αSMA+/vWF+ vessels dimension distribution calculated in fresh tissue, DD and ePTFE after 7 and 15 days from implantation. Symbol legend. Black dots: vessel dimension of the fresh diaphragm (control); black and white squares: vessel dimension 7 days post implant; black and white triangles: vessel dimension 15 days post implant. Scale bar = 100 µm. * p < 0.01; ** p < 0.001; *** p < 0.0001.
Figure 4Detection of vases in DD vs. ePTFE after orthotropic implantation. White or black line marks the normal diaphragm (ND) versus the patch (decellularized diaphragm –DD- or plastic –ePTFE- or capsule expanded –cePTFE-); (A) Histological appearance of DD and ePTFE-implanted diaphragm. Haematoxylin&Eosin staining performed in DD and ePTFE after 7 and 15 days from implantation. No vessels inside the ePTFE; ePTFE 7 days inlet displays a foreign body giant cell. Scale bar = 100 µm; (B) Functional vessels after 15 days of DD implantation. Immunofluorescence staining against Laminin performed on DD-implanted diaphragm after 15 days of implantation; Evans Blue dye is autofluorescent in the red spectrum; nuclei were counterstained with DAPI; (C) Quantification of αSMA+/EB+ and αSMA+/EB− vessels content in DD after 7 and 15 days from implantation (mean %); (D) Immunofluorescent staining against CD31+ cells performed n DD- and ePTFE-implanted diaphragms 7 and 15 days post implantation. Scale bar = 100 µm.
Figure 5Molecular response and immunoreaction elicited by DD vs. ePTFE. White or black dot line marks the normal diaphragm (ND) versus the patch (decellularized diaphragm –DD- or plastic –ePTFE-) (A,B) Quantification of angiogenic factors from DD and ePTFE-implanted diaphragms after 7 and 15 days compared to native tissue (set at 1), grouped by the processes involved (mean ± SD); (C) Quantification of Il-6 and TNFα mRNA extracted from DD and ePTFE after 7 and 15 days from implantation, compared to native tissue (set at 1) (mean ± SD); (D) Quantification of factors involved in both angiogenic and immunomodulatory processes from DD and ePTFE-implanted diaphragms after 7 and 15 days, compared to native tissue (set at 1) (mean ± SD); (E) Quantification of Nos2, ArgI, CCl2 and Klf4 mRNA extracted from DD and ePTFE after 7 and 15 days from implantation, compared to native tissue (set at 1) (mean ± SD); (F) Immunofluorescence staining against pan-macrophages CD68 antigen performed in DD and ePTFE implanted diaphragms after 15 days; (G) Quantification of factors involved in both angiogenic and fibrosis processes from DD and ePTFE-implanted diaphragms after 7 and 15 days, compared to native tissue (set at 1) (mean ± SD); (H) Immunofluorescence staining against M2 macrophages Arginase I antigen performed in DD and ePTFE-implanted diaphragms after 15 days; (I) Quantification of factors involved in both angiogenic and reconstructive processes from DD and ePTFE-implanted diaphragms after 7 and 15 days, compared to native tissue (set at 1) (mean ± SD); Scale bar = 100 µm.