World Journal of Urology

, 26:315 | Cite as

Bladder tissue engineering through nanotechnology

  • Daniel A. Harrington
  • Arun K. Sharma
  • Bradley A. Erickson
  • Earl Y. Cheng
Topic Paper

Abstract

The field of tissue engineering has developed in phases: initially researchers searched for “inert” biomaterials to act solely as replacement structures in the body. Then, they explored biodegradable scaffolds—both naturally derived and synthetic—for the temporary support of growing tissues. Now, a third phase of tissue engineering has developed, through the subcategory of “regenerative medicine.” This renewed focus toward control over tissue morphology and cell phenotype requires proportional advances in scaffold design. Discoveries in nanotechnology have driven both our understanding of cell–substrate interactions, and our ability to influence them. By operating at the size regime of proteins themselves, nanotechnology gives us the opportunity to directly speak the language of cells, through reliable, repeatable creation of nanoscale features. Understanding the synthesis of nanoscale materials, via “top-down” and “bottom-up” strategies, allows researchers to assess the capabilities and limits inherent in both techniques. Urology research as a whole, and bladder regeneration in particular, are well-positioned to benefit from such advances, since our present technology has yet to reach the end goal of functional bladder restoration. In this article, we discuss the current applications of nanoscale materials to bladder tissue engineering, and encourage researchers to explore these interdisciplinary technologies now, or risk playing catch-up in the future.

Keywords

Bladder Tissue engineering Regenerative medicine Nanotechnology Self-assembly Supramolecular Scaffold Biomaterial Top-down Bottom-up Stem cell 

References

  1. 1.
    Gurocak S, Nuininga J, Ure I, DeGier RPE, Tan MO, Feitz W (2007) Bladder augmentation: review of the literature and recent advances. Indian J Urol 23:452–457CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kropp BP, Rippy MK, Badylak SF, Adams MC, Keating MA, Rink RC, Thor KB (1996) Regenerative urinary bladder augmentation using small intestinal submucosa: urodynamic and histopathologic assessment in long-term canine bladder augmentations. J Urol 155:2098–2104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Oberpenning F, Meng J, Yoo JJ, Atala A (1999) De novo reconstitution of a functional mammalian urinary bladder by tissue engineering. Nat Biotechnol 17:149–155PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lewis JM, Cheng EY (2007) Non-traditional management of the neurogenic bladder: tissue engineering and neuromodulation. Sci World J 7:1230–1241Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kanematsu A, Yamamoto S, Ogawa O (2007) Changing concepts of bladder regeneration. Int J Urol 14:673–678PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hasirci V, Vrana E, Zorlutuna P, Ndreu A, Yilgor P, Basmanav FB, Aydin E (2006) Nanobiomaterials: a review of the existing science and technology, and new approaches. J Biomater Sci Polym Edn 17:1241–1268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hirsch LR, Stafford RJ, Bankson JA, Sershen SR, Rivera B, Price RE, Hazle JD, Halas NJ, West JL (2003) Nanoshell-mediated near-infrared thermal therapy of tumors under magnetic resonance guidance. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100:13549–13554PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fujiyama C, Masaki Z, Sugihara H (1995) Reconstruction of the urinary bladder mucosa in three-dimensional collagen gel culture: fibroblast-extracellular matrix interactions on the differentiation of transitional epithelial cells. J Urol 153:2060–2067PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dankers PYW, Meijer EW (2007) Supramolecular biomaterials: a modular approach towards tissue engineering. Bull Chem Soc Jpn 80:2047–2073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Silva G, Czeisler C, Neice K, Beniash E, Harrington DA, Kessler J, Stupp SI (2004) Selective differentiation of neural progenitor cells by high-epitope density nanofibers. Science 303:1352–1357PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhang S (2003) Fabrication of novel biomaterials through molecular self-assembly. Nat Biotechnol 21:1171–1178PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee H, Lee BP, Messersmith PB (2007) A reversible wet/dry adhesive inspired by mussels and geckos. Nature 448:338–341PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hurst SJ, Payne EK, Qin L, Mirkin CA (2006) Multisegmented one dimensional nanorods prepared by hard-template synthetic methods. Angew Chem Int Edit 45:2672–2692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kreunin P, Zhao J, Rosser C, Urquidi V, Lubman DM, Goodison S (2007) Bladder cancer associated glycoprotein signatures revealed by urinary proteomic profiling. J Proteome Res 6:2631–2639PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Oehr P (2003) Proteomics as a tool for detection of nuclear matrix proteins and new biomarkers for screening of early tumors stage. Anticancer Res 23:805–812PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Abrams GA, Murphy CJ, Wang ZY, Nealey PF, Bjorling DE (2003) Ultrastructural basement membrane topography of the bladder epithelium. Urol Res 31:341–346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Song YS, Ku JH (2007) Monitoring transplanted human mesenchymal stem cells in rat and rabbit bladders using molecular magnetic resonance imaging. Neurourol Urodyn 26:584–593PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Estrada CR, Salanga M, Bielenberg DR, Harrell WB, Zurakowski D, Zhu X, Palmer MR, Freeman MR, Adam RM (2006) Behavioral profiling of human transitional cell carcinoma ex vivo. Cancer Res 66:3078–3086PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tyagi P, Wu PC, Chancellor M, Yoshimura N, Huang L (2006) Recent advances in intravesical drug/gene delivery. Mol Pharm 3:369–379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhou J, Zeng FQ, Li C, Tong QS, Gao X, Xie SS, Yu LZ (2005) Preparation of arsenic trioxide-loaded albuminutes immuno-nanospheres and its specific killing effect on bladder cancer cell in vitro. Chin Med J 118:50–55PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sheng J, Samten BK, Xie SS, Wei SL (1995) Study on the specific killing activity of albumin nanoparticles containing adriamycin targeted by monoclonal antibody BDI-1 to human bladder cancer cells. Yao Hsueh Hsueh Pao 30:706–710PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lu Z, Yeh TK, Tsai M, Au JL, Wientjes MG (2004) Paclitaxel-loaded gelatin nanoparticles for intravesical bladder cancer therapy. Clin Cancer Res 10:7677–7684PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cao ZG, Zhou SW, Sun K, Lu XB, Luo G, Liu JH (2004) Preparation and feasibility of superparamagnetic dextran iron oxide nanoparticles as gene carrier. Ai Zheng 23:1105–1109PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shergill IS, Rao A, Arya M, Patel H, Gill IS (2006) Nanotechnology: potential applications in urology. BJU Int 97:219–225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pattison MA, Wurster S, Webster TJ, Haberstroh KM (2005) Three-dimensional, nano-structured PLGA scaffolds for bladder tissue replacement applications. Biomaterials 26:2491–2500PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Thapa A, Webster TJ, Haberstroh KM (2003) Polymers with nano-dimensional surface features enhance bladder smooth muscle cell adhesion. J Biomed Mater Res A 67:1374–1383PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Miller DC, Haberstroh KM, Webster TJ (2005) Mechanism(s) of increased vascular cell adhesion on nanostructured poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) films. J Biomed Mater Res A 73:476–484PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pham QP, Sharma U, Mikos A (2006) Electrospinning of polymeric nanofibers for tissue engineering applications: a review. Tissue Eng 12:1197–1211PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Baker SC, Atkin N, Gunning PA, Granville N, Wilson K, Wilson D, Southgate J (2006) Characterisation of electrospun polystyrene scaffolds for three-dimensional in vitro biological studies. Biomaterials 27:3136–3146PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    McManus M, Boland E, Sell S, Bowen W, Koo H, Simpson D, Bowlin G (2007) Electrospun nanofibre fibrinogen for urinary tract tissue reconstruction. Biomed Mater 2:257–262PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Han D, Gouma P-I (2006) Electrospun bioscaffolds that mimic the topology of extracellular matrix. Nanomed Nanotechnol Biol Med 2:37–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Harrington DA, Cheng EY, Guler MO, Lee LK, Donovan JL, Claussen RC, Stupp SI (2006) Branched peptide-amphiphiles as self-assembling coatings for tissue engineering scaffolds. J Biomed Mater Res A 78:157–167PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hartgerink JD, Beniash E, Stupp SI (2002) Peptide-amphiphile nanofibers: a versatile scaffold for the preparation of self-assembling materials. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:5133–5138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hwang J, Iyer SN, Li L-S, Claussen RC, Harrington DA, Stupp SI (2002) Self-assembling biomaterials: liquid crystal phases of cholesteryl oligo(L-lactic acid) and their interactions with cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci 99:9662–9667PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hwang JJ, Harrington DA, Stupp SI (2001) In: Atala A, Lanza RP (eds) Methods of tissue engineering. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 741–750Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Behanna HA, Donners JJJM, Gordon AC, Stupp SI (2005) Coassembly of amphiphiles with opposite peptide polarities into nanofibers. J Am Chem Soc 127:1193–2000PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Beqaj SH, Donovan JL, Lu DB, Harrington DA, Alpert SA, Cheng EY (2005) Role of basic fibroblast growth factor in the neuropathic bladder phenotype. J Urol 174:1699–1703PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Imamura M, Kanematsu A, Yamamoto S, Kimura Y, Kanatani I, Ito N, Tabata Y, Ogawa O (2007) Basic fibroblast growth factor modulates proliferation and collagen expression in urinary bladder smooth muscle cells. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 293:F1007–F1017PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Guvendiren M, Shull KR (2007) Self-assembly of acrylic triblock hydrogels by vapor-phase solvent exchange. Soft Matter 3:619–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Jack GS, Almeida FG, Zhang R, Alfonso ZC, Zuk PA, Rodriguez LV (2005) Processed lipoaspirate cells for tissue engineering of the lower urinary tract: implications for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence and bladder reconstruction. J Urol 174:2041–2045PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kanematsu A, Yamamoto S, Iwai-Kanai E, Kanatani I, Imamura M, Adam RM, Tabata Y, Ogawa O (2005) Induction of smooth muscle cell-like phenotype in marrow-derived cells among regenerating urinary bladder smooth muscle cells. Am J Pathol 166:565–573PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Chung SY, Krivorov NP, Rausei V, Thomas L, Frantzen M, Landsittel D, Kang YM, Chon CH, Ng CS, Fuchs GJ (2005) Bladder reconstitution with bone marrow derived stem cells seeded on small intestinal submucosa improves morphological and molecular composition. J Urol 174:353–359PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Gelain F, Bottai D, Vescovi A, Zhang S (2006) Designer self-assembling peptide nanofiber scaffolds for adult mouse neural stem cell 3-dimensional cultures. PLoS ONE 1:e119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Dalby MJ, Gadegaard N, Tare R, Andar A, Riehle MO, Herzyk P, Wilkinson CDW, Oreffo ROC (2007) The control of human mesenchymal cell differentiation using nanoscale symmetry and disorder. Nat Mater 6:997–1003PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel A. Harrington
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Arun K. Sharma
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Bradley A. Erickson
    • 2
  • Earl Y. Cheng
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Division of Pediatric UrologyChildren’s Memorial HospitalChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Department of UrologyNorthwestern University Feinberg School of MedicineChicagoUSA
  3. 3.Institute for BioNanotechnology in Medicine (IBNAM)Northwestern UniversityChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations