ECM Hydrogels for Regenerative Medicine

  • Michael J. Sawkins
  • Lindsey T. Saldin
  • Stephen F. Badylak
  • Lisa J. White
Chapter
Part of the Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine book series (STEMCELL)

Abstract

The ECM is a highly complex mix of structural and functional proteins and other biomolecules. These molecules are secreted by the cells resident in every tissue in the body but can also influence their behavior through a process of “dynamic reciprocity.” As a result, there has been significant interest in utilizing ECM as a biologic scaffold material in tissue repair and replacement. Numerous preclinical and clinical studies have demonstrated the efficacy of ECM biomaterials, and more than 4 million patients have now been treated with these scaffold materials. The discovery that these materials could be formed into hydrogels promised to further expand their clinical utility by offering minimally invasive delivery and the ability to fill irregularly shaped defects. This chapter will briefly outline the history and characterization of ECM biomaterials and their evolution from single sheet to multisheet, powder, and ultimately hydrogel form. The first studies describing the production of early-generation ECM hydrogels used well-characterized porcine small intestinal submucosa and urinary bladder matrix, and these materials will be discussed in the context of the general methods used to produce and characterize ECM hydrogels. A detailed consideration of the many second-generation hydrogels which have since been produced from a wide range of tissues will then be discussed in the context of tissue specificity. The hydrogels discussed in this chapter have been evaluated in vitro or in small scale in vivo animal studies. More substantial evaluation is required before these materials can be considered ready for clinical application, but these hydrogels provide the possibility for minimally invasive delivery, treatment of irregularly shaped defects in anatomic sites that prove challenging for invasive surgical procedures, and may provide an ECM formation that delivers immediate bioactivity as a consequence of its distinctive biomolecular composition.

Keywords

Adipose Brain Cartilage Central nervous system Cornea Decellularization Demineralized bone matrix Dermis Extracellular matrix Hydrogel Intervertebral disk Ligament Liver Myocardium Nucleus pulposus Pericardium Regenerative medicine Skeletal muscle Skin Spinal cord Small intestinal submucosa Tendon Tissue engineering Tissue specificity Urinary bladder matrix Vocal fold 

References

  1. 1.
    Agrawal V, Johnson SA, Reing J, Zhang L, Tottey S, Wang G, Hirschi KK, Braunhut S, Gudas LJ, Badylak SF. Epimorphic regeneration approach to tissue replacement in adult mammals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. 2010;107(8):3351–5.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0905851106.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Agrawal V, Tottey S, Johnson SA, Freund JM, Siu BF, Badylak SF. Recruitment of progenitor cells by an extracellular matrix cryptic peptide in a mouse model of digit amputation. Tissue Eng Part A. 2011;17(19–20):2435–43.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.TEA.2011.0036.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Badylak SE. The extracellular matrix as a scaffold for tissue reconstruction. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2002;13(5):377–83.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1084-9521(02)00094-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Badylak SF, Coffey AC, Lantz GC, Tacker WA, Geddes LA. Comparison of the resistance to infection of intestinal submucosa arterial autografts versus polytetrafluoroethylene arterial prostheses in a dog model. J Vasc Surg. 1994;19(3):465–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Badylak SF, Freytes DO, Gilbert TW. Extracellular matrix as a biological scaffold material: structure and function. Acta Biomater. 2009;5(1):1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2008.09.013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Badylak SF, Gilbert TW. Immune response to biologic scaffold materials. Sem Immunol. 2008;20(2):109–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smim.2007.11.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Badylak SF, Park K, Peppas N, McCabe G, Yoder M. Marrow-derived cells populate scaffolds composed of xenogeneic extracellular matrix. Exp Hematol. 2001;29(11):1310–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Badylak SF, Valentin JE, Ravindra AK, McCabe GP, Stewart-Akers AM. Macrophage phenotype as a determinant of biologic scaffold remodeling. Tissue Eng Part A. 2008;14(11):1835–42.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.tea.2007.0264.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Badylak SF, Vorp DA, Spievack AR, Simmons-Byrd A, Hanke J, Freytes DO, Thapa A, Gilbert TW, Nieponice A. Esophageal reconstruction with ECM and muscle tissue in a dog model. J Surg Res. 2005;128(1):87–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Badylak SF, Wu CC, Bible M, McPherson E. Host protection against deliberate bacterial contamination of an extracellular matrix bioscaffold versus Dacron mesh in a dog model of orthopedic soft tissue repair. J Biomed Mater Res. 2003;67(1):648–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Benders KE, van Weeren PR, Badylak SF, Saris DB, Dhert WJ, Malda J. Extracellular matrix scaffolds for cartilage and bone regeneration. Trends Biotechnol. 2013;31(3):169–76.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2012.12.004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Berkowitz BA, Bevins CL, Zasloff MA. Magainins: a new family of membrane-active host defense peptides. Biochem Pharmacol. 1990;39(4):625–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bissell MJ, Hall HG, Parry G. How does the extracellular matrix direct gene expression? J Theor Biol. 1982;99(1):31–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Booth AJ, Hadley R, Cornett AM, Dreffs AA, Matthes SA, Tsui JL, Weiss K, Horowitz JC, Fiore VF, Barker TH, Moore BB, Martinez FJ, Niklason LE, White ES. Acellular normal and fibrotic human lung matrices as a culture system for in vitro investigation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012;186(9):866–76.  https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201204-0754OC.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brennan BJ, Brown AB, Kolis SJ, Rutman O, Gooden C, Davies BE. Effect of R667, a novel emphysema agent, on the pharmacokinetics of midazolam in healthy men. J Clin Pharmacol. 2006;46(2):222–8.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0091270005283836.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brennan EP, Reing J, Chew D, Myers-Irvin JM, Young EJ, Badylak SF. Antibacterial activity within degradation products of biological scaffolds composed of extracellular matrix. Tissue Eng. 2006;12(10):2949–55.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.2006.12.2949.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brightman AO, Rajwa BP, Sturgis JE, McCallister ME, Robinson JP, Voytik-Harbin SL. Time-lapse confocal reflection microscopy of collagen fibrillogenesis and extracellular matrix assembly in vitro. Biopolymers. 2000;54(3):222–34.  https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0282(200009)54:3<222:aid-bip80>3.0.co;2-k.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brown B, Lindberg K, Reing J, Stolz DB, Badylak SF. The basement membrane component of biologic scaffolds derived from extracellular matrix. Tissue Eng. 2006;12(3):519–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brown BN, Londono R, Tottey S, Zhang L, Kukla KA, Wolf MT, Daly KA, Reing JE, Badylak SF. Macrophage phenotype as a predictor of constructive remodeling following the implantation of biologically derived surgical mesh materials. Acta Biomater. 2012;8(3):978–87.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2011.11.031.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brown BN, Valentin JE, Stewart-Akers AM, McCabe GP, Badylak SF. Macrophage phenotype and remodeling outcomes in response to biologic scaffolds with and without a cellular component. Biomaterials. 2009;30(8):1482–91.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.11.040.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bulet P, Stocklin R, Menin L. Anti-microbial peptides: from invertebrates to vertebrates. Immunol Rev. 2004;198:169–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chen TM, Wang HJ. Cranioplasty using allogeneic perforated demineralized bone matrix with autogenous bone paste. Ann Plast Surg. 2002;49(3):272–7.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.SAP.0000015488.91165.B8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cheng M-H, Uriel S, Moya ML, Francis-Sedlak M, Wang R, Huang J-J, Chang S-Y, Brey EM. Dermis-derived hydrogels support adipogenesis in vivo. J Biomed Mater Res. 2010;92A(3):852–8.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.32410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cheung HK, Han TTY, Marecak DM, Watkins JF, Amsden BG, Flynn LE. Composite hydrogel scaffolds incorporating decellularized adipose tissue for soft tissue engineering with adipose-derived stem cells. Biomaterials. 2014;35(6):1914–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Choi JS, Kim BS, Kim JD, Choi YC, Lee HY, Cho YW. In vitro cartilage tissue engineering using adipose-derived extracellular matrix scaffolds seeded with adipose-derived stem cells. Tissue Eng Part A. 2012;18(1–2):80–92.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.tea.2011.0103.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Choi JW, Park JK, Chang JW, Kim DY, Kim MS, Shin YS, Kim CH. Small intestine submucosa and mesenchymal stem cells composite gel for scarless vocal fold regeneration. Biomaterials. 2014;35(18):4911–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.03.008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cortiella J, Niles J, Cantu A, Brettler A, Pham A, Vargas G, Winston S, Wang J, Walls S, Nichols JE. Influence of acellular natural lung matrix on murine embryonic stem cell differentiation and tissue formation. Tissue Eng. 2010;16(8):2565–80.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.tea.2009.0730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Crapo PM, Gilbert TW, Badylak SF. An overview of tissue and whole organ decellularization processes. Biomaterials. 2011;32(12):3233–43.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.01.057.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Crapo PM, Tottey S, Slivka PF, Badylak SF. Effects of biologic scaffolds on human stem cells and implications for CNS tissue engineering. Tissue Eng. 2014;20(1–2):313–23.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.TEA.2013.0186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Crapo PM, Wang Y. Small intestinal submucosa gel as a potential scaffolding material for cardiac tissue engineering. Acta Biomater. 2010;6(6):2091–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2009.10.048.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    D’Amore A, Stella JA, Wagner WR, Sacks MS. Characterization of the complete fiber network topology of planar fibrous tissues and scaffolds. Biomaterials. 2010;31(20):5345–54.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.03.052.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    DeQuach JA, Lin JE, Cam C, Hu D, Salvatore MA, Sheikh F, Christman KL. Injectable skeletal muscle matrix hydrogel promotes neovascularization and muscle cell infiltration in a hindlimb ischemia model. Eur Cells Mater. 2012;23:400–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Drake MP, Davison PF, Bump S, Schmitt FO. Action of proteolytic enzymes on tropocollagen and insoluble collagen. Biochemistry. 1966;5(1):301–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Drury JL, Mooney DJ. Hydrogels for tissue engineering: scaffold design variables and applications. Biomaterials. 2003;24(24):4337–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Farnebo SJ, Woon CY, Schmitt T, Joubert LM, Kim M, Pham H, Chang J. Design and characterization of an injectable tendon hydrogel: a scaffold for guided tissue regeneration in the musculoskeletal system. Tissue Eng. 2013.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.TEA.2013.0207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fisher MB, Liang R, Jung HJ, Kim KE, Zamarra G, Almarza AJ, McMahon PJ, Woo SLY. Potential of healing a transected anterior cruciate ligament with genetically modified extracellular matrix bioscaffolds in a goat model. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20(7):1357–65.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-011-1800-x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Francis D, Abberton K, Thompson E, Daniell M. Myogel supports the ex vivo amplification of corneal epithelial cells. Exp Eye Res. 2009;88(3):339–46.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exer.2008.06.016.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Freytes DO, Martin J, Velankar SS, Lee AS, Badylak SF. Preparation and rheological characterization of a gel form of the porcine urinary bladder matrix. Biomaterials. 2008;29(11):1630–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.12.014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ganz T. Defensins: antimicrobial peptides of innate immunity. Nat Rev Immunol. 2003;3(9):710–20.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nri1180.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gilbert TW, Stolz DB, Biancaniello F, Simmons-Byrd A, Badylak SF. Production and characterization of ECM powder: implications for tissue engineering applications. Biomaterials. 2005;26(12):1431–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Grover GN, Rao N, Christman KL. Myocardial matrix-polyethylene glycol hybrid hydrogels for tissue engineering. Nanotechnology. 2014;25(1).  https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-4484/25/1/014011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hulmes DJS. Collagen diversity, synthesis, and assembly. In: Fratzl P, editors. Collagen: structure and mechanics. Berlin: Springer; 2008.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Jernigan TW, Croce MA, Cagiannos C, Shell DH, Handorf CR, Fabian TC. Small intestinal submucosa for vascular reconstruction in the presence of gastrointestinal contamination. Ann Surg. 2004;239(5):733–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Johnson TD, Dequach JA, Gaetani R, Ungerleider J, Elhag D, Nigam V, Behfar A, Christman KL. Human versus porcine tissue sourcing for an injectable myocardial matrix hydrogel. Biomater Sci. 2014;2(5):735–44.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c3bm60283d.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Johnson TD, Lin SY, Christman KL. Tailoring material properties of a nanofibrous extracellular matrix derived hydrogel. Nanotechnology. 2011;22(49):494015.  https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-4484/22/49/494015.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kadler KE, Hill A, Canty-Laird EG. Collagen fibrillogenesis: fibronectin, integrins, and minor collagens as organizers and nucleators. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2008;20(5):495–501.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceb.2008.06.008.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kadler KE, Holmes DF, Trotter JA, Chapman JA. Collagen fibril formation. Biochem J. 1996;316(Pt 1):1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Keane TJ, Londono R, Turner NJ, Badylak SF. Consequences of ineffective decellularization of biologic scaffolds on the host response. Biomaterials. 2012;33(6):1771–81.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.10.054.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kim MY, Farnebo S, Woon CYL, Schmitt T, Pham H, Chang J. Augmentation of tendon healing with an injectable tendon hydrogel in a rat achilles tendon model. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133(5):645e–53e.  https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000000106.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kopecek J. Hydrogel biomaterials: a smart future? Biomaterials. 2007;28(34):5185–92.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.07.044.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kwon JS, Yoon SM, Shim SW, Park JH, Min KJ, Oh HJ, Kim JH, Kim YJ, Yoon JJ, Choi BH, Kim MS. Injectable extracellular matrix hydrogel developed using porcine articular cartilage. Int J Pharm. 2013;454(1):183–91.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpharm.2013.06.023.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Lee JS, Shin J, Park HM, Kim YG, Kim BG, Oh JW, Cho SW. Liver extracellular matrix providing dual functions of two-dimensional substrate coating and three-dimensional injectable hydrogel platform for liver tissue engineering. Biomacromol. 2013;15(1):206–18.  https://doi.org/10.1021/bm4015039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Lee KY, Mooney DJ. Hydrogels for tissue engineering. Chem Rev. 2001;101(7):1869–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Medberry CJ, Crapo PM, Siu BF, Carruthers CA, Wolf MT, Nagarkar SP, Agrawal V, Jones KE, Kelly J, Johnson SA, Velankar SS, Watkins SC, Modo M, Badylak SF. Hydrogels derived from central nervous system extracellular matrix. Biomaterials. 2013;34(4):1033–40.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.10.062.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Mercuri JJ, Gill SS, Simionescu DT. Novel tissue-derived biomimetic scaffold for regenerating the human nucleus pulposus. J Biomed Mater Res. 2011;96A(2):422–35.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.33001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Mercuri JJ, Patnaik S, Dion G, Gill SS, Liao J, Simionescu DT. Regenerative potential of decellularized porcine nucleus pulposus hydrogel scaffolds: stem cell differentiation, matrix remodeling, and biocompatibility studies. Tissue Eng. 2013;19(7–8):952–66.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.TEA.2012.0088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Miller EJ. Structural studies on cartilage collagen employing limited cleavage and solubilization with pepsin. Biochemistry. 1972;11(26):4903–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Moore AJ, Beazley WD, Bibby MC, Devine DA. Antimicrobial activity of cecropins. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1996;37(6):1077–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Nelson CM, Bissell MJ. Of extracellular matrix, scaffolds, and signaling: tissue architecture regulates development, homeostasis, and cancer. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2006;22:287–309.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.cellbio.22.010305.104315.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Nerem R. The challenge of imitating nature. Principles of tissue engineering. 3rd ed. Burlington: Elsevier; 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Ni P, Ding Q, Fan M, Liao J, Qian Z, Luo J, Li X, Luo F, Yang Z, Wei Y. Injectable thermosensitive PEG-PCL-PEG hydrogel/acellular bone matrix composite for bone regeneration in cranial defects. Biomaterials. 2014;35(1):236–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.10.016.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Parkinson J, Kadler KE, Brass A. Simple physical model of collagen fibrillogenesis based on diffusion limited aggregation. J Mol Biol. 1995;247(4):823–31.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jmbi.1994.0182.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Petersen TH, Calle EA, Zhao LP, Lee EJ, Gui LQ, Raredon MB, Gavrilov K, Yi T, Zhuang ZW, Breuer C, Herzog E, Niklason LE. Tissue-engineered lungs for in vivo implantation. Science. 2010;329(5991):538–41.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1189345.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Pilipchuk SP, Vaicik MK, Larson JC, Gazyakan E, Cheng M-H, Brey EM. Influence of crosslinking on the stiffness and degradation of dermis-derived hydrogels. J Biomed Mater Res. 2013;101(10):2883–95.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.34602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Poon CJ, Pereira E. Cotta MV, Sinha S, Palmer JA, Woods AA, Morrison WA, Abberton KM. Preparation of an adipogenic hydrogel from subcutaneous adipose tissue. Acta Biomaterialia. 2013;9(3):5609–20.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2012.11.003.
  66. 66.
    Ravi S, Caves JM, Martinez AW, Xiao J, Wen J, Haller CA, Davis ME, Chaikof EL. Effect of bone marrow-derived extracellular matrix on cardiac function after ischemic injury. Biomaterials. 2012;33(31):7736–45.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.07.010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Reing JE, Brown BN, Daly KA, Freund JM, Gilbert TW, Hsiong SX, Huber A, Kullas KE, Tottey S, Wolf MT, Badylak SF. The effects of processing methods upon mechanical and biologic properties of porcine dermal extracellular matrix scaffolds. Biomaterials. 2010;31(33):8626–33.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.07.083.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Reing JE, Zhang L, Myers-Irvin J, Cordero KE, Freytes DO, Heber-Katz E, Bedelbaeva K, McIntosh D, Dewilde A, Braunhut SJ, Badylak SF. Degradation products of extracellular matrix affect cell migration and proliferation. Tissue Eng. 2009;15(3):605–14.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.tea.2007.0425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Rosamond W, Flegal K, Friday G, Furie K, Go A, Greenlund K, Haase N, Ho M, Howard V, Kissela B, Kittner S, Lloyd-Jones D, McDermott M, Meigs J, Moy C, Nichol G, O’Donnell CJ, Roger V, Rumsfeld J, Sorlie P, Steinberger J, Thom T, Wasserthiel-Smoller S, Hong Y, American Heart Association Statistics C, Stroke Statistics S. Heart disease and stroke statistics —2007 update: a report from the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Circulation. 2007;115(5):e69–e171.  https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.106.179918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Rubin AL, Drake MP, Davison PF, Pfahl D, Speakman PT, Schmitt FO. Effects of pepsin treatment on the interaction properties of tropocollagen macromolecules. Biochemistry. 1965;4(2):181–90.  https://doi.org/10.1021/bi00878a001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Russell A, Bertram T. Moving into the clinic. Principles of tissue engineering. 3rd ed. Burlington: Elsevier; 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Sampath TK, Reddi AH. Importance of geometry of the extracellular matrix in endochondral bone differentiation. J Cell Biol. 1984;98(6):2192–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Sarikaya A, Record R, Wu CC, Tullius B, Badylak S, Ladisch M. Antimicrobial activity associated with extracellular matrices. Tissue Eng. 2002;8(1):63–71.  https://doi.org/10.1089/107632702753503063.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Sawkins MJ, Bowen W, Dhadda P, Markides H, Sidney LE, Taylor AJ, Rose FRAJ, Badylak SF, Shakesheff KM, White LJ. Hydrogels derived from demineralized and decellularized bone extracellular matrix. Acta Biomater. 2013;9(8):7865–73.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2013.04.029.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Seif-Naraghi SB, Horn D, Schup-Magoffin PJ, Christman KL. Injectable extracellular matrix derived hydrogel provides a platform for enhanced retention and delivery of a heparin-binding growth factor. Acta Biomater. 2012;8(10):3695–703.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2012.06.030.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Seif-Naraghi SB, Salvatore MA, Schup-Magoffin PJ, Hu DP, Christman KL. Design and characterization of an injectable pericardial matrix gel: a potentially autologous scaffold for cardiac tissue engineering. Tissue Eng. 2010;16(6):2017–27.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.TEA.2009.0768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Seif-Naraghi SB, Singelyn JM, Salvatore MA, Osborn KG, Wang JJ, Sampat U, Kwan OL, Strachan GM, Wong J, Schup-Magoffin PJ, Braden RL, Bartels K, DeQuach JA, Preul M, Kinsey AM, DeMaria AN, Dib N, Christman KL. Safety and efficacy of an injectable extracellular matrix hydrogel for treating myocardial infarction. Sci Transl Med. 2013;5(173).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Sellaro TL, Ranade A, Faulk DM, McCabe GP, Dorko K, Badylak SF, Strom SC. Maintenance of human hepatocyte function in vitro by liver-derived extracellular matrix gels. Tissue Eng. 2010;16:1075–82.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.TEA.2008.0587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Shell DH, Croce MA, Cagiannos C, Jernigan TW, Edwards N, Fabian TC. Comparison of small-intestinal submucosa and expanded polytetrafluoroethylene as a vascular conduit in the presence of gram-positive contamination. Ann Surg. 2005;241(6):995–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Singelyn JM, DeQuach JA, Seif-Naraghi SB, Littlefield RB, Schup-Magoffin PJ, Christman KL. Naturally derived myocardial matrix as an injectable scaffold for cardiac tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2009;30(29):5409–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.06.045.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Singelyn JM, Sundaramurthy P, Johnson TD, Schup-Magoffin PJ, Hu DP, Faulk DM, Wang J, Mayle KM, Bartels K, Salvatore M, Kinsey AM, DeMaria AN, Dib N, Christman KL. Catheter-deliverable hydrogel derived from decellularized ventricular extracellular matrix increases endogenous cardiomyocytes and preserves cardiac function post-myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59(8):751–63.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2011.10.888.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Skardal A, Smith L, Bharadwaj S, Atala A, Soker S, Zhang Y. Tissue specific synthetic ECM hydrogels for 3-D in vitro maintenance of hepatocyte function. Biomaterials. 2012;33(18):4565–75.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.03.034.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Streuli C. Extracellular matrix remodelling and cellular differentiation. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 1999;11(5):634–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Uriel S, Huang J-J, Moya ML, Francis ME, Wang R, S-y Chang, Cheng M-H, Brey EM. The role of adipose protein derived hydrogels in adipogenesis. Biomaterials. 2008;29(27):3712–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.05.028.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Uriel S, Labay E, Francis-Sedlak M, Moya ML, Weichselbaum RR, Ervin N, Cankova Z, Brey EM. Extraction and assembly of tissue-derived gels for cell culture and tissue engineering. Tissue Eng. 2009;15(3):309–21.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.tec.2008.0309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Uygun BE, Soto-Gutierrez A, Yagi H, Izamis M-L, Guzzardi MA, Shulman C, Milwid J, Kobayashi N, Tilles A, Berthiaume F, Hertl M, Nahmias Y, Yarmush ML, Uygun K. Organ reengineering through development of a transplantable recellularized liver graft using decellularized liver matrix. Nat Med. 2010;16(7):814–20.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.2170.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Voytik-Harbin SL, Brightman AO. Small intestinal submucosa: a tissue derived extracellular matrix that promotes tissue-specific growth and differentiation of cells in vitro. Tissue Eng. 1998;4:157–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Voytik-Harbin SL, Brightman AO, Kraine MR, Waisner B, Badylak SF. Identification of extractable growth factors from small intestinal submucosa. J Cell Biochem. 1997;67(4):478–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Wolf MT, Carruthers CA, Dearth CL, Crapo PM, Huber A, Burnsed OA, Londono R, Johnson SA, Daly KA, Stahl EC, Freund JM, Medberry CJ, Carey LE, Nieponice A, Amoroso NJ, Badylak SF. Polypropylene surgical mesh coated with extracellular matrix mitigates the host foreign body response. J Biomed Mater Res. 2014;102(1):234–46.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.34671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Wolf MT, Daly KA, Brennan-Pierce EP, Johnson SA, Carruthers CA, D’Amore A, Nagarkar SP, Velankar SS, Badylak SF. A hydrogel derived from decellularized dermal extracellular matrix. Biomaterials. 2012;33(29):7028–38.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.06.051.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Wolf MT, Daly KA, Reing JE, Badylak SF. Biologic scaffold composed of skeletal muscle extracellular matrix. Biomaterials. 2012;33(10):2916–25.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.12.055.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Young DA, Ibrahim DO, Hu D, Christman KL. Injectable hydrogel scaffold from decellularized human lipoaspirate. Acta Biomater. 2011;7(3):1040–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2010.09.035.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Zhang L, Zhang F, Weng Z, Brown BN, Yan H, Ma XM, Vosler PS, Badylak SF, Dixon CE, Cui XT, Chen J. Effect of an inductive hydrogel composed of urinary bladder matrix upon functional recovery following traumatic brain injury. Tissue Eng. 2013;19(17–18):1909–18.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.tea.2012.0622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael J. Sawkins
    • 1
  • Lindsey T. Saldin
    • 2
  • Stephen F. Badylak
    • 3
  • Lisa J. White
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of AnatomyRoyal College of Surgeons in IrelandDublin 2Ireland
  2. 2.Department of BioengineeringUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  3. 3.Surgery and BioengineeringUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  4. 4.School of PharmacyUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations