ᅟEngineering of biologic skin substitutes has progressed over time from individual applications of skin cells, or biopolymer scaffolds, to combinations of cells and scaffolds for treatment, healing, and closure of acute and chronic skin wounds. Skin substitutes may be categorized into three groups: acellular scaffolds, temporary substitutes containing allogeneic skin cells, and permanent substitutes containing autologous skin cells. Combined use of acellular dermal substitutes with permanent skin substitutes containing autologous cells has been shown to provide definitive wound closure in burns involving greater than 90% of the total body surface area. These advances have contributed to reduced morbidity and mortality from both acute and chronic wounds but, to date, have failed to replace all of the structures and functions of the skin. Among the remaining deficiencies in cellular or biologic skin substitutes are hypopigmentation, absence of stable vascular and lymphatic networks, absence of hair follicles, sebaceous and sweat glands, and incomplete innervation. Correction of these deficiencies depends on regulation of biologic pathways of embryonic and fetal development to restore the full anatomy and physiology of uninjured skin. Elucidation and integration of developmental biology into future models of biologic skin substitutes promises to restore complete anatomy and physiology, and further reduce morbidity from skin wounds and scar. This article offers a review of recent advances in skin cell thrapies and discusses the future prospects in cutaneous regeneration.
Musculoskeletal injuries greatly affect the U.S. population and current clinical approaches fail to restore long-term native tissue structure and function. Tissue engineering is a strategy advocated to improve tendon healing; however, the field still needs to establish biological benchmarks for assessing the effectiveness of tissue-engineered structures. Investigating superior healing models, such as the MRL/MpJ, offers the opportunity to first characterize successful healing and then apply experimental findings to tissue-engineered therapies. This study seeks to evaluate the MRL/MpJ’s healing response following a central patellar tendon injury compared to wildtype. Gene expression and histology were assessed at 3, 7, and 14 days following injury and mechanical properties were measured at 2, 5, and 8 weeks. Native patellar tendon biological and mechanical properties were not different between strains. Following injury, the MRL/MpJ displayed increased mechanical properties between 5 and 8 weeks; however, early tenogenic expression patterns were not different between the strains. Furthermore, expression of the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor, p21, was not different between strains, suggesting an alternative mechanism may be driving the healing response. Future studies will investigate collagen structure and alignment of the repair tissue and characterize the complete healing transcriptome to identify mechanisms driving the MRL/MpJ response.
Improving tendon repair using Functional Tissue Engineering (FTE) principles has been the focus of our laboratory over the last decade. Although our primary goals were initially focused only on mechanical outcomes, we are now carefully assessing the biological properties of our tissue-engineered tendon repairs so as to link biological influences with mechanics. However, given the complexities of tendon development and healing, it remains challenging to determine which aspects of tendon biology are the most important to focus on in the context of tissue engineering. To address this problem, we have formalized a strategy to identify, prioritize, and evaluate potential biological success criteria for tendon repair. We have defined numerous biological properties of normal tendon relative to cellular phenotype, extracellular matrix and tissue ultra-structure that we would like to reproduce in our tissue-engineered repairs and prioritized these biological criteria by examining their relative importance during both normal development and natural tendon healing. Here, we propose three specific biological criteria which we believe are essential for normal tendon function: 1) scleraxis-expressing cells; 2) well-organized and axially-aligned collagen fibrils having bimodal diameter distribution; and 3) a specialized tendon-to-bone insertion site. Moving forward, these biological success criteria will be used in conjunction with our already established mechanical success criteria to evaluate the effectiveness of our tissue-engineered tendon repairs.
In this paper, we had four primary objectives. (1) We reviewed a brief history of the Lissner award and the individual for whom it is named, H.R. Lissner. We examined the type (musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, and other) and scale (organism to molecular) of research performed by prior Lissner awardees using a hierarchical paradigm adopted at the 2007 Biomechanics Summit of the US National Committee on Biomechanics. (2) We compared the research conducted by the Lissner award winners working in the musculoskeletal (MS) field with the evolution of our MS research and showed similar trends in scale over the past 35 years. (3) We discussed our evolving mechanobiology strategies for treating musculoskeletal injuries by accounting for clinical, biomechanical, and biological considerations. These strategies included studies to determine the function of the anterior cruciate ligament and its graft replacements as well as novel methods to enhance soft tissue healing using tissue engineering, functional tissue engineering, and, more recently, fundamental tissue engineering approaches. (4) We concluded with thoughts about future directions, suggesting grand challenges still facing bioengineers as well as the immense opportunities for young investigators working in musculoskeletal research. Hopefully, these retrospective and prospective analyses will be useful as the ASME Bioengineering Division charts future research directions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.