Advertisement

Archives of Toxicology

, Volume 93, Issue 7, pp 1789–1805 | Cite as

Technological advancements for the development of stem cell-based models for hepatotoxicity testing

  • Alessandra Natale
  • Koen Vanmol
  • Aysu Arslan
  • Sandra Van Vlierberghe
  • Peter Dubruel
  • Jürgen Van Erps
  • Hugo Thienpont
  • Matij Buzgo
  • Joost Boeckmans
  • Joery De Kock
  • Tamara Vanhaecke
  • Vera Rogiers
  • Robim M. RodriguesEmail author
Review Article

Abstract

Stem cells are characterized by their self-renewal capacity and their ability to differentiate into multiple cell types of the human body. Using directed differentiation strategies, stem cells can now be converted into hepatocyte-like cells (HLCs) and therefore, represent a unique cell source for toxicological applications in vitro. However, the acquired hepatic functionality of stem cell-derived HLCs is still significantly inferior to primary human hepatocytes. One of the main reasons for this is that most in vitro models use traditional two-dimensional (2D) setups where the flat substrata cannot properly mimic the physiology of the human liver. Therefore, 2D-setups are progressively being replaced by more advanced culture systems, which attempt to replicate the natural liver microenvironment, in which stem cells can better differentiate towards HLCs. This review highlights the most recent cell culture systems, including scaffold-free and scaffold-based three-dimensional (3D) technologies and microfluidics that can be employed for culture and hepatic differentiation of stem cells intended for hepatotoxicity testing. These methodologies have shown to improve in vitro liver cell functionality according to the in vivo liver physiology and allow to establish stem cell-based hepatic in vitro platforms for the accurate evaluation of xenobiotics.

Keywords

Stem cells Hepatocyte-like cells 2D- and 3D-culture systems In vitro toxicity Drug screening Microfluidics 

Abbreviations

2D

Two-dimensional

2PP

Two-photon polymerization

3D

Three-dimensional

ADMSCs

Adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells

ASCs

Adult human stem cells

BMMSCs

Bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells

BMP

Bone morphogenetic protein

BSEP

Bile salt export pump

CFOS

Proto-oncogene c-fos

CYP

Cytochrome P450

ECM

Extracellular matrix

EGR

Early growth response

FGF

Fibroblast growth factor

Gel-MOD

Methacrylamide-gelatin

Gel-MOD-AEMA

Gelatin-methacrylamide-aminoethylmethacrylate

Gel-NB

Gel-Norbornene

hESCs

Human embryonic stem cells

HGF

Hepatic growth factor

hiPSCs

Human induced pluripotent stem cells

HLCs

Hepatocyte-like cells

hMSCs

Human mesenchymal stem/stromal cells

hSKP

Human skin-derived precursors

IEG

Immediate early genes

MenSCs

Menstrual blood stem cells

MPCCs

Micropatterned co-cultures

NTCP

Sodium-taurocholate cotransporting polypeptide

OSM

Oncostatin M

PAI

Plasminogen activator inhibitor

PDMSCs

Placenta-derived mesenchymal stem cells

PHH

Primary human hepatocytes

PRL

Phosphatase of regenerating liver

UCMSCs

Umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells

Wnt

Wingless-type MMTV integration site

Introduction

Over the years, experimentation using animal models has significantly contributed to the understanding of toxicological properties of harmful agents (Denayer et al. 2014). Yet, besides ethical and financial constraints, animal testing often fails to identify human hepatotoxic compounds during risk assessment due to considerable interspecies differences (Hartung 2009; Doke and Dhawale 2015). In particular, differences in hepatic phase I and II enzymes are likely the major cause of differential interspecies liver susceptibility to toxins (Hartung 2009). Compounds, potentially causing human hepatotoxicity can also be evaluated using in vitro platforms based on human cells. Primary human hepatocytes (PHH) remain the leading model for hepatotoxicity testing. However, their use is hindered by their scarce availability and dedifferentiation in culture leading to a downregulation of drug-metabolizing enzymes, hereby reducing their pharmaco-toxicological relevance (Guguen-guillouzo et al. 2010). Hepatic cell lines such as HepG2 are also widely employed, but they lack diverse metabolic capabilities, exhibit a limited sensitivity and do not represent the population diversity due to their single-donor origin (Castell et al. 2006). With these factors in mind, stem cells hold great promise to overcome the limitations of the current in vitro models. Stem cells, including human embryonic stems cells (hESCs), induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) and mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (hMSCs), have a self-renewable ability, a high proliferative potential and display either pluripotent or multipotent competences. This innate plasticity enables differentiation towards multiple cell types including hepatocyte-like cells (HLCs) (Davila et al. 2004; Snykers et al. 2009; Damania et al. 2014) (Fig. 1). Also, stem cell-derived hepatocytes are associated with a continuous cell supply and longevity in culture rendering them an ideal cell type for human-based toxicological studies.
Fig. 1

Schematic summary of potential disadvantages of current in vitro models and the advantages of stem cells as a new tool for hepatotoxicity testing. hESCs human embryonic stem cells, hiPSCs human-induced pluripotent stem cells, hMSC human mesenchymal stem/stromal cells, HLCs hepatocyte-like cells

The differentiation of stem cells towards HLCs is mainly carried out in two-dimensional (2D) culture systems (Baxter et al. 2010; Behbahan et al. 2011; Szkolnicka and Hay 2016). In these cultures, cells are housed in an unnatural microenvironment in which the native morphology is gradually lost and the deprivation of tight cell–cell junctions causes a reduction in metabolic activity and hepatocyte functionalities (Horvath et al. 2016; Duval et al. 2017). Three-dimensional (3D) culture systems are thought to overcome these limitations. Indeed, the unique features of 3D-systems allow physical and spatial organization of cells, which facilitate cell–cell interactions and configurations of cell receptors, improving effective signal transduction. As a result, cell behaviour in 3D-cultures can better mimic in vivo liver functionality (Rimann and Graf-Hausner 2012; Fang and Eglen 2017). Application of 3D-culture models can substantially contribute to the establishment of robust cell-based assays with increased specificity and sensitivity to drug responses (Godoy et al. 2013; Hay et al. 2014; Horvath et al. 2016).

In the present review, we describe the technological advancements in cell culture methods that improve human stem cell differentiation towards HLCs, illustrating their manufacturing processes, biological relevance and potential application in drug toxicity testing.

Hepatic differentiation of stem cells in vitro

Human pluripotent stem cells include hESCs and hiPSCs, the latter being obtained by reprogramming somatic cells to a pluripotent state by gene transduction (Meissner et al. 2007; Takahashi et al. 2007). Additionally, adult tissues and organs contain niches that harbour several types of adult stem cells (ASCs), which maintain part of their regenerative ability throughout the adult life (Caplan 2015). Among ASCs, hMSCs retain the ability to differentiate in multiple cell lineages in vitro, although they posses lower expansion capacity in comparison to pluripotent stem cells (Ullah et al. 2015). In the presence of specific culture media, hMSCs from several sources, including bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BMMSCs), adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (ADMSCs), placental-derived mesenchymal stem cells (PDMSCs), menstrual blood stem cells (MenSCs), skin-derived precursors stem cells (hSKP), umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells (UCMSCs), can differentiate into human HLCs (Zuk et al. 2002; Divya et al. 2012; He et al. 2013; Mou et al. 2013; Rodrigues et al. 2014; Yu et al. 2015; Chang et al. 2016; Chen et al. 2016).

Although challenges remain for the generation of mature stem cell-derived hepatocytes that share the same functionality of hepatocytes of the human liver, great progress has been made in exploring differentiation strategies inspired by in vivo liver embryogenesis. In this respect, Snykers et al. (2006) were the first to develop a differentiation strategy with in vivo relevance that closely resembles the pattern of cytokine secretion during liver embryogenesis in vivo.

Indeed, in vivo, hepatocyte differentiation depends on the presence of non-parenchymal cells which are responsible for the secretion of cytokines all along the onset of hepatogenesis (Si-Tayeb et al. 2010). During the process, activated Kupffer cells secrete among others, tumor necrosis factor, interleukin 6 and oncostatin M (OSM). In addition, stellate and endothelial cells release fibroblast growth factor (FGF), bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) and hepatic growth factor (HGF) (Si-Tayeb et al. 2010).

Current protocols attempt to promote differentiation of stem cells by mimicking in vivo liver embryogenesis in three steps where FGF, HGF and OSM predominantly govern different phases of liver development (Snykers et al. 2006; Behbahan et al. 2011; Zhang et al. 2014). The first step includes the endoderm commitment induced by activin A, FGF- and BMP-families. FGF is required for endoderm specification and formation of hepatic progenitors via the transient suppression of the wingless-type MMTV integration site (Wnt) signalling pathway. FGF-mediated activation of Wnt antagonists repress the expression of Hhex, an essential regulator of the hepatic commitment (Twaroski et al. 2015). The second step involves the specification towards the hepatic phenotype which is mediated by the cooperation of HGF with FGF and BMP. Here, HGF plays an important role in stimulating proliferation of hepatoblast-like cells (Suzuki 2003; Ye et al. 2015). The last step implies the generation of mature hepatocytes via OSM, dexamethasone and HGF (Si-Tayeb et al. 2010). OSM, an interleukin 6 subfamily member, is required for the maturation from fetal towards adult liver. Studies showed that while both OSM and HGF upregulate albumin expression, only OSM induces its secretion (Kamiya et al. 2001). In addition, OSM induces urea production and glycogen storage (Lysy et al. 2008). These findings suggest that the interplay of HGF and OSM is crucial for the acquisition of metabolic functions in maturing hepatocytes. To replace the use of cytokines that require prolonged differentiation periods and high cost, cell-permeable compounds known as small molecules are often used in differentiation protocols (e.g. dihexa, a HGF mimetic, and CHIR99021, a Wnt agonist) (Siller et al. 2015; Mathapati et al. 2016). The addition of small molecules in culture act as agonists or inhibitors of specific cell signalling pathways and target genes proved to efficiently drive the commitment of stem cells towards definitive endoderm and maturation of HLCs (Siller et al. 2015; Mathapati et al. 2016; Du et al. 2018). This method is cost-effective and reproducible, enabling the generation of scalable HLCs (Tasnim et al. 2015).

In addition, the generation of HLCs can be achieved by direct reprogramming of somatic cells using viral (e.g. lentiviral and adenoviral vectors) as well as non-viral approaches (e.g. recombinant proteins, micro RNAs, synthetic modified mRNA and episomal vectors) (Huang et al. 2014; Simeonov and Uppal 2014; Nakamori et al. 2017). These strategies allow for the insertion of defined lineage-specific transcription factors into the cell, thereby inducing its reprogramming to hepatic cells. The differentiation of hESCs and hiPSCs towards HLCs could also be obtained by viral transduction of SOX17, HEX and HNF4A (Inamura et al. 2011; Takayama et al. 2012).

Stem cell-based 2D-culture systems for hepatotoxicity testing

Cell cultures in monolayer, in which cells adhere to flat and rigid substrata, have been used for several decades and are well standardized. These approaches have also been widely adopted for the culture of stem cells and generation of stem cell-derived hepatocytes.

The use of matrigel-, laminin- and collagen-coated culture surfaces, which mimic somehow the biological components contained in the extracellular matrix (ECM), significantly improves cell attachment and promotes liver-specific functionalities (Wang et al. 2017). Several studies found evidence that both hESCs and hiPSCs, differentiated towards HLCs in 2D, express to some extent adult cytochromes P450 (CYP) enzymes and in some cases, transporter proteins such as sodium-taurocholate cotransporting polypeptide (NTCP) and bile salt export pump (BSEP) (Zamule et al. 2011; Ulvestad et al. 2013). Although these cells are not fully mature compared to PHH, they have also been described to own a certain sensitivity to compounds that require active metabolization (Medine et al. 2013; Sirenko et al. 2014; Szkolnicka et al. 2014). In the work of Holmgren et al., hiPSCs, differentiated towards HLCs were exposed for 14 days to repeated doses of four hepatotoxic compounds (amiodarone, aflatoxin B1, troglitazone and ximelagatran). The authors showed that hiPSCs-derived HLCs exhibited a time-dependent toxic response comparable to that of exposed HepG2 (Holmgren et al. 2014). A more recent study showed a high sensitivity of hESCs-derived HLCs for the prediction of hepatotoxicity of herbal medicines. Exposure to emodin, diosbulbin B and gallic acid resulted in responses, comparable to those obtained in PHH (Kim et al. 2018).

Advanced culture methods, using ‘engineered Petri-dishes’, namely 2D-micropatterned co-cultures (MPCCs), could improve the metabolic competence of hESCs/hiPSCs-derived HLCs. Khetani and Bhatia (2008), fabricated micropatterned structures in 24-multiwell format consisting of 37 hepatic microstructures of 500 µm diameter in each well in which collagen-I was absorbed to certain areas of the culture plate creating as such collagen-coated islands where hepatic cells could selectively adhere while a second cell type was seeded into the surrounding bare areas. Using this setup, the same group more recently reported remarkable improvements in drug-mediated CYP450 induction, found to be higher in MPCCs compared to conventional hiPSCs-derived HLCs monolayers (Berger et al. 2015). The robustness of the system for drug toxicity assessment was corroborated by testing a set of 47 compounds. The results showed 65–70% sensitivity and 100% specificity in hiPSCs-derived HLCs when compared to PHH. Conventional 2D-hiPSCs-derived HLCs cultures failed to detect several hepatotoxins, while both MPCCs-hiPSCs-derived HLCs and PHH cultures could correctly identify the hepatotoxins (Ware et al. 2015).

Several protocols have also been used to induce direct hepatic differentiation of hMSCs (Schwartz et al. 2002; Lee et al. 2004; Stock et al. 2008; Itaba et al. 2015; Chen et al. 2016; Xue et al. 2016). Although the obtained cells displayed high levels of hepatic markers, their metabolic enzyme activity remained, however, very low. Only a few studies report the relevance of hMSC-derived HLCs in toxicity assessment. For example, PDMSCs and BMMSCs differentiated to HLCs were exposed to N-nitrosodiethylamine, N-nitrosodimethylamine and carbon tetrachloride, resulting in different sensitivity patterns between the two cell populations. PDMSCs derived-HLCs resulted more sensitive to the hepatotoxicants than BMMSCs derived-HLCs, likely due to the expression of specific ATP-binding cassette transporters that regulates the transport of toxicants to the cells (Lee et al. 2011). Another study showed that human skin-derived precursors (hSKP) could be differentiated into cells expressing hepatic progenitor markers and adult hepatic markers, together with genes encoding for phase I and II biotransformation enzymes (Rodrigues et al. 2014). These cells were shown to be predictive for hepatic acute liver failure, steatosis and phospholipidosis upon exposure to acetaminophen, sodium-valproate and amiodarone, respectively (Rodrigues et al. 2014, 2016; Natale et al. 2017).

Altogether, these findings demonstrate that 2D-systems of stem cell-derived HLCs possess relevant hepatic functionality that is applicable for drug toxicity testing. Yet, these cells still display several characteristics of immature hepatocytes and their metabolizing potential is low. Therefore, improvement of hepatic maturation must be pursued to induce a steady expression profile of metabolizing enzymes.

From 2D- to 3D-culture systems: simulating in vivo physiology

Hepatocytes are large polygonal epithelial cells, assembled in string-like sheets that form structural units or liver lobules. Non-parenchymal cells are localized in the sinusoidal and biliary compartments of the tissue. Sheets of hepatocytes are separated from each other by a membrane formed by highly permeable liver endothelial cells. These specialized hepatic sinusoidal cells are in contact with the bloodstream that delivers nutrients and enables the formation of different oxygen gradients (Treyer and Müsch 2013).

Due to their strategic position, hepatocytes have a polarized organization that consists of (1) a lateral domain, that engages in cell–cell contacts between neighbouring hepatocytes; (2) a basal domain, that makes contact with the epithelial–blood interface in the space of Disse; (3) an apical domain, which makes up a narrow lumen between two adjacent hepatocytes forming a network of bile canaliculi (Treyer and Müsch 2013). These canaliculi extend to the bile ducts which are lined by cholangiocytes. The basal surface of cholangiocytes is associated with the basement membrane and the apical surface forms the luminal space of bile ducts surrounded by the monolayer of cholangiocytes. Apicobasal polarity is essential for the commitment of bipotential liver progenitors to cholangiocytes and for the morphogenesis of bile ducts (Tanimizu et al. 2007). The representation of this complex cellular liver architecture is not possible with 2D-systems. Conventional 2D-cultures prevent cells from forming multi-dimensional structures due to their anchorage on flat substrata, which only permits contact with neighbouring cells at the outer perimeter. Cells which are partially polarized are not able to pile up on top of one another but are restricted to expand in monolayers, which does not naturally occur in the native tissue. In this non-physiologic setup, transport of nutrients and oxygen tension is not uniform. In addition, when cells are cultured in a 2D-setup, substantial amounts of CYP enzymes become depleted, limiting the efficacy of drug metabolization. In such an environment, hepatocytes act as a single entity in which homo- and hetero-typic interactions together with spatial architecture are lacking (Berger et al. 2015).

In contrast, 3D-culture techniques open up the possibility of mimicking the native ECM arrangement and can positively influence hepatic lodging, proliferation and maintenance of metabolic activities. In 3D-cultures, cells are exposed to multi-cellular contacts, thus triggering multiple stimuli resulting in higher viability and reduced apoptosis when compared to cells cultured in 2D. Also, hepatocytes growing in a 3D-pattern secrete higher levels of urea and albumin and show enhanced activity of CYP (Baharvand et al. 2006; Duval et al. 2017). Profound manipulations of the ECM can be achieved in 3D-models, thereby promoting cell adhesion, survival, proliferation and differentiation of stem cells (Lin et al. 2012) (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2

Comparison of key components of 2D- and of 3D-culture systems for hepatic differentiation of stem cells. 2D two-dimensional, 3D three-dimensional

Stem cell-based 3D culture technologies

Several technological approaches aim at recreating a native-like environment for cell cultures by establishing physiologically relevant culture conditions that better represent the in vivo situation. Such systems involve growing cells in a 3D-environment and simulated vasculature. 3D-systems are commonly subdivided into scaffold-free and scaffold-based setups. In scaffold-free constructs, 3D-cell aggregates allow the formation of oxygen and nutrient gradients and develop in- and outward production of signal molecules. In turn, scaffold-based setups provide adherence cues to cells and promote migration, proliferation and cytoskeletal reorganization. The microenvironment of the native tissue can be mimicked by tailor-made 3D-scaffolds in which the material properties such as mechanical characteristics, porosity, chemical functionalization and geometry can be specifically controlled (Abbott 2003; Antoni et al. 2015; Fang and Eglen 2017; Langhans 2018). Scaffold-based constructs are meant to recreate the natural, physical and structural environment of liver tissue. These scaffolds consist of a physical support where cells can adhere, acquire their native morphology and maintain cell–cell junctions. Furthermore, 3D-structures offer a larger cultivation surface in comparison with 2D-culture systems. Cell attachment can be influenced by the selection of materials, shape, size and porosity of the backbone of the scaffold (Loh and Choong 2013).

Porous scaffolds allow cell infiltration, nutrient and oxygen transport within the 3D-construct. Pore sizes ranging from 120 to 200 µm are described to be the most promising to induce hepatogenesis of ADMSCs (Wang et al. 2010). The high porosity (65–70%) and the wide pore size enable the nutritional supply inside the scaffold. However, if the pores are too small, cell migration is limited, resulting in the formation of a cellular agglutination around the edges of the structure and limited ECM production within the scaffold. Conversely, large pore size renders the scaffold more fragile and decreases the cell growth area, limiting cell adhesion (Loh and Choong 2013).

Polymers are an attractive material for the fabrication of scaffolds, from simple to more complex matrices, as they allow the modification of porosity and mechanical properties of culture surfaces (Jain et al. 2014). The most common materials that are used for the fabrication of scaffolds are natural and synthetic polymers. Natural polymers, such as collagen, glycosaminoglycan, chitosan, starch, hyaluronic acid, cellulose and alginate are surrogates for the ECM and support cell interaction and proliferation (Gerecht et al. 2007; Li et al. 2010; Lucendo-Villarin et al. 2016). The weakness and softness of pure natural polymers have the advantage of adapting their shape to required forms. However, they have poor mechanical properties, and therefore, require further processing (Dhandayuthapani et al. 2011; Asti and Gioglio 2014). Chemically synthetized polymers, such as poly-lactic acid, poly-glycolic acid, poly lactic-co-glicolic acid and polycaprolactone, are gaining importance (Jain et al. 2014). For these materials several parameters such as porosity, mechanical characteristics and binding properties can be controlled, allowing the fabrication of specific scaffolds with desired characteristics. Many techniques can be used to shape polymers into complex 3D-scaffolds. An overview of these strategies, which can be used for culturing HLCs in 3D, is described in the following paragraphs.

Scaffold-free setups

Decellularized liver matrices

The liver ECM is a complex environment composed of proteoglycans, glycosaminoglycans, collagens and glycoproteins. ECM components provide binding sites for molecules and receptors which may induce significant modifications of stem cell morphology, transcriptional profile, proliferation and differentiation (Hoshiba et al. 2016). Despite the fact that the generation of sophisticated bioactive polymers is progressing, it remains challenging to reproduce the natural ECM in vitro, due to the variety of constituents produced by the various cell types present in the liver. As an alternative strategy, natural liver bioscaffolds can be obtained by decellularization of the whole organ. The process involves the removal of cellular components from the tissue, providing an empty matrix with a preserved 3D-backbone that harbours an intact vasculature and important ECM-bound growth factors (De Kock et al. 2011).

In a number of studies the potential of decellularized liver scaffolds derived from rodents and humans was explored (Uygun et al. 2010; De Kock et al. 2011; Mazza et al. 2015; Garreta et al. 2017). The decellularized matrix provides a liver-specific microenvironment, which can be used for repopulation with stem cells and promotion of hepatic differentiation (Navarro-Tableros et al. 2015). Repopulation of these matrices with human fetal hepatocytes and endothelial cells could enable their differentiation into hepatoblasts and biliary epithelial cells (Baptista et al. 2011). Also, human hepatic progenitors were engrafted in decellularized rat livers and the metabolic functionality of the generated humanized livers was investigated. After exposure to six drugs, well-known for targeting specific CYP enzymes, these reconstituted livers provided enhanced activities of metabolic enzymes compared to the 2D-culture condition (Vishwakarma et al. 2018). This already suggests that natural bioengineered livers can support the maintenance of cell functionality, drug delivery and drug responses. Therefore, they represent valuable tools in drug testing platforms.

3D-spheroids

Scaffold-free 3D-methodology consists of medium in which cells are suspended and spontaneously aggregate into multicellular structures, known as spheroids. Culturing hepatocytes in 3D-spheroids is becoming popular since the cells maintain tight cell–cell junctions which enhance liver-specific functions. In culture, aggregation of single cells into large hepatospheres occurs either by spontaneous cell aggregation or by agitation induced in bioreactors. Also hanging-drop methods are used (Freyer et al. 2016). Cells in 3D-spheroids survive longer by producing their own ECM. They may reach sizes up to 200–300 µm. The presence of tight cellular contacts positively modifies cell complexity and physiological status. However, such compactness also has disadvantages. It hampers the transfer of oxygen, nutrients and metabolites among cells within the aggregates, leading to limited survival times (Gómez-Lechón et al. 2014). Hepatic differentiation of hESCs, hiPSCs and hMSCs in spheroid culture formats, significantly improve cell morphology and hepatic functionality (Subramanian et al. 2014; Talaei-Khozani et al. 2015). Drug toxicity testing has also been performed using 3D-spheroid cultures. 3D-aggregates of hESCs-derived HLCs exhibited enhanced enzymatic induction by omeprazole and rifampicin and were capable of the entire metabolization of these drugs. Phase II reactions, e.g. glucuronidation of acetaminophen were not displayed, possibly due to the incomplete maturation of the cells (Sengupta et al. 2014). On the other hand, Takayama et al. (2013), demonstrated an efficient hepatic differentiation method in which HLCs acquired substantial hepatic competences and were able to predict hepatotoxicity. In this study, 3D-culture spheroids were generated from hESCs and hiPSCs using nanopillar plates that consisted of microscale pillars with a pillar diameter of 160–1000 nm and a height of 280–1000 nm arrayed at the bottom of each well. The seeded cells spread uniformly at the bottom of the well and aggregated to spheroids that could be cultured for more than 20 days. hiPSC-derived HLCs, cultured in spheroids, were more susceptible to hepatotoxic drugs than HepG2-derived spheroids. However, both CYP induction and drug metabolism activity were still lower than those found in PHH cultured in monolayers. This seems to suggest that hiPSC-derived HLCs spheroids still displayed a low sensitivity. In addition, 3D-spheroids have also been combined with specific hydrogel-based materials to support the formation of HLCs in a 3D-configuration. Tasnim et al., report the development of a 3D-cellulosic scaffold containing conjugated galactose ligands. These promote the formation of spheroids in a macroporous network, increase cell–cell contacts and maintain a constant spheroid size. In this particular study, hESCs and hiPSCs were first differentiated towards HLCs in monolayer cultures for 20 days and subsequently seeded into cellulosic scaffolds for 12 days during which 3D-spheroids were formed. The obtained spheroids showed an increased urea production and albumin expression. When exposed to hepatotoxicants, including acetaminophen, troglitazone and methotrexate, these cells showed drug responses comparable to those of PHH. A slightly higher or lower sensitivity to acetaminophen and troglitazone, respectively, was observed (Tasnim et al. 2016). A recent study demonstrated that hepatospheroids differentiated from UCMSCs on gelatin-vinyl-acetate-copolymer 3D-scaffolds acquired enhanced CYP activities compared to 2D cultures. In addition, when exposed to ethanol and acetaminophen, these hepatospheroids exhibited comparable effects to HepG2 and PHH exposed to the same compounds, demonstrating their relevance in metabolism and drug toxicity studies (Chitrangi et al. 2017).

Organoids

Organoids consist of cells that spontaneously form structures that can expand in 3D. Organoid cultures display an indefinite clonal expansion and a differentiation capacity for prolonged periods (Hindley et al. 2016). All stem cell types, including hESCs, hiPSCs and hMSCs, were shown to be able to form organoids together with epithelial cells (Kretzschmar and Clevers 2016). These organoids, composed of multiple cell types, undergo multilineage differentiation commitment, mimicking in vivo embryogenesis, giving rise to a heterogeneous cell population. Heterotypic cell–cell interactions and paracrine signals govern the specification of liver progenitors and recreate stem cell niches that trigger the hepatic commitment. It has been documented that hiPSCs cultured with surrounding endothelial cells and hMSCs without direct contact between the different cell types, were able to differentiate into liver organoids that secreted albumin and expressed a hepatocyte-enriched gene profile and canalicular proteins (Asai et al. 2017).

Human liver stem cell-based organoids can be generated from single donors, holding great potential in the development of preclinical pharmacological platforms (Nantasanti et al. 2016; Shinozawa et al. 2016; Nie et al. 2018). A proof-of-concept study demonstrated that in vitro hepatic organoids derived from hiPSCs and treated with acetaminophen, exhibited comparable responses to those observed in exposed PHH (Sgodda et al. 2017).

Furthermore, the unlimited proliferation capacity of liver-derived organoids is compatible with a stable chromosomal integrity for months in culture, allowing scaling up production without compromising the quality of the organoids (Huch et al. 2015). Several efforts have been made to improve in vitro efficiency of hepatic differentiation of HLCs-derived organoids. Scalability and reproducibility of hiPSCs-derived organoid platform could be improved using microwell arrays (Takebe et al. 2017).

Liver organoids from different cell sources already demonstrated to be suitable for drug screening and for the development of new therapies for liver diseases and cancer. Biopsy specimens can be isolated from patients and may be used for drug testing, disease modeling and prognosis. Organoid technology opens up the opportunity for the development of patient-derived mini-livers which can be further applied for personalised medicine or for the assessment of individual-specific toxicity (Nantasanti et al. 2016).

Scaffold-based setups

Nanofiber scaffolds

Electrospinning is a technique capable of producing nanofiber scaffolds using high voltage tension (Dhandayuthapani et al. 2011). Fibers, ranging from 1 to 1000 nm, are obtained by processing of polymeric liquids. During the process, nanofibers are formed by the creation and elongation of an electrified fluid jet. The path of the jet, constrained by an orifice, involves the formation of a series of small electrically driven bending coils that progressively expand and increase their sizes, finally solidifying the polymers into continuous thin fibers (Lu et al. 2013). A common electrospinning apparatus consists of a collector electrode, a high voltage supply, a syringe containing the polymer solution in liquid form and a syringe nozzle. When a high voltage is applied, the jet emerging from the solution is constrained from the needle to the collector. The collector allows the formation and elongation of randomly oriented nanofibers (Nair et al. 2004) (Fig. 3). The resulting fiber scaffold is a planar substrate with fibrillary structures. Depending on the cell size, densely condensed structures, characterized by a small inter-fiber distance could prevent cell infiltration. This inconvenience may be solved by modifying either the concentration or ejection rate of the polymer solution and the distance between the needle and the collector, such that a thicker or thinner fiber diameter could be achieved (Loh and Choong 2013). The core of the fibers can also incorporate active molecules, which can be released in a regulated manner, emulating native gradients of growth factors (Buzgo et al. 2017; Rampichová et al. 2014). The fibers provide an optimal structural environment for cell attachment and guidance cues to modulate cell behaviour (Lu et al. 2013). It has been reported that nanofiber scaffolds maintain the multilineage differentiation capacity of hMSCs and cells differentiated in these scaffolds express an increased hepatic functionality (Li et al. 2005; Hashemi et al. 2009). However, a disadvantage of fiber scaffolds is the use of toxic organic solvents during fabrication. To overcome this impediment, cross-linking strategies of pure natural polymers such as collagen, laminin and hyaluronic acid are used to coat the fibers of the scaffolds (Leino et al. 2018). Synthetic polymers coated or blended with natural polymers enhance surface biocompatibility and result in biomimetic scaffolds that can induce efficient hepatic differentiation of hMSCs (Kazemnejad et al. 2009; Ghaedi et al. 2012). Bishi et al., reported the generation of hepatic spheroid-like aggregates from hMSCs on highly porous nanofiber scaffolds, composed of a mixture of synthetic polymers such as poly-lactic acid and polycaprolactone blended with collagen. These 3D-hepatospheres displayed enhanced expression of hepatic-specific markers and albumin secretion in comparison to non-blend nanofibers, collagen alone, or a 2D-condition (Bishi et al. 2013).
Fig. 3

a Schematic representation of an electrospinning setup for the production of nanofiber scaffolds. b Fluorescent-labelled PCL and collagen blending for the functionalization of nanofiber scaffolds. PCL polycaprolactone

Although efficient hepatic differentiation of stem cells has been well documented in nanofiber scaffolds, drug toxicity testing using these structures has not yet been reported.

Hydrogel-based systems

Hydrogels consist of crosslinked hydrophilic polymers with high water content that form a 3D-matrix. Natural hydrogels encompass polysaccharides and proteins that share similar protein patterns with the human ECM, thereby mimicking the natural cellular microenvironment. Once extracted from green plants, algae and animals, hydrogels can be slightly processed to enhance their endurance and compatibility for cell culture (Caliari and Burdick 2016). In contrast, synthetic hydrogels, including polyethylene glycol, polyvinyl alcohol and polyacrylate, only to mention a few, exhibit a superior mechanical strength over natural hydrogels (Upadhyay 2017). Both natural and synthetic hydrogels have physio-mechanical properties that are highly tunable, allowing the synthesis of encapsulating biomaterials and the control of matrix stiffness (Tsou et al. 2016).

Integration of cells into hydrogel networks can be best achieved via encapsulation or entrapment of living cells. Once formed, the microspheres encapsulate cells thereby forming a barrier which is permeable to oxygen, soluble molecules, metabolites and cellular waste. When high cell densities are encapsulated, cells distributed at the border will receive considerably higher nutrient amounts than cells residing internally, forming distance-dependent oxygen and nutrient gradients (Nicodemus and Bryant 2008; Gasperini et al. 2014). These spatial gradients play an important role in the regulation of the stem cell fate and functions (Jeon et al. 2013). To improve the cell expansion rate and viability, stem cells can also be encapsulated within core–shell hydrogel microfibers. Hereby, they proliferate uniformly along the fibers and retain long-term pluripotency in culture (Ikeda et al. 2017).

The maintenance of encapsulated cells within the hydrogel can be further enhanced by functionalizing the hydrogels with active peptides such as cadherin, collagen and hyaluronic acid (Parmar et al. 2015; Zhu et al. 2016). In addition, conjugation with peptides induces reorganization of the cytoskeleton resulting in stiffness changes. The latter plays a pivotal role in the determination of efficient cell attachment, cell viability, differentiation and maintenance of the cell-specific phenotype. Depending on the polymer concentration and chemical crosslinking density, hydrogel stiffness can range from very soft (< 0.1 kPa) to very rigid surfaces (approximately 500 kPa) (Tsou et al. 2016). In the liver, the physiological stiffness reaches 1.5–8.5 kPa (Mueller and Sandrin 2010; Koch et al. 2011).

When PHH were seeded on hyaluronic acid hydrogels, cell survival and the organization of the cytoskeleton improved along with stiffness up to 4.6 kPa. In contrast, the maintenance of gene expression and albumin production was found to be optimal at stiffness values equal to about 1.2 kPa, which is at the limit of the physiological stiffness degree (Deegan et al. 2015). It has been observed that high matrix stiffness results in the maintenance of stem cells at the embryonic state, hampering their progression towards the hepatic phenotype (Cozzolino et al. 2016).

Several hydrogel-based systems have been developed to provide a liver-like environment that can promote the hepatic differentiation of hESCs and hMSCs. Adaptations in the hydrogel chemistry, stiffness and topography resulted in the augmentation of functional hepatic characteristics including enhanced enzymatic activities and drug metabolism (Maguire et al. 2005; Azandeh et al. 2016; Fan and Wang 2017; Lee et al. 2017; Wang et al. 2018). Hydrogels are also the most commonly used bioink materials in 3D-bioprinting. Digital bioprinting processes consist of selective deposition of different living cell types with well-defined spatial patterns (Leberfinger et al. 2017). Ma et al. (2016), were able to assemble hiPSCs-HLCs with surrounding cells from endothelial and mesenchymal origin to form proper hexagonal lobule units via bioprinting. This triculture hydrogel-based model showed advanced morphological features together with increased metabolic secretion and CYP activity as well as enhanced gene expression of hepatic markers. The metabolic activity of stem cell-derived HLCs was shown to be successfully maintained during and after the bioprinting process (Faulkner-Jones et al. 2015). Despite its great potential, the reproducibility of the generation of liver constructs by bioprinting and the preservation of their cellular functions still need to be refined. Indeed, when ejected through nozzle orifices and capillary tubes during the bioprinting process, cells experience mechanical stress that is likely to lead to cell death.

Nanoscaffolds by two-photon polymerization (2PP)

2PP is an advanced technology that allows high precision fabrication of nanoscale structures (Maruo and Fourkas 2008). A femto-second laser beam is focused onto a photosensitive liquid material and a photoinitiator, which absorbs the laser light through a two-photon absorption process, inducing the polymerization of a photopolymer. By moving the laser focus within this photosensitive material, well-defined 3D-structures in any desired geometry can be generated with sub-micrometer precision (Fig. 4a). This technique permits to accurately and specifically control architectural parameters such as pore size, shape, porosity and permeability.
Fig. 4

a Schematic representation of 2PP technology used to induce high-precision polymerization of polymers for the fabrication of 3D-structures. b Scanning electron microscopy images of a cuboidal and c hexagonal 3D-nanoprinted scaffold depicted in 45° orientation. 2PP two-photon polymerization

Gelatin derivatives such as methacrylamide-gelatin (Gel-MOD), which belongs to the hydrogel category, can be used for manufacturing 3D-scaffolds by 2PP. Gel-MOD 3D- scaffolds provided cell anchorage and supported proliferation of adipose stem cells for a few days (Ovsianikov et al. 2011). Recently, Van Hoorick et al. (2017, 2018) reported two novel gelatin derivatives, namely gelatin-methacrylamide-aminoethylmethacrylate (Gel-MOD-AEMA) and gel-norbornene (Gel-NB), which combine superior 2PP processability and improved cellular interactivity. Besides derivatives of natural polymers, synthetic polymers can also be employed for the fabrication of microstructures due to their mechanical properties (Selimis et al. 2015).

Combination of organic and inorganic materials, such as zirconium–silicon blending is also used and was found to be appropriate for the growth of hMSCs and the development of cell networks (Koroleva et al. 2015). The inorganic component provides mechanical strength, while the organic element ensures bonding between the inorganic components and the cells. Also photosensitive hybrid materials such as ORMOCOMP® and its derived formulations (ORMOCER®, ORMOCLEAR® etc.), are gaining importance for in vitro cell culture applications (Schlie et al. 2007; Teplicky et al. 2016). Using ORMOCOMP®, a 3D-nanostructure of about 700 × 700 µm2 total dimension, with intercommunicating baskets of cuboidal or hexagonal shape, could be fabricated in our laboratory to mimic the 3D-backbone of the human liver (Fig. 4b).

Tailored microgeometries that mimic the native stem cell niche can be fabricated by 2PP technology and stem cell fate can be further controlled by applying biomimetic coatings (Nava et al. 2015). Although no reports have been documented yet on hepatic differentiation of stem cells using 2PP-nanoscaffolds, we believe that this technology represents a powerful engineering tool to recreate artificial stem cell niches to further control stem cell growth and differentiation.

Microfluidics

In vivo, cells are continuously exposed to the vascular network of the bloodstream, ensuring effective delivery of nutrients and activation of signalling pathways that regulate cell function. The liver holds approximately 15% of the total blood volume and, of this, only 40% is held in large vessels such as arteries and veins while 60% circulates in the sinusoids (Eipel et al. 2010). In healthy conditions, hepatocytes lining the sinusoids, experience fluid shear stress in the range of 0.1–0.5 dyn/cm2 which is lower than the shear stress observed in larger blood vessels (Rashidi et al. 2016). In postnatal livers, hepatic stem cell progenitors are located near the Canals of Hering where hemodynamic changes of the blood flow can trigger these cells to re-enter the cell cycle and to restore the hepatocyte population (Lanzoni et al. 2016). The expression of a class of immediate early genes (IEG), including early growth response (EGR) 1, plasminogen activator inhibitor (PAI) 1, phosphatase of regenerating liver (PRL) 1 and proto-oncogene c-fos (CFOS) is triggered in response to fluid mechanical stress and is believed to be involved in the activation of proliferative-related genes to induce liver regeneration (Sato et al. 1999; Nakatsuka et al. 2006; Nishii et al. 2018).

Perfusion systems can be used to mimic the blood flow in the sinusoids, enabling transport of oxygen, nutrients and removal of waste products and as such improve hepatic differentiation in vitro (Fig. 5). Lab-on-chip devices are used as a novel strategy for the differentiation of HLCs. Microfluidic-based in vitro systems offer several advantages over conventional culture models. First, the establishment of a well-controlled gradient ensures constant addition and removal of nutrients for long-term culture. Second, micro-scale dimensions of the chip simulate structures of the human body and better represent the in vivo physiology. Third, the device offers a miniaturization of the system with minimal consumption of reagents and compounds, resulting in high cost-effectiveness (Gupta et al. 2016).
Fig. 5

Graphical representation of a microfluidic setup for the generation of cell culture medium-induced shear stress, mimicking the blood flow in liver sinusoids.

Image modified from The ibidi Product and Experiment Guide (https://ibidi.com/)

Several polymers such as polydimethylsiloxane, polycarbonate, polystyrene, poly-methyl methacrylate have been employed for the fabrication of lab-on-chip devices (Gupta et al. 2016). Typically, a lab-on-chip includes channels that allow cell distribution, attachment and the passage of fluid trough the grooves. There are often two ports in the device: (1) an inlet port through which fresh medium is injected to provide the essential growth factors and oxygen and (2) an outlet port which is used to remove the medium containing waste products.

At present, several microfluidic systems have been developed to achieve hepatic differentiation of human stem cells for drug assay applications (Wu et al. 2017). Increased expression of progenitor and adult hepatic markers coupled with a significant increase of hepatic functionality were observed under perfusion conditions (Ju et al. 2008; Miki et al. 2011; Wang et al. 2012; Yen et al. 2016; Ong et al. 2017). The perfusion frequency is a key parameter in the microfluidic setup which can affect the efficiency of hepatic differentiation. Giobbe et al., found that the commitment of hESCs and hiPSCs in the three germ layers and hepatic specification are directly influenced by appropriate perfusion frequencies. The authors argue that, while high perfusion frequencies could wash out endogenous secreted factors, low frequencies hold these factors into the channel to provide nutrients to the cells. When hESCs and hiPSCs were differentiated with endoderm-specific medium at an optimal perfusion frequency for 14 days, they displayed a typical polygonal shape. Furthermore, HLCs cultured under fluidics showed enhanced functional properties such as the capacity of storing glycogen, higher expression of CYP3A and albumin secretion when compared to static conditions. Exposure to acetaminophen showed also that cytotoxicity was more prominent in hESCs-HCLs differentiated in microfluidics versus hESCs-HCLs differentiated under static conditions (Giobbe et al. 2015).

More recently, the same group described the reprogramming of hiPSCs towards HLCs in a micro-scale microfluidic polydimethylsiloxane-based device. In this new setup, up to 32 independent experiments and multiple chips can be run simultaneously, increasing the throughput of the process. Hepatic functionality of mature HLCs was confirmed by high albumin secretion and glycogen intracellular storage (Luni et al. 2016).

The creation of a dynamic environment that provides multiple stimuli for stem cell differentiation paves the way for more complex systems such as an organ-on-a-chip approach (Zhang et al. 2017). This technology aims at recreating micro-tissues that mimic the functions of entire organs. For the liver, these systems attempt to reproduce the flow circulation that from the hepatic artery and portal vein is drained into the sinusoids, enabling as such the diffusion of nutrients to the hepatocytes. Ultimately, the blood flows out of the sinusoids into the central vein and removes de-oxygenated products and waste materials. Recently, Benaeiyan et al., developed a liver-lobule on a chip device, inspired by the convective-diffusive motion of the hepatic blood flow. The device consists of hexagonal chambers with a central inlet mimicking the central vein of the liver lobules and radial channels distributed around the central aperture (Banaeiyan et al. 2017). hiPSCs-derived hepatocytes differentiated in the chip for 21 days displayed considerably higher metabolic activity than the 2D-culture. In addition, the formation of a bile canaliculi network could be observed in the device (Banaeiyan et al. 2017). Overall, cell cultivation effectiveness, system automation and high throughput make the microfluidic systems appealing for further application in drug discovery. For instance, integration of microfluidic platforms with engineered 3D-scaffolds are being progressively explored to provide a more physiological system which can ultimately be applied in drug toxicity testing (Wallin et al. 2012; Gupta et al. 2016). Yet, introducing stem cell-based microfluidic platforms in drug discovery is a lengthy process that still needs to be further developed and optimised.

Conclusion

The use of human stem cell-derived hepatocytes in a drug testing platform remains a challenging task. Improvement of the hepatic functionality is necessary to match the sensitivity of PHH. Different technologies, providing a better representation of the physiology of human liver, can now be introduced to improve the hepatic maturity of stem cell-derived HLCs. Hence, advanced hepatic cell culture systems have been explored by mirroring key components of the in vivo microenvironment, including the 3D-architecture, necessary for correct cellular orientation and cell–cell and cell–ECM contacts in addition to the vascular network of the liver (Table 1). Several methodologies have been developed to culture cells in liver-specific microenvironments, including 3D-scaffold based and scaffold free setups and microfluidic perfusion. These methodologies not only improve the hepatic functionality of stem cell-based HLCs, but also reinforce their predictive capacity towards hepatotoxic compounds (Knight and Przyborski 2015; Lin and Khetani 2016).
Table 1

Advantages and disadvantages of advanced cell culture systems

Advanced models

Simulating in vivo physiology

Advantages

Disadvantages

References

Decellularized liver matrices

Native ECM

3D-architecture

Vasculature

Cell homing

Optimal metabolic activity

Inadequate for large-scale analysis

Hoshiba et al. (2016 and Vishwakarma et al. (2018)

3D-spheroids

Tight cell–cell junctions

Preservation of 3D-morphology

Co-culture capacity

Tight cell junctions

Heterogeneous cell population (cell size, number, shape)

Simplified framework

Low-throughput

Gómez-Lechón et al. (2014)

Organoids

In vivo-like architectural complexity

Patient specific

Free cell spatial arrangement

Poor hepatic differentiation potential

Absent vasculature

Unsuitable for high-throughput

Nantasanti et al. (2016)

Nanofiber scaffolds

ECM network

Chemical surface modification

Bioactive factors delivery

Fabrication involving toxic solvents

Densely stacked fibers

Low cell infiltration

Lu et al. (2013) and Dahlin et al. (2011)

Hydrogel-based systems

Recreation of biomimetic ECM

Biocompatible

Oxygen permeability

Gas exchanges

Regulation of stiffness

High tunability

Conjugation with peptides

Degradability

Optimization of appropriate mechanical properties for cell culture

Deegan et al. (2015) and Tsou et al. (2016)

Nanoscaffolds by two-photon polymerization

3D-architecture

Miniaturized structures

Tailored design

Engineering matrices

Immobilization of molecules

Biocompatibility

Expensive

Sensitive detection system required

Ovsianikov et al. (2011) and Teplicky et al. (2016)

Microfluidics

Sinusoidal blood flow

Recovery of apicobasal polarity and bile canaliculi

Dynamic control of culture conditions

Presence of chemical gradients

Suitable for high-throughput

Minimal consumption of reagents

Sophisticated equipment needed

Sensitive detection system required

Gupta et al. (2016), Giobbe et al. (2015) and Luni et al. (2016)

Of note, stem cell-engineering models have the potential to assess patient-specific toxicity. Patient-derived cells cultured in 3D and exposed to certain drugs, have already demonstrated a significant correlation with clinical observations (Lu et al. 2017). Nevertheless, engineered stem-cell based models require further optimization to be routinely applied in drug toxicity testing. Undoubtedly, the synergy of stem cells and engineering technologies will have a great impact on the reduction of animal use as well as on the improvement of drug development strategies.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by grants from the ‘Chair Mireille Aerens for alternative methods development’, the Research Foundation-Vlaanderen (FWO) (G030217N and 12H2216N) and Leef milieu Brussel (BIM, SUB/2017/BEA/VUB).

References

  1. Abbott A (2003) Biology’s new dimension. Nature 424:870–872.  https://doi.org/10.1038/424870a CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Antoni D, Burckel H, Josset E, Noel G (2015) Three-dimensional cell culture: a breakthrough in vivo. Int J Mol Sci 16:5517–5527.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms16035517 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Asai A, Aihara E, Watson C et al (2017) Paracrine signals regulate human liver organoid maturation from induced pluripotent stem cells. Development 144:1056–1064.  https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.142794 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Asti A, Gioglio L (2014) Natural and synthetic biodegradable polymers: different scaffolds for cell expansion and tissue formation. Int J Artif Organs 37:187–205. https://doi.org/10.530/ijao.5000307Google Scholar
  5. Azandeh S, Gharravi AM, Orazizadeh M et al (2016) Improvement of mesenchymal stem cell differentiation into the endoderm lineage by four step sequential method in biocompatible biomaterial. BioImpacts 6:9–13.  https://doi.org/10.15171/bi.2016.02 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Baharvand H, Hashemi SM, Ashtiani SK, Farrokhi A (2006) Differentiation of human embryonic stem cells into hepatocytes in 2D and 3D culture systems in vitro. Int J Dev Biol 50:645–652.  https://doi.org/10.1387/ijdb.052072hb CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Banaeiyan AA, Theobald J, Paukštyte J et al (2017) Design and fabrication of a scalable liver-lobule-on-a-chip microphysiological platform. Biofabrication 9:015014.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/9/1/015014 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Baptista PM, Siddiqui MM, Lozier G et al (2011) The use of whole organ decellularization for the generation of a vascularized liver organoid. Hepatology 53:604–617.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.24067 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Baxter MA, Rowe C, Alder J et al (2010) Generating hepatic cell lineages from pluripotent stem cells for drug toxicity screening. Stem Cell Res 5:4–22.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scr.2010.02.002 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Behbahan IS, Duan Y, Lam A et al (2011) New approaches in the differentiation of human embryonic stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells toward hepatocytes. Stem Cell Rev Rep 7:748–759.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12015-010-9216-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Berger DR, Ware BR, Davidson MD et al (2015) Enhancing the functional maturity of induced pluripotent stem cell-derived human hepatocytes by controlled presentation of cell–cell interactions in vitro. Hepatology 61:1370–1381.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.27621 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Bishi DK, Mathapati S, Venugopal JR et al (2013) Trans-differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells generates functional hepatospheres on poly(l-lactic acid)-co-poly(ε-caprolactone)/collagen nanofibrous scaffolds. J Mater Chem B 1:3972–3984.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c3tb20241k CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Buzgo M, Rampichova M, Vocetkova K et al (2017) Emulsion centrifugal spinning for production of 3D drug releasing nanofibres with core/shell structure. RSC Adv 7:1215–1228.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RA26606A CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Caliari RS, Burdick AJ (2016) A practical guide to hydrogels for cell culture. Nat Methods 13:405–414.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3839 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Caplan AI (2015) Are all adult stem cells the same? Regen Eng Transl Med 1:4–10.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40883-015-0001-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Castell JV, Jover R, Martnez-Jimnez CP, Gomez-Lechon MJ (2006) Hepatocyte cell lines: their use, scope and limitations in drug metabolism studies. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2:183–212.  https://doi.org/10.1517/17425255.2.2.183 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Chang R, Chou M, Hung L et al (2016) Study of valproic acid-enhanced hepatocyte steatosis. Biomed Res Int 2016:9576503.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/9576503 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Chen Z, Sun M, Yuan Q et al (2016) Generation of functional hepatocytes from human spermatogonial stem cells. Oncotarget 7:8879–8895.  https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.7092 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Chitrangi S, Nair P, Khanna A (2017) 3D engineered in vitro hepatospheroids for studying drug toxicity and metabolism. Toxicol In Vitro 38:8–18.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tiv.2016.10.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Cozzolino AM, Noce V, Battistelli C et al (2016) Modulating the substrate stiffness to manipulate differentiation of resident liver stem cells and to improve the differentiation state of hepatocytes. Stem Cells Int 2016:5481493.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/5481493 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Dahlin RL, Kasper FK, Mikos AG (2011) Polymeric nanofibers in tissue engineering. Tissue Eng Part B Rev 17:349–364.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.TEB.2011.0238 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Damania A, Jain E, Kumar A (2014) Advancements in in vitro hepatic models: application for drug screening and therapeutics. Hepatol Int 8:23–38.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12072-013-9490-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Davila JC, Cezar GG, Thiede M et al (2004) Use and application of stem cells in toxicology. Toxicol Sci 79:214–223.  https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfh100 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. De Kock J, Ceelen L, De Spiegelaere W et al (2011) Simple and quick method for whole-liver decellularization: a novel in vitro three-dimensional bioengineering tool? Arch Toxicol 85:607–612.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-011-0706-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Deegan DB, Zimmerman C, Skardal A et al (2015) Stiffness of hyaluronic acid gels containing liver extracellular matrix supports human hepatocyte function and alters cell morphology. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 55:87–103.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2015.10.016 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Denayer T, Stohr T, Van Roy M (2014) Animal models in translational medicine: validation and prediction. New Horizons Transl Med 2:5–11.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nhtm.2014.08.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dhandayuthapani B, Yoshida Y, Maekawa T, Kumar DS (2011) Polymeric scaffolds in tissue engineering application: a review. Int J Polym Sci 2011:290602.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/290602 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Divya MS, Roshin GE, Divya TS et al (2012) Umbilical cord blood-derived mesenchymal stem cells consist of a unique population of progenitors co-expressing mesenchymal stem cell and neuronal markers capable of instantaneous neuronal differentiation. Stem Cell Res Ther 3:57.  https://doi.org/10.1186/scrt148 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Doke SK, Dhawale SC (2015) Alternatives to animal testing: a review. Saudi Pharm J 23:223–229.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsps.2013.11.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Du C, Feng Y, Qiu D et al (2018) Highly efficient and expedited hepatic differentiation from human pluripotent stem cells by pure small-molecule cocktails. Stem Cell Res Ther 9:58.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13287-018-0794-4 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Duval K, Grover H, Han L-H et al (2017) Modeling physiological events in 2D vs. 3D cell culture. Physiology (Bethesda) 32:266–277.  https://doi.org/10.1152/physiol.00036.2016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Eipel C, Abshagen K, Vollmar B (2010) Regulation of hepatic blood flow: the hepatic arterial buffer response revisited. World J Gastroenterol 16:6046–6057.  https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v16.i48.6046 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Fan C, Wang D-A (2017) Macroporous hydrogel scaffolds for three-dimensional cell culture and tissue engineering. Tissue Eng Part B Rev 23:451–461.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.teb.2016.0465 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Fang Y, Eglen RM (2017) Three-dimensional cell cultures in drug discovery and development. SLAS Discov 22:456–472.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1087057117696795 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Faulkner-Jones A, Fyfe C, Cornelissen D-J et al (2015) Bioprinting of human pluripotent stem cells and their directed differentiation into hepatocyte-like cells for the generation of mini-livers in 3D. Biofabrication 7:044102.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/7/4/044102 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Freyer N, Knöspel F, Strahl N et al (2016) Hepatic differentiation of human induced pluripotent stem cells in a perfused three-dimensional multicompartment bioreactor. Biores Open Access 5:235–248.  https://doi.org/10.1089/biores.2016.0027 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Garreta E, Oria R, Tarantino C et al (2017) Tissue engineering by decellularization and 3D bioprinting. Mater Today 20:166–178.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mattod.2016.12.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gasperini L, Mano JF, Reis RL (2014) Natural polymers for the microencapsulation of cells. J R Soc Interface 11:20140817.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2014.0817 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Gerecht S, Burdick JA, Ferreira LS et al (2007) Hyaluronic acid hydrogel for controlled self-renewal and differentiation of human embryonic stem cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:11298–11303.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0703723104 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Ghaedi M, Soleimani M, Shabani I et al (2012) Hepatic differentiation from human mesenchymal stem cells on a novel nanofiber scaffold. Cell Mol Biol Lett 17:89–106.  https://doi.org/10.2478/s11658-011-0040-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Giobbe GG, Michielin F, Luni C et al (2015) Functional differentiation of human pluripotent stem cells on a chip. Nat Methods 12:637–640.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3411 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Godoy P, Hewitt NJ, Albrecht U et al (2013) Recent advances in 2D and 3D in vitro systems using primary hepatocytes, alternative hepatocyte sources and non-parenchymal liver cells and their use in investigating mechanisms of hepatotoxicity, cell signaling and ADME. Arch Toxicol 87:1315–1530.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-013-1078-5 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Gómez-Lechón M, Tolosa L, Donato M (2014) Cell-based models to predict human hepatotoxicity of drugs. Rev Toxicol 31:149–156. http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=91932969007. Accessed 26 Apr 2019. ISSN:0212-7113
  44. Guguen-guillouzo C, Corlu A, Guillouzo A (2010) Stem cell-derived hepatocytes and their use in toxicology. Toxicology 270:3–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2009.09.019 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Gupta N, Liu JR, Patel B et al (2016) Microfluidics-based 3D cell culture models: utility in novel drug discovery and delivery research. Bioeng Transl Med 1:63–81.  https://doi.org/10.1002/btm2.10013 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Hartung T (2009) Toxicology for the twenty-first century. Nature 460:208–212.  https://doi.org/10.1038/460208a CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Hashemi SM, Soleimani M, Zargarian SS et al (2009) In vitro differentiation of human cord blood-derived unrestricted somatic stem cells into hepatocyte-like cells on poly(e-caprolactone) nanofiber scaffolds. Cells Tissues Organs 190:135–149.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000187716 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Hay M, Thomas DW, Craighead JL et al (2014) Clinical development success rates for investigational drugs. Nat Biotechnol 32:40–51.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2786 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. He H, Liu X, Peng L et al (2013) Promotion of hepatic differentiation of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells on decellularized cell-deposited extracellular matrix. Biomed Res Int 2013:406871.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/406871 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. Hindley CJ, Cordero-Espinoza L, Huch M (2016) Organoids from adult liver and pancreas: stem cell biology and biomedical utility. Dev Biol 420:251–261.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2016.06.039 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Holmgren G, Sjogren A-K, Barragan I, Sabirsh A (2014) Long-term chronic toxicity testing using human pluripotent stem cell-derived hepatocytes. Drug Metab Dispos 42:1401–1406.  https://doi.org/10.1124/dmd.114.059154 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Horvath P, Aulner N, Bickle M et al (2016) Screening out irrelevant cell-based models of disease. Nat Rev Drug Discov 15:751–769.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd.2016.175 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Hoshiba T, Chen G, Endo C et al (2016) Decellularized extracellular matrix as an in vitro model to study the comprehensive roles of the ECM in stem cell differentiation. Stem Cells Int 2016:6397820.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/6397820 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Huang P, Zhang L, Gao Y et al (2014) Direct reprogramming of human fibroblasts to functional and expandable hepatocytes. Cell Stem Cell 14:370–384.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2014.01.003 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. Huch M, Gehart H, Van Boxtel R et al (2015) Long-term culture of genome-stable bipotent stem cells from adult human liver. Cell 160:299–312.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2014.11.050 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  56. Ikeda K, Nagata S, Okitsu T, Takeuchi S (2017) Cell fiber-based three-dimensional culture system for highly efficient expansion of human induced pluripotent stem cells. Sci Rep 7:2850.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-03246-2 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. Inamura M, Kawabata K, Takayama K et al (2011) Efficient generation of hepatoblasts from human ES cells and iPS cells by transient overexpression of homeobox gene HEX. Mol Ther 19:400–407.  https://doi.org/10.1038/mt.2010.241 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Itaba N, Matsumi Y, Okinaka K et al (2015) Human mesenchymal stem cell-engineered hepatic cell sheets accelerate liver regeneration in mice. Sci Rep 5:16169.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep16169 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. Jain E, Damania A, Kumar A (2014) Biomaterials for liver tissue engineering. Hepatol Int 8:185–197.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12072-013-9503-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Jeon O, Alt DS, Linderman SW, Alsberg E (2013) Biochemical and physical signal gradients in hydrogels to control stem cell behavior. Adv Mater 25:6366–6372.  https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201302364 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  61. Ju X, Li D, Gao N et al (2008) Hepatogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells using microfluidic chips. Biotechnol J 3:383–391.  https://doi.org/10.1002/biot.200700152 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Kamiya A, Kinoshita T, Miyajima A (2001) Oncostatin M and hepatocyte growth factor induce hepatic maturation via distinct signaling pathways. FEBS Lett 492:90–94.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0014-5793(01)02140-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Kazemnejad S, Allameh A, Soleimani M et al (2009) Biochemical and molecular characterization of hepatocyte-like cells derived from human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells on a novel three-dimensional biocompatible nanofibrous scaffold. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 24:278–287.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1746.2008.05530.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Khetani SR, Bhatia SN (2008) Microscale culture of human liver cells for drug development. Nat Biotechnol 26:120–126.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1361 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Kim JH, Wang M, Lee J et al (2018) Prediction of hepatotoxicity for drugs using human pluripotent stem cell-derived hepatocytes. Cell Biol Toxicol 34:51–64.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10565-017-9392-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Knight E, Przyborski S (2015) Advances in 3D cell culture technologies enabling tissue-like structures to be created in vitro. J Anat 227:746–756.  https://doi.org/10.1111/joa.12257 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Koch A, Horn A, Dückers H et al (2011) Increased liver stiffness denotes hepatic dysfunction and mortality risk in critically ill noncirrhotic patients at a medical ICU. Crit Care 15:R266.  https://doi.org/10.1186/cc10543 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  68. Koroleva A, Deiwick A, Nguyen A et al (2015) Osteogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells in 3-D Zr–Si organic-inorganic scaffolds produced by two-photon polymerization technique. PLoS ONE 10:e0118164.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118164 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  69. Kretzschmar K, Clevers H (2016) Organoids: modeling development and the stem cell niche in a dish. Dev Cell 38:590–600.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2016.08.014 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Langhans SA (2018) Three-dimensional in vitro cell culture models in drug discovery and drug repositioning. Front Pharmacol 9:6.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2018.00006 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  71. Lanzoni G, Cardinale V, Carpino G (2016) The hepatic, biliary, and pancreatic network of stem/progenitor cell niches in humans: a new reference frame for disease and regeneration. Hepatology 64:277–286.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.28326 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Leberfinger AN, Ravnic DJ, Dhawan A, Ozbolat IT (2017) Concise review: bioprinting of stem cells for transplantable tissue fabrication. Stem Cells Transl Med 6:1940–1948.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sctm.17-0148 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  73. Lee K-D, Kuo TK-C, Whang-Peng J et al (2004) In vitro hepatic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells. Hepatology 40:1275–1284.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.20469 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Lee HJ, Cha KE, Hwang SG et al (2011) In vitro screening system for hepatotoxicity: comparison of bone-marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells and placenta-derived stem cells. J Cell Biochem 112:49–58.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jcb.22728 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Lee HJ, Son MJ, Ahn J et al (2017) Elasticity-based development of functionally enhanced multicellular 3D liver encapsulated in hybrid hydrogel. Acta Biomater 64:67–79.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2017.09.041 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Leino M, Astrand C, Hughes-Brittain N et al (2018) Human embryonic stem cell dispersion in electrospun PCL fiber scaffolds by coating with laminin-521 and E-cadherin-Fc. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 106:1226–1236.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.33928 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Li WJ, Tuli R, Huang X et al (2005) Multilineage differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells in a three-dimensional nanofibrous scaffold. Biomaterials 26:5158–5166.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.01.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Li J, Tao R, Wu W et al (2010) 3D PLGA scaffolds improve differentiation and function of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cell-derived hepatocytes. Stem Cells Dev 19:1427–1436.  https://doi.org/10.1089/scd.2009.0415 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Lin C, Khetani SR (2016) Advances in engineered liver models for investigating drug-induced liver injury. Biomed Res Int 2016:1829148.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/1829148 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  80. Lin H, Yang G, Tan J, Tuan RS (2012) Influence of decellularized matrix derived from human mesenchymal stem cells on their proliferation, migration and multi-lineage differentiation potential. Biomaterials 33:4480–4489.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.03.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Loh QL, Choong C (2013) Three-dimensional scaffolds for tissue engineering applications: role of porosity and pore size. Tissue Eng Part B Rev 19:485–502.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.teb.2012.0437 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  82. Lu T, Li Y, Chen T (2013) Techniques for fabrication and construction of three-dimensional scaffolds for tissue engineering. Int J Nanomed 8:337–350.  https://doi.org/10.2147/IJN.S38635 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Lu HF, Leong M, Lim T et al (2017) Engineering a functional three-dimensional human cardiac tissue model for drug toxicity screening. Biofabrication 9:025011.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/aa6c3a CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Lucendo-Villarin B, Rashidi H, Cameron K, Hay DC (2016) Pluripotent stem cell derived hepatocytes: using materials to define cellular differentiation and tissue engineering. J Mater Chem B 4:3433–3442.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c6tb00331a CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  85. Luni C, Giulitti S, Serena E et al (2016) High-efficiency cellular reprogramming with microfluidics. Nat Methods 13:446–452.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3832 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. Lysy PA, Smets F, Najimi M, Sokal EM (2008) Leukemia inhibitory factor contributes to hepatocyte-like differentiation of human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells. Differentiation 76:1057–1067.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1432-0436.2008.00287.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Ma X, Qu X, Zhu W et al (2016) Deterministically patterned biomimetic human iPSC-derived hepatic model via rapid 3D bioprinting. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113:2206–2211.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1524510113 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Maguire TJ, Novik EI, Schloss R et al (2005) Alginate encapsulation and hepatic differentiation of embryonic stem cells. In: IEEE 31st annual northeast bioengineering conference.  https://doi.org/10.1109/nebc.2005.1431997
  89. Maruo S, Fourkas JT (2008) Recent progress in multiphoton microfabrication. Laser Photonics Rev 2:100–111.  https://doi.org/10.1002/lpor.200710039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Mathapati S, Siller R, Impellizzeri AA et al (2016) Small-molecule-directed hepatocyte-like cell differentiation of human pluripotent stem cells. Curr Protoc Stem Cell Biol 38:1G.6.1–1G.6.18.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cpsc.13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Mazza G, Rombouts K, Rennie Hall A et al (2015) Decellularized human liver as a natural 3D-scaffold for liver bioengineering and transplantation. Sci Rep 5:13079.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep13079 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  92. Medine CN, Lucendo-Villarin B, Storck C et al (2013) Developing high-fidelity hepatotoxicity models from pluripotent stem cells. Stem Cells Transl Med 2:505–509.  https://doi.org/10.5966/sctm.2012-0138 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  93. Meissner A, Wernig M, Jaenisch R (2007) Direct reprogramming of genetically unmodified fibroblasts into pluripotent stem cells. Nat Biotechnol 25:1177–1181.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1335 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. Miki T, Ring A, Gerlach J (2011) Hepatic differentiation of human embryonic stem cells is promoted by three-dimensional dynamic perfusion culture conditions. Tissue Eng Part C Methods 17:557–568.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.tec.2010.0437 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. Mou X, Lin J, Chen JY et al (2013) Menstrual blood-derived mesenchymal stem cells differentiate into functional hepatocyte-like cells. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B 14:961–972.  https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.B1300081 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  96. Mueller S, Sandrin L (2010) Liver stiffness: a novel parameter for the diagnosis of liver disease. Hepatic Med Evid Res 2:49–67.  https://doi.org/10.2147/HMER.S7394 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Nair LS, Bhattacharyya S, Laurencin CT (2004) Development of novel tissue engineering scaffolds via electrospinning. Expert Opin Biol Ther 4:659–668.  https://doi.org/10.1517/14712598.4.5.659 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. Nakamori D, Akamine H, Takayama K et al (2017) Direct conversion of human fibroblasts into hepatocyte-like cells by ATF5, PROX1, FOXA2, FOXA3, and HNF4A transduction. Sci Rep 7:16675.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-16856-7 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  99. Nakatsuka H, Sokabe T, Yamamoto K et al (2006) Shear stress induces hepatocyte PAI-1 gene expression through cooperative Sp1/Ets-1 activation of transcription. AJP Gastrointest Liver Physiol 291:G26–G34.  https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpgi.00467.2005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Nantasanti S, de Bruin A, Rothuizen J et al (2016) Concise review: organoids are a powerful tool for the study of liver disease and personalized treatment design in humans and animals. Stem Cells Transl Med 5:325–330.  https://doi.org/10.5966/sctm.2015-0152 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  101. Natale A, Boeckmans J, Desmae T et al (2017) Hepatic cells derived from human skin progenitors show a typical phospholipidotic response upon exposure to amiodarone. Toxicol Lett 284:184–194.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2017.11.014 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. Nava MM, Raimondi MT, Credi C et al (2015) Interactions between structural and chemical biomimetism in synthetic stem cell niches. Biomed Mater 10:015012.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-6041/10/1/015012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. Navarro-Tableros V, Herrera Sanchez MB, Figliolini F et al (2015) Recellularization of rat liver scaffolds by human liver stem cells. Tissue Eng Part A 21:1929–1939.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.tea.2014.0573 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  104. Nicodemus GD, Bryant SJ (2008) Cell encapsulation in biodegradable hydrogels for tissue engineering applications. Tissue Eng Part B Rev 14:149–165.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.teb.2007.0332 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  105. Nie YZ, Zheng YW, Ogawa M et al (2018) Human liver organoids generated with single donor-derived multiple cells rescue mice from acute liver failure. Stem Cell Res Ther 9:5.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13287-017-0749-1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  106. Nishii K, Brodin E, Renshaw T et al (2018) Shear stress upregulates regeneration-related immediate early genes in liver progenitors in 3D ECM-like microenvironments. J Cell Physiol 233:4272–4281.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jcp.26246 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. Ong LJY, Chong LH, Jin L et al (2017) A pump-free microfluidic 3D perfusion platform for the efficient differentiation of human hepatocyte-like cells. Biotechnol Bioeng 114:2360–2370.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.26341 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. Ovsianikov A, Deiwick A, Van Vlierberghe S et al (2011) Laser fabrication of 3D gelatin scaffolds for the generation of bioartificial tissues. Materials (Basel) 4:288–299.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ma4010288 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Parmar PA, Chow LW, St-Pierre JP et al (2015) Collagen-mimetic peptide-modifiable hydrogels for articular cartilage regeneration. Biomaterials 54:213–225.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.02.079 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  110. Rampichová M, Buzgo M, Chvojka J et al (2014) Cell penetration to nanofibrous scaffolds: Forcespinning®, an alternative approach for fabricating 3D nanofibers. Cell Adhes Migr 8:36–41.  https://doi.org/10.4161/cam.27477 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Rashidi H, Alhaque S, Szkolnicka D et al (2016) Fluid shear stress modulation of hepatocyte-like cell function. Arch Toxicol 90:1757–1761.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-016-1689-8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  112. Rimann M, Graf-Hausner U (2012) Synthetic 3D multicellular systems for drug development. Curr Opin Biotechnol 23:803–809.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2012.01.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. Rodrigues RM, De Kock J, Branson S et al (2014) Human skin-derived stem cells as a novel cell source for in vitro hepatotoxicity screening of pharmaceuticals. Stem Cells Dev 23:44–55.  https://doi.org/10.1089/scd.2013.0157 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. Rodrigues RM, Branson S, De Boe V et al (2016) In vitro assessment of drug-induced liver steatosis based on human dermal stem cell-derived hepatic cells. Arch Toxicol 90:677–689.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-015-1483-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. Sato Y, Tsukada K, Hatakeyama K (1999) Role of shear stress and immune responses in liver regeneration after a partial hepatectomy. Surg Today 29:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02482962 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. Schlie S, Ngezahayo A, Ovsianikov A et al (2007) Three-dimensional cell growth on structures fabricated from ORMOCER® by two-photon polymerization technique. J Biomater Appl 22:275–287.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0885328207077590 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. Schwartz RE, Reyes M, Koodie L et al (2002) Multipotent adult progenitor cells from bone marrow differentiate into functional hepatocyte-like cells. J Clin Investig 109:1291–1302.  https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI15182 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  118. Selimis A, Mironov V, Farsari M (2015) Direct laser writing: principles and materials for scaffold 3D printing. Microelectron Eng 132:83–89.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mee.2014.10.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Sengupta S, Johnson BP, Swanson SA et al (2014) Aggregate culture of human embryonic stem cell-derived hepatocytes in suspension are an improved in vitro model for drug metabolism and toxicity testing. Toxicol Sci 140:236–245.  https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfu069 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  120. Sgodda M, Dai Z, Zweigerdt R et al (2017) A scalable approach for the generation of human pluripotent stem cell-derived hepatic organoids with sensitive hepatotoxicity features. Stem Cells Dev 26:1490–1504.  https://doi.org/10.1089/scd.2017.0023 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  121. Shinozawa T, Yoshikawa HY, Takebe T (2016) Reverse engineering liver buds through self-driven condensation and organization towards medical application. Dev Biol 420:221–229.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2016.06.036 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  122. Siller R, Greenhough S, Naumovska E, Sullivan GJ (2015) Small-molecule-driven hepatocyte differentiation of human pluripotent stem cells. Stem Cell Rep 4:939–952.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stemcr.2015.04.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Simeonov KP, Uppal H (2014) Direct reprogramming of human fibroblasts to hepatocyte-like cells by synthetic modified mRNAs. PLoS ONE 9:e100134.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0100134 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  124. Sirenko O, Hesley J, Rusyn I, Cromwell EF (2014) High-content assays for hepatotoxicity using induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cells. Assay Drug Dev Technol 12:43–54.  https://doi.org/10.1089/adt.2013.520 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  125. Si-Tayeb K, Lemaigre FP, Duncan SA (2010) Organogenesis and development of the liver. Dev Cell 18:175–189.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2010.01.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  126. Snykers S, Vanhaecke T, Papeleu P et al (2006) Sequential exposure to cytokines reflecting embryogenesis: the key for in vitro differentiation of adult bone marrow stem cells into functional hepatocyte-like cells. Toxicol Sci 94:330–341.  https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfl058 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  127. Snykers S, De Kock J, Rogiers V, Vanhaecke T (2009) In vitro differentiation of embryonic and adult stem cells into hepatocytes: state of the art. Stem Cells 27:577–605.  https://doi.org/10.1634/stemcells.2008-0963 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  128. Stock P, Staege MS, Müller LP et al (2008) Hepatocytes derived from adult stem cells. Transplant Proc 40:620–623.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.transproceed.2008.01.058 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  129. Subramanian K, Owens DJ, Raju R et al (2014) Spheroid culture for enhanced differentiation of human embryonic stem cells to hepatocyte-like cells. Stem Cells Dev 23:124–131.  https://doi.org/10.1089/scd.2013.0097 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  130. Suzuki A (2003) Role for growth factors and extracellular matrix in controlling differentiation of prospectively isolated hepatic stem cells. Development 130:2513–2524.  https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.00459 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  131. Szkolnicka D, Hay DC (2016) Concise review: advances in generating hepatocytes from pluripotent stem cells for translational medicine. Stem Cells 34:1421–1426.  https://doi.org/10.1002/stem.2368 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  132. Szkolnicka D, Farnworth SL, Lucendo-Villarin B et al (2014) Accurate prediction of drug-induced liver injury using stem cell-derived populations. Stem Cells Transl Med 3:141–148.  https://doi.org/10.5966/sctm.2013-0146 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  133. Takahashi K, Tanabe K, Ohnuki M et al (2007) Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult human fibroblasts by defined factors. Cell 131:861–872.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2007.11.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Takayama K, Inamura M, Kawabata K et al (2012) Efficient generation of functional hepatocytes from human embryonic stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells by HNF4α transduction. Mol Ther 20:127–137.  https://doi.org/10.1038/mt.2011.234 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  135. Takayama K, Kawabata K, Nagamoto Y et al (2013) 3D spheroid culture of hESC/hiPSC-derived hepatocyte-like cells for drug toxicity testing. Biomaterials 34:1781–1789.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.11.029 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  136. Takebe T, Sekine K, Kimura M et al (2017) Massive and reproducible production of liver buds entirely from human pluripotent stem cells. Cell Rep 21:2661–2670.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2017.11.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  137. Talaei-Khozani T, Borhani-haghighi M, Ayatollahi M, Vojdani Z (2015) An in vitro model for hepatocyte-like cell differentiation from Wharton’s jelly derived-mesenchymal stem cells by cell-base aggregates. Gastroenterol Hepatol Bed Bench 8:188–199PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  138. Tanimizu N, Miyajima A, Mostov KE (2007) Liver progenitor cells develop cholangiocyte-type epithelial polarity in three-dimensional culture. Mol Biol Cell 18:1472–1479.  https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E06-09-0848 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  139. Tasnim F, Phan D, Toh YC, Yu H (2015) Cost-effective differentiation of hepatocyte-like cells from human pluripotent stem cells using small molecules. Biomaterials 70:115–125.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.08.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  140. Tasnim F, Toh Y, Qu Y et al (2016) Functionally enhanced human stem cell derived hepatocytes in galactosylated cellulosic sponges for hepatotoxicity testing. Mol Pharm 13:1947–1957.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.6b00119 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  141. Teplicky T, Cunderlikova B, Mateasik A et al (2016) Scaffolds fabricated by 3D two-photon photopolymerization for live cell studies. In: 20th Slovak-Czech-Polish optical conference, p 101420C.  https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2262966
  142. Treyer A, Müsch A (2013) Hepatocyte polarity. Compr Physiol 3:243–287.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cphy.c120009 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  143. Tsou YH, Khoneisser J, Huang PC, Xu X (2016) Hydrogel as a bioactive material to regulate stem cell fate. Bioact Mater 1:39–55.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioactmat.2016.05.001 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  144. Twaroski K, Mallanna SK, Jing R et al (2015) FGF2 mediates hepatic progenitor cell formation during human pluripotent stem cell differentiation by inducing the WNT antagonist NKD1. Genes Dev 29:2463–2474.  https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.268961.115 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  145. Ullah I, Subbarao RB, Rho GJ (2015) Human mesenchymal stem cells—current trends and future prospective. Biosci Rep 35:e0019.  https://doi.org/10.1042/BSR20150025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Ulvestad M, Nordell P, Asplund A et al (2013) Drug metabolizing enzyme and transporter protein profiles of hepatocytes derived from human embryonic and induced pluripotent stem cells. Biochem Pharmacol 86:691–702.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcp.2013.06.029 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  147. Upadhyay RK (2017) Role of biological scaffolds, hydro gels and stem cells in tissue regeneration therapy. Adv Tissue Eng Regen Med Open Access 2:121–135.  https://doi.org/10.15406/atroa.2017.02.00020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Uygun BE, Soto-Gutierrez A, Yagi H et al (2010) Organ reengineering through development of a transplantable recellularized liver graft using decellularized liver matrix. Nat Med 16:814–820.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.2170 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  149. Van Hoorick J, Gruber P, Markovic M et al (2017) Cross-linkable gelatins with superior mechanical properties through carboxylic acid modification: increasing the two-photon polymerization potential. Biomacromolecules 18:3260–3272.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.biomac.7b00905 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  150. Van Hoorick J, Gruber P, Markovic M et al (2018) Highly reactive thiol-norbornene photo-click hydrogels: toward improved processability. Macromol Rapid Commun 39:e1800181.  https://doi.org/10.1002/marc.201800181 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  151. Vishwakarma SK, Bardia A, Lakkireddy C et al (2018) Bioengineered humanized livers as better three-dimensional drug testing model system. World J Hepatol 10:22–33.  https://doi.org/10.4254/wjh.v10.i1.22 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  152. Wallin P, Zandén C, Carlberg B et al (2012) A method to integrate patterned electrospun fibers with microfluidic systems to generate complex microenvironments for cell culture applications. Biomicrofluidics 6:24131.  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4729747 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  153. Wang M, Pei H, Zhang L et al (2010) Hepatogenesis of adipose-derived stem cells on poly-lactide-co-glycolide scaffolds: in vitro and in vivo studies. Tissue Eng Part C Methods 16:1041–1050.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.tec.2009.0244 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  154. Wang J, Zong C, Shi D et al (2012) Hepatogenic engineering from human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells in porous polylactic glycolic acid scaffolds under perfusion culture. J Tissue Eng Regen Med 6:29–39.  https://doi.org/10.1002/term.393 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  155. Wang Y, Alhaque S, Cameron K et al (2017) Defined and scalable generation of hepatocyte-like cells from human pluripotent stem cells. J Vis Exp 121:55355.  https://doi.org/10.3791/55355 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. Wang B, Li W, Dean D et al (2018) Enhanced hepatogenic differentiation of bone marrow derived mesenchymal stem cells on liver ECM hydrogel. J Biomed Mater Res Part A 106:829–838.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.36278 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. Ware BR, Berger DR, Khetani SR (2015) Prediction of drug-induced liver injury in micropatterned co-cultures containing iPSC-derived human hepatocytes. Toxicol Sci 145:252–262.  https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfv048 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  158. Wu J, Chen Q, Liu W et al (2017) Recent advances in microfluidic 3D cellular scaffolds for drug assays. TrAC Trends Anal Chem 87:19–31.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2016.11.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. Xue G, Han X, Ma X et al (2016) Effect of microenvironment on differentiation of human umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells into hepatocytes in vitro and in vivo. Biomed Res Int 2016:8916534.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/8916534 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  160. Ye JS, Su XS, Stoltz JF et al (2015) Signalling pathways involved in the process of mesenchymal stem cells differentiating into hepatocytes. Cell Prolif 48:157–165.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cpr.12165 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  161. Yen M, Wu YY, Liu YS et al (2016) Efficient generation of hepatic cells from mesenchymal stromal cells by an innovative bio-microfluidic cell culture device. Stem Cell Res Ther 7:120.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13287-016-0371-7 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  162. Yu J, Su X, Zhu C et al (2015) GFP labeling and hepatic differentiation potential of human placenta-derived mesenchymal stem cells. Cell Physiol Biochem 35:2299–2308.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000374033 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  163. Zamule SM, Coslo DM, Chen F, Omiecinski CJ (2011) Differentiation of human embryonic stem cells along a hepatic lineage. Chem Biol Interact 190:62–72.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbi.2011.01.009 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  164. Zhang Y, Xu L, Wang S et al (2014) Concise review: differentiation of human adult stem cells into hepatocyte-like cells in vitro. Int J Stem Cells 7:49–54.  https://doi.org/10.15283/ijsc.2014.7.2.49 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  165. Zhang J, Wei X, Zeng R et al (2017) Stem cell culture and differentiation in microfluidic devices toward organ-on-a-chip. Futur Sci OA 3:FSO187.  https://doi.org/10.4155/fsoa-2016-0091 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. Zhu M, Lin S, Sun Y et al (2016) Hydrogels functionalized with N-cadherin mimetic peptide enhance osteogenesis of hMSCs by emulating the osteogenic niche. Biomaterials 77:44–52.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.10.072 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  167. Zuk PA, Zhu M, Ashjian P, De Ugarte DA et al (2002) Human adipose tissue is a source of multipotent stem cells. Mol Biol Cell 13:4279–4295.  https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.e02-02-0105 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alessandra Natale
    • 1
  • Koen Vanmol
    • 2
  • Aysu Arslan
    • 3
  • Sandra Van Vlierberghe
    • 2
    • 3
  • Peter Dubruel
    • 3
  • Jürgen Van Erps
    • 2
  • Hugo Thienpont
    • 2
  • Matij Buzgo
    • 4
  • Joost Boeckmans
    • 1
  • Joery De Kock
    • 1
  • Tamara Vanhaecke
    • 1
  • Vera Rogiers
    • 1
  • Robim M. Rodrigues
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of In Vitro Toxicology and Dermato-Cosmetology (IVTD)Vrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.Brussels Photonics (B-PHOT)Vrije Universiteit Brussel and Flanders MakeBrusselsBelgium
  3. 3.Polymer Chemistry and Biomaterials Group (PBM), Centre of Macromolecular ChemistryGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  4. 4.InocurePragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations