Advertisement

Myogenesis pp 55-79 | Cite as

Exercising Bioengineered Skeletal Muscle In Vitro: Biopsy to Bioreactor

  • Daniel C. Turner
  • Andreas M. Kasper
  • Robert A. Seaborne
  • Alexander D. Brown
  • Graeme L. Close
  • Mark Murphy
  • Claire E. Stewart
  • Neil R. W. Martin
  • Adam P. Sharples
Protocol
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 1889)

Abstract

The bioengineering of skeletal muscle tissue in-vitro has enabled researchers to more closely mimic the in-vivo skeletal muscle niche. The three-dimensional (3-D) structure of the tissue engineered systems employed to date enable the generation of highly aligned and differentiated myofibers within a representative biological matrix. The use of electrical stimulation to model concentric contraction, via innervation of the myofibers, and the use of mechanical loading to model passive lengthening or stretch has begun to provide a manipulable environment to investigate the cellular and molecular responses following exercise mimicking stimuli in-vitro. Currently available bioreactor systems allow either electrical stimulation or mechanical loading to be utilized at any given time. In the present manuscript, we describe in detail the methodological procedures to create 3-D bioengineered skeletal muscle using both cell lines and/or primary human muscle derived cells from a tissue biopsy, through to modeling exercising stimuli using a bioreactor that can provide both electrical stimulation and mechanical loading simultaneously within the same in-vitro system.

Key words

Skeletal muscle Tissue engineering Bioengineering Myoblasts Satellite cells Exercise Biological scaffolds 

References

  1. 1.
    Brevet A, Pinto E, Peacock J, Stockdale FE (1976) Myosin synthesis increased by electrical stimulation of skeletal muscle cell cultures. Science 193(4258):1152–1154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wehrle U, Dusterhoft S, Pette D (1994) Effects of chronic electrical stimulation on myosin heavy chain expression in satellite cell cultures derived from rat muscles of different fiber-type composition. Differentiation 58(1):37–46.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1432-0436.1994.5810037.xCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vandenburgh H, Kaufman S (1979) In vitro model for stretch-induced hypertrophy of skeletal muscle. Science 203(4377):265–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baar K, Torgan CE, Kraus WE, Esser K (2000) Autocrine phosphorylation of p70(S6k) in response to acute stretch in myotubes. Mol Cell Biol Res Commun 4(2):76–80.  https://doi.org/10.1006/mcbr.2000.0257CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Donnelly K, Khodabukus A, Philp A, Deldicque L, Dennis RG, Baar K (2010) A novel bioreactor for stimulating skeletal muscle in vitro. Tissue Eng Part C Methods 16(4):711–718.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.TEC.2009.0125CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nedachi T, Fujita H, Kanzaki M (2008) Contractile C2C12 myotube model for studying exercise-inducible responses in skeletal muscle. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 295(5):E1191–E1204.  https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpendo.90280.2008CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nikolic N, Bakke SS, Kase ET, Rudberg I, Flo Halle I, Rustan AC, Thoresen GH, Aas V (2012) Electrical pulse stimulation of cultured human skeletal muscle cells as an in vitro model of exercise. PLoS One 7(3):e33203.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0033203CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vandenburgh HH (1988) A computerized mechanical cell stimulator for tissue culture: effects on skeletal muscle organogenesis. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol 24(7):609–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vandenburgh HH, Karlisch P (1989) Longitudinal growth of skeletal myotubes in vitro in a new horizontal mechanical cell stimulator. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol 25(7):607–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Martin NR, Passey SL, Player DJ, Khodabukus A, Ferguson RA, Sharples AP, Mudera V, Baar K, Lewis MP (2013) Factors affecting the structure and maturation of human tissue engineered skeletal muscle. Biomaterials 34(23):5759–5765.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.04.002CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sharples AP, Player DJ, Martin NR, Mudera V, Stewart CE, Lewis MP (2012) Modelling in vivo skeletal muscle ageing in vitro using three-dimensional bioengineered constructs. Aging Cell 11(6):986–995.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-9726.2012.00869.xCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dennis RG, Kosnik PE 2nd (2000) Excitability and isometric contractile properties of mammalian skeletal muscle constructs engineered in vitro. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Anim 36(5):327–335.  https://doi.org/10.1290/1071-2690(2000)036<0327:eaicpo>2.0.co;2CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dennis RG, Kosnik PE 2nd, Gilbert ME, Faulkner JA (2001) Excitability and contractility of skeletal muscle engineered from primary cultures and cell lines. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 280(2):C288–C295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Huang YC, Dennis RG, Baar K (2006) Cultured slow vs. fast skeletal muscle cells differ in physiology and responsiveness to stimulation. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 291(1):C11–C17.  https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpcell.00366.2005CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Huang YC, Dennis RG, Larkin L, Baar K (2005) Rapid formation of functional muscle in vitro using fibrin gels. J Appl Physiol 98(2):706–713.  https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00273.2004CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Martin NR, Passey SL, Player DJ, Mudera V, Baar K, Greensmith L, Lewis MP (2015) Neuromuscular junction formation in tissue-engineered skeletal muscle augments contractile function and improves cytoskeletal organization. Tissue Eng Part A 21(19–20):2595–2604.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.TEA.2015.0146CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Khodabukus A, Baar K (2012) Defined electrical stimulation emphasizing excitability for the development and testing of engineered skeletal muscle. Tissue Eng Part C Methods 18(5):349–357.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.TEC.2011.0364CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Khodabukus A, Baar K (2009) Regulating fibrinolysis to engineer skeletal muscle from the C2C12 cell line. Tissue Eng Part C Methods 15(3):501–511.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.TEC.2008.0286CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cheng CS, Ran L, Bursac N, Kraus WE, Truskey GA (2016) Cell density and joint microRNA-133a and microRNA-696 inhibition enhance differentiation and contractile function of engineered human skeletal muscle tissues. Tissue Eng Part A 22(7–8):573–583.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.TEA.2015.0359CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shahini A, Choudhury D, Asmani M, Zhao R, Lei P, Andreadis ST (2017) NANOG restores the impaired myogenic differentiation potential of skeletal myoblasts after multiple population doublings. Stem Cell Res 26:55–66.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scr.2017.11.018CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Khodabukus A, Baar K (2015) Contractile and metabolic properties of engineered skeletal muscle derived from slow and fast phenotype mouse muscle. J Cell Physiol 230(8):1750–1757.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jcp.24848CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Player DJ, Martin NR, Passey SL, Sharples AP, Mudera V, Lewis MP (2014) Acute mechanical overload increases IGF-I and MMP-9 mRNA in 3D tissue-engineered skeletal muscle. Biotechnol Lett 36(5):1113–1124.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10529-014-1464-yCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Powell CA, Smiley BL, Mills J, Vandenburgh HH (2002) Mechanical stimulation improves tissue-engineered human skeletal muscle. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 283(5):C1557–C1565.  https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpcell.00595.2001CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yaffe D, Saxel O (1977) Serial passaging and differentiation of myogenic cells isolated from dystrophic mouse muscle. Nature 270(5639):725–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Blau HM, Pavlath GK, Hardeman EC, Chiu CP, Silberstein L, Webster SG, Miller SC, Webster C (1985) Plasticity of the differentiated state. Science 230(4727):758–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Patel HP, Syddall HE, Martin HJ, Stewart CE, Cooper C, Sayer AA (2010) Hertfordshire sarcopenia study: design and methods. BMC Geriatr 10:43.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2318-10-43CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Crown AL, He XL, Holly JM, Lightman SL, Stewart CE (2000) Characterisation of the IGF system in a primary adult human skeletal muscle cell model, and comparison of the effects of insulin and IGF-I on protein metabolism. J Endocrinol 167(3):403–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kasper AM, Turner DC, Martin NRW, Sharples AP (2018) Mimicking exercise in three-dimensional bioengineered skeletal muscle to investigate cellular and molecular mechanisms of physiological adaptation. J Cell Physiol 233(3):1985–1998.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jcp.25840CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Khodabukus A, Baar K (2014) The effect of serum origin on tissue engineered skeletal muscle function. J Cell Biochem 115(12):2198–2207.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jcb.24938CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Adelman B, Rizk A, Hanners E (1988) Plasminogen interactions with platelets in plasma. Blood 72(5):1530–1535PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lopez-Alemany R, Suelves M, Munoz-Canoves P (2003) Plasmin generation dependent on alpha-enolase-type plasminogen receptor is required for myogenesis. Thromb Haemost 90(4):724–733.  https://doi.org/10.1160/th03-04-0291CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Suelves M, Lopez-Alemany R, Lluis F, Aniorte G, Serrano E, Parra M, Carmeliet P, Munoz-Canoves P (2002) Plasmin activity is required for myogenesis in vitro and skeletal muscle regeneration in vivo. Blood 99(8):2835–2844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Paxton JZ, Grover LM, Baar K (2010) Engineering an in vitro model of a functional ligament from bone to bone. Tissue Eng Part A 16(11):3515–3525.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.TEA.2010.0039CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Khodabukus A, Baar K (2015) Glucose concentration and streptomycin alter in vitro muscle function and metabolism. J Cell Physiol 230(6):1226–1234.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jcp.24857CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Khodabukus A, Baar K (2015) Streptomycin decreases the functional shift to a slow phenotype induced by electrical stimulation in engineered muscle. Tissue Eng Part A 21(5–6):1003–1012.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.TEA.2014.0462CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zink W, Sinner B, Zausig Y, Graf BM (2007) Myotoxicity of local anaesthetics: experimental myth or clinical truth? Anaesthesist 56(2):118–127.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00101-006-1121-5CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zink W, Graf BM, Sinner B, Martin E, Fink RH, Kunst G (2002) Differential effects of bupivacaine on intracellular Ca2+ regulation: potential mechanisms of its myotoxicity. Anesthesiology 97(3):710–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Goldberg AL (1967) Work-induced growth of skeletal muscle in normal and hypophysectomized rats. Am J Phys 213(5):1193–1198.  https://doi.org/10.1152/ajplegacy.1967.213.5.1193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Khodabukus A, Baehr LM, Bodine SC, Baar K (2015) Role of contraction duration in inducing fast-to-slow contractile and metabolic protein and functional changes in engineered muscle. J Cell Physiol 230(10):2489–2497.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jcp.24985CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel C. Turner
    • 1
  • Andreas M. Kasper
    • 2
  • Robert A. Seaborne
    • 1
    • 2
  • Alexander D. Brown
    • 2
  • Graeme L. Close
    • 2
  • Mark Murphy
    • 3
  • Claire E. Stewart
    • 2
  • Neil R. W. Martin
    • 4
  • Adam P. Sharples
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Science and Technology in Medicine (ISTM)Keele University School of Medicine, Keele UniversityStaffordshireUK
  2. 2.Exercise Metabolism and Adaptation Research Group (EMARG), Research Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences (RISES)Liverpool John Moores UniversityLiverpoolUK
  3. 3.School of Pharmacy and Biomolecular SciencesLiverpool John Moores UniversityLiverpoolUK
  4. 4.Musculoskeletal Biology Research Group, School of Sport, Exercise, and Health SciencesLoughborough UniversityLoughboroughUK

Personalised recommendations