|
| |
 |
|
| EDITORIAL |
|
| Year : 2019 | Volume
: 2
| Issue : 1 | Page : 1-2 |
|
Microtissues and tridimensional cell models: A new paradigm in tissue engineering
Gutemberg Gomes Alves1, Daniela Costa-Silva2
1 Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, Institute of Biology, Fluminense Federal University, Niteroi, RJ, Brazil
2 Postgraduate Program on Science and Biotechnology, Fluminense Federal University, Niteroi, RJ, Brazil
| Date of Web Publication | 22-Apr-2019 |
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Gutemberg Gomes Alves
Av. Marques Do Parana, 303 - Centro, Niteroi, RJ 24033-900
Brazil
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | 13 |
DOI: 10.4103/GFSC.GFSC_8_19
How to cite this article:
Alves GG, Costa-Silva D. Microtissues and tridimensional cell models: A new paradigm in tissue engineering. Int J Growth Factors Stem Cells Dent 2019;2:1-2 |
Regenerative medicine has brought hope to every field of medicine and dentistry, with the potential to impact on a considerable portion of the world population suffering from diseases of the locomotor system, which are the most common cause of severe pain in humans, with increased costs for public health-care systems. However, even on a scenario of continuous search for alternatives for the repair and replacement of living tissues victimized by traumas or pathogens, the possibility of using synthetic materials such as biomaterials remains as a more realistic option when compared to therapy involving cells. In this context, three-dimensional (3D) cell cultures and microtissues may find a role as tools to optimize the body's own regeneration capacity, a biomedical approach that may contribute to the delivery of cells in injured tissues in addition to grafting at the morbidity site.
Regarding tissue bioengineering, microtissues, and cell aggregates represent an interesting cell delivery strategy, since, in addition to reproducing human physiology more efficiently, they increase the fixation power of the cells at the site of an implant.[1] However, the assembly and subsequent vascularization of these mini-organs remains a great challenge, as well as the development of specializations and innervations, which have been the focus of quite a lot of research effort.[2] In addition, the use of spheroids for this purpose requires large-scale production, in a short time and with uniform size. In this regard, bioprinting based on spheroidal aggregates (spheroids) as building blocks has been proven among the best candidates for organ printing.[3] This technology probably will not create an identical copy of the human organs as a viable outcome in the near future, but presents an exciting alternative to the complex frameworks, or other supporting devices that force the cells to grow in a pre-defined spatial sense.
Concerning its application in bone bioengineering, controversy often lies on the ideal tissue engineering triad (cells, scaffolds, and growth factors) regarding the choice of the ideal cell type,[4] respecting the consensus of using the patient's cells to avoid rejection during therapy. In this regard, several authors have been developing spheroid models of mesenchymal cells, and even the use of adipose tissue-derived stem cells.[5] Nevertheless, many challenges still prevail in both models, including the potential loss of differentiation potential during expansion, or even limited capacity for expansion before differentiation into another cell type.
More in-depth studies are needed on the architecture and functionality of the developed models for 3D culturing and microtissues. In the case of cell aggregates, which form through cultivation in the absence of a fixation surface or framework, the set of interactions with neighboring cells through adhesion molecules, resulting in a process known as self-assembly, may follow different rules that depend heavily on the applied production methodology. Therefore, the establishment of 3D cultures as a model for studies or for therapeutic purposes in the area of regenerative medicine, with possible application in tissue engineering and cell therapy, requires, first and foremost, the development of standard protocols, with primary culture, and quantitative analysis methods, including image techniques appropriate to the 3D model. Such studies will establish the path of 3D-cell culture in the establishment of a translational therapeutic practice with high impact on the quality of life of the population.
| References | |  |
| 1. | Langenbach F, Naujoks C, Smeets R, Berr K, Depprich R, Kübler N, et al. Scaffold-free microtissues: Differences from monolayer cultures and their potential in bone tissue engineering. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17:9-17.  |
| 2. | Chen DY, Wei HJ, Lin KJ, Huang CC, Wang CC, Wu CT, et al. Three-dimensional cell aggregates composed of HUVECs and cbMSCs for therapeutic neovascularization in a mouse model of hindlimb ischemia. Biomaterials 2013;34:1995-2004. |
| 3. | Moldovan NI, Hibino N, Nakayama K. Principles of the Kenzan method for robotic cell spheroid-based three-dimensional bioprinting. Tissue Eng Part B Rev 2017;23:237-44. |
| 4. | Restle L, Costa-Silva D, Lourenço ES, Bachinski RF, Batista AC, Linhares AB, et al. A 3D osteoblast in vitro model for the evaluation of biomedical materials. Adv Mater Sci Eng 2015;2015:1-8. |
| 5. | Baptista LS, Kronemberger GS, Silva KR, Granjeiro JM. Spheroids of stem cells as endochondral templates for improved bone engineering. Front Biosci (Landmark Ed) 2018;23:1969-86. |
|
Search Pubmed for