Advertisement

Nanofibers as Bioinstructive Scaffolds Capable of Modulating Differentiation Through Mechanosensitive Pathways for Regenerative Engineering

  • Daniel T. Bowers
  • Justin L. BrownEmail author
Review Paper
  • 44 Downloads

Abstract

Bioinstructive scaffolds encode information in the physical shape and size of materials to direct cell responses. Electrospinning of nanofibers is a process that offers control over scaffold architecture and fiber diameter, while providing extended linear length of fibers. This review summarizes tissue engineering literature that has utilized nanofiber scaffolds to direct stem cell differentiation for various tissues including the musculoskeletal, vascular, immunological, and nervous system tissues. Nanofibers are also considered for their extracellular matrix mimetic characteristics that can preserve stem cell differentiation capacity. These topics are considered in the context of focal adhesion and integrin signaling. Regenerative engineering will be enhanced by construction of scaffolds encoded with shape information to cause an attached cell to create the intended tissue at that region. Nanofibers are likely to be a bioinstructive scaffold in future regenerative engineering development as we pursue the Grand Challenges of engineering tissues.

Keywords

Biomaterials Nanofibers Bioinstructive Regenerative medicine Scaffold Stem cells 

Notes

Funding Information

Funding for this work is from the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIBIB: R21EB019230, NIAMS: R03AR065192).

References

  1. 1.
    Schwartz MA, Chen CS. Deconstructing dimensionality. Science (80- ). 2013;339:402–4.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1233814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Levinger I, Ventura Y, Vago R. Life is three dimensional-as in vitro cancer cultures should be. Adv Cancer Res. 2014;121:383–414.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800249-0.00009-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tibbitt MW, Anseth KS. Hydrogels as extracellular matrix mimics for 3D cell culture. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2009;103:655–63.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.22361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Viswanathan P, Ondeck MG, Chirasatitsin S, Ngamkham K, Reilly GC, Engler AJ, et al. 3D surface topology guides stem cell adhesion and differentiation. Biomaterials. 2015;52:140–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.01.034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barradas AMC, Monticone V, Hulsman M, Danoux C, Fernandes H, Tahmasebi Birgani Z, et al. Molecular mechanisms of biomaterial-driven osteogenic differentiation in human mesenchymal stromal cells. Integr Biol. 2013;5:920–31.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c3ib40027a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cukierman E, Pankov R, Stevens DR, Yamada KM. Taking cell-matrix adhesions to the third dimension. Science. 2001;294:1708–12.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1064829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kubow KE, Horwitz AR. Reducing background fluorescence reveals adhesions in 3D matrices. Nat Cell Biol. 2011;13:3–5; author reply 5-7.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncb0111-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fraley SI, Feng Y, Krishnamurthy R, Kim D-H, Celedon A, Longmore GD, et al. A distinctive role for focal adhesion proteins in three-dimensional cell motility. Nat Cell Biol. 2010;12:598–604.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncb2062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Caswell PT, Vadrevu S, Norman JC. Integrins: masters and slaves of endocytic transport. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2009;10:843–53.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm2799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    De Deyne PG, O’Neill A, Resneck WG, Dmytrenko GM, Pumplin DW, Bloch RJ. The vitronectin receptor associates with clathrin-coated membrane domains via the cytoplasmic domain of its beta5 subunit. J Cell Sci. 1998;111(Pt 18):2729–40.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Avinoam O, Schorb M, Beese CJ, Briggs JAG, Kaksonen M. Endocytic sites mature by continuous bending and remodeling of the clathrin coat. Science (80- ). 2015;348:1369–72.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa9555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dell’Angelica EC. Clathrin-binding proteins: got a motif? Join the network! Trends Cell Biol. 2001;11:315–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bodin S, Planchon D, Rios Morris E, Comunale F, Gauthier-Rouvière C. Flotillins in intercellular adhesion - from cellular physiology to human diseases. J Cell Sci. 2014;127:5139–47.  https://doi.org/10.1242/jcs.159764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Antonny B. Mechanisms of membrane curvature sensing. Annu Rev Biochem. 2011;80:101–23.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-biochem-052809-155121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shimada A, Niwa H, Tsujita K, Suetsugu S, Nitta K, Hanawa-Suetsugu K, et al. Curved EFC/F-BAR-domain dimers are joined end to end into a filament for membrane invagination in endocytosis. Cell. 2007;129:761–72.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2007.03.040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Birk DE, Fitch JM, Babiarz JP, Doane KJ, Linsenmayer TF. Collagen fibrillogenesis in vitro: interaction of types I and V collagen regulates fibril diameter. J Cell Sci. 1990;95(Pt 4):649–57.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Frances C, Branchet MC, Boisnic S, Lesty CL, Robert L. Elastic fibers in normal human skin. Variations with age: a morphometric analysis. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. n.d.;10:57–67.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ushiki T. Collagen fibers, reticular fibers and elastic fibers. A comprehensive understanding from a morphological viewpoint. Arch Histol Cytol. 2002;65:109–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yanagisawa H, Davis EC. Unraveling the mechanism of elastic fiber assembly: the roles of short fibulins. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2010;42:1084–93.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocel.2010.03.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tuckwell D, Humphries M. Integrin–collagen binding. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 1996;7:649–57.  https://doi.org/10.1006/scdb.1996.0079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hayman EG, Pierschbacher MD, Suzuki S, Ruoslahti E. Vitronectin--a major cell attachment-promoting protein in fetal bovine serum. Exp Cell Res. 1985;160:245–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Seiffert D, Keeton M, Eguchi Y, Sawdey M, Loskutoff DJ. Detection of vitronectin mRNA in tissues and cells of the mouse. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1991;88:9402–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lehmann M, Rabenandrasana C, Tamura R, Lissitzky JC, Quaranta V, Pichon J, et al. A monoclonal antibody inhibits adhesion to fibronectin and vitronectin of a colon carcinoma cell line and recognizes the integrins alpha v beta 3, alpha v beta 5, and alpha v beta 6. Cancer Res. 1994;54:2102–7.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ruoslahti E, Pierschbacher MD. New perspectives in cell adhesion: RGD and integrins. Science. 1987;238:491–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sobers CJ, Wood SE, Mrksich M. A gene expression-based comparison of cell adhesion to extracellular matrix and RGD-terminated monolayers. Biomaterials. 2015;52:385–94.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.02.045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhang H, Li Z, Viklund E-K, Strömblad S. P21-activated kinase 4 interacts with integrin alpha v beta 5 and regulates alpha v beta 5-mediated cell migration. J Cell Biol. 2002;158:1287–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Balcioglu HE, van Hoorn H, Donato DM, Schmidt T, Danen EHJ. The integrin expression profile modulates orientation and dynamics of force transmission at cell-matrix adhesions. J Cell Sci. 2015;128:1316–26.  https://doi.org/10.1242/jcs.156950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Danen EHJ, van Rheenen J, Franken W, Huveneers S, Sonneveld P, Jalink K, et al. Integrins control motile strategy through a Rho-cofilin pathway. J Cell Biol. 2005;169:515–26.  https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.200412081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vournakis JN, Eldridge J, Demcheva M, Muise-Helmericks RC. Poly-N-acetyl glucosamine nanofibers regulate endothelial cell movement and angiogenesis: dependency on integrin activation of Ets1. J Vasc Res. 2008;45:222–32.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000112544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zanatta G, Rudisile M, Camassola M, Wendorff J, Nardi N, Gottfried C, et al. Mesenchymal stem cell adherence on poly(D, L-lactide-co-glycolide) nanofibers scaffold is integrin-beta 1 receptor dependent. J Biomed Nanotechnol. 2012;8:211–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Huang C, Fu X, Liu J, Qi Y, Li S, Wang H. The involvement of integrin β1 signaling in the migration and myofibroblastic differentiation of skin fibroblasts on anisotropic collagen-containing nanofibers. Biomaterials. 2012;33:1791–800.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.11.025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Moreno-Layseca P, Streuli CH. Signalling pathways linking integrins with cell cycle progression. Matrix Biol. 2014;34:144–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matbio.2013.10.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zhang Z, Morla AO, Vuori K, Bauer JS, Juliano RL, Ruoslahti E. The alpha v beta 1 integrin functions as a fibronectin receptor but does not support fibronectin matrix assembly and cell migration on fibronectin. J Cell Biol. 1993;122:235–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Srinivasan S, Chhatre SS, Mabry JM, Cohen RE, McKinley GH. Solution spraying of poly(methyl methacrylate) blends to fabricate microtextured, superoleophobic surfaces. Polymer (Guildf). 2011;52:3209–18.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2011.05.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tutak W, Sarkar S, Lin-Gibson S, Farooque TM, Jyotsnendu G, Wang D, et al. The support of bone marrow stromal cell differentiation by airbrushed nanofiber scaffolds. Biomaterials. 2013;34:2389–98.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.12.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Chuo S-M, Wan M-H, Wang LA, Wang J-S. Multistage modified fiber drawing process and related diameter measuring system. J Light Technol. 2009;27:2983–8.  https://doi.org/10.1109/JLT.2009.2015059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Xing X, Wang Y, Li B. Nanofibers drawing and nanodevices assembly in poly(trimethylene terephthalate). Opt Express. 2008;16:10815–22.  https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.16.010815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jeong HE, Lee SH, Kim P, Suh KY. Stretched polymer nanohairs by nanodrawing. Nano Lett. 2006;  https://doi.org/10.1021/NL061045M.
  39. 39.
    Brown JL, Nair LS, Laurencin CT. Solvent/non-solvent sintering: a novel route to create porous microsphere scaffolds for tissue regeneration. J Biomed Mater Res Part B Appl Biomater. 2008;86B:396–406.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.31033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Brown JL, Peach MS, Nair LS, Kumbar SG, Laurencin CT. Composite scaffolds: bridging nanofiber and microsphere architectures to improve bioactivity of mechanically competent constructs. J Biomed Mater Res Part A. 2010;95A:1150–8.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.32934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Shah RN, Shah NA, Del Rosario Lim MM, Hsieh C, Nuber G, Stupp SI. Supramolecular design of self-assembling nanofibers for cartilage regeneration. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107:3293–8.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0906501107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zhang S, Greenfield MA, Mata A, Palmer LC, Bitton R, Mantei JR, et al. A self-assembly pathway to aligned monodomain gels. Nat Mater. 2010;9:594–601.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat2778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hashemi SM, Soudi S, Shabani I, Naderi M, Soleimani M. The promotion of stemness and pluripotency following feeder-free culture of embryonic stem cells on collagen-grafted 3-dimensional nanofibrous scaffold. Biomaterials. 2011;32:7363–74.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.06.048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lee ST, Yun JI, Jo YS, Mochizuki M, van der Vlies AJ, Kontos S, et al. Engineering integrin signaling for promoting embryonic stem cell self-renewal in a precisely defined niche. Biomaterials. 2010;31:1219–26.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.10.054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wei J, Han J, Zhao Y, Cui Y, Wang B, Xiao Z, et al. The importance of three-dimensional scaffold structure on stemness maintenance of mouse embryonic stem cells. Biomaterials. 2014;35:7724–33.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.05.060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zhang D, Kilian KA. The effect of mesenchymal stem cell shape on the maintenance of multipotency. Biomaterials. 2013;34:3962–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.02.029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lü D, Luo C, Zhang C, Li Z, Long M. Differential regulation of morphology and stemness of mouse embryonic stem cells by substrate stiffness and topography. Biomaterials. 2014;35:3945–55.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.01.066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Engler AJ, Sen S, Sweeney HL, Discher DE. Matrix elasticity directs stem cell lineage specification. Cell. 2006;126:677–89.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2006.06.044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hofmeister LH, Costa L, Balikov DA, Crowder SW, Terekhov A, Sung H-J, et al. Patterned polymer matrix promotes stemness and cell-cell interaction of adult stem cells. J Biol Eng. 2015;9:18.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13036-015-0016-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Newman P, Galenano-Niño JL, Graney P, Razal JM, Minett AI, Ribas J, et al. Relationship between nanotopographical alignment and stem cell fate with live imaging and shape analysis. Sci Rep. 2016;6:37909.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep37909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Zhou Y, Mao H, Joddar B, Umeki N, Sako Y, Wada K-I, et al. The significance of membrane fluidity of feeder cell-derived substrates for maintenance of iPS cell stemness. Sci Rep. 2015;5:11386.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep11386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Shin M, Yoshimoto H, Vacanti JP. In vivo bone tissue engineering using mesenchymal stem cells on a novel electrospun nanofibrous scaffold. Tissue Eng. 2004;10:33–41.  https://doi.org/10.1089/107632704322791673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Xue R, Qian Y, Li L, Yao G, Yang L, Sun Y. Polycaprolactone nanofiber scaffold enhances the osteogenic differentiation potency of various human tissue-derived mesenchymal stem cells. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2017;8:148.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13287-017-0588-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Wu G, Pan M, Wang X, Wen J, Cao S, Li Z, et al. Osteogenesis of peripheral blood mesenchymal stem cells in self assembling peptide nanofiber for healing critical size calvarial bony defect. Sci Rep. 2015;5:16681.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep16681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Ruckh TT, Kumar K, Kipper MJ, Popat KC. Osteogenic differentiation of bone marrow stromal cells on poly(ε-caprolactone) nanofiber scaffolds. Acta Biomater. 2010;6:2949–59.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2010.02.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Sonomoto K, Yamaoka K, Kaneko H, Yamagata K, Sakata K, Zhang X, et al. Spontaneous differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells on poly-lactic-co-glycolic acid nano-fiber scaffold. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0153231.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kilian KA, Bugarija B, Lahn BT, Mrksich M. Geometric cues for directing the differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107:4872–7.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903269107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Eyckmans J, Lin GL, Chen CS. Adhesive and mechanical regulation of mesenchymal stem cell differentiation in human bone marrow and periosteum-derived progenitor cells. Biol Open. 2012;1:1058–68.  https://doi.org/10.1242/bio.20122162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Higgins AM, Banik BL, Brown JL. Geometry sensing through POR1 regulates Rac1 activity controlling early osteoblast differentiation in response to nanofiber diameter. Integr Biol. 2015;7:229–36.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C4IB00225C.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Tang J, Peng R, Ding J. The regulation of stem cell differentiation by cell-cell contact on micropatterned material surfaces. Biomaterials. 2010;31:2470–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.12.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Chen C-H, Chen S-H, Kuo C-Y, Li M-L, Chen J-P. Response of dermal fibroblasts to biochemical and physical cues in aligned polycaprolactone/silk fibroin nanofiber scaffolds for application in tendon tissue engineering. Nanomater (Basel, Switzerland). 2017;7:219.  https://doi.org/10.3390/nano7080219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Ingavle GC, Leach JK. Advancements in electrospinning of polymeric nanofibrous scaffolds for tissue engineering. Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 2014;20:277–93.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.teb.2013.0276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    James R, Laurencin CT. Nanofiber technology: its transformative role in nanomedicine. Nanomedicine (Lond). 2016;11:1499–501.  https://doi.org/10.2217/nnm.16.44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Santoro M, Shah SR, Walker JL, Mikos AG. Poly(lactic acid) nanofibrous scaffolds for tissue engineering. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2016;107:206–12.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2016.04.019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Nerem RM, Seliktar D. Vascular tissue engineering. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2001;3:225–43.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.bioeng.3.1.225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Ju YM, Ahn H, Arenas-Herrera J, Kim C, Abolbashari M, Atala A, et al. Electrospun vascular scaffold for cellularized small diameter blood vessels: a preclinical large animal study. Acta Biomater. 2017;59:58–67.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2017.06.027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Syedain Z, Reimer J, Lahti M, Berry J, Johnson S, Tranquillo RT. Tissue engineering of acellular vascular grafts capable of somatic growth in young lambs. Nat Commun. 2016;7:12951.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Ghaedi M, Soleimani M, Shabani I, Duan Y, Lotfi AS. Hepatic differentiation from human mesenchymal stem cells on a novel nanofiber scaffold. Cell Mol Biol Lett. 2012;17:89–106.  https://doi.org/10.2478/s11658-011-0040-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Bhattacharya M, Malinen MM, Lauren P, Lou Y-R, Kuisma SW, Kanninen L, et al. Nanofibrillar cellulose hydrogel promotes three-dimensional liver cell culture. J Control Release. 2012;164:291–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconrel.2012.06.039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Malinen MM, Kanninen LK, Corlu A, Isoniemi HM, Lou Y-R, Yliperttula ML, et al. Differentiation of liver progenitor cell line to functional organotypic cultures in 3D nanofibrillar cellulose and hyaluronan-gelatin hydrogels. Biomaterials. 2014;35:5110–21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.03.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Feng Z-Q, Chu X, Huang N-P, Wang T, Wang Y, Shi X, et al. The effect of nanofibrous galactosylated chitosan scaffolds on the formation of rat primary hepatocyte aggregates and the maintenance of liver function. Biomaterials. 2009;30:2753–63.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.01.053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Dankers PYW, Boomker JM, Huizinga-van der Vlag A, Wisse E, Appel WPJ, Smedts FMM, et al. Bioengineering of living renal membranes consisting of hierarchical, bioactive supramolecular meshes and human tubular cells. Biomaterials. 2011;32:723–33.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.09.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    MacGregor-Ramiasa M, Hopp I, Bachhuka A, Murray P, Vasilev K. Surface nanotopography guides kidney-derived stem cell differentiation into podocytes. Acta Biomater. 2017;56:171–80.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2017.02.036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Derakhshan MA, Pourmand G, Ai J, Ghanbari H, Dinarvand R, Naji M, et al. Electrospun PLLA nanofiber scaffolds for bladder smooth muscle reconstruction. Int Urol Nephrol. 2016;48:1097–104.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-016-1259-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Pokrywczynska M, Jundzill A, Adamowicz J, Kowalczyk T, Warda K, Rasmus M, et al. Is the poly (L- lactide- co- caprolactone) nanofibrous membrane suitable for urinary bladder regeneration? PLoS One. 2014;9:e105295.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Tuckett AZ, Yang X, Wang L, Wang H, van den Brink MRM, Zakrzewski JL. In vivo generation of thymus-independent T cells in a tissue-engineered T cell development supporting microenvironment. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2013;19:S208–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BBMT.2012.11.235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Singh A. Biomaterials innovation for next generation ex vivo immune tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2017;130:104–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2017.03.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Fan Y, Tajima A, Goh SK, Geng X, Gualtierotti G, Grupillo M, et al. Bioengineering thymus organoids to restore thymic function and induce donor-specific immune tolerance to allografts. Mol Ther. 2015;23:1262–77.  https://doi.org/10.1038/mt.2015.77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Silva GA, Czeisler C, Niece KL, Beniash E, Harrington DA, Kessler JA, et al. Selective differentiation of neural progenitor cells by high-epitope density nanofibers. Science. 2004;303:1352–5.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1093783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Mahairaki V, Lim SH, Christopherson GT, Xu L, Nasonkin I, Yu C, et al. Nanofiber matrices promote the neuronal differentiation of human embryonic stem cell-derived neural precursors in vitro. Tissue Eng Part A. 2011;17:855–63.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.tea.2010.0377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Lim SH, Liu XY, Song H, Yarema KJ, Mao H-Q. The effect of nanofiber-guided cell alignment on the preferential differentiation of neural stem cells. Biomaterials. 2010;31:9031–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.08.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Regenerative Engineering Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations