| Literature DB >> 35845417 |
Qian Zhang1, Yixin Hu1, Xuan Long2, Lingling Hu1, Yu Wu1, Ji Wu1, Xiaobing Shi1, Runqi Xie1, Yu Bi1, Fangyuan Yu3, Pinxue Li4, Yu Yang1.
Abstract
Cartilage regeneration is dependent on cellular-extracellular matrix (ECM) interactions. Natural ECM plays a role in mechanical and chemical cell signaling and promotes stem cell recruitment, differentiation and tissue regeneration in the absence of biological additives, including growth factors and peptides. To date, traditional tissue engineering methods by using natural and synthetic materials have not been able to replicate the physiological structure (biochemical composition and biomechanical properties) of natural cartilage. Techniques facilitating the repair and/or regeneration of articular cartilage pose a significant challenge for orthopedic surgeons. Whereas, little progress has been made in this field. In recent years, with advances in medicine, biochemistry and materials science, to meet the regenerative requirements of the heterogeneous and layered structure of native articular cartilage (AC) tissue, a series of tissue engineering scaffolds based on ECM materials have been developed. These scaffolds mimic the versatility of the native ECM in function, composition and dynamic properties and some of which are designed to improve cartilage regeneration. This review systematically investigates the following: the characteristics of cartilage ECM, repair mechanisms, decellularization method, source of ECM, and various ECM-based cartilage repair methods. In addition, the future development of ECM-based biomaterials is hypothesized.Entities:
Keywords: articular cartilage regeneration; decellularization; extracellular matrix; mesenchymal stem cells; tissue engineering
Year: 2022 PMID: 35845417 PMCID: PMC9280718 DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.908082
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Bioeng Biotechnol ISSN: 2296-4185
Comparison of cartilage defect treatments widely used in clinics.
| Treatment | Defect Area | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|
| MF | <2 cm2 | Regenerated cartilage is mainly composed of fibrous cartilage |
| ACI | >2 cm2 | Two operations required, limitations in donor site, frequent donor site complications, uneven cellular distribution in receptor site, frequent cellular loss, unstable cellular phenotypes |
| Autologous cartilage transplantation | <4 cm2 | Limitations in donor site, donor site complications, graft is not matched to the defect |
| Allogeneic cartilage transplantation | >4 cm2 | Requirement to sustain chondrocyte viability, high standard donor age and challenges in preserving grafts |
FIGURE 1ECM-based biological scaffolds for AC defect repair.
FIGURE 2AC tissue decellularization.
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 |
|
| 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 |
|
| 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 |
|
| 2. Less damage to other bioactive components | 2. Immune response caused by residual enzyme reagents |