Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28782725›Full record

ArticleActa biomaterialia2017

The bio in the ink: cartilage regeneration with bioprintable hydrogels and articular cartilage-derived progenitor cells.

Riccardo Levato, William R Webb, Iris A Otto, Anneloes Mensinga, Yadan Zhang, Mattie van Rijen, René van Weeren, Ilyas M Khan, Jos Malda

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta biomaterialia, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 124 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
124citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

124 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

64 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Riccardo LevatoDepartment of Orthopaedics, University Medical Center Utrecht, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands.
William R WebbCenter for Nanohealth, Swansea University Medical School, Wales, United Kingdom.
Iris A OttoDepartment of Orthopaedics, University Medical Center Utrecht, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands; Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Anneloes MensingaDepartment of Orthopaedics, University Medical Center Utrecht, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Yadan ZhangCenter for Nanohealth, Swansea University Medical School, Wales, United Kingdom.
Mattie van RijenDepartment of Orthopaedics, University Medical Center Utrecht, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands.
René van WeerenDepartment of Equine Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Ilyas M KhanCenter for Nanohealth, Swansea University Medical School, Wales, United Kingdom.
Jos MaldaDepartment of Orthopaedics, University Medical Center Utrecht, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands; Department of Equine Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: j.malda@umcutrecht.nl.

Funding

European Research Council 647426Medical Research Council MR/L02280X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cell-laden hydrogels are the primary building blocks for bioprinting, and, also termed bioinks, are the foundations for creating structures that can potentially recapitulate the architecture of articular cartilage. To be functional, hydrogel constructs need to unlock the regenerative capacity of encapsulated cells. The recent identification of multipotent articular cartilage-resident chondroprogenitor cells (ACPCs), which share important traits with adult stem cells, represents a new opportunity for cartilage regeneration. However, little is known about the suitability of ACPCs for tissue engineering, especially in combination with biomaterials. This study aimed to investigate the potential of ACPCs in hydrogels for cartilage regeneration and biofabrication, and to evaluate their ability for zone-specific matrix production. Gelatin methacryloyl (gelMA)-based hydrogels were used to culture ACPCs, bone marrow mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) and chondrocytes, and as bioinks for printing. Our data shows ACPCs outperformed chondrocytes in terms of neo-cartilage production and unlike MSCs, ACPCs had the lowest gene expression levels of hypertrophy marker collagen type X, and the highest expression of PRG4, a key factor in joint lubrication. Co-cultures of the cell types in multi-compartment hydrogels allowed generating constructs with a layered distribution of collagens and glycosaminoglycans. By combining ACPC- and MSC-laden bioinks, a bioprinted model of articular cartilage was generated, consisting of defined superficial and deep regions, each with distinct cellular and extracellular matrix composition. Taken together, these results provide important information for the use of ACPC-laden hydrogels in regenerative medicine, and pave the way to the biofabrication of 3D constructs with multiple cell types for cartilage regeneration or in vitro tissue models. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: Despite its limited ability to repair, articular cartilage harbors an endogenous population of progenitor cells (ACPCs), that to date, received limited attention in biomaterials and tissue engineering applications. Harnessing the potential of these cells in 3D hydrogels can open new avenues for biomaterial-based regenerative therapies, especially with advanced biofabrication technologies (e.g. bioprinting). This study highlights the potential of ACPCs to generate neo-cartilage in a gelatin-based hydrogel and bioink. The ACPC-laden hydrogel is a suitable substrate for chondrogenesis and data shows it has a bias in directing cells towards a superficial zone phenotype. For the first time, ACPC-hydrogels are evaluated both as alternative for and in combination with chondrocytes and MSCs, using co-cultures and bioprinting for cartilage regeneration in vitro. This study provides important cues on ACPCs, indicating they represent a promising cell source for the next generation of cartilage constructs with increased biomimicry.

Indexed as

InkAnimalsBiomarkersBioprintingCartilage, ArticularCell DifferentiationCells, CulturedChondrogenesisCoculture TechniquesCompressive StrengthDNAGlycosaminoglycansHorsesHydrogel, Polyethylene Glycol DimethacrylateHydrogelsMesenchymal Stem CellsBiomarkersDNAGlycosaminoglycansHydrogel, Polyethylene Glycol DimethacrylateHydrogelsRNA, MessengerBiofabricationCartilage regenerationChondroprogenitor cellsCo-cultureHydrogelStem cells

Identifiers

PMID28782725
PMCPMC7116023

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.