Computational Modeling of Tissue Engineering Scaffolds as Delivery Devices for Mechanical and Mechanically Modulated Signals

  • Min Jae Song
  • David Dean
  • Melissa L. Knothe Tate
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Mechanobiology, Tissue Engineering and Biomaterials book series (SMTEB, volume 10)

Abstract

In this chapter, we outline the use of computational modeling and novel experimental methods to develop tissue engineering scaffolds as delivery devices for exogenous and endogenous cues, including biochemical and mechanical signals, to drive the fate of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) seeded within. Tissue regeneration in mature organisms recapitulates de novo tissue generation during organismal development. This gave us the impetus to develop tissue engineering scaffolds that deliver mechanical and chemical cues intrinsic to the environment of cells during mesenchymal condensation, which marks the initiation of skeletogenesis during development. Cell seeding density and mode of achieving density (protocol) have been shown to effect dilatational (volume changing) stresses on stem cells and deviatoric (shape changing) stresses on their nuclei. Shear flow provides a practical means to deliver mechanical forces within scaffolds, resulting in both dilatational and deviatoric stresses on cell surfaces. Both spatiotemporal mechanical cue delivery and mechanically modulated biochemical gradients can be further honed through optimization of scaffold geometry and mechanical properties. We use computational fluid dynamics (CFD) coupled with finite element analysis (FEA) modeling to predict flow regimes within the scaffolds and optimize flow rates to simulate seeded cells. This chapter outlines to major advantages of using computational modeling to design and optimize tissue engineering scaffold geometry, material behavior, and tissue ingrowth over time.

Keywords

Titanium Porosity Migration Anisotropy Biodegradation 

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson, E.J., Falls, T.D., Sorkin, A.M., Knothe Tate, M.L.: The imperative for controlled mechanical stresses in unraveling cellular mechanisms of mechanotransduction. Biomed Eng Online 5, 27 (2006). doi: 10.1186/1475-925X-5-27. 1475-925X-5-27 [pii]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson, E.J., Knothe Tate, M.L.: Design of tissue engineering scaffolds as delivery devices for mechanical and mechanically modulated signals. Tissue Eng 13, 2525–2538 (2007). doi: 10.1089/ten.2006.0443 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anderson, E.J., Knothe Tate, M.L.: Design of tissue engineering scaffolds as delivery devices for mechanical and mechanically modulated signals. Tissue Eng 13, 2525–2538 (2007). doi: 10.1089/ten.2006.0443 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anderson, E.J., Knothe Tate, M.L.: Open access to novel dual flow chamber technology for in vitro cell mechanotransduction, toxicity and pharamacokinetic studies. Biomed Eng Online 6, 46 (2007). doi: 10.1186/1475-925X-6-46. 1475-925X-6-46 [pii]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Anderson, E.J., Kreuzer, S.M., Small, O., Knothe Tate, M.L.: Pairing computational and scaled physical models to determine permeability as a measure of cellular communication in micro- and nano-scale pericellular spaces. Microflu Nanoflu 4, 193–204 (2008). doi: 10.1007/s10404-007-0156-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Anderson, E.J., Knothe Tate, M.L.: Idealization of pericellular fluid space geometry and dimension results in a profound underprediction of nano-microscale stresses imparted by fluid drag on osteocytes. J Biomech 41, 1736–1746 (2008). doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2008.02.035. S0021-9290(08)00107-3 [pii]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bagchi, P., Johnson, P.C., Popel, A.S.: Computational fluid dynamic simulation of aggregation of deformable cells in a shear flow. J Biomech Eng 127, 1070–1080 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baksh, D., Tuan, R.S.: Canonical and non-canonical Wnts differentially affect the development potential of primary isolate of human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells. J Cell Physiol 212, 817–826 (2007). doi: 10.1002/jcp.21080 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bonewald, L.F.: Mechanosensation and Transduction in Osteocytes. Bonekey Osteovision 3, 7–15 (2006). doi: 10.1138/20060233 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boon, R.A., Leyen, T.A., Fontijn, R.D., Fledderus, J.O., Baggen, J.M., Volger, O.L., van Nieuw Amerongen, G.P., Horrevoets, A.J.: KLF2-induced actin shear fibers control both alignment to flow and JNK signaling in vascular endothelium. Blood 115, 2533–2542 (2010). doi: 10.1182/blood-2009-06-228726. blood-2009-06-228726 [pii]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Campbell, J.J., Lee, D.A., Bader, D.L.: Dynamic compressive strain influences chondrogenic gene expression in human mesenchymal stem cells. Biorheology 43, 455–470 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chang, H., Knothe Tate, M.L.: Structure-function relationships in the stem cell’s mechanical world B: emergent anisotropy of the cytoskeleton correlates to volume and shape changing stress exposure. Mol Cell Biomech 8, 297–318 (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cooke MN, Fisher JP, Dean D, Rimnac C, Mikos AG (2003) Use of stereolithography to manufacture critical-sized 3D biodegradable scaffolds for bone ingrowth. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 64: 65–69.doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.10485 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Datta, N., Pham, Q.P., Sharma, U., Sikavitsas, V.I., Jansen, J.A., Mikos, A.G.: In vitro generated extracellular matrix and fluid shear stress synergistically enhance 3D osteoblastic differentiation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103, 2488–2493 (2006). doi: 10.1073/pnas.0505661103. 0505661103 [pii]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    David, V., Martin, A., Lafage-Proust, M.H., Malaval, L., Peyroche, S., Jones, D.B., Vico, L., Guignandon, A.: Mechanical loading down-regulates peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma in bone marrow stromal cells and favors osteoblastogenesis at the expense of adipogenesis. Endocrinology 148, 2553–2562 (2007). doi: 10.1210/en.2006-1704. en.2006-1704 [pii]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    De, B.S., Truscello, S., Ozcan, S.E., Leroy, T., Van, O.H., Berckmans, D., Schrooten, J.: Bi-modular flow characterization in tissue engineering scaffolds using computational fluid dynamics and particle imaging velocimetry. Tissue Eng Part C Methods 16, 1553–1564 (2010). doi: 10.1089/ten.tec.2010.0107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fletcher DA, Mullins RD (2010) Cell mechanics and the cytoskeleton. Nature 463, 485–492. doi:  10.1038/nature08908, nature08908 [pii]Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gibson LJ, Ashby MF (1997) Cellular solids: structure and properties. In: Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Habal, M.B., Reddi, A.H.: Bone grafts and bone induction substitutes. Clin Plast Surg 21, 525–542 (1994)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Inoue Y, Deji T, Shimada Y, Hojo M, Adachi T (2010) Simulations of dynamics of actin filaments by remodeling them in shear flows. Comput Biol Med 40: 876–882. doi:  10.1016/j.compbiomed.2010.09.008, S0010-4825(10)00137-X [pii]Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jungreuthmayer, C., Donahue, S.W., Jaasma, M.J., Al-Munajjed, A.A., Zanghellini, J., Kelly, D.J., O’Brien, F.J.: A comparative study of shear stresses in collagen-glycosaminoglycan and calcium phosphate scaffolds in bone tissue-engineering bioreactors. Tissue Eng Part A 15, 1141–1149 (2009). doi: 10.1089/ten.tea.2008.0204 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kearney, E.M., Farrell, E., Prendergast, P.J., Campbell, V.A.: Tensile strain as a regulator of mesenchymal stem cell osteogenesis. Ann Biomed Eng 38, 1767–1779 (2010). doi: 10.1007/s10439-010-9979-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Knothe Tate ML (2003) Whither flows the fluid in bone? An osteocyte’s perspective. J Biomech 36:1409–1424. S0021929003001234 [pii]Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Knothe Tate ML (2007) Engineering of functional skeletal tissues, multiscale computational engineering of bones: state-of-the-art insights for the future, Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Knothe Tate ML (2011) Top down and bottom up engineering of bone. J Biomech 44:304–312. doi:  10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.10.019, S0021-9290(10)00575-0 [pii]Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Knothe Tate ML, Chang H, Moore SR, Knothe UR (2011) Surgical membranes as directional delivery devices to generate tissue: testing in an ovine critical sized defect model. PLoS One 6: e28702. doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0028702, PONE-D-11-07884 [pii]
  27. 27.
    Knothe Tate ML, Falls TD, McBride SH, Atit R, Knothe UR (2008) Mechanical modulation of osteochondroprogenitor cell fate. Int J Biochem Cell Biol 40:2720–2738. doi:  10.1016/j.biocel.2008.05.011, S1357-2725(08)00198-2 [pii]Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Knothe Tate ML, Ritzman TF, Schneider E, Knothe UR (2007) Testing of a new one-stage bone-transport surgical procedure exploiting the periosteum for the repair of long-bone defects. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89: 307–316. doi:  10.2106/JBJS.E.00512, 89/2/307 [pii]Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Knothe UR, Dolejs S, Matthew MR, Knothe Tate ML (2010) Effects of mechanical loading patterns, bone graft, and proximity to periosteum on bone defect healing. J Biomech 43: 2728–2737. doi:  10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.06.026, S0021-9290(10)00362-3 [pii]Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lesman, A., Blinder, Y., Levenberg, S.: Modeling of flow-induced shear stress applied on 3D cellular scaffolds: implications for vascular tissue engineering. Biotechnol Bioeng 105, 645–654 (2010). doi: 10.1002/bit.22555 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Loufrani, L., Henrion, D.: Role of the cytoskeleton in flow (shear stress)-induced dilation and remodeling in resistance arteries. Med Biol Eng Comput 46, 451–460 (2008). doi: 10.1007/s11517-008-0306-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    McBeath R, Pirone DM, Nelson CM, Bhadriraju K, Chen CS (2004) Cell shape, cytoskeletal tension, and RhoA regulate stem cell lineage commitment. Dev Cell 6:483–495. S1534580704000759 [pii]Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    McBride, S.H., Dolejs, S., Brianza, S., Knothe, U., Tate, M.L.: Net change in periosteal strain during stance shift loading after surgery correlates to rapid de novo bone generation in critically sized defects. Ann Biomed Eng 39, 1570–1581 (2011). doi: 10.1007/s10439-010-0242-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    McBride, S.H., Falls, T., Knothe Tate, M.L.: Modulation of stem cell shape and fate B: mechanical modulation of cell shape and gene expression. Tissue Eng Part A 14, 1573–1580 (2008). doi: 10.1089/ten.tea.2008.0113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    McBride, S.H., Knothe Tate, M.L.: Modulation of stem cell shape and fate A: the role of density and seeding protocol on nucleus shape and gene expression. Tissue Eng Part A 14, 1561–1572 (2008). doi: 10.1089/ten.tea.2008.0112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Melchels FP, Tonnarelli B, Olivares AL, Martin I, Lacroix D, Feijen J, Wendt DJ, Grijpma DW (2011) The influence of the scaffold design on the distribution of adhering cells after perfusion cell seeding. Biomaterials 32, 2878–2884. doi:  10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.01.023, S0142-9612(11)00036-6 [pii]Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pauwels, F.: A new theory on the influence of mechanical stimuli on the differentiation of supporting tissue. The tenth contribution to the functional anatomy and causal morphology of the supporting structure. Z Anat Entwicklungsgesch 121, 478–515 (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sanan, A., Haines, S.J.: Repairing holes in the head: a history of cranioplasty. Neurosurgery 40, 588–603 (1997)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Song, M., Brady-Kalnay, S., Dean, D. Knothe Tate, M.L.: Relating Stem Cell Shape to Fate Commitment by Mapping Cell Surface Strains In Situ. Trans ORS 37, 0826 (2012)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Song MJ, Dean D, Knothe Tate ML (2010) In situ spatiotemporal mapping of flow fields around seeded stem cells at the subcellular length scale. PLoS One 5. doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0012796
  41. 41.
    Song, M.J., Dean, D., Brady-Kalnay, S., Knothe Tate, M.L.: Optimization of Tissue Engineering Scaffold Geometry, Seeding & Flow Conditions to Steer Stem Cell Shape and Fate. TERMIS 1, 0243 (2011)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sorkin AM, Dee KC, Knothe Tate ML (2004) “Culture shock” from the bone cell’s perspective: emulating physiological conditions for mechanobiological investigations. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 287:C1527–C1536. doi:  10.1152/ajpcell.00059.2004, 00059.2004 [pii]Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Stops AJ, Heraty KB, Browne M, O’Brien FJ, McHugh PE (2010) A prediction of cell differentiation and proliferation within a collagen-glycosaminoglycan scaffold subjected to mechanical strain and perfusive fluid flow. J Biomech 43:618–626. doi:  10.1016/j.jbiomech.2009.10.037, S0021-9290(09)00624-1 [pii]Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Voronov R, Vangordon S, Sikavitsas VI, Papavassiliou DV (2010) Computational modeling of flow-induced shear stresses within 3D salt-leached porous scaffolds imaged via micro-CT. J Biomech 43: 1279–1286. doi:  10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.01.007, S0021-9290(10)00039-4 [pii]Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    YaoY, Chen W , Jin W: The influence of pore structure on internal flow field shear stress within scaffold. Adv Mater Res 308–310, 771–775 (2011). doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.308-310.771 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zimmermann JA, Knothe Tate ML (2011) Structure-function relationships in the stem cell’s mechanical world A: seeding protocols as a means to control shape and fate of live stem cells. Mol Cell Biomech 8:275–296Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Min Jae Song
    • 1
  • David Dean
    • 1
  • Melissa L. Knothe Tate
    • 1
  1. 1.Case Western Reserve UniversityClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations