Graft alignment impacts the regenerative response of skeletal muscle after volumetric muscle loss in a rat model.
Journal
Acta biomaterialia
ISSN: 1878-7568
Titre abrégé: Acta Biomater
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101233144
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 03 2020
15 03 2020
Historique:
received:
06
08
2019
revised:
15
01
2020
accepted:
16
01
2020
pubmed:
25
1
2020
medline:
29
1
2021
entrez:
25
1
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
A key event in the etiology of volumetric muscle loss (VML) injury is the bulk loss of structural cues provided by the underlying extracellular matrix (ECM). To re-establish the lost cues, there is broad consensus within the literature supporting the utilization of implantable scaffolding. However, while scaffold based regenerative medicine strategies have shown potential, there remains a significant amount of outcome variability observed across the field. We suggest that an overlooked source of outcome variability is differences in scaffolding architecture. The goal of this study was to test the hypothesis that implant alignment has a significant impact on genotypic and phenotypic outcomes following the repair of VML injuries. Using a rat VML model, outcomes across three autograft implant treatment groups (aligned implants, 45° misaligned, and 90° misaligned) and two recovery time points (2 weeks and 12 weeks) were examined (n = 6-8/group). At 2 weeks post-repair there were no significant differences in muscle mass and torque recovery between the treatment groups, however we did observe a significant upregulation of MyoD (2.5 fold increase) and Pax7 (2 fold increase) gene expression as well as the presence of immature myofibers at the implant site for those animals repaired with aligned autografts. By 12 weeks post-repair, functional and structural differences between the treatment groups could be detected. Aligned autografts had significantly greater mass and torque recovery (77 ± 10% of normal) when compared to 45° and 90° misaligned autografts (64 ± 10% and 61 ± 11%, respectively). Examination of tissue structure revealed extensive fibrosis and a significant increase in non-contractile tissue area fraction for only those animals treated using misaligned autografts. When taken together, the results suggest that implant graft orientation has a significant impact on in-vivo outcomes and indicate that the effect of graft alignment on muscle phenotype may be mediated through genotypic changes to myogenesis and fibrosis at the site of injury and repair. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: A key event in the etiology of volumetric muscle loss injury is the bulk loss of architectural cues provided by the underlying extracellular matrix. To re-establish the lost cues, there is broad consensus within the literature supporting the utilization of implantable scaffolding. Yet, although native muscle is a highly organized tissue with network and cellular alignment in the direction of contraction, there is little evidence within the field concerning the importance of re-establishing native architectural alignment. The results of this study suggest that critical interactions exist between implant and native muscle alignment cues during healing, which influence the balance between myogenesis and fibrosis. Specifically, it appears that alignment of implant architectural cues with native muscle cues is necessary to create a pro-myogenic environment and contractile force recovery. The results also suggest that misaligned cues may be pathological, leading to fibrosis and poor contractile force recovery.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31978621
pii: S1742-7061(20)30038-6
doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2020.01.024
pmc: PMC8785359
mid: NIHMS1555529
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
191-202Subventions
Organisme : NIAMS NIH HHS
ID : R15 AR064481
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIAMS NIH HHS
ID : R15 AR073492
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Acta Materialia Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Competing Interest No competing financial interests exist for any of the authors.
Références
Tissue Eng Part A. 2010 Apr;16(4):1395-405
pubmed: 19929169
Tissue Eng Part A. 2010 Sep;16(9):2871-81
pubmed: 20412030
Commun Biol. 2019 May 7;2:170
pubmed: 31098403
J Cell Biol. 1964 Feb;20:199-215
pubmed: 14126869
J Biophys Biochem Cytol. 1961 Feb;9:493-5
pubmed: 13768451
Tissue Eng Part A. 2020 Jan;26(1-2):3-14
pubmed: 31064280
Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:146953
pubmed: 24175281
Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 2001 Sep;35(3):233-8
pubmed: 11680391
Sci Transl Med. 2014 Apr 30;6(234):234ra58
pubmed: 24786326
J Cell Mol Med. 2008 Sep-Oct;12(5A):1640-8
pubmed: 18194451
J Biomater Appl. 2016 Apr;30(9):1373-84
pubmed: 26823400
Biomater Res. 2017 Jan 11;21:1
pubmed: 28097017
Tissue Eng Part C Methods. 2018 Jun;24(6):368-378
pubmed: 29690856
Cells Tissues Organs. 2016;202(3-4):180-188
pubmed: 27825160
Adv Healthc Mater. 2013 Apr;2(4):557-61
pubmed: 23184507
Biomaterials. 2010 Oct;31(29):7475-84
pubmed: 20638716
Tissue Eng Part A. 2016 Oct;22(19-20):1151-1163
pubmed: 27570911
Orthopedics. 2010 Jul 13;33(7):511
pubmed: 20608620
Biomaterials. 2012 Apr;33(10):2916-25
pubmed: 22264525
Nat Biotechnol. 2016 Mar;34(3):312-9
pubmed: 26878319
Cells Tissues Organs. 2016;202(3-4):237-249
pubmed: 27825146
Biomed Mater. 2019 Apr 02;14(3):035010
pubmed: 30812025
Biotechnol Prog. 2016 May;32(3):745-55
pubmed: 26949076
NPJ Regen Med. 2019 Jun 27;4:15
pubmed: 31263573
Exp Cell Res. 1997 Feb 1;230(2):275-83
pubmed: 9024786
J Vis Exp. 2016 Oct 7;(116):
pubmed: 27768064
Dev Dyn. 2016 Mar;245(3):351-60
pubmed: 26699796
J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2016 Nov;10(11):967-976
pubmed: 24616405
Cell Metab. 2013 Feb 5;17(2):162-84
pubmed: 23395166
J Surg Res. 2008 Jun 1;147(1):61-7
pubmed: 17950323
J Anat. 2003 Jul;203(1):89-99
pubmed: 12892408
Nat Commun. 2017 Jun 20;8:15613
pubmed: 28631758
Dev Genes Evol. 1999 Jul;209(7):438-42
pubmed: 10370128
Stem Cell Res Ther. 2014 Jun 06;5(3):74
pubmed: 24906706
Tissue Eng Part A. 2011 Nov;17(21-22):2857-65
pubmed: 21702712
Biomaterials. 2017 Jul;131:98-110
pubmed: 28388499
Nanomaterials (Basel). 2019 Jun 30;9(7):
pubmed: 31261995
Physiol Rep. 2017 Apr;5(7):
pubmed: 28400501
Tissue Eng Part A. 2011 Nov;17(21-22):2641-50
pubmed: 21657983
J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2016 Aug;27(8):125
pubmed: 27324779
Tech Hand Up Extrem Surg. 2010 Jun;14(2):125-8
pubmed: 20526168
J Biomed Mater Res A. 2019 Jan;107(1):220-231
pubmed: 30378775
J Biomed Mater Res A. 2018 May;106(5):1165-1176
pubmed: 29266766
ASAIO J. 1997 Sep-Oct;43(5):M749-53
pubmed: 9360146
Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2019 Aug 20;516(2):558-564
pubmed: 31235253
Cell Biol Int. 2004;28(3):229-36
pubmed: 14984750
J Orthop Trauma. 2016 Dec;30(12):e396-e403
pubmed: 27466826
Biomaterials. 2013 Dec;34(37):9413-9
pubmed: 24041425
Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2010 Oct;42(10):1717-28
pubmed: 20621196
SLAS Technol. 2018 Dec;23(6):599-613
pubmed: 29895208
Cell Mol Bioeng. 2008 Sep 1;1(2-3):133-145
pubmed: 19774099
Acta Physiol (Oxf). 2011 Aug;202(4):657-69
pubmed: 21418148
Biomaterials. 2015 Oct;67:393-407
pubmed: 26256250
J Orthop Surg Res. 2016 Jul 27;11(1):86
pubmed: 27460672
Front Physiol. 2014 Jun 16;5:218
pubmed: 24982637
Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2009 Jan 9;378(2):259-63
pubmed: 19026611
Tissue Eng Part A. 2011 Sep;17(17-18):2291-303
pubmed: 21548710
Biores Open Access. 2012 Dec;1(6):280-90
pubmed: 23515319
Cells Tissues Organs. 2016;202(3-4):202-213
pubmed: 27825153
Biomaterials. 2011 Nov;32(31):7870-82
pubmed: 21802724
J Surg Res. 2012 Aug;176(2):490-502
pubmed: 22341350
Cell Stem Cell. 2016 Feb 4;18(2):243-52
pubmed: 26686466
Methods. 2016 Apr 15;99:20-7
pubmed: 26732049
Polymers (Basel). 2019 Apr 09;11(4):
pubmed: 30970611
Transl Res. 2014 Apr;163(4):268-85
pubmed: 24291155
Muscle Nerve. 2018 May;57(5):799-807
pubmed: 29144551
Tissue Eng Part A. 2018 Aug;24(15-16):1228-1241
pubmed: 29431032
J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2016 Jun 01;16(2):122-34
pubmed: 27282456