Advertisement

Hydrogels for Skeletal Muscle Regeneration

  • Kristin M. FischerEmail author
  • Tracy E. Scott
  • Daniel P. Browe
  • Tyler A. McGaughey
  • Caroline Wood
  • Michael J. Wolyniak
  • Joseph W. Freeman
Article
  • 27 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. In Honor of Robert Langer's 70th Birthday
  2. In Honor of Robert Langer's 70th Birthday

Abstract

Skeletal muscle is made up of hundreds of multinucleated, aligned fibers that work together during contraction. While smaller injuries are typically able to be repaired by the body, large volumetric muscle loss (VML) typically results in loss of function. Tissue engineering (TE) applications that use cells seeded onto hydrogels are one potential option for regenerating the lost tissue. Hydrogels are described as soft crosslinked polymeric networks with high water content that simulates the body’s natural aqueous environment. They can be formulated from many different starting materials into biocompatible, biodegradable systems. Fabrication methods such as electrospinning, freeze-drying, molding, and 3D printing can be used with the hydrogel solution to form 3D structures. In this review, natural, semi-synthetic, synthetic, and composite hydrogels for skeletal muscle regeneration are discussed. It was ascertained that the majority of the current research focused on natural polymeric hydrogels including collagen, gelatin, agarose, alginate, fibrin, chitosan, keratin, and combinations of the aforementioned. This category was followed by a discussion of composite hydrogels, defined in this review as at least one synthetic and one natural polymer combined to form a hydrogel, and these are the next most favored materials. Synthetic polymer hydrogels came in third with semi-synthetic polymers, chemically modified natural polymers, being the least common. While many of the hydrogels show promise for skeletal muscle regeneration, continued investigation is needed in order to regenerate a functional muscle tissue replacement.

Lay Summary

Skeletal muscle tissue engineering focuses on regenerating large amounts of skeletal muscle tissue lost due to tumor removal, traumatic injuries, and/or disease. Neither natural repair processes by the body nor current medical interventions are able to completely restore function after volumetric muscle loss. Thus, scientists are investigating alternative approaches to regenerate the lost muscle, restore function, and increase patient quality of life. This review paper summarizes the research from 2013 to early 2018 using hydrogels, a soft material with a high water content, as a tool to regenerate muscle. The review is categorized into hydrogels made from natural materials, semi-synthetic materials, synthetic materials, and composite materials (at least one natural and one synthetic material combined).

Keywords

Volumetric muscle loss Tissue engineering Scaffold Skeletal muscle Myogenesis Biomaterials 

Notes

Funding Information

Dr. Fischer, Mr. McGaughey, and Dr. Wolyniak would like to acknowledge the Virginia Academy of Sciences for their Small Research Project Grant.

References

  1. 1.
    Bettadapur A, Suh GC, Geisse NA, Wang ER, Hua C, Huber HA, et al. Prolonged culture of aligned skeletal myotubes on micromolded gelatin hydrogels. Sci Rep. 2016;6:1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep28855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guyton AC, Hall JE. Textbook of medical physiology. 11th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders; 2006.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Martini F, Nath J, Batholomew E. Fundamentals of anatomy and physiology. 10th ed. San Francisco: Pearson/Benjamin Cummings; 2015.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Marieb EN, Hoehn K. Human anatomy & physiology. 8th ed. San Francisco: Benjamin Cummings; 2010.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Scott JB, Ward CL, Corona BT, Deschenes MR, Harrison BS, Saul JM, et al. Achieving acetylcholine receptor clustering in tissue-engineered skeletal muscle constructs in vitro through a materials-directed Agrin delivery approach. Front Pharmacol. 2017;7.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2016.00508.
  6. 6.
    Fan C, Jiang P, Fu L, Cai P, Sun L, Zeng B. Functional reconstruction of traumatic loss of flexors in forearm with gastrocnemius myocutaneous flap transfer. Microsurgery. 2008;28(1):71–5.  https://doi.org/10.1002/micr.20449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vekris MD, Beris AE, Lykissas MG, Korompilias AV, Vekris AD, Soucacos PN. Restoration of elbow function in severe brachial plexus paralysis via muscle transfers. Injury. 2008;39:S15–22.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2008.06.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baniasadi H, Mashayekhan S, Fadaoddini S, Haghirsharifzamini Y. Design, fabrication and characterization of oxidized alginate-gelatin hydrogels for muscle tissue engineering applications. J Biomater Appl. 2016;31(1):152–61.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0885328216634057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bach AD, Beier JP, Stern-Staeter J, Horch RE. Skeletal muscle tissue engineering. J Cell Mol Med. 2004;8(4):413–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pollot BE, Rathbone CR, Wenke JC, Guda T. Natural polymeric hydrogel evaluation for skeletal muscle tissue engineering. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2018;106(2):672–9.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.33859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Corona BT, Rivera JC, Owens JG, Wenke JC, Rathbone CR. Volumetric muscle loss leads to permanent disability following extremity trauma. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2015;52(7):785–92.  https://doi.org/10.1682/jrrd.2014.07.0165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Garg K, Ward CL, Hurtgen BJ, Wilken JM, Stinner DJ, Wenke JC, et al. Volumetric muscle loss: persistent functional deficits beyond frank loss of tissue. J Orthop Res. 2015;33(1):40–6.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.22730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grogan BF, Hsu JR. Skeletal trauma Res C. Volumetric muscle loss. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2011;19:S35–S7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goldman SM, Henderson BEP, Walters TJ, Corona BT. Co-delivery of a laminin-111 supplemented hyaluronic acid based hydrogel with minced muscle graft in the treatment of volumetric muscle loss injury. PLoS One. 2018;13(1).  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kim JT, Kasukonis BM, Brown LA, Washington TA, Wolchok JC. Recovery from volumetric muscle loss injury: a comparison between young and aged rats. Exp Gerontol. 2016;83:37–46.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exger.2016.07.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Baker HB, Passipieri JA, Siriwardane M, Ellenburg MD, Vadhavkar M, Bergman CR, et al. Cell and growth factor-loaded keratin hydrogels for treatment of volumetric muscle loss in a mouse model. Tissue Eng A. 2017;23(11–12):572−+.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.tea.2016.0457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bootsma K, Fitzgerald MM, Free B, Dimbath E, Conjerti J, Reese G, et al. 3D printing of an interpenetrating network hydrogel material with tunable viscoelastic properties. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2017;70:84–94.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2016.07.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Heher P, Maleiner B, Pruller J, Teuschl AH, Kollmitzer J, Monforte X, et al. A novel bioreactor for the generation of highly aligned 3D skeletal muscle-like constructs through orientation of fibrin via application of static strain. Acta Biomater. 2015;24:251–65.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2015.06.033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hwang JH, Kim IG, Piao S, Jung AR, Lee JY, Park KD, et al. Combination therapy of human adipose-derived stem cells and basic fibroblast growth factor hydrogel in muscle regeneration. Biomaterials. 2013;34(25):6037–45.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.04.049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    De France KJ, Yager KG, Chan KJW, Corbett B, Cranston ED, Hoare T. Injectable anisotropic nanocomposite hydrogels direct in situ growth and alignment of myotubes. Nano Lett. 2017;17(10):6487–95.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.7b03600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Costantini M, Testa S, Fornetti E, Barbetta A, Trombetta M, Cannata SM, et al. Engineering muscle networks in 3D gelatin methacryloyl hydrogels: influence of mechanical stiffness and geometrical confinement. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2017;5:22.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2017.00022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Villa C, Martello F, Erratico S, Tocchio A, Belicchi M, Lenardi C, et al. P(NIPAAM-co-HEMA) thermoresponsive hydrogels: an alternative approach for muscle cell sheet engineering. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2017;11(1):187–96.  https://doi.org/10.1002/term.1898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jo H, Sim M, Kim S, Yang S, Yoo Y, Park JH, et al. Electrically conductive graphene/polyacrylamide hydrogels produced by mild chemical reduction for enhanced myoblast growth and differentiation. Acta Biomater. 2017;48:100–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2016.10.035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rich MH, Lee MK, Marshall N, Clay N, Chen JR, Mahmassani Z, et al. Water hydrogel binding affinity modulates freeze-drying-induced micropore architecture and skeletal myotube formation. Biomacromolecules. 2015;16(8):2255–64.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.biomac.5b00652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    McKeon-Fischer KD, Rossmeisl JH, Whittington AR, Freeman JW. In vivo skeletal muscle biocompatibility of composite, coaxial electrospun, and microfibrous scaffolds. Tissue Eng A. 2014;20(13–14):1961–70.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.tea.2013.0283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wang L, Wu YB, Guo BL, Ma PX. Nanofiber yarn/hydrogel core-shell scaffolds mimicking native skeletal muscle tissue for guiding 3D myoblast alignment, elongation, and differentiation. ACS Nano. 2015;9(9):9167–79.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.5b03644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Browe DP, Wood C, Sze MT, White KA, Scott T, Olabisi RM, et al. Characterization and optimization of actuating poly(ethylene glycol) diacrylate/acrylic acid hydrogels as artificial muscles. Polymer. 2017;117:331–41.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2017.04.044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Neal D, Sakar MS, Ong L-LS, Asada HH. Formation of elongated fascicle-inspired 3D tissues consisting of high-density, aligned cells using sacrificial outer molding. Lab Chip. 2014;14(11):1907–16.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c4lc00023d.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Matthias N, Hunt SD, Wu JB, Lo J, Callahan LAS, Li Y, et al. Volumetric muscle loss injury repair using in situ fibrin gel cast seeded with muscle-derived stem cells (MDSCs). Stem Cell Res. 2018;27:65–73.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scr.2018.01.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Marcinczyk M, Elmashhady H, Talovic M, Dunn A, Bugis F, Garg K. Laminin-111 enriched fibrin hydrogels for skeletal muscle regeneration. Biomaterials. 2017;141:233–42.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2017.07.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ansari S, Chen C, Xu XT, Annabi N, Zadeh HH, Wu BM, et al. Muscle tissue engineering using gingival mesenchymal stem cells encapsulated in alginate hydrogels containing multiple growth factors. Ann Biomed Eng. 2016;44(6):1908–20.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-016-1594-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chen P-Y, Yang K-C, Wu C-C, Yu J-H, Lin F-H, Sun J-S. Fabrication of large perfusable macroporous cell-laden hydrogel scaffolds using microbial transglutaminase. Acta Biomater. 2014;10(2):912–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Paguirigan AL, Beebe DJ. Protocol for the fabrication of enzymatically crosslinked gelatin microchannels for microfluidic cell culture. Nat Protoc. 2007;2(7):1782–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ma J, Baker AR, Calabro A, Derwin KA. Exploratory study on the effect of osteoactivin on muscle regeneration in a rat volumetric muscle loss model. PLoS One. 2017;12(4).  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hagiwara K, Chen G, Kawazoe N, Tabata Y, Komuro H. Promotion of muscle regeneration by myoblast transplantation combined with the controlled and sustained release of bFGFcpr. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2016;10(4):325–33.  https://doi.org/10.1002/term.1732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tomblyn S, Kneller ELP, Walker SJ, Ellenburg MD, Kowalczewski CJ, Van Dyke M, et al. Keratin hydrogel carrier system for simultaneous delivery of exogenous growth factors and muscle progenitor cells. J Biomed Mat Res B. 2016;104(5):864–79.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.33438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Passipieri JA, Baker HB, Siriwardane M, Ellenburg MD, Vadhavkar M, Saul JM, et al. Keratin hydrogel enhances in vivo skeletal muscle function in a rat model of volumetric muscle loss. Tissue Eng A. 2017;23(11–12):556−+.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.tea.2016.0458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yi HL, Forsythe S, He YY, Liu Q, Xiong G, Wei SC, et al. Tissue-specific extracellular matrix promotes myogenic differentiation of human muscle progenitor cells on gelatin and heparin conjugated alginate hydrogels. Acta Biomater. 2017;62:222–33.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2017.08.022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ding K, Yang Z, Zhang YL, Xu JZ. Injectable thermosensitive chitosan/−glycerophosphate/collagen hydrogel maintains the plasticity of skeletal muscle satellite cells and supports their in vivo viability. Cell Biol Int. 2013;37(9):977–87.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cbin.10123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pepelanova I, Kruppa K, Scheper T, Lavrentieva A. Gelatin-Methacryloyl (GelMA) hydrogels with defined degree of functionalization as a versatile toolkit for 3D cell culture and extrusion bioprinting. Bioengineering. 2018;5(3):55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kim MJ, Shin YC, Lee JH, Jun SW, Kim C-S, Lee Y, et al. Multiphoton imaging of myogenic differentiation in gelatin-based hydrogels as tissue engineering scaffolds. Biomater Res. 2016;20:2.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40824-016-0050-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ramon-Azcon J, Ahadian S, Estili M, Liang X, Ostrovidov S, Kaji H, et al. Dielectrophoretically aligned carbon nanotubes to control electrical and mechanical properties of hydrogels to fabricate contractile muscle myofibers. Adv Mater. 2013;25(29):4028–34.  https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201301300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hong Y, Yao Y, Wong S, Bian L, Mak AFT. Change in viability of C2C12 myoblasts under compression, shear and oxidative challenges. J Biomech. 2016;49(8):1305–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2016.03.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Agrawal G, Aung A, Varghese S. Skeletal muscle-on-a-chip: an in vitro model to evaluate tissue formation and injury. Lab Chip. 2017;17(20):3447–61.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c7lc00512a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Davoudi S, Chin C-Y, Cooke MJ, Tam RY, Shoichet MS, Gilbert PM. Muscle stem cell intramuscular delivery within hyaluronan methylcellulose improves engraftment efficiency and dispersion. Biomaterials. 2018;173:34–46.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.04.048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Cha SH, Lee HJ, Koh W-G. Study of myoblast differentiation using multi-dimensional scaffolds consisting of nano and micropatterns. Biomater Res. 2017;21(1):1.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40824-016-0087-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Vannozzi L, Yasa IC, Ceylan H, Menciassi A, Ricotti L, Sitti M. Self-folded hydrogel tubes for implantable muscular tissue scaffolds. Macromol Biosci. 2018;18(4):1700377.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mabi.201700377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Xu Y, Li Z, Li X, Fan Z, Liu Z, Xie X, et al. Regulating myogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells using thermosensitive hydrogels. Acta Biomater. 2015;26:23–33.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2015.08.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hosseinzadeh S, Rezayat SM, Giaseddin A, Aliyan A, Soleimani M. Microfluidic system for synthesis of nanofibrous conductive hydrogel and muscle differentiation. J Biomater Appl. 2018;32(7):853–61.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0885328217744377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    McKeon-Fischer KD, Flagg DH, Freeman JW. Coaxial electrospun poly(epsilon-caprolactone), multiwalled carbon nanotubes, and polyacrylic acid/polyvinyl alcohol scaffold for skeletal muscle tissue engineering. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2011;99A(3):493–9.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.33116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Mulyasasmita W, Cai L, Dewi RE, Jha A, Ullmann SD, Luong RH, et al. Avidity-controlled hydrogels for injectable co-delivery of induced pluripotent stem cell-derived endothelial cells and growth factors. J Control Release. 2014;191:71–81.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconrel.2014.05.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Salimath AS, García AJ. Biofunctional hydrogels for skeletal muscle constructs. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2016;10(11):967–76.  https://doi.org/10.1002/term.1881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Fuoco C, Sangalli E, Vono R, Testa S, Sacchetti B, Latronico MV, et al. 3D hydrogel environment rejuvenates aged pericytes for skeletal muscle tissue engineering. Front Physiol. 2014;5:203.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2014.00203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Fuoco C, Rizzi R, Biondo A, Longa E, Mascaro A, Shapira-Schweitzer K, et al. In vivo generation of a mature and functional artificial skeletal muscle. Embo Mol Med. 2015;7(4):411–22.  https://doi.org/10.15252/emmm.201404062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Costantini M, Testa S, Mozetic P, Barbetta A, Fuoco C, Fornetti E, et al. Microfluidic-enhanced 3D bioprinting of aligned myoblast-laden hydrogels leads to functionally organized myofibers in vitro and in vivo. Biomaterials. 2017;131:98–110.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2017.03.026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Mozetic P, Giannitelli SM, Gori M, Trombetta M, Rainer A. Engineering muscle cell alignment through 3D bioprinting. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2017;105(9):2582–8.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.36117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Regenerative Engineering Society 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biology DepartmentHampden-Sydney CollegeHampden SydneyUSA
  2. 2.Biomedical Engineering DepartmentRutgers UniversityPiscatawayUSA

Personalised recommendations