| Literature DB >> 35053383 |
Valentina Russo1, Mohammad El Khatib1, Giuseppe Prencipe1, Adrián Cerveró-Varona1, Maria Rita Citeroni1, Annunziata Mauro1, Paolo Berardinelli1, Melisa Faydaver1, Arlette A Haidar-Montes1, Maura Turriani1, Oriana Di Giacinto1, Marcello Raspa2, Ferdinando Scavizzi2, Fabrizio Bonaventura2, Liliana Liverani3, Aldo R Boccaccini3, Barbara Barboni1.
Abstract
Tendon injuries are at the frontier of innovative approaches to public health concerns and sectoral policy objectives. Indeed, these injuries remain difficult to manage due to tendon's poor healing ability ascribable to a hypo-cellularity and low vascularity, leading to the formation of a fibrotic tissue affecting its functionality. Tissue engineering represents a promising solution for the regeneration of damaged tendons with the aim to stimulate tissue regeneration or to produce functional implantable biomaterials. However, any technological advancement must take into consideration the role of the immune system in tissue regeneration and the potential of biomaterial scaffolds to control the immune signaling, creating a pro-regenerative environment. In this context, immunoengineering has emerged as a new discipline, developing innovative strategies for tendon injuries. It aims at designing scaffolds, in combination with engineered bioactive molecules and/or stem cells, able to modulate the interaction between the transplanted biomaterial-scaffold and the host tissue allowing a pro-regenerative immune response, therefore hindering fibrosis occurrence at the injury site and guiding tendon regeneration. Thus, this review is aimed at giving an overview on the role exerted from different tissue engineering actors in leading immunoregeneration by crosstalking with stem and immune cells to generate new paradigms in designing regenerative medicine approaches for tendon injuries.Entities:
Keywords: biomolecules; electrospinning; immune cells; immune response; immunoengineering; mechanotransduction; scaffold; stem cells; tendon regeneration; tissue engineering
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35053383 PMCID: PMC8773518 DOI: 10.3390/cells11020266
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cells ISSN: 2073-4409 Impact factor: 6.600
Figure 1The comparative scientometric analysis of available publications on the Scopus database by using the terms “immunomodulation”, “immunomodulatory”, “immunoregenerative”, “immunoregeneration”, and “immunoengineering” reveals that: (A) only 13% of the total publications refer to the musculoskeletal tissues. (B) A deep analysis concerning the musculoskeletal tissues demonstrated that bones are the most studied tissue in this field (67%) followed by muscles (26%), cartilages (5%), and finally with the least publications number for tendons and ligaments with 1% each.
Figure 2The scientometric analysis conducted on Scopus database (304 total articles) with the aim to assess the different research topics concerning the immunoregeneration of tendon discussed in this review. The legend indicates the different keywords used in the research whereas the number of total publications for each keyword is written inside the box.
Figure 3Interaction between scaffold and host tissue after implantation. The host starts a cascade of reaction called foreign body response (FBR). (A) Blood-related proteins and circulated platelets are recruited at the implantation site and are adsorbed on the surface of the scaffold allowing the activation of the coagulation process. (B) Immune cells are recruited at the implantation site and are accumulated between the scaffold and the surrounding tissue. (C) The immune cells start to secrete pro-inflammatory cytokines and promote inflammation. (D) The protracted presence of the scaffold and the persistent inflammation accompanied with the increased number of M1 pro-inflammatory cytokines leads to a continuous activation of tenocytes which secrete more collagen, which contributes to the formation of fibrous capsule and the rejection of the scaffold. (E) The switch of macrophages towards the anti-inflammatory/pro-regenerative phenotype M2 promotes tendon regeneration and facilitates the healing process.
Figure 4Immunoregenerative strategies applied in tendon TE to modulate the immune response of immune and stem cells.
Figure 5Effects of electrospun scaffolds-based immunoregenerative strategies on macrophage polarization and stem cell immunomodulation.
Overview of the influence of different electrospun scaffolds properties on immune cells.
| Scaffold Properties | Material | Parameters | Immune Response | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Diameter size | PDO | Different fiber diameter size (0.35, 2.20, and 2.80 µm) | Increasing fiber diameter → ↑ M2 macrophages expression | [ |
| PCL | Different fiber diameters (0.69 and 5.59 μm) | Increased fiber diameter size (5.59 µm) → ↑ M2 macrophages expression | [ | |
| Alignment | PCL | Random and aligned fiber orientation; scaffolds unmodified or extended to macro-scale thicknesses of 3 or 10 mm | Expanded scaffolds ↑ regenerative answer and thinner collagen fibrous capsule compared to unexpanded nanofiber scaffolds | [ |
| PLLA | Five different types of scaffolds: | Nanofibrous PLLA scaffolds ↓ inflammatory response than films and microfibrous scaffolds | [ | |
| PCL | Random and aligned fiber orientation | Random fibers ↑ pro-inflammatory response compared to aligned fibers | [ | |
| PCL | Random and aligned fiber orientation | Aligned fibers → least amount of monocyte adhesion with a thinner fibrous capsule and more fibroblasts infiltration compared to randomly oriented fibers | [ | |
| Pore size | PDO | Different pore size (0.96, 10.57, and 14.73 µm) | 14.73 µm pore size → M2 macrophage polarization, ↑Arginase I and ↓iNOS | [ |
| Mechanical stimulus | PCL | 7 and 12% cyclic uniaxial strains (0.8 Hz) | 7% mechanical strain → ↑ MCP-1, IL-6, IL-10, and MMP-9 (M2 markers) | [ |
| CE-UPy-PCL | Cyclic strains: | High strains addressed a pro-inflammatory condition | [ | |
| PCL | Static culture (1% constant strain) and dynamic loading (7% cyclic strain at 1 Hz) | Dynamic loading → ↑ CCR7 (M1 marker) | [ | |
| Surface modification | PLLA | Lubricating layer of chitosan collagen and alginate hydrogel | ↓ Protein adsorption | [ |
| PLGA | CTS layer coating | ↓ inflammatory cells recruitment and FBGCs formation | [ | |
| PLLA | Two layers of PLLA membranes combined into a single layer | ↓ Adhesion to the tissues | [ |
PCL: polycaprolactone; CE-UPy-PCL: ureido-pyrimidinone (UPy)-modified Chain Extended Polycaprolactone; PLLA: poly(L-lactide); PDO: polydioxanone; PLGA: poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid); CTS: chitosan; ↑: increase; ↓: decrease.
Overview of the influence of different electrospun scaffolds properties on the immunomodulatory properties of stem cells.
| Material | Stem Cell Type | Propriety | Outcomes | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PCL | Rat ADMSCs | Randomly oriented, aligned and mesh-like electrospun fibers | [ | |
| PLLA | Human ADMSCs | Randomly oriented and highly aligned electrospun fibers | [ | |
| PLGA | Ovine AECs | Electrospun PLGA scaffolds with two different diameter size (1.27 and 2.50 µm) | ↑ gene expression of IL-4 and IL-10 and ↓ gene expression of IL-12 and IL-6 within small fiber diameter size (1.27 µm) | [ |
| PCL | Human ADMSCs | Electrospun PCL-DT-NPs yarns cultivated under static and magnetic stimulation conditions | ↑ gene expression of MMP-1, MMP-2, MMP-3, TIMPs, IL-10, and IL-4 with ↓ gene expression of IL-6 and COX-2 under magnetic stimulation condition | [ |
PCL: polycaprolactone; PLLA: poly(L-lactide); PLGA: poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid); ADMSC: adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells; AECs: amniotic epithelial stem cells; ↑: increase; ↓: decrease.
Overview of the influence of bioactive molecules on the immunomodulatory properties of tenocytes, stem and immune cells.
| Bioactive Molecule | Scaffold Material | Cell Type | Outcomes in the Studied Cell Type | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NSAIDs | PELA | Macrophages | ↓ inflammatory response and ↓TA | [ |
| IL-4 | CE-UPy-PCL | Macrophages | ↑ IL-10, TGF-β1 and MMP-9 | [ |
| IL-4 | PCL | Macrophages | ↑M2 macrophage markers (Arginase I, CD206…) | [ |
| 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 | PCL | Macrophages | ↓ TNF-a, IL-6 and ↑ IL-4, IL-10 | [ |
| Ibuprofen | PLA | Macrophages | ↓TNF-α expression and collagen III deposition | [ |
| Mesenchymal stromal exosomes | PEF | BM Macrophages | ↑ CD206+ M2 macrophages and the concentration of IL-4, IL-10 and IL13 | [ |
| IL-4 plasmid-loaded liposomes (aL/p) | MSaP | BM Macrophages | ↑ levels of IL-10 and TGF-β | [ |
| Melatonin | PCL | Human BMSCs | Inhibition of macrophage (CD68-positive cell) accumulation at the tendon-to-bone interface. | [ |
| MSCs-derived ECM | PCL/SF | Human BMSCs | In vitro: ↑ M2 macrophage polarization and ↓ IL -1β, IL-6, CXCL11, IL-10, IL-1R2 and TGF-β1 | [ |
| bFGF | PLLA | Human vaginal fibroblasts | ↑ concentration of TGF-β1 and | [ |
| IFN-γ | SF/PLGA | Human BMSCs | [ | |
| OLE | PHA | Human HaCaTs | [ | |
| IFN-γ and TNF-α | No scaffold | Human BMSCs | [ | |
| PRP | No scaffold | Human tenocytes | [ | |
| HGF | No scaffold | Tendon fibroblasts | [ | |
| BMP-12 | No scaffold | Human ASCs | [ |
PCL: polycaprolactone; CE-UPy-PCL: ureido-pyrimidinone (UPy)-modified chain extended polycaprolactone; PLLA: poly(L-lactide); PLA: polylactide; PLGA: poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid); PELA: poly(lactic acid-co-Ethylene glycol-co-Lactic Acid); PEF: fibrous polyester; MsaP: microsol electrospun fiber scaffold; BMMΦs: bone marrow macrophages; BMSCs: bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells; HaCaT: human dermal keratinocytes; bFGF: basic fibroblast growth factor; OLE: olive leaf extract; PRP: platelet-rich plasma; HGF: hepatocyte growth factor; ↑: increase; ↓: decrease.
Figure 6The effect of mechanotransduction cues on RhoA pathway, which in turn act on YAP/TAZ cellular distribution, and their influence on stem and immune cell immunomodulation.