1
|
Bi M, Yang K, Yu T, Wu G, Li Q. Cell-based mechanisms and strategies of co-culture system both in vivo and vitro for bone tissue engineering. Biomed Pharmacother 2023; 169:115907. [PMID: 37984308 DOI: 10.1016/j.biopha.2023.115907] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/09/2023] [Revised: 11/15/2023] [Accepted: 11/16/2023] [Indexed: 11/22/2023] Open
Abstract
The lack of a functional vascular supply has been identified as a major challenge limiting the clinical introduction of stem cell-based bone tissue engineering (BTE) for the repair of large-volume bone defects (LVBD). Various approaches have been explored to improve the vascular supply in tissue-engineered constructs, and the development of strategies that could effectively induce the establishment of a functional vascular supply has become a major goal of BTE research. One of the state-of-the-art methods is to incorporate both angiogenic and osteogenic cells in co-culture systems. This review clarifies the key concepts involved, summarises the cell types and models used to date, and systematically evaluates their performance. We also discuss the cell-to-cell communication between these two cell types and the strategies explored in BTE constructs with angiogenic and osteogenic cells to optimise their functions. In addition, we outline unresolved issues and remaining obstacles that need to be overcome for further development in this field and eventual successful repair of LVBD.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mengning Bi
- Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Stomatological Hospital and Dental School of Tongji University, Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Tooth Restoration and Regeneration, Shanghai, China; Department of Orthodontics, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine; College of Stomatology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University; National Center for Stomatology; National Clinical Research Center for Oral diseases; Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology; Shanghai Research Institute of Stomatology Shanghai, China
| | - Kaiwen Yang
- Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Stomatological Hospital and Dental School of Tongji University, Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Tooth Restoration and Regeneration, Shanghai, China; Department of Oral Surgery, Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine; Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology &Shanghai Research Institute of Stomatology; National Clinical Research Center of Stomatology, Shanghai, China
| | - Tao Yu
- Department of Orthopaedics, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
| | - Gang Wu
- Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery/Pathology, Amsterdam UMC and Academic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU), Amsterdam Movement Science (AMS), Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Oral Cell Biology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam (UvA) and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU), Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| | - Qiong Li
- Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Stomatological Hospital and Dental School of Tongji University, Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Tooth Restoration and Regeneration, Shanghai, China.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Dalisson B, Charbonnier B, Aoude A, Gilardino M, Harvey E, Makhoul N, Barralet J. Skeletal regeneration for segmental bone loss: Vascularised grafts, analogues and surrogates. Acta Biomater 2021; 136:37-55. [PMID: 34626818 DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2021.09.053] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/18/2021] [Revised: 09/25/2021] [Accepted: 09/28/2021] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
Massive segmental bone defects (SBD) are mostly treated by removing the fibula and transplanting it complete with blood supply. While revolutionary 50 years ago, this remains the standard treatment. This review considers different strategies to repair SBD and emerging potential replacements for this highly invasive procedure. Prior to the technical breakthrough of microsurgery, researchers in the 1960s and 1970s had begun to make considerable progress in developing non autologous routes to repairing SBD. While the breaktthrough of vascularised bone transplantation solved the immediate problem of a lack of reliable repair strategies, much of their prior work is still relevant today. We challenge the assumption that mimicry is necessary or likely to be successful and instead point to the utility of quite crude (from a materials technology perspective), approaches. Together there are quite compelling indications that the body can regenerate entire bone segments with few or no exogenous factors. This is important, as there is a limit to how expensive a bone repair can be and still be widely available to all patients since cost restraints within healthcare systems are not likely to diminish in the near future. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: This review is significant because it is a multidisciplinary view of several surgeons and scientists as to what is driving improvement in segmental bone defect repair, why many approaches to date have not succeeded and why some quite basic approaches can be as effective as they are. While there are many reviews of the literature of grafting and bone repair the relative lack of substantial improvement and slow rate of progress in clinical translation is often overlooked and we seek to challenge the reader to consider the issue more broadly.
Collapse
|
3
|
Herrmann M, Engelke K, Ebert R, Müller-Deubert S, Rudert M, Ziouti F, Jundt F, Felsenberg D, Jakob F. Interactions between Muscle and Bone-Where Physics Meets Biology. Biomolecules 2020; 10:biom10030432. [PMID: 32164381 PMCID: PMC7175139 DOI: 10.3390/biom10030432] [Citation(s) in RCA: 68] [Impact Index Per Article: 17.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/08/2020] [Revised: 02/27/2020] [Accepted: 03/05/2020] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Muscle and bone interact via physical forces and secreted osteokines and myokines. Physical forces are generated through gravity, locomotion, exercise, and external devices. Cells sense mechanical strain via adhesion molecules and translate it into biochemical responses, modulating the basic mechanisms of cellular biology such as lineage commitment, tissue formation, and maturation. This may result in the initiation of bone formation, muscle hypertrophy, and the enhanced production of extracellular matrix constituents, adhesion molecules, and cytoskeletal elements. Bone and muscle mass, resistance to strain, and the stiffness of matrix, cells, and tissues are enhanced, influencing fracture resistance and muscle power. This propagates a dynamic and continuous reciprocity of physicochemical interaction. Secreted growth and differentiation factors are important effectors of mutual interaction. The acute effects of exercise induce the secretion of exosomes with cargo molecules that are capable of mediating the endocrine effects between muscle, bone, and the organism. Long-term changes induce adaptations of the respective tissue secretome that maintain adequate homeostatic conditions. Lessons from unloading, microgravity, and disuse teach us that gratuitous tissue is removed or reorganized while immobility and inflammation trigger muscle and bone marrow fatty infiltration and propagate degenerative diseases such as sarcopenia and osteoporosis. Ongoing research will certainly find new therapeutic targets for prevention and treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marietta Herrmann
- Orthopedic Department, Bernhard-Heine-Center for Locomotion Research, IZKF Research Group Tissue regeneration in musculoskeletal diseases, University Hospital Würzburg, University of Wuerzburg, 97070 Würzburg, Germany;
| | - Klaus Engelke
- Department of Medicine 3, FAU University Erlangen-Nürnberg and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, 91054 Erlangen, Germany;
| | - Regina Ebert
- Orthopedic Department, Bernhard-Heine-Center for Locomotion Research, University of Würzburg, IGZ, 97076 Würzburg, Germany; (R.E.)
| | - Sigrid Müller-Deubert
- Orthopedic Department, Bernhard-Heine-Center for Locomotion Research, University of Würzburg, IGZ, 97076 Würzburg, Germany; (R.E.)
| | - Maximilian Rudert
- Orthopedic Department, Bernhard-Heine-Center for Locomotion Research, University of Würzburg, 97074 Würzburg, Germany;
| | - Fani Ziouti
- Department of Internal Medicine II, University Hospital Würzburg, 97080 Würzburg, Germany; (F.Z.); (F.J.)
| | - Franziska Jundt
- Department of Internal Medicine II, University Hospital Würzburg, 97080 Würzburg, Germany; (F.Z.); (F.J.)
| | - Dieter Felsenberg
- Privatpraxis für Muskel- und Knochenkrankheiten, 12163 Berlin Germany;
| | - Franz Jakob
- Orthopedic Department, Bernhard-Heine-Center for Locomotion Research, University of Würzburg, IGZ, 97076 Würzburg, Germany; (R.E.)
- Orthopedic Department, Bernhard-Heine-Center for Locomotion Research, University of Würzburg, 97074 Würzburg, Germany;
- Correspondence:
| |
Collapse
|