Abstract
Tissue engineering which is applied in regenerative medicine has three basic components: cells, scaffolds and growth factors. This multidisciplinary field can regulate cell behaviors in different conditions using scaffolds and growth factors. Scaffolds perform this regulation with their structural, mechanical, functional and bioinductive properties and growth factors by attaching to and activating their receptors in cells. There are various types of biological extracellular matrix (ECM) and polymeric scaffolds in tissue engineering. Recently, many researchers have turned to using biological ECM rather than polymeric scaffolds because of its safety and growth factors. Therefore, selection the right scaffold with the best properties tailored to clinical use is an ideal way to regulate cell behaviors in order to repair or improve damaged tissue functions in regenerative medicine. In this review we first divided properties of biological scaffold into intrinsic and extrinsic elements and then explain the components of each element. Finally, the types of scaffold storage methods and their advantages and disadvantages are examined.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Tissue engineering has appeared in the 1980s. This multidisciplinary field is applied in regenerative medicine to help various damaged tissues and organs, and it is based on using of cells, scaffolds, and bioactive factors. Scaffolds not only provide a supportive template for cell attachment, but they also create a biomechanical and physical environment. So the scaffolds play an active role in the regulation of cell behaviors (Qiu 2012).
Because of the toxic and inflammatory capacity of synthetic polymers, which lead to reducing extracellular matrix (ECM) remodeling and growth capacity, the xeno-or allogeneic tissues are substituted to biodegradable synthetic scaffolds (Thompson 1992). The cells of xeno-or allogeneic tissues as biological scaffolds, are removed, and their ECM remains as 3-dimensioal (3D) structure (Badylak et al. 2009). These natural ECMs decrease immune and inflammatory response in grafting through decellularization, and serve as inductive means through their structural and functional proteins and endogenous growth factors (Assmann 2013; Badylak et al. 2012).
Collagen, elastin, and various glycosaminoglycans (GAGs), are the main component of biological scaffolds, in which collagen needs to form stable structures, then elastin provides elasticity and flexibility of ECM, and eventually, GAGs cause adhesion, migration, proliferation, and differentiation of cells (Jackson et al. (1991); Stringer and Gallagher 1997). Also, bioactive factors that are preserved in biological scaffolds, have an essential role in regulatory signals and functions (Crapo et al. 2011; Gilbert et al. 2006).
During the decellularization process and preservation of biological scaffolds, the amount of these elements, especially bioactive factors, may be diminished or led to the inactivation of bioactive factors (Crapo et al. 2011; Gilbert et al. 2006). So using exogenous bioactive factors can improve this deficiency. Systematical and local application of exogenous bioactive factors is not suitable options because of the following reasons, including fast diffusion of factors in body fluids, which may create unsatisfactory side effects; rapid clearance of factors from application site and low half-life of them in circulation, which required repeated doses and caused raising remedy cost (Nagase 2007; Moreno 2005; Liu 1994; Ohno 2007). So the researchers come to the point that the loading of exogenous bioactive factors into various scaffolds would be an alternative method (Singh et al. 2008).
In this review, we study the useful agents to have an ideal biological scaffold. One of these agents is how to prepare the scaffold, which can be divided into two categories: intrinsic and extrinsic elements. Intrinsic elements including the condition of factors which belong to the ECM itself and should/not should be preserved, and, extrinsic elements consist of various biological and non-biological components that do not belong to the ECM and must be added to or removed from it Fig. 1. Another agent is how to store the scaffold, which includes various methods of short-term and long-term storages with their own advantages and disadvantages.
Intrinsic elements
Immunological status
Decellularization process aims is to produce acellular tissue, which has following properties: (1) without any remnants of the cellular component such as cell membrane, nucleic acids, and mitochondria; (2) without any immunological elements; (3) without any cytotoxic elements, and, (4) without any part which triggers calcification process. Considering the maintenance maximum natural state of ECM, it should be emphasized that any decellularization methods or combination of them do not remove 100% of cellular components from tissues (Kawecki 2018). As a result, the sufficient removal of cellular components from xenograft tissues is vital to avoid an undesirable immune response (Kim et al. 2002).
Before proceeding to discuss the sufficient removal of cellular components from xenograft tissues, let us characterize the difference between the host remodeling and the host immunological reactions: degradation of matrix proteins within xenogeneic scaffolds after implantation, without any adverse immune reactions, is needed for tissue reconstruction. But the deterioration must be at an appropriate rate, fast enough to minimize the possible unwanted immune response, and yet slow enough to retain the host matrix remodeling process (Kim et al. 2002).
The materials of scaffolds cause changes in the population of macrophages immediately upon implantation. These changes include the conversion of M1 macrophages (pro-inflammatory and cytotoxic agents), to M2 macrophages (anti-inflammatory and pro-healing agents), and stimulate Th2 lymphocytes which inhibit macrophages activation and generally contribute in transplant acceptance (Brown 2009, 2012; Badylak 2008; Allman 2001, 2002). Eventually, these immune response cascades promote degradation and the constructive remodeling of scaffolds.
So anti-inflammatory responses are associated with host remodeling reaction, but pro-inflammatory responses, which cause encapsulation and foreign body rejection, are related to adverse immunological responses (Daly 2012). Finally, it must be said that the change of degradation rate can alter the host response. The rate of degradation, in turn, can be changed by different tissues and diverse tissue sources, which include various quantities of immunological components, and the age of tissue sources, which causes a change in the composition of ECM (Record (2001); Carey 2014; Tottey 2011).
Cellular components
Based on the findings obtained from in vivo studies, in which constructive remodeling response was observed without host immunological response, the following criteria are proposed to ensure decellularization methods (Crapo et al. 2011): First, the absence of intact cells and their nucleus are examined. In the next step, the amount and the size of DNA fragments are measured, and they should be less than 50 ng and 200 pb, respectively.
It should be considered that the remnants of cellular debris, including hydrophilic and lipophilic antigens in allogeneic or xenogeneic scaffolds, may promote the rejection process upon implantation (Wong 2016). The dominant histocompatibility complex class I (MHC-I) or human leukocyte antigens I (HLA-I) molecules in humans, which are presented on the surface of almost all nucleated cells, especially are considered to be xenoantigens or alloantigenics respectively, and initiate the immune response and inflammation (Cascalho and Platt 2001; Yang and Sykes 2007). So the usage of lipophile solubilization and hydrophile solubilization steps during the decellularization process are a useful strategy for avoiding fibrous encapsulation and immune rejection (Wong 2016). Eventually, it should be noted that the remaining nucleic acids may trigger the calcification process, so the extraction of residual DNA and RNA should be considered (Poornejad 2016).
α-Gal epitopes
Galactose-α-(1,3)-galactose terminal carbohydrate epitopes (α-Gal) exist in the tissues of all mammals and most lower creatures except in old world primates and humans, so in xenograft implantation, in primates and humans, these epitopes should be considered (Sandrin 1993). The lack of α-Gal epitopes in primates and humans may result in a high level of α-Gal antibody in the circulation during transplants, and in turn, create a significant inflammatory response or a hyperactive rejection response to xenograft scaffolds (Xu 2009).
Several methods have been used to eliminate these epitopes, and diminish the rejection response. These methods include the following: transgenic modification, structural masking and enzymatic removal of xenogeneic epitopes (Xu 2009; Galili et al. 1997; Stone et al. 1997). However, in commercial ECM scaffolds, the remaining of α-Gal epitopes have been found and have not been had any lousy effect during in vivo ECM remodeling (Daly 2009; Raeder 2002). Similar to the remaining DNA fragments, although the residual α-Gal epitopes should be stimulated an immune rejection, it is likely that a threshold amount is likely needed to create adverse effect on the ECM remodeling response (Badylak and Gilbert 2008). So the low amount and highly scattered distribution of α-Gal epitopes cannot activate immune response (Raeder 2002). Finally, it should be noted that none-α-Gal epitopes have been seen, still produce immunogenicity (Chen 2005; Lam 2004).
DAMPs
Damage associated molecular patterns (DAMPs), or alarmins are multifunctional proteins. They exist in the nucleus, cytoplasm or exosomes, preserve intracellular homeostasis, and have no secretion signals typically, but they can be secreted by macrophages or released by necrotic cells and act as endogenous danger signals to the immune system (Srikrishna and Freeze 2009). However, they function as pro-inflammatory, chemotactic, proliferative, and tissue regeneration agents (Daly 2012). Heat shock proteins, high mobility group box1 (HMGB1), S100 proteins, hyaluronan and heparin sulfate belong to the DAMPs, which are known to date (Rubartelli and Lotze (2007)). Between them, HMGB1 is the best characterized of the DAMPs and acts as a DNA binding nuclear protein intracellularly (Thomas and Travers 2001). As already mentioned, complete removal of cellular components and DNA is not achieved by a variety of decelullarization methods, so that DAMPs maybe existed in biological scaffolds.
The DAMPs do not just create a negative host response upon implantation, but their effects are more complex than this. For example, in addition to inducing the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines by HMGB1 in some disease conditions, it can also be a chemotactic and, or proliferative agent for some cell types (Lolmede 2009; Ranzato 2009). These results may be due to the binding of HMGB1 to a variety of molecules and receptors, which in turn activate various intracellular signaling pathways. On the other hand, this should be taken into account that the content of HMGB1 within scaffolds depends on tissue source, decellularization protocol, and the crosslinking agents, which are used during scaffold processing steps (Badylak 2014).
Structural properties
Microscopic and ultrastructural features of the scaffold have an essential role in the regulation of cell behaviors such as the ability of cell migration into the scaffold (Brown 2006a) or determination of cell phenotype (Gong 2008; Sellaro 2007). So the preservation of the ultrastructure and 3D architecture of the scaffold is vital throughout processing steps of the tissues during decellularization (Brown 2006a; Sacks and Gloeckner 1999). But it should be noted that every the decellularization method will alter ECM components and create some disruption in its ultrastructure. Therefore, one of the goals that should be considered in decellularization process is to minimize these unwanted results (Crapo et al. 2011).
State of ECM components
The maintenance of the state of major ECM components, including the natural structure, regular arrangement, and distribution of collagen fibers without any obvious muss or tear, leads to the preservation of the scaffold ultrastructure (Rashtbar 2018). Such conditions can provide unique orientation, which will help in vitro or in vivo recellularization (Scarritt et al. 2015). On the other hand, in some acellular tissues involved in accommodation such as blood vessels, bladder or skin, the evaluation of elasticity is also done (Amiel 2006; Song 2014; Debels 2015). In addition to collagen and elastin fibers, the maintenance of the microvasculature and capillary bed will be a curtail feature to successful recellularization (Rashtbar 2018; Scarritt et al. 2015).
Porosity
Since dense structure can inhibit the ingrowth of host tissue and neovascularization (Lee et al. 2015), a certain degree of porosity of scaffold has an important role in cell infiltration and proliferation (Cartwright 2006). The pores of scaffold create a larger surface area for exchanging of nutrients and metabolic waste, and make better the mechanical interlocking between the scaffold and the surrounding tissue and may facilitate the integration of them in implantation (Lee et al. 2015; Karageorgiou and Kaplan 2005). Interconnections among pores facilitate cell migration into internal pores, favorable transport of nutrition and waste, and increase cell communication in different pores (Yang 2008). Finally, scaffolds with appropriate porosity and suitable pore size are ideal for loading drugs and factors (Yan 2018).
Water absorption ability or swelling ratio of scaffold is one of the critical factors, which is affected by porosity and usually evaluated along with it (Ma 2004; Jiang 2013). The scaffold with highly porous structure can retain a large amount of water within itself, which in turn hold the nutrients and transfer the metabolites to accelerate cellular infiltration, adhesion, growth, and proliferation (Mao 2003; Zhang 2011).
Basement membrane
The basement membrane is a dense part of the ECM and prevents cell migration into the underlying connective tissue (Brown 2006a). This ultrastructure is in contrast to the underlying matrix, which has irregular fibrous architecture, and facilitates cellular mobility and penetration of cells into the scaffold (Brown and Badylak 2014). So if invasive growth of cells into the scaffold is required, the scaffold with meshwork surface should be used. Alternatively, if noninvasive growth of cells is needed, such as epithelial cells, the scaffold with an intact basement membrane may be more practical (Brown 2006a).
Therefore in the study of some acellular tissues, mainly derived from hollow organs (such as blood vessels or bladder), evaluation of luminal and abluminal side features is also done (Amiel 2006; Coakley 2015). The smooth, dense surface of the luminal layer shows the status of the basement membrane, and a network of collagen fibers of the abluminal side demonstrates the porosity of this layer (Coakley 2015)..
Mechanical properties
The mechanical properties of scaffolds are directly affected by the components of the tissue, such as collagen fiber, GAGs, and elastin, and how they are arranged within ECM (Du 2011). In modulation of many cellular functions such as proliferation and alignment of cells, ECM components expression and biomechanical properties of tissue, the mechanical forces are critical (Wang and Thampatty 2006; Grenier 2005). So the mechanical properties of the scaffold should be similar to those of the tissue at the implantation site, or sufficient to supporting and resisting against the surrounding pressure without inhibiting suitable biomechanical conditions (Garg 2012).
Shortly after implantation, the strength of scaffold typically decreases, which is temporally associated with degradation of the scaffold in the defect site. However, after residing in the infiltrating cells, the new ECM produces and rapid scaffold remodeling occurs, which in turn increases the strength and mechanical behavior until the normal function of tissue has been restored (Badylak 2001,2005). So the mechanical behavior of scaffold alters during the remodeling process, and such changes are affected by the rate of the scaffold degradation, and the speed and extent to which the infiltrating cells deposit new ECM (Badylak et al. 2009; Badylak 2001). Therefore, as already mentioned, the optimal speed of degradation of scaffold, in addition to adverse immunological reactions, plays a role in its mechanical properties. So that rapid degradation or absorption of scaffold along with unbalanced new ECM production, results in the formation of fibrotic scar tissue in the reparative process (Xu 2009).
Also, according to the elastic modulus of matrices, scaffolds mimicking the brain, muscles or bone, were neurogenic, myogenic, and osteogenic, respectively (Engler 2006). So the mechanical environment, which is sensed by seeded cells, can affect the differentiation of stem cells and the recellularization (Agmon and Christman 2016). On the other hand, in some biological condition such as filling and emptying of the bladder the biomechanical factor is so critical (Boruch 2010); or since progressive weight-bearing and early rehabilitation in tendon and ligament repair, the mechanical properties of scaffolds should be superior to the host tissue (Chen 2009).
During the preparation of acellular scaffold, a concern with this process is the disruption of collagen and elastic structure in the scaffold and some removal of GAGs from it, which will decrease the mechanical strength and viscoelasticity, and increase the biodegradation rate of the scaffold (Kawecki 2018). So the ideal scaffold should have enough mechanical properties to be appropriate for the surgical application, and maintain its original strength and surface area during remodeling process to prevent failure, shrinkage, bulge, or stretch (Hammond 2008).
Considering that the alignment and organization of collagen fibers are related to the function of the source tissue, an understanding of these characterizations of the collagen fiber is essential for the design of scaffolds. Besides, the mechanical behavior of single or multilayer of ECM is important for load-bearing application in clinical use (Badylak 2007). Finally, it should be noted that apart from the decellularization process, there are other factors e.g., the age of the animal, diet, or race, which influence the mechanical strength of the scaffold (Rashtbar 2018).
Functional and bioinductive properties
In addition, to create structural integrity, the maximum preservation of the ECM component during the decellularization process, can provide necessary spatial and contextual signals for various behaviors of cells and the production of varied secreted mediators (Booth 2012). So these components can turn cell-free scaffolds into a niche that recruits stem or progenitor cells and assist them in differentiating into functional tissue (Kawecki 2018). The ECM is an extremely dynamic structure that is continuously being replaced, revised and restored, and varies in composition according to the local and physiological situation of tissue (Booth 2012; Boudreau et al. 1995; Ingber 1991).
Based on the tissue from which the scaffold is derived, different types of collagens, glycoproteins, sulfated GAGs, and bioactive factors exist in the ECM (Yang 2010). Collagens are the most abundant component in the ECM, and because of their Arg-Gly-Asp (RGD) sequence, that is a usual ligand for different integrins, they play an essential role in cell adhesion (Hynes 1992; Kanematsu 2004; Khoshnoodi et al. 2008).
Two of the most important glycoproteins of ECM are fibronectin and laminin. Fibronectin is abundant in the RGD, which is essential for cell adhesion (Badylak 2004a,2002; Hirschi et al. 2002). Also, it plays a role in growth, migration, and differentiation of cells (Schwarzbauer 1991; Miyamoto 1998). It can bind other proteins such as collagen and act as a chemoattractant for fibroblast (Hirschi et al. 2002; Thibeault et al. 2003). Laminin also plays a role in cell adhesion through its YIGSR and IKVAV polypeptide sequences (Arenas-Herrera 2013).
GAGs usually are found in the form of proteoglycans in the ECM. They can bind to various proteins of ECM and modulate their functions (Stringer and Gallagher 1997). One of the most essential roles of GAGs is the protection of free growth factors from degradation (Saksela 1988). Another purpose of them is of importance in morphogenesis, which is vital for the recellularization process. The last part includes the maintenance of original phenotypes of repopulated cells, induction of cytoskeletal rearrangement, and cell shape changes and motility (Brown 2006b). Finally, they promote the retention of water and control the hydration of the ECM, so they are vital to the maintenance of intermolecular spacing for cell migration (Badylak 2004b).
After cell seeding and in vivo implantation of a scaffold, the behavior of cells, and the remodeling process will be affected by growth factors, and bioactive molecules (Boruch 2010; Arenas-Herrera 2013; Badylak 1995,2011). These effects occur during scaffold the degradation. The growth factors such as VEGF, bFGF and TGF-β are dissociated from GAGs, activated and exert their biological effects (Voytik-Harbin 1997; Hodde 2001; McDevitt et al. 2003). On the other hand, during degradation of the parent molecule, such as collagen and fibronectin, some fragments are produced. These products or cryptic peptides (such as endostatin derived from collagen XVIII) mediate a series of biological activities such as angiogenesis, anti-angiogenesis, antimicrobial and chemotactic effects (Kawecki 2018; Brennan 2006; Li et al. 2004; Zantop 2006). Finally, it has to be said that the age, in addition to structural changes, also influences functional changes in scaffold; so that this factor affects extracellular matrix composition and in turn causes behavioral changes in cells that are placed on the scaffold (Godin 2016; Smith 2017).
Extrinsic elements
Contaminations
Given that the scaffolds themselves have antibacterial activity (Sarikaya 2002), sterilization is an essential procedure in the preparation of biological scaffold. The purpose of this step is to minimize unwanted immune response by the elimination of any endotoxins and intact viral and bacterial DNA (Crapo et al. 2011), while preserving the structural, mechanical and biological properties of the scaffold (Kajbafzadeh 2013). Although some studies have shown that the aseptic process can remove the vast majority of microorganisms from the scaffold (Mendenhall 2017), the ideal decellularization process might not create enough sterilization (Song and Ott 2011). Even the use of antibiotics and antimycotics for disinfection of scaffold has low decontamination efficacy, because a percentage of donated scaffold has been rejected as a result of contamination (By 2012). Finally, keep in mind that unlike allogeneic tissues, xenogenic ECM scaffolds are classified as medical devices (Nichols et al. 2012); and because of endogenous viral-associated risk (Knight 2008), they require a validated sterilization technique for the competent national and international authorities such as Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in US or Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) in EU (Nichols et al. 2012).
Therefore, before implantation or in vitro use of biological scaffold, we required a sterilization method that while safe for scaffold, also provides good antiseptic results (Hussein 2016). For new methods of sterilization, a careful examination is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the protocols.
Toxic residual materials
An ideal scaffold should possess acceptable cytocompatibility for adhesion, migration, and outgrowth of various cells (Zvarova 2016). During the preparation of the ECM scaffold, several factors are involved, which can affect biocompatibility and toxicity profiles. These factors include the type and concentration of reagent used for decellularization process (Wang 2015; Fermor 2015), the time of scaffold exposure to the reagent (Sullivan 2012), the pH at which reagent is used (Yang 2010), the duration of washing step (Starnecker 2018), and the use of chemical material for crosslinking and sterilization (Badylak et al. 2009). Even different cells exhibit different cytotoxic thresholds to various reagents (Zvarova 2016). So there is a need to assess the presence of any toxic residual materials in the ECM scaffold. For this purpose, there are two methods: extract cytotoxicity assay and contact cytotoxicity assay. In the latter method, in addition to cell viability, the morphology of cells is also examined (Wilshaw 2006). In addition to cell-based cytocompatibility assessment, there are other techniques that can detect the presence of residual reagents in the scaffold (Zvarova 2016).
In addition, to reduce antigenicity and increase mechanical properties (Xu et al. 2007), the chemical crosslinking materials can influence the degradability, and therefore, the host response to the scaffold (Badylak et al. 2009). In other hands, some of reagents that are used for the decellularization process (e.g., DNase, RNase, or trypsin), generally derived from bovine sources. These enzymes may potentially create an unwanted immune response once implanted (Gilbert et al. 2006). So the in vivo investigation also will be required. It should be noted that the evaluation of the safety of extractable and leachable substances is extremely important for authorities such as the FDA to medical device submission (Jenke 2007).
Scaffold recellularization
Recellularization of scaffold is necessary for successful tissue regeneration. This process can be done in two manners: 1) in vivo implantation acellular the scaffold and usage of host cells post-surgery, 2) transplantation of cell-seeded scaffold ex vivo (Wilson 2013); these cells can include autologous, allogeneic and xenogeneic. Recellularization of the scaffold has several benefits, such as preventing thrombosis after endothelialization (Kasimir 2005), allowing ECM to undergo turnover, repair, adaptive remodeling, and growth (Park 2009; Nam 2012), gene therapy and have biological functions which mediated by special cell (Borschel et al. 2004).
In addition to mesenchymal stem cells, the differentiated cells such as epithelial, stromal and endothelial cells are also used in ex vivo recellularization. Apart from the cell source, cell density and method of cell delivery also vary in this process (Wilson 2013). The cell density should be chosen to keep cells from contact inhibition and cell aggregation, but also create a confluent cell layer on or throughout the scaffold (Scarritt et al. 2015; Proulx, S.p, et al. 2009). Considering the basement membrane, the method of cell delivery can be seeding or injection. As already mentioned the basement membrane prevents cell migration into the underlying connective tissue (Brown 2006a). So even in vivo epithelialization can be done rapidly without complication, but for stromal cells intra-stromal injection ex vivo has shown better results (Wilson 2013).
In the case of the contractile cells, it should be borne in mind that the contraction effect can reduce the pore size of scaffold, which in turn influences the cell proliferation and diffusion of the nutrition and waste (Ma 2004). So the cell-mediated contraction (CMC) of the scaffold must be measured. Finally, considering the limitation of oxygen diffusion, which is 150–200 µm in the human body (Scarritt et al. 2015), the thickness of non-vasculature scaffold is a critical feature in successful repopulation (Walles 2003). To determine success of scaffold recellularization histological techniques including light and electron microscopic assay, cell proliferation and cytotoxicity assay are used. Typical methods for cell seeding on/within the scaffold are illustrated in Fig. 2.
Materials loading
Based on the results obtained from some studies there are growth factors on some acellular scaffold which may enhance the healing process (Voytik-Harbin 1997; Hodde 2001). But, due to the following problems, loading of growth factors on the scaffold can make them an ideal scaffold: the finite amount of growth factors, inactivation of these bioactive factors via decellularzation process and long-term preservation, and the uncertainty of growth factors remaining uniformly at the optimal dose for regeneration process (Crapo et al. 2011; Gilbert et al. 2006; Kanematsu et al. 2003).
In addition to growth factors, other biological and non-biological materials can also be loaded on the scaffold. Biological materials such as fibronectin (Assmann 2013), hyaluronan, secreted protein acidic and rich in cysteine (SPARC) (Brown 2006c), antibody (Ye 2008) or siRNA (Vandegrift 2015) or REDV-ELP peptide (Devalliere 2018), and non-biological materials such as adhesive polymer (Brodie 2011), bio-nanocomposite (Deeken 2012) or nanostructured hydroxyapatite (Ge 2013) can impress cell behaviors, local gene modulation and scaffold properties.
The material loading is done in non-covalent and covalent approaches. Non-covalent approach or physical absorption can be direct or indirect interaction. Charge-charge interaction or existence of other secondary interaction between materials and scaffold is responsible for direct non-covalent approach; while for indirect non-covalent approach the coated intermediate biological molecule on scaffold such as heparin provides specific site to immobilization the materials. This intermediate molecule can be coated physically or chemically. But in covalent approach there is immobilization of the materials to scaffold directly through covalent bond (Lee et al. 2010).
Finally, in some cases especially in non-covalent approach of material loading, only the amount of materials which can be mixed into the scaffold should not be considered, but also the material released from the scaffold is important which is named “loading capacity release kinetics” (Garg 2012). The material release from scaffold must be done in appropriate dose. So the initial part release that is termed “burst release” creates the effective therapeutic dosage (Huang and Brazel 2001), subsequently release kinetics in a time-release fashion maintains therapeutic dosage (Grassi and Grassi 2005). Typical approaches for material loading on the scaffold are illustrated in Fig. 3.
Storage
In order to achieve ‘off-the-shelf’ tissue-engineered scaffold and transport it from the laboratory to the clinic, we need a storage method which allows proper bio-banking of the scaffold (Schuurman 2015). In addition to all kinds of preparation methods, how the scaffold is stored is another important factor in its mechanical, structural and morphological properties and residual protein content in it (Bonenfant 2013; Wilczek 2018). Any changes to the above-mentioned features of the scaffold, in turn, may cause the following results: destruction of GAGs within tissue and subsequently decreased material reabsorption ability (Gilbert 2008; Hafeez 2005), changes in the concentration of growth factors and cytokines (Rodríguez-Ares 2009; Kim 2019; Phoomvuthisarn et al. 2019), changes in cellular attachment, rate of in vivo degradation, and infiltration, proliferation and survivability of different kind of cells (Bonenfant 2013; Freytes 2008).
Currently, several methods have been developed to preserve biological scaffolds. These techniques can be used for short-term and long-term storages with the aim of maximum preserving the component and structure of the ECM (Urbani et al. 2017). Short-term storage is used for several weeks and usually the scaffold is kept at 4 °C in storage solutions (Urbani et al. 2017; Perniconi 2011; Wagner 2014). Studies have shown that this method does not affect the mechanical and immunological properties of the scaffold for up to two months, but it is advisable to use a lower temperature to maintain more growth factors (Phoomvuthisarn et al. 2019; Jungebluth 2009). It should be noted that antibiotics are usually used in combination with storage solution such as PBS. Therefore, considering the shelf-life of antibiotics, in longer storage time, timely replacement of storage solution not be forgotten (Wagner 2014).
Lyophilization or freeze-drying, vacuum pressing and storage in liquid nitrogen are common methods used for long-term storage of biological scaffold (Badylak et al. 2009; Urbani et al. 2017). In addition to preserving the scaffold for months or years, these methods each have their own benefits, along with the effects they may have on the ECM. For example, in freeze-drying method, although the morphology of collage fiber and in vitro growth of cell after seeding may be altered, removing water from scaffold makes it easier to handle and transfer at room temperature (Freytes 2008; Paolin 2016); or, in vacuum pressing method, despite the change in the ultrastructural morphology of ultimate construct and the decrease in extensibility of scaffold, the several sheet of scaffold can be laminated and can be fabricated into various 3D shapes (Badylak et al. 2009; Freytes 2004,2005).
As for storage in liquid nitrogen technique, it has to be said that its storage status has a significant effect on biomechanical and morphological stability of the scaffold and slow cooled in medium (SCM) has the best effect on the preservation of the collagen/elastin/GAGs composition of the ECM (Wilczek 2018; Urbani et al. 2017). Finally, it should be noted that the effect of storage solution on the properties of scaffold should not be overlooked (Qureshi et al. 2010). Therefore, given the variety of storage methods and the advantages and disadvantages of each, the optimal method for scaffold storage should be determined based on its clinical application.
Conclusion
Selection of the best biological scaffold for safe clinical use needs multidisciplinary evaluation, which it can be demonstrated that immunologic agents, endotoxins, microorganisms and toxic residual materials from the acellularization process are eliminated, as well as structural, mechanical, functional and bioinductive properties of ECM are preserved as much as possible. After evaluating the product, it is critical to understand how storage method affects the nature of scaffold, which is important for long-term or postoperative results. Even to improve the quality of the scaffold, it is possible to seed different cell types or load biological and non-biological materials on the scaffold and give it unique features. What drives us to choose the right scaffold is our goal of using the scaffold in clinical use. With this goal in mind, it is possible to determine which of the aforementioned evaluations prevails and should focus more on, and which one is less important and even eliminable. For example, in bladder repair, the presence of scaffold’s basement membrane is important so the evaluation of this part of structural property must be done. But the first step is to select a tissue as a scaffold that includes the basement membrane. Or if the sterilization method is used that is approved by the FDA, there is no need to evaluate the effectiveness of this method. Therefore, there is no requirement to perform all evaluation procedures for all types of scaffolds; and it depend on your goal, your equipment and your cost, which will lead you to careful planning for choosing the right.
References
Agmon G, Christman KL (2016) Controlling stem cell behavior with decellularized extracellular matrix scaffolds. Curr Opin Sol State Mater Sci 20(4):193–201
Allman AJ et al (2001) Xenogeneic extracellular matrix grafts elicit A Th2-restricted immune response1. Transplantation 71(11):1631–1640
Allman AJ et al (2002) The Th2-restricted immune response to xenogeneic small intestinal submucosa does not influence systemic protective immunity to viral and bacterial pathogens. Tissue Eng 8(1):53–62
Amiel GE et al (2006) Engineering of blood vessels from acellular collagen matrices coated with human endothelial cells. Tissue Eng 12(8):2355–2365
Arenas-Herrera JE et al (2013) Decellularization for whole organ bioengineering. Biomed Mater 8(1):014106
Assmann A et al (2013) Acceleration of autologous in vivo recellularization of decellularized aortic conduits by fibronectin surface coating. Biomaterials 34(25):6015–6026
Badylak SF (2002) The extracellular matrix as a scaffold for tissue reconstruction. Semin Cell Dev Biol 13(5):377–383
Badylak SF (2004a) Xenogeneic extracellular matrix as a scaffold for tissue reconstruction. Transpl Immunol 12(3–4):367–377
Badylak SF (2004b) Extracellular matrix as a scaffold for tissue engineering in veterinary medicine: applications to soft tissue healing. Clin Tech Equine Pract 3(2):173–181
Badylak SF (2007) The extracellular matrix as a biologic scaffold material. Biomaterials 28(25):3587–3593
Badylak SF (2014) Decellularized allogeneic and xenogeneic tissue as a bioscaffold for regenerative medicine: factors that influence the host response. Ann Biomed Eng 42(7):1517–1527
Badylak SF, Gilbert TW (2008) Immune response to biologic scaffold materials. Semin Immunol 20(2):109–116
Badylak SF et al (1995) The use of xenogeneic small intestinal submucosa as a biomaterial for Achilles tendon repair in a dog model. J Biomed Mater Res 29(8):977–985
Badylak S et al (2001) Strength over time of a resorbable bioscaffold for body wall repair in a dog model. J Surg Res 99(2):282–287
Badylak SF et al (2005) Esophageal reconstruction with ECM and muscle tissue in a dog model. J Surg Res 128(1):87–97
Badylak SF et al (2008) Macrophage phenotype as a determinant of biologic scaffold remodeling. Tissue Eng Part A 14(11):1835–1842
Badylak SF, Freytes DO, Gilbert TW (2009) Extracellular matrix as a biological scaffold material: structure and function. Acta Biomater 5(1):1–13
Badylak SF et al (2011) Biologic scaffolds for constructive tissue remodeling. Biomaterials 32(1):316–319
Badylak SF et al (2012) RETRACTED: engineered whole organs and complex tissues. Lancet 379:943–952
Bonenfant NR et al (2013) The effects of storage and sterilization on de-cellularized and re-cellularized whole lung. Biomaterials 34(13):3231–3245
Booth AJ et al (2012) Acellular normal and fibrotic human lung matrices as a culture system for in vitro investigation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 186(9):866–876
Borschel GH, Dennis RG, Kuzon WM Jr (2004) Contractile skeletal muscle tissue-engineered on an acellular scaffold. Plast Reconstr Surg 113(2):595–602 (discussion 603 4)
Boruch AV et al (2010) Constructive remodeling of biologic scaffolds is dependent on early exposure to physiologic bladder filling in a canine partial cystectomy model. J Surg Res 161(2):217–225
Boudreau N, Myers C, Bissell MJ (1995) From laminin to lamin: regulation of tissue-specific gene expression by the ECM. Trends Cell Biol 5(1):1–4
Brennan EP et al (2006) Antibacterial activity within degradation products of biological scaffolds composed of extracellular matrix. Tissue Eng 12(10):2949–2955
Brodie M et al (2011) Biomechanical properties of Achilles tendon repair augmented with a bioadhesive-coated scaffold. Biomed Mater 6(1):015014
Brown BN, Badylak SF (2014) Extracellular matrix as an inductive scaffold for functional tissue reconstruction. Transl Res 163(4):268–285
Brown B et al (2006a) The basement membrane component of biologic scaffolds derived from extracellular matrix. Tissue Eng 12(3):519–526
Brown AL et al (2006b) Development of a model bladder extracellular matrix combining disulfide cross-linked hyaluronan with decellularized bladder tissue. Macromol Biosci 6(8):648–657
Brown AL et al (2006c) Effects of hyaluronan and SPARC on fibroproliferative events assessed in an in vitro bladder acellular matrix model. Biomaterials 27(20):3825–3835
Brown BN et al (2009) Macrophage phenotype and remodeling outcomes in response to biologic scaffolds with and without a cellular component. Biomaterials 30(8):1482–1491
Brown BN et al (2012) Macrophage phenotype as a predictor of constructive remodeling following the implantation of biologically derived surgical mesh materials. Acta Biomater 8(3):978–987
Carey LE et al (2014) In vivo degradation of 14C-labeled porcine dermis biologic scaffold. Biomaterials 35(29):8297–8304
Cartwright LM et al (2006) Porcine bladder acellular matrix porosity: impact of hyaluronic acid and lyophilization. J Biomed Mater Res A 77(1):180–184
Cascalho M, Platt JL (2001) The immunological barrier to xenotransplantation. Immunity 14(4):437–446
Chen G et al (2005) Acute rejection is associated with antibodies to non-Gal antigens in baboons using Gal-knockout pig kidneys. Nat Med 11(12):1295–1298
Chen J et al (2009) Scaffolds for tendon and ligament repair: review of the efficacy of commercial products. Expert Rev Med Devices 6(1):61–73
Coakley DN et al (2015) In vitro evaluation of acellular porcine urinary bladder extracellular matrix–a potential scaffold in tissue engineered skin. Wound Med 10:9–16
Crapo PM, Gilbert TW, Badylak SF (2011) An overview of tissue and whole organ decellularization processes. Biomaterials 32(12):3233–3243
Daly KA et al (2009) Effect of the alphaGal epitope on the response to small intestinal submucosa extracellular matrix in a nonhuman primate model. Tissue Eng Part A 15(12):3877–3888
Daly KA et al (2012) Damage associated molecular patterns within xenogeneic biologic scaffolds and their effects on host remodeling. Biomaterials 33(1):91–101
De By T et al (2012) Cardiovascular tissue banking in Europe. HSR Proc Intensive Care Cardiovasc Anesth 4(4):251
Debels H et al (2015) Dermal matrices and bioengineered skin substitutes: a critical review of current options. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 3(1):e284
Deeken CR et al (2012) Characterization of bionanocomposite scaffolds comprised of mercaptoethylamine-functionalized gold nanoparticles crosslinked to acellular porcine tissue. J Mater Sci Mater Med 23(2):537–546
Devalliere J et al (2018) Improving functional re-endothelialization of acellular liver scaffold using REDV cell-binding domain. Acta Biomater 78:151–164
Du L et al (2011) Histological evaluation and biomechanical characterisation of an acellular porcine cornea scaffold. Br J Ophthalmol 95(3):410–414
Engler AJ et al (2006) Matrix elasticity directs stem cell lineage specification. Cell 126(4):677–689
Fermor HL et al (2015) Development and characterisation of a decellularised bovine osteochondral biomaterial for cartilage repair. J Mater Sci - Mater Med 26(5):186
Freytes DO et al (2004) Biaxial strength of multilaminated extracellular matrix scaffolds. Biomaterials 25(12):2353–2361
Freytes DO et al (2005) Analytically derived material properties of multilaminated extracellular matrix devices using the ball-burst test. Biomaterials 26(27):5518–5531
Freytes DO et al (2008) Hydrated versus lyophilized forms of porcine extracellular matrix derived from the urinary bladder. J Biomed Mater Res Part A Off J Soc Biomater Jpn Soc Biomater Aust Soc Biomater Korean Soc Biomater 87(4):862–872
Galili U et al (1997) Porcine and bovine cartilage transplants in cynomolgus monkey: II. Changes in anti-Gal response during chronic rejection. Transplantation 63(5):646–51
Garg T et al (2012) Scaffold: a novel carrier for cell and drug delivery. Crit Rev Ther Drug Carrier Syst 29(1):1–63
Ge S et al (2013) Effects of hydroxyapatite nanostructure on channel surface of porcine acellular dermal matrix scaffold on cell viability and osteogenic differentiation of human periodontal ligament stem cells. Int J Nanomed 8:1887
Gilbert TW, Sellaro TL, Badylak SF (2006) Decellularization of tissues and organs. Biomaterials 27(19):3675–3683
Gilbert TW et al (2008) Morphologic assessment of extracellular matrix scaffolds for patch tracheoplasty in a canine model. Ann Thorac Surg 86(3):967–974
Godin LM et al (2016) Decreased laminin expression by human lung epithelial cells and fibroblasts cultured in acellular lung scaffolds from aged mice. PLoS One 11(3):e0150966
Gong J et al (2008) Effects of extracellular matrix and neighboring cells on induction of human embryonic stem cells into retinal or retinal pigment epithelial progenitors. Exp Eye Res 86(6):957–965
Grassi M, Grassi G (2005) Mathematical modelling and controlled drug delivery: matrix systems. Curr Drug Deliv 2(1):97–116
Grenier G et al (2005) Tissue reorganization in response to mechanical load increases functionality. Tissue Eng 11(1–2):90–100
Hafeez Y et al (2005) Effect of freeze-drying and gamma irradiation on biomechanical properties of bovine pericardium. Cell Tissue Bank 6(2):85–89
Hammond TM et al (2008) Human in vivo cellular response to a cross-linked acellular collagen implant. Br J Surg 95(4):438–446
Hirschi SD, Gray SD, Thibeault SL (2002) Fibronectin: an interesting vocal fold protein. J Voice 16(3):310–316
Hodde JP et al (2001) Vascular endothelial growth factor in porcine-derived extracellular matrix. Endothelium 8(1):11–24
Huang X, Brazel CS (2001) On the importance and mechanisms of burst release in matrix-controlled drug delivery systems. J Control Release 73(2–3):121–136
Hussein KH et al (2016) Biocompatibility evaluation of tissue-engineered decellularized scaffolds for biomedical application. Mater Sci Eng C 67:766–778
Hynes RO (1992) Integrins: versatility, modulation, and signaling in cell adhesion. Cell 69(1):11–25
Ingber D (1991) Extracellular matrix and cell shape: potential control points for inhibition of angiogenesis. J Cell Biochem 47(3):236–241
Jackson RL, Busch SJ, Cardin AD (1991) Glycosaminoglycans: molecular properties, protein interactions, and role in physiological processes. Physiol Rev 71(2):481–539
Jenke D (2007) Evaluation of the chemical compatibility of plastic contact materials and pharmaceutical products; safety considerations related to extractables and leachables. J Pharm Sci 96(10):2566–2581
Jiang T et al (2013) Preparation and characterization of genipin-crosslinked rat acellular spinal cord scaffolds. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 33(6):3514–3521
Jungebluth P et al (2009) Structural and morphologic evaluation of a novel detergent–enzymatic tissue-engineered tracheal tubular matrix. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 138(3):586–593
Kajbafzadeh A-M et al (2013) Determining the optimal decellularization and sterilization protocol for preparing a tissue scaffold of a human-sized liver tissue. Tissue Eng Part C Methods 19(8):642–651
Kanematsu A et al (2003) Bladder regeneration by bladder acellular matrix combined with sustained release of exogenous growth factor. J Urol 170((4 Part 2)):1633–1638
Kanematsu A et al (2004) Collagenous matrices as release carriers of exogenous growth factors. Biomaterials 25(18):4513–4520
Karageorgiou V, Kaplan D (2005) Porosity of 3D biomaterial scaffolds and osteogenesis. Biomaterials 26(27):5474–5491
Kasimir M-T et al (2005) The decellularized porcine heart valve matrix in tissue engineering. Thromb Haemost 94(09):562–567
Kawecki M et al (2018) A review of decellurization methods caused by an urgent need for quality control of cell-free extracellular matrix’scaffolds and their role in regenerative medicine. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 106(2):909–923
Khoshnoodi J, Pedchenko V, Hudson BG (2008) Mammalian collagen IV. Microsc Res Tech 71(5):357–370
Kim W, Park J, Lee W (2002) Tissue-engineered heart valve leaflets: an effective method of obtaining acellularized valve xenografts. Int J Artif Org 25(8):791–797
Kim TG et al (2019) Comparison of cytokine expression and ultrastructural alterations in fresh-frozen and dried electron beam-irradiated human amniotic membrane and chorion. Cell Tissue Bank 20(2):163–172
Knight R et al (2008) The use of acellular matrices for the tissue engineering of cardiac valves. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H] 222(1):129–143
Lam TT et al (2004) Anti-non-Gal porcine endothelial cell antibodies in acute humoral xenograft rejection of hDAF-transgenic porcine hearts in cynomolgus monkeys. Xenotransplantation 11(6):531–535
Lee K, Silva EA, Mooney DJ (2010) Growth factor delivery-based tissue engineering: general approaches and a review of recent developments. J R Soc Interface 8(55):153–170
Lee JH, Kim HG, Lee WJ (2015) Characterization and tissue incorporation of cross-linked human acellular dermal matrix. Biomaterials 44:195–205
Li F et al (2004) Low-molecular-weight peptides derived from extracellular matrix as chemoattractants for primary endothelial cells. Taylor & Francis, Milton Park
Liu ML et al (1994) Uptake and distribution of hepatocyte growth factor in normal and regenerating adult rat liver. Am J Pathol 144(1):129–140
Lolmede K et al (2009) Inflammatory and alternatively activated human macrophages attract vessel-associated stem cells, relying on separate HMGB1- and MMP-9-dependent pathways. J Leukoc Biol 85(5):779–787
Ma L et al (2004) Biodegradability and cell-mediated contraction of porous collagen scaffolds: the effect of lysine as a novel crosslinking bridge. J Biomed Mater Res A 71(2):334–342
Mao J et al (2003) Study of novel chitosan-gelatin artificial skin in vitro. J Biomed Mater Res A 64(2):301–308
McDevitt CA, Wildey GM, Cutrone RM (2003) Transforming growth factor-beta1 in a sterilized tissue derived from the pig small intestine submucosa. J Biomed Mater Res A 67(2):637–640
Mendenhall SD et al (2017) A microbiological and ultrastructural comparison of aseptic versus sterile acellular dermal matrix as a reconstructive material and a scaffold for stem cell ingrowth. Plast Reconstr Surg 140(1):97–108
Miyamoto S et al (1998) Fibronectin and integrins in cell adhesion, signaling, and morphogenesis. Ann N Y Acad Sci 857:119–129
Moreno E et al. (2005) Modulation of hepatocyte growth factor plasma levels in relation to the dose of exogenous heparin administered: an experimental study in rats. In: Transplantation proceedings. Elsevier
Nagase T et al (2007) Heterotopic ossification in the sacral pressure ulcer treated with basic fibroblast growth factor: coincidence or side effect? J Plast Reconst Aesth Surg 60(3):327–329
Nam J et al (2012) Changes of the structural and biomechanical properties of the bovine pericardium after the removal of α-gal epitopes by decellularization and α-galactosidase treatment. Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 45(6):380
Nichols JE, Niles JA, Cortiella J (2012) Production and utilization of acellular lung scaffolds in tissue engineering. J Cell Biochem 113(7):2185–2192
Ohno T et al (2007) Drug delivery system of hepatocyte growth factor for the treatment of vocal fold scarring in a canine model. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 116(10):762–769
Paolin A et al (2016) Cytokine expression and ultrastructural alterations in fresh-frozen, freeze-dried and γ-irradiated human amniotic membranes. Cell Tissue Bank 17(3):399–406
Park S et al (2009) Removal of alpha-Gal epitopes from porcine aortic valve and pericardium using recombinant human alpha galactosidase A. J Korean Med Sci 24(6):1126–1131
Perniconi B et al (2011) The pro-myogenic environment provided by whole organ scale acellular scaffolds from skeletal muscle. Biomaterials 32(31):7870–7882
Phoomvuthisarn P, Suriyaphol G, Tuntivanich N (2019) Effect of glycerol concentrations and temperatures on epidermal growth factor protein expression in preserved canine amniotic membrane. Cell Tissue Bank 20(4):579–583
Poornejad N et al (2016) Efficient decellularization of whole porcine kidneys improves reseeded cell behavior. Biomed Mater 11(2):025003
Proulx S et al (2009) Transplantation of a tissue-engineered corneal endothelium reconstructed on a devitalized carrier in the feline model. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 50(6):2686–2694
Qiu J et al (2012) In vitro investigation on the biodegradability and biocompatibility of genipin cross-linked porcine acellular dermal matrix with intrinsic fluorescence. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 5(2):344–350
Qureshi IZ, Fareeha A, Khan WA (2010) Technique for processing and preservation of human amniotic membrane for ocular surface reconstruction. World Acad Sci Eng Technol 69:763–766
Raeder RH et al (2002) Natural anti-galactose alpha1,3 galactose antibodies delay, but do not prevent the acceptance of extracellular matrix xenografts. Transpl Immunol 10(1):15–24
Ranzato E et al (2009) HMGb1 promotes scratch wound closure of HaCaT keratinocytes via ERK1/2 activation. Mol Cell Biochem 332(1–2):199–205
Rashtbar M et al (2018) Characterization of decellularized ovine small intestine submucosal layer as extracellular matrix-based scaffold for tissue engineering. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 106(3):933–944
Record RD et al (2001) In vivo degradation of 14C-labeled small intestinal submucosa (SIS) when used for urinary bladder repair. Biomaterials 22(19):2653–2659
Rodríguez-Ares MT et al (2009) Effects of lyophilization on human amniotic membrane. Acta Ophthalmol 87(4):396–403
Rubartelli A, Lotze MT (2007) Inside, outside, upside down: damage-associated molecular-pattern molecules (DAMPs) and redox. Trends Immunol 28(10):429–436
Sacks MS, Gloeckner DC (1999) Quantification of the fiber architecture and biaxial mechanical behavior of porcine intestinal submucosa. J Biomed Mater Res 46(1):1–10
Saksela O et al (1988) Endothelial cell-derived heparan sulfate binds basic fibroblast growth factor and protects it from proteolytic degradation. J Cell Biol 107(2):743–751
Sandrin MS et al (1993) Anti-pig IgM antibodies in human serum react predominantly with Gal(alpha 1–3)Gal epitopes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 90(23):11391–11395
Sarikaya A et al (2002) Antimicrobial activity associated with extracellular matrices. Tissue Eng 8(1):63–71
Scarritt ME, Pashos NC, Bunnell BA (2015) A review of cellularization strategies for tissue engineering of whole organs. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 3:43
Schuurman H-J (2015) Regulatory aspects of clinical xenotransplantation. Int J Surg 23:312–321
Schwarzbauer JE (1991) Fibronectin: from gene to protein. Curr Opin Cell Biol 3(5):786–791
Sellaro TL et al (2007) Maintenance of hepatic sinusoidal endothelial cell phenotype in vitro using organ-specific extracellular matrix scaffolds. Tissue Eng 13(9):2301–2310
Singh M, Berkland C, Detamore MS (2008) Strategies and applications for incorporating physical and chemical signal gradients in tissue engineering. Tissue Eng Part B Rev 14(4):341–366
Smith CA et al (2017) Human decellularized bone scaffolds from aged donors show improved osteoinductive capacity compared to young donor bone. PLoS ONE 12(5):e0177416
Song JJ, Ott HC (2011) Organ engineering based on decellularized matrix scaffolds. Trends Mol Med 17(8):424–432
Song L et al (2014) Bladder acellular matrix and its application in bladder augmentation. Tissue Eng Part B Rev 20(2):163–172
Srikrishna G, Freeze HH (2009) Endogenous damage-associated molecular pattern molecules at the crossroads of inflammation and cancer. Neoplasia 11(7):615–628
Starnecker F et al (2018) Tissue-engineering acellular scaffolds—The significant influence of physical and procedural decellularization factors. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 106(1):153–162
Stone KR et al (1997) Porcine and bovine cartilage transplants in cynomolgus monkey: I. A model for chronic xenograft rejection. Transplantation 63(5):640–5
Stringer SE, Gallagher JT (1997) Heparan sulphate. Int J Biochem Cell Biol 29(5):709–714
Sullivan DC et al (2012) Decellularization methods of porcine kidneys for whole organ engineering using a high-throughput system. Biomaterials 33(31):7756–7764
Thibeault SL, Bless DM, Gray SD (2003) Interstitial protein alterations in rabbit vocal fold with scar. J Voice 17(3):377–383
Thomas JO, Travers AA (2001) HMG1 and 2, and related “architectural” DNA-binding proteins. Trends Biochem Sci 26(3):167–174
Thompson M et al (1992) Endothelial cell seeding of damaged native vascular surfaces: prostacyclin production. Eur J Vasc Surg 6(5):487–493
Tottey S et al (2011) The effect of source animal age upon extracellular matrix scaffold properties. Biomaterials 32(1):128–136
Urbani L et al (2017) Long-term cryopreservation of decellularised oesophagi for tissue engineering clinical application. PloS one 12(6):e0179341
Vandegrift MT et al (2015) Acellular dermal matrix-based gene therapy augments graft incorporation. J Surg Res 195(1):360–367
Voytik-Harbin SL et al (1997) Identification of extractable growth factors from small intestinal submucosa. J Cell Biochem 67(4):478–491
Wagner DE et al (2014) Three-dimensional scaffolds of acellular human and porcine lungs for high throughput studies of lung disease and regeneration. Biomaterials 35(9):2664–2679
Walles T et al (2003) Influence of scaffold thickness and scaffold composition on bioartificial graft survival. Biomaterials 24(7):1233–1239
Wang JH, Thampatty BP (2006) An introductory review of cell mechanobiology. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 5(1):1–16
Wang Y et al (2015) Method for perfusion decellularization of porcine whole liver and kidney for use as a scaffold for clinical-scale bioengineering engrafts. Xenotransplantation 22(1):48–61
Wilczek P et al (2018) Biomechanical and morphological stability of acellular scaffolds for tissue-engineered heart valves depends on different storage conditions. J Mater Sci Mater Med 29(7):106
Wilshaw S-P et al (2006) Production of an acellular amniotic membrane matrix for use in tissue engineering. Tissue Eng 12(8):2117–2129
Wilson S et al (2013) Keeping an eye on decellularized corneas: a review of methods, characterization and applications. J Funct Biomater 4(3):114–161
Wong ML et al (2016) In vivo xenogeneic scaffold fate is determined by residual antigenicity and extracellular matrix preservation. Biomaterials 92:1–12
Xu CC, Chan RW, Tirunagari N (2007) A biodegradable, acellular xenogeneic scaffold for regeneration of the vocal fold lamina propria. Tissue Eng 13(3):551–566
Xu H et al (2009) A porcine-derived acellular dermal scaffold that supports soft tissue regeneration: removal of terminal galactose-alpha-(1,3)-galactose and retention of matrix structure. Tissue Eng Part A 15(7):1807–1819
Yan W et al (2018) Acellular dermal matrix scaffolds coated with connective tissue growth factor accelerate diabetic wound healing by increasing fibronectin through PKC signalling pathway. J Tissue Eng Regen Med 12(3):e1461–e1473
Yang YG, Sykes M (2007) Xenotransplantation: current status and a perspective on the future. Nat Rev Immunol 7(7):519–531
Yang Q et al (2008) A cartilage ECM-derived 3-D porous acellular matrix scaffold for in vivo cartilage tissue engineering with PKH26-labeled chondrogenic bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells. Biomaterials 29(15):2378–2387
Yang B et al (2010) Development of a porcine bladder acellular matrix with well-preserved extracellular bioactive factors for tissue engineering. Tissue Eng Part C Methods 16(5):1201–1211
Ye X et al (2008) Enhancement of mesenchymal stem cell attachment to decellularized porcine aortic valve scaffold by in vitro coating with antibody against CD90: a preliminary study on antibody-modified tissue-engineered heart valve. Tissue Eng Part A 15(1):1–11
Zantop T et al (2006) Extracellular matrix scaffolds are repopulated by bone marrow-derived cells in a mouse model of achilles tendon reconstruction. J Orthop Res 24(6):1299–1309
Zhang F et al (2011) Fabrication of gelatin-hyaluronic acid hybrid scaffolds with tunable porous structures for soft tissue engineering. Int J Biol Macromol 48(3):474–481
Zvarova B et al (2016) Residual detergent detection method for nondestructive cytocompatibility evaluation of decellularized whole lung scaffolds. Tissue Eng Part C Methods 22(5):418–428
Acknowledgements
We thank the staff of Stem Cell Research Center and Tissue Engineering, Lab of Faculty of Medicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran. Faculty of Medicine and Stem
Cell Research Center, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences (Grant No.1395.1339).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Designing of the study and critical revisions: RKH, LR; Laboratory measurements: RKH; Data collection and Analysis: RKH, AFKH and LR; Manuscript drafting: RKH, JSR.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kheirjou, R., Rad, J.S., Khosroshahi, A.F. et al. The useful agent to have an ideal biological scaffold. Cell Tissue Bank 22, 225–239 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10561-020-09881-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10561-020-09881-w