Simulation of extracellular matrix remodeling by fibroblast cells in soft three-dimensional bioresorbable scaffolds
- 478 Downloads
To culture functional soft tissues and organs in three-dimensional scaffolds, it is essential to elucidate the optimal scaffold mechanical properties. However, mechanoregulated soft tissue remodeling is not well understood. In this study, we hypothesized that individual cells are capable of remodeling extracellular matrix within a short proximity of themselves in order to match the stiffness of the broader surrounding matrix. This theory was implemented in a three-dimensional finite element model to simulate soft tissue remodeling of human fibroblast cells in two collagen–chitosan scaffolds with different mechanical properties. Simulation results closely matched with previously reported experimental data, showing that soft tissue growth in compliant (Scaf-A, 4.30 kPa) and stiff (Scaf-B, 17.03 kPa) scaffolds led to an almost eightfold difference in the resulting stiffnesses after 10 days (8.40 kPa for Scaf-A, 59.25 kPa for Scaf-B). Furthermore, varying the simulated rate for tissue remodeling by \(\pm \)50 % caused unequal changes in the resulting stiffness (+3.6 and \(-\)23 % for Scaf-A, +5 and \(-\)17 % for Scaf-B), and \(\pm \)50 % changes in the assumed upper limit on tissue stiffness only had larger effects on the stiff scaffold (+42 and \(-\)44 % for Scaf-B). These results reinforce the notion that soft tissue remodeling is governed by the stiffness of the surrounding matrix, until meeting an upper limit on tissue stiffness.
KeywordsSoft tissue biomechanics Finite element analysis Scaffold Fibroblast Extracellular matrix Mechanical properties
This research was funded, in part, by the Interdisciplinary Collaboration Grants (ICG) program at Binghamton University through the Health Sciences Transdisciplinary Area of Excellence (TAE).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Byrne DP, Lacroix D, Planell JA et al (2007) Simulation of tissue differentiation in a scaffold as a function of porosity, Young’s modulus and dissolution rate: application of mechanobiological models in tissue engineering. Biomaterials 28:5544–5554. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.09.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- De Santis G, Lennon AB, Boschetti F et al (2011) How can cells sense the elasticity of a substrate? An analysis using a cell tensegrity model. Eur Cell Mater 22:202–213Google Scholar
- Göpferich A (1997) Polymer bulk erosion. Macromolecules 9297:2598–2604. doi: 10.1021/ma961627y
- Howling GI, Dettmar PW, Goddard PA et al (2002) The effect of chitin and chitosan on fibroblast-populated collagen lattice contraction. Biotechnol Appl Biochem 36:247–253. doi: 10.1042/BA20020040
- Ingber DE (2014) Mechanobiology, tissue development and organ engineering. In: Lanza, R, Langer R, Vacanti JP (eds) Principles of tissue engineering, 4th edn. Academic Press, Cambridge pp 309–322Google Scholar
- McClelland RE, Dennis R, Reid LM et al (2012) Tissue engineering. In: Enderle J, Bronzino J (eds) Introduction to biomedical engineering, 3rd edn. Academic Press, Cambridge, pp 273–357Google Scholar
- Sengers BG, Taylor M, Please CP, Oreffo ROC (2007) Computational modelling of cell spreading and tissue regeneration in porous scaffolds. Biomaterials 28:1926–1940. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.12.008