Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology

, Volume 12, Issue 5, pp 901–913 | Cite as

Influence of tissue- and cell-scale extracellular matrix distribution on the mechanical properties of tissue-engineered cartilage

  • Mehdi Khoshgoftar
  • Wouter Wilson
  • Keita Ito
  • Corrinus C. van Donkelaar
Original Paper

Abstract

The insufficient load-bearing capacity of today’s tissue- engineered (TE) cartilage limits its clinical application. Generally, cartilage TE studies aim to increase the extracellular matrix (ECM) content, as this is thought to determine the load-bearing properties of the cartilage. However, there are apparent inconsistencies in the literature regarding the correlation between ECM content and mechanical properties of TE constructs. In addition to the amount of ECM, the spatial inhomogeneities in ECM distribution at the tissue scale as well as at the cell scale may affect the mechanical properties of TE cartilage. The relative importance of such structural inhomogeneities on mechanical behavior of TE cartilage is unknown. The aim of the present study was, therefore, to theoretically elucidate the influence of these inhomogeneities on the mechanical behavior of chondrocyte-agarose TE constructs. A validated non-linear fiber-reinforced poro-elastic swelling cartilage model that can accommodate for effects of collagen reinforcement and swelling by proteoglycans was used. At the tissue scale, ECM was gradually varied from predominantly localized in the periphery of the TE construct toward an ECM-rich inner core. The effect of these inhomogeneities in relation to the total amount of ECM was also evaluated. At the cell scale, ECM was gradually varied from localized in the pericellular area, toward equally distributed throughout the interterritorial area. Results from the tissue-scale model indicated that localization of ECM in either the construct periphery or in the inner core may reduce construct stiffness compared with that of constructs with homogeneous ECM. Such effects are more significant at high ECM amounts. At the cell scale, localization of ECM around the cells significantly reduced the overall stiffness, even at low ECM amounts. The compressive stiffness gradually increased when ECM distribution became more homogeneous and the osmotic swelling pressure in the interterritorial area increased. We conclude that for the same amount of ECM content in TE cartilage constructs, superior mechanical properties can be achieved with more homogeneous ECM distribution at both tissue and cell scale. Inhomogeneities at the cell scale are more important than those at the tissue scale.

References

  1. Basser PJ, Schneiderman R, Bank RA et al (1998) Mechanical properties of the collagen network in human articular cartilage as measured by osmotic stress technique. Arch Biochem Biophys 351(2): 207–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bentley G, Biant LC, Carrington RWJ et al (2003) A prospective, randomised comparison of autologous chondrocyte implantation versus mosaicplasty for osteochondral defects in the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br 85(2):223–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bevill SL, Thambyah A, Broom ND (2010) New insights into the role of the superficial tangential zone in influencing the micro-structural response of articular cartilage to compression. Osteoarthr Cartil 18(10):1310–1318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bian L, Crivello KM, Ng KW et al (2009) Influence of temporary chondroitinase ABC-induced glycosaminoglycan suppression on maturation of tissue-engineered cartilage. Tissue Eng Part A 15(8): 2065–2072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bian L, Fong JV, Lima EG et al (2010) Dynamic mechanical loading enhances functional properties of tissue-engineered cartilage using mature canine chondrocytes. Tissue Eng Part A 16(5):1781–1790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Breuls RGM, Sengers BG, Oomens CWJ et al (2002) Predicting local cell deformations in engineered tissue constructs: A multilevel finite element approach. J Biomech Eng 124(2):198–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bryant SJ, Anseth KS (2002) Hydrogel properties influence ECM production by chondrocytes photoencapsulated in poly(ethylene glycol) hydrogels. J Biomed Mater Res 59:63–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buckwalter JA, Mankin HJ (1998) Articular cartilage repair and transplantation. Arthritis Rheum 41(18):1331–1342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buschmann M, Gluzband Y, Grodzinsky A, Hunziker E (1995) Mechanical compression modulates matrix biosynthesis in chondrocyte/agarose culture. J Cell Sci 108(4):1497–1508Google Scholar
  10. Carver SE, Heath CA (1999) Influence of intermittent pressure, fluid flow, and mixing on the regenerative properties of articular chondrocytes. Biotechnol Bioeng 65(3):274–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Erickson IE, Huang AH, Sengupta S et al (2009) Macromer density influences mesenchymal stem cell chondrogenesis and maturation in photocrosslinked hyaluronic acid hydrogels. Osteoarthr Cartil 17(12):1639–1648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ge Z, Li C, Heng BC, Cao G, Yang Z (2012) Functional biomaterials for cartilage regeneration. J Biomed Mater Res A doi:10.1002/jbm.a.34147
  13. Getgood A, Brooks R, Fortier L, Rushton N (2009) Articular cartilage tissue engineering: today’s research, tomorrow’s practice? J Bone Joint Surg Br 91(5):565–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gu WY, Yao H, Huang CY, Cheung HS (2003) New insight into deformation-dependent hydraulic permeability of gels and cartilage, and dynamic behavior of agarose gels in confined compression. J Biomech 36:593–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guilak F, Mow VC (2000) The mechanical environment of the chondrocyte: a biphasic finite element model of cell–matrix interactions in articular cartilage. J Biomech 33(12):1663–1673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hasler EM, Herzog W, Wu JZ et al (1999) Articular cartilage biomechanics: theoretical models, material properties, and biosynthetic response. Crit Rev Biomed Eng 27(6):415–488Google Scholar
  17. Heywood H, Sembi P, Lee D, Bader D (2004) Cellular utilization determines viability and matrix distribution profiles in chondrocyte-seeded alginate constructs. Tissue Eng 10(9–10):1467–1479Google Scholar
  18. Hunziker EB (2002) Articular cartilage repair: basic science and clinical progress. A review of the current status and prospects. Osteoarthr Cartil 10(6):432–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hunziker EB (2009) The elusive path to cartilage regeneration. Adv Mater 21(32–33):3419–3424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huyghe JM, Houben GB, Drost MR, van Donkelaar CC (2003) An ionised/non-ionised dual porosity model of intervertebral disc tissue. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 2(1):3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huyghe JM, Janssen JD (1997) Quadriphasic theory of swelling incompressible porous media. Int J Eng Sci 35:793–802CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Iwasa J, Engebretsen L, Shima Y, Ochi M (2009) Clinical application of scaffolds for cartilage tissue engineering. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 17(6):561–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jones WR, Ting-Beall HP, Lee GM et al (1999) Alterations in the young’s modulus and volumetric properties of chondrocytes isolated from normal and osteoarthritic human cartilage. J Biomech 32(2):119–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kelly DJ, Prendergast PJ (2004) Effect of a degraded core on the mechanical behaviour of tissue-engineered cartilage constructs: a poro-elastic finite element analysis. Med Biolog Eng Comput 42(1):9–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kelly TAN, Ng KW, Wang CC et al (2006) Spatial and temporal development of chondrocyte-seeded agarose constructs in free-swelling and dynamically loaded cultures. J Biomech 39(8):1489–1497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Khoshgoftar M, Wilson W, Ito K, van Donkelaar CC (2012) The effect of tissue-engineered cartilage biomechanical and biochemical properties on its post-implantation mechanical behavior. Biomech Model Mechanobiol. doi:10.1007/s10237-012-0380-0
  27. Kock LM, Ito K, van Donkelaar CC (2012a) Low agarose concentration and tgf-3 distribute ECM in tissue-engineered cartilage. J Biomech 45(S1):S649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kock LM, van Donkelaar CC, Ito K (2012b) Tissue engineering of functional articular cartilage: the current status. Cells Tissue Res 347(3):613–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Korhonen RK, Julkunen P, Wilson W, Herzog W (2008) Importance of collagen orientation and depth-dependent fixed charge densities of cartilage on mechanical behavior of chondrocytes. J Biomech Eng 130(2):021003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kreuz PC, Steinwachs MR, Erggelet C et al (2006) Results after microfracture of full-thickness chondral defects in different compartments in the knee. Osteoarthr Cartil 14(11):1119–1125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kuo CK, Li WJ, Mauck RL, Tuan RS (2006) Cartilage tissue engineering: its potential and uses. Current Opinion Rheum 18(1):64–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kouznetsova V, Brekelmans WAM, Baaijens FPT (2001) An approach to micro-macro modeling of heterogeneous materials. Comput Mech 27(1):37–48CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Lee DA, Knight MM, Bolton JF et al (2000) Chondrocyte deformation within compressed agarose constructs at the cellular and sub-cellular levels. J Biomech 33(1):81–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lima EG, Bian L, Ng KW et al (2007) The beneficial effect of delayed compressive loading on tissue-engineered cartilage constructs cultured with TGF-beta3. Osteoarthr Cartil 15(9):1025–1033Google Scholar
  35. Mauck RL, Seyhan SL, Ateshian GA, Hung CT (2002) The influence of seeding density and dynamic deformational loading in the development of structure/function relationships of chondrocyte-seeded agarose hydrogels. Ann Biomed Eng 30(8):1046–1056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mauck RL, Wang CC-B, Oswald ES et al (2003) The role of cell seeding density and nutrient supply for articular cartilage tissue engineering with deformational loading. Osteoarthr Cartil 11(12):879–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mow V, Ratcliffe A (1997) Structure and function of articular cartilage and meniscus. In: Mow V, Hayes W (eds) Basic orthopaedic biomechanics. Raven Press, New York, pp 113–177Google Scholar
  38. Narmoneva DA, Wang JY, Setton LA (1999) Nonuniform swelling-induced residual strains in articular cartilage. J Biomech 32(4): 401–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nesic D, Whiteside R, Brittberg M et al (2006) Cartilage tissue engineering for degenerative joint disease. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 58(2): 300–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Noth U, Steinert AF, Tuan RS (2008) Technology insight: adult mesenchymal stem cells for osteoarthritis therapy. Nat Clin Pract Rheum 4(7):371–380Google Scholar
  41. Owen JR, Wayne JS (2006) Influence of a superficial tangential zone over repairing cartilage defects: implications for tissue engineering. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 5(2–3):102–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Owen JR, Wayne JS (2011) Contact models of repaired articular surfaces: influence of loading conditions and the superficial tangential zone. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 10(4):461–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pei M, Seidel G, Vunjak-Novakovic G, Freed LE (2002) Growth factors for sequential cellular de- and re-differentiation in tissue engineering. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 294(1):149–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Quinn TM, Grodzinsky AJ, Buschmann MD et al (1998) Mechanical compression alters proteoglycan deposition and matrix deformation around individual cells in cartilage explants. J Cell Sci 111(5):573–583Google Scholar
  45. Redman SN, Oldfield SF, Archer CW (2005) Current strategies for articular cartilage repair. Eur Cell Mater 9:23–32Google Scholar
  46. Risbud MV, Sittinger M (2002) Tissue engineering: advances in in vitro cartilage generation. Trend Biotechnol 20(8):351–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Revell CM, Athanasiou KA (2009) Success rates and immunologic responses of autogenic, allogenic, and xenogenic treatments to repair articular cartilage defects. Tissue Eng Part B Rev 15(1):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sengers BG, van Donkelaar CC, Oomens CWJ, Baaijens FPT (2005) Computational study of culture conditions and nutrient supply in cartilage tissue engineering. Biotechnol Prog 21(4):1252–1261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sengers BG, van Donkelaar CC, Oomens CWJ, Baaijens FPT (2004) The local matrix distribution and the functional development of tissue engineered cartilage, a finite element study. Ann Biomed Eng 32(12):1718–1727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shapiro EM, Borthakur A, Kaufman JH et al (2001) Water distribution patterns inside bovine articular cartilage as visualized by 1H magnetic resonance imaging. Osteoarthr Cartil 9(6):533–538 Google Scholar
  51. Shirazi R, Shirazi-Adl A, Hurtig M (2008) Role of cartilage collagen fibrils networks in knee joint biomechanics under compression. J Biomech 41(16):3340–3348Google Scholar
  52. van Donkelaar CC, Chao GE, Bader DL, Oomens CWJ (2011) A reaction-diffusion model to predict the influence of neo-matrix on the subsequent development of tissue engineered cartilage. Comp Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 14(5):425–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vinatier C, Mrugala D, Jorgensen C et al (2009) Cartilage engineering: a crucial combination of cells, biomaterials and biofactors. Trends Biotechnol 27(5):307–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vunjak-Novakovic G, Martin I, Obradovic B et al (1999) Bioreactor cultivation conditions modulate the composition and mechanical properties of tissue-engineered cartilage. J Orthop Res 17(1):130–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wieland HA, Michaelis M, Kirschbaum BJ, Rudolphi KA (2005) Osteoarthritis—an untreatable disease? Nat Rev Drug Discov 4(4): 331–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wilson W, Huyghe JM, van Donkelaar CC (2006) A composition-based cartilage model for the assessment of compositional changes during cartilage damage and adaptation. Osteoarthr Cartil 14(6):554–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wilson W, Huyghe JM, van Donkelaar CC (2007) Depth-dependent compressive equilibrium properties of articular cartilage explained by its composition. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 6(1–2):43–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wilson W, van Donkelaar CC, van Rietbergen B et al (2004) Stresses in the local collagen network of articular cartilage: a poroviscoelastic fibril-reinforced finite element study. J Biomech 37(3):357–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mehdi Khoshgoftar
    • 1
  • Wouter Wilson
    • 1
  • Keita Ito
    • 1
  • Corrinus C. van Donkelaar
    • 1
  1. 1.Orthopaedic Biomechanics, Department of Biomedical EngineeringEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations