Skip to main content
Log in

A Phase-field model of cell motility in biodegradable hydrogel scaffolds for tissue engineering applications

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Computational Mechanics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Tissue engineering aims at producing in the laboratory new biological tissues by combining cells, scaffold materials, and biochemistry. Recent successes in the field are promising, but sustainability and reproducibility issues still limit the large-scale applications of this technique. The present work addresses the development of a computational model that describes cell motility in biodegradable hydrogel scaffolds. The goal is to support the understanding and the control of the first stage of tissue formation, when cells seeded into the scaffold congregate to form clusters, necessary precursors of tissue blocks. Cellular migration is treated as an advective/diffusive process modeled via the phase-field approach. The chemo-biological mechanisms incorporated in the modeling framework are: (i) the natural degradation of the hydrogel; (ii) chemotaxis induced by cell-cell signaling pathways; (iii) nutrient diffusion through the construct and its consumption by cells. Each cell initially moves following a random path, subsequently switching to a directed chemically-driven motion when the presence of other cells is sensed in its neighborhood. Numerical results highlight the role of the interplay between nutrient availability in the construct, chemoattractant production, scaffold degradation and cell motility, showing that the proposed model could pave the way towards efficient computationally-aided tools for the optimization of neotissue mass production.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Apart from the boundary terms, it is immediate to verify that, under the differentiation rules explicited in Eq. (42) (i.e., \(\textbf{B}=\text {const.}\)), stationary conditions of Eq. (42) lead to the weak form of the mass balance for nutrient (Eq. (31)) and chemoattractant (Eq. (32)), as well as of the phase-field advective/diffusive equation (Eq. (33)).

References

  1. Costantini M, Testa S, Fornetti E, Fuoco C, Sanchez Riera C, Nie M, Bernardini S, Rainer A, Baldi J, Zoccali C et al (2021) Biofabricating murine and human myo-substitutes for rapid volumetric muscle loss restoration. EMBO Mol Med 13(3):12778

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Costantini M, Testa S, Mozetic P, Barbetta A, Fuoco C, Fornetti E, Tamiro F, Bernardini S, Jaroszewicz J, Świeszkowski W et al (2017) Microfluidic-enhanced 3D bioprinting of aligned myoblast-laden hydrogels leads to functionally organized myofibers in vitro and in vivo. Biomaterials 131:98–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Amini AR, Laurencin CT, Nukavarapu SP (2012) Bone tissue engineering: recent advances and challenges. Critical Rev \(^{\text{TM}}\) Biomed Eng. https://doi.org/10.1615/CritRevBiomedEng.v40.i5.10

  4. Böttcher-Haberzeth S, Biedermann T, Reichmann E (2010) Tissue engineering of skin. Burns 36(4):450–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Berthiaume F, Maguire TJ, Yarmush ML (2011) Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine: history, progress, and challenges. Annu Rev Chem Biomol Eng 2:403–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Khademhosseini A, Langer R (2016) A decade of progress in tissue engineering. Nat Protoc 11(10):1775–1781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Post MJ, Levenberg S, Kaplan DL, Genovese N, Fu J, Bryant CJ, Negowetti N, Verzijden K, Moutsatsou P (2020) Scientific, sustainability and regulatory challenges of cultured meat. Nat Food 1(7):403–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Shukla, P.R., Skeg, J., Buendia, E.C., Masson-Delmotte, V., Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D., Zhai, P., Slade, R., Connors, S., Van Diemen, S., et al (2019) Climate change and land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems

  9. Monger XC, Gilbert A-A, Saucier L, Vincent AT (2021) Antibiotic resistance: from pig to meat. Antibiotics 10(10):1209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Seliktar D (2012) Designing cell-compatible hydrogels for biomedical applications. Science 336(6085):1124–1128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Almany L, Seliktar D (2005) Biosynthetic hydrogel scaffolds made from fibrinogen and polyethylene glycol for 3D cell cultures. Biomaterials 26(15):2467–2477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dikovsky D, Bianco-Peled H, Seliktar D (2006) The effect of structural alterations of PEG-fibrinogen hydrogel scaffolds on 3-D cellular morphology and cellular migration. Biomaterials 27(8):1496–1506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Yao H, Wang J, Mi S (2017) Photo processing for biomedical hydrogels design and functionality: a review. Polymers 10(1):11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hennink WE, Nostrum CF (2012) Novel crosslinking methods to design hydrogels. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 64:223–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Archer R, Williams DJ (2005) Why tissue engineering needs process engineering. Nat Biotechnol 23(11):1353–1355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Haleem A, Javaid M, Khan RH, Suman R (2020) 3D printing applications in bone tissue engineering. J Clin Orthopaed Trauma 11:118–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Conti, M., Santesarti, G., Scocozza, F., Marino, M.: Models and simulations as enabling technologies for bioprinting process design. In: Bioprinting, pp. 137–206. Academic Press, Cambridge (2022)

  18. Akalp U, Bryant SJ, Vernerey FJ (2016) Tuning tissue growth with scaffold degradation in enzyme-sensitive hydrogels: a mathematical model. Soft Matter 12(36):7505–7520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mak M, Spill F, Kamm RD, Zaman MH (2016) Single-cell migration in complex microenvironments: mechanics and signaling dynamics. J Biomech Eng 138(2):021004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Liu J, Hilderink J, Groothuis TA, Otto C, Van Blitterswijk CA, Boer J (2015) Monitoring nutrient transport in tissue-engineered grafts. J Tissue Eng Regen Med 9(8):952–960

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Tayalia P, Mooney DJ (2009) Controlled growth factor delivery for tissue engineering. Adv Mater 21(32–33):3269–3285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Vis MA, Ito K, Hofmann S (2020) Impact of culture medium on cellular interactions in in vitro co-culture systems. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 8:911

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Möller, J., Pörtner, R., Gowder, S.: New Insights into Cell Culture Technology. InTech (2017)

  24. Hardman D, Hennig K, Gomes E, Roman W, Bernabeu MO (2021) An in vitro-agent based modelling approach to optimisation of culture medium for generating muscle cells. bioRxiv

  25. Campos D, Méndez V, Llopis I (2010) Persistent random motion: uncovering cell migration dynamics. J Theor Biol 267(4):526–534

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. Camley BA, Rappel WJ (2017) Physical models of collective cell motility: from cell to tissue. J Phys D Appl Phys 50(11):113002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ebata H, Yamamoto A, Tsuji Y, Sasaki S, Moriyama K, Kuboki T, Kidoaki S (2018) Persistent random deformation model of cells crawling on a gel surface. Sci Rep 8(1):1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lo CM, Wang HB, Dembo M, Wang Yl (2000) Cell movement is guided by the rigidity of the substrate. Biophys J 79(1), 144–152

  29. Cross AK, Woodroofe MN (1999) Chemokines induce migration and changes in actin polymerization in adult rat brain microglia and a human fetal microglial cell line in vitro. J Neurosci Res 55(1):17–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Te Boekhorst V, Preziosi L, Friedl P (2016) Plasticity of cell migration in vivo and in silico. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol 32(1):491–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Moure A, Gomez H (2021) Phase-field modeling of individual and collective cell migration. Archives Comput Methods Eng 28(2):311–344

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  32. Olson SD, Haider MA (2019) A computational reaction-diffusion model for biosynthesis and linking of cartilage extracellular matrix in cell-seeded scaffolds with varying porosity. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 18(3):701–716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Moure A, Gomez H (2018) Three-dimensional simulation of obstacle-mediated chemotaxis. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 17(5):1243–1268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Fuller D, Chen W, Adler M, Groisman A, Levine H, Rappel W-J, Loomis WF (2010) External and internal constraints on eukaryotic chemotaxis. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107(21):9656–9659

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Garcia GL, Rericha EC, Heger CD, Goldsmith PK, Parent CA (2009) The group migration of Dictyostelium cells is regulated by extracellular chemoattractant degradation. Mol Biol Cell 20(14):3295–3304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Hajikhani A, Wriggers P, Marino M (2021) Chemo-mechanical modelling of swelling and crosslinking reaction kinetics in alginate hydrogels: A novel theory and its numerical implementation. J Mech Phys Solids 153:104476

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  37. Tibbitt MW, Kloxin AM, Sawicki LA, Anseth KS (2013) Mechanical properties and degradation of chain and step-polymerized photodegradable hydrogels. Macromolecules 46(7):2785–2792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Camley BA, Zhang Y, Zhao Y, Li B, Ben-Jacob E, Levine H, Rappel W-J (2014) Polarity mechanisms such as contact inhibition of locomotion regulate persistent rotational motion of mammalian cells on micropatterns. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111(41):14770–14775

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Wu PH, Giri A, Wirtz D (2015) Statistical analysis of cell migration in 3D using the anisotropic persistent random walk model. Nat Protoc 10(3):517–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Selmeczi D, Mosler S, Hagedorn PH, Larsen NB, Flyvbjerg H (2005) Cell motility as persistent random motion: theories from experiments. Biophys J 89(2):912–931

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Ostrovidov S, Hosseini V, Ahadian S, Fujie T, Parthiban SP, Ramalingam M, Bae H, Kaji H, Khademhosseini A (2014) Skeletal muscle tissue engineering: methods to form skeletal myotubes and their applications. Tissue Eng B Rev 20(5):403–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Korelc J, Wriggers P (2016) Automation of finite element methods. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  43. Palmieri B, Bresler Y, Wirtz D, Grant M (2015) Multiple scale model for cell migration in monolayers: elastic mismatch between cells enhances motility. Sci Rep 5(1):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Campos D, Méndez V (2009) Superdiffusive-like motion of colloidal nanorods. J Chem Phys 130(13):134711

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Bruyère C, Versaevel M, Mohammed D, Alaimo L, Luciano M, Vercruysse E, Gabriele S (2019) Actomyosin contractility scales with myoblast elongation and enhances differentiation through YAP nuclear export. Sci Rep 9(1):1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Hirata H, Sokabe M, Lim CT (2014) Molecular mechanisms underlying the force-dependent regulation of actin-to-ECM linkage at the focal adhesions. Prog Mol Biol Transl Sci 126:135–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Kreft M, Lukšič M, Zorec TM, Prebil M, Zorec R (2013) Diffusion of D-glucose measured in the cytosol of a single astrocyte. Cell Mol Life Sci 70(8):1483–1492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Gu WY, Yao H, Vega AL, Flagler D (2004) Diffusivity of ions in agarose gels and intervertebral disc: effect of porosity. Ann Biomed Eng 32(12):1710–1717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Oliveira L, Carvalho MI, Nogueira E, Tuchin VV (2013) The characteristic time of glucose diffusion measured for muscle tissue at optical clearing. Laser Phys 23(7):075606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Mookerjee SA, Gerencser AA, Nicholls DG, Brand MD (2017) Quantifying intracellular rates of glycolytic and oxidative ATP production and consumption using extracellular flux measurements. J Biol Chem 292(17):7189–7207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Obradovic B, Meldon JH, Freed LE, Vunjak-Novakovic G (2000) Glycosaminoglycan deposition in engineered cartilage: experiments and mathematical model. AIChE J 46(9):1860–1871

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Cruise GM, Scharp DS, Hubbell JA (1998) Characterization of permeability and network structure of interfacially photopolymerized poly(ethylene glycol) diacrylate hydrogels. Biomaterials 19(14):1287–1294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Yu S, Duan Y, Zuo X, Chen X, Mao Z, Gao C (2018) Mediating the invasion of smooth muscle cells into a cell-responsive hydrogel under the existence of immune cells. Biomaterials 180:193–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Chu S, Sridhar SL, Akalp U, Skaalure SC, Vernerey FJ, Bryant SJ (2017) Understanding the spatiotemporal degradation behavior of aggrecanase-sensitive poly (ethylene glycol) hydrogels for use in cartilage tissue engineering. Tissue Eng A 23(15–16):795–810

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Lustig SR, Peppas NA (1988) Solute diffusion in swollen membranes. IX. Scaling laws for solute diffusion in gels. J Appl Polym Sci 36(4):735–747

  56. Carruthers A (1990) Facilitated diffusion of glucose. Physiol Rev 70(4):1135–1176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Thorens B (1993) Facilitated glucose transporters in epithelial cells. Annu Rev Physiol 55(1):591–608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Shaikh S, Lee E, Ahmad K, Ahmad S-S, Chun H, Lim J, Lee Y, Choi I (2021) Cell types used for cultured meat production and the importance of myokines. Foods 10(10):2318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Waldemer-Streyer RJ, Kim D, Chen J (2022) Muscle cell-derived cytokines in skeletal muscle regeneration. FEBS J

  60. Engberg K, Frank CW (2011) Protein diffusion in photopolymerized poly(ethylene glycol) hydrogel networks. Biomed Mater 6(5):055006

  61. Kok CM, Rudin A (1981) Relationship between the hydrodynamic radius and the radius of gyration of a polymer in solution. Die Makromolekulare Chemie Rapid Commun 2(11):655–659

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. McLennan R, Dyson L, Prather KW, Morrison JA, Baker RE, Maini PK, Kulesa PM (2012) Multiscale mechanisms of cell migration during development: theory and experiment. Development 139(16):2935–2944

  63. Lee M-H, Wu P-H, Staunton JR, Ros R, Longmore GD, Wirtz D (2012) Mismatch in mechanical and adhesive properties induces pulsating cancer cell migration in epithelial monolayer. Biophys J 102(12):2731–2741

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Doyle AD, Sykora DJ, Pacheco GG, Kutys ML, Yamada KM (2021) 3D mesenchymal cell migration is driven by anterior cellular contraction that generates an extracellular matrix prestrain. Dev Cell 56(6):826–841

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Part of this work was carried out within the support from the Italian National Group for Mathematical Physics GNFM-INdAM. The Authors acknowledge the funding of Regione Lazio (POR FESR LAZIO 2014; Progetti di Gruppi di Ricerca 2020; project: BIOPMEAT, n. A0375-2020-36756). Finally, the cooperation work of Silvia Di Egidio, graduate student of Medical Engineering at the University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pierfrancesco Gaziano.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Pierfrancesco Gaziano and Michele Marino disclose any financial and personal relationships with other people or organizations that could inappropriately influence (bias) their work.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file 1 (mp4 10694 KB)

Appendix A: Notations and analytic expression of the sigmoid function

Appendix A: Notations and analytic expression of the sigmoid function

Throughout the paper, reference has frequently been made to the sigmoid (also termed logistic) function \(\mathcal {S}(x)\), which is often employed to describe a smooth transition between a lower and an upper bound value. In detail, if x is a real-valued scalar variable, symbol \(\mathcal {S}(x; \, A_-,A_+,x_0,\kappa _{\text {A}})\) can be used to synthetically denote a hyperbolic-tangent-type sigmoid function of x, parametrized by the asymptotes \(y=A_{\pm }\) for \(x \rightarrow \pm \infty \) and by parameters \(x_0\), \(\kappa _{\text {A}}\), i.e.:

$$\begin{aligned}{} & {} \mathcal {S}(x; \, A_-,A_+,x_0,\kappa _{\text {A}}) \nonumber \\{} & {} \quad = \frac{A_+ + A_-}{2} + \frac{A_+ - A_-}{2}\,\tanh \bigl ( \kappa _{\text {A}} (x-x_0) \bigr ) \end{aligned}$$
(54)

Specifically, \(\kappa _{\text {A}} > 0\) is a parameter regulating the steepness of the variation between \(A_+\) and \(A_-\), and \(x_0\) is the sigmoid center, namely the value of x such that \(\mathcal {S}(x_0) = (A_+ + A_-)/2\) (see Fig. 11).

In the main text, the asymptotes always correspond to the values \(y=0\) and \(y=1\). As such, the following simplified notation is introduced:

$$\begin{aligned} \mathcal {S}_+(x; \, x_0, \kappa _{\text {A}})= & {} \mathcal {S}(x; \, 0,1,x_0,\kappa _{\text {A}}) \nonumber \\= & {} \frac{1}{2} \biggl (1+ \tanh \bigl (\kappa _{\text {A}} (x-x_0) \bigr )\biggr ) \end{aligned}$$
(55)
$$\begin{aligned} \mathcal {S}_-(x; \, x_0, \kappa _{\text {A}})= & {} \mathcal {S}(x; \, 1,0,x_0,\kappa _{\text {A}}) \nonumber \\= & {} \frac{1}{2} \biggl (1 - \tanh \bigl ( \kappa _{\text {A}} (x-x_0) \bigr )\biggr ) \end{aligned}$$
(56)

where the subscript \(+\) (respectively, −) suggests that the sigmoid is an increasing (resp., decreasing) function of x between 0 and 1.

Finally, note that if a real function F assumes a constant value \(\tilde{F} \ne 0\) only in a bounded interval \([x_1,x_2]\) of real numbers, it can be approximately described in a smooth way through the following function:

$$\begin{aligned} F = \tilde{F} \, \min \{ \mathcal {S}_+(x; \, x_1, \kappa _{\text {A}}), \mathcal {S}_-(x; \, x_2, \kappa _{\text {A}}) \}. \end{aligned}$$
(57)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gaziano, P., Marino, M. A Phase-field model of cell motility in biodegradable hydrogel scaffolds for tissue engineering applications. Comput Mech (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-023-02422-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-023-02422-8

Keywords

Navigation