3D bio-printing methylacrylated gelatin hydrogel scaffolds promote the repair of subchondral bone defects

doi:10.12307/2022.455

Abstract

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Subchondral bone plays an important role in normal physiological activities of joints and is difficult to repair once it is damaged. Traditional bone cement and autologous bone grafting treatment methods have certain limitations.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the efficacy of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells or chondroprogenitor cells encapsulated in 3D bio-printing methylacrylated gelatin hydrogel scaffolds to repair subchondral bone defects.
METHODS: Chondroprogenitor cells were obtained by fibronectin sorting method and rabbit bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells were obtained by whole bone marrow adherent method. The proliferation, osteogenic, chondrogenic, and adipogenic differentiation abilities were compared between the two groups. Methylacrylated gelatin hydrogel scaffolds loaded with bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells and chondroprogenitor cells were prepared by 3D bio-printing. After osteogenic induction and culture, the survival rate of cells in the scaffold was analyzed by live-dead staining. The osteogenic gene expression of the scaffold was detected by qRT-PCR. Subchondral bone defects with a diameter of 5 mm and a depth of 5 mm were prepared at the bilateral knee joints of 16 New Zealand white rabbits. They were divided into four groups. Group A was not treated. Group B was implanted with methylacrylated gelatin hydrogel scaffold. Group C was implanted with a hydrogel scaffold loaded with bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells. Group D was implanted with a hydrogel scaffold loaded with chondroprogenitor cells. Micro-CT scanning and histological observation of the bone defect area were performed at 6 and 12 weeks after surgery.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: (1) The proliferation, osteogenic and adipogenic differentiation of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells were higher than those of chondroprogenitor cells. The chondrogenic differentiation of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells was weaker than that of chondroprogenitor cells. (2) Bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells and chondroprogenitor cells in the hydrogel scaffolds showed good viability. The mRNA expression of osteogenic related genes of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells including osteocalcin, osteopontin and runt-related transcription factor 2 in the scaffold was higher than that of chondroprogenitor cells (P < 0.05). (3) The micro-CT scan of the animal repair experiment showed that the bone tissue formed in Group C was the most, and the trabecular bone structure was formed at 12 weeks after the operation. The shape of the new bone was similar to the surrounding natural cancellous bone; the new bone tissue in groups A and B was the least. The Safranin O/fast green staining results showed that at 6 weeks after surgery, only a small amount of new bone was formed in the subchondral bone area of Groups C and D. At 12 weeks after surgery, bone matrix was formed in Groups A and B. Group C showed massive repairs of subchondral bone. More new bone formation was found in Group C compared with Group D. (4) Results suggested that bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells and 3D bio-printing methylacrylated gelatin hydrogel scaffold were suitable for seed cells and scaffolds for bone tissue engineering.

Key words: methylacrylated gelatin, hydrogel, bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells, chondroprogenitor cells, 3D bio-printing, scaffold, subchondral bone

CLC Number:

Lu Dongdong, Zhu Tianfeng, Zhang Yijian, Zhao Zhijian, Liu Yang, Shen Xu, Zhu Xuesong. 3D bio-printing methylacrylated gelatin hydrogel scaffolds promote the repair of subchondral bone defects[J]. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research, 2022, 26(34): 5454-5460.

Figures/Tables 8

References

[1] BRITTBERG M, RECKER D, ILGENFRITZ J, et al. Matrix-Applied Characterized Autologous Cultured Chondrocytes Versus Microfracture: Five-Year Follow-up of a Prospective Randomized Trial. Am J Sports Med. 2018;46(6):1343-1351.
[2] IIJIMA H, AOYAMA T, ITO A, et al. Immature articular cartilage and subchondral bone covered by menisci are potentially susceptive to mechanical load. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15(2):101.
[3] LORIES RJ, LUYTEN FP. The bone-cartilage unit in osteoarthritis. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2011;7(1):43-49.
[4] FRAQUET N, FAIZON G, ROSSET P, et al. Long bones giant cells tumors: treatment by curretage and cavity filling cementation. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2009;95(6):402-406.
[5] PARK JH, CHAE IJ, HAN SB, et al. Arthroscopic burring of exposed cement following curettage and cavity filling cementation for chondroblastoma of the proximal tibia. Knee Surg Relat Res. 2015; 27(1):61-64.
[6] HOHMANN E, TETSWORTH K. Large osteochondral lesions of the femoral condyles: Treatment with fresh frozen and irradiated allograft using the Mega OATS technique. Knee. 2016;23(3):436-441.
[7] HANGODY L, KISH G, KARPATI Z, et al. Arthroscopic autogenous osteochondral mosaicplasty for the treatment of femoral condylar articular defects. A preliminary report. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1997;5(4):262-267.
[8] PITTENGER MF, MACKAY AM, BECK SC, et al. Multilineage potential of adult human mesenchymal stem cells. Science. 1999;284(5411):143-147.
[9] DOWTHWAITE GP, BISHOP JC, REDMAN SN, et al. The surface of articular cartilage contains a progenitor cell population. J Cell Sci. 2004; 117(Pt 6):889-897.
[10] RAMASAMY R, TONG CK, SEOW HF, et al. The immunosuppressive effects of human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells target T cell proliferation but not its effector function. Cell Immunol. 2008;251(2):131-136.
[11] TABATABAEI F, MOHARAMZADEH K, TAYEBI L. Fibroblast encapsulation in gelatin methacryloyl (GelMA) versus collagen hydrogel as substrates for oral mucosa tissue engineering. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2020; 10(4):573-577.
[12] MORONI L, BURDICK JA, HIGHLEY C, et al. Biofabrication strategies for 3D in vitro models and regenerative medicine. Nat Rev Mater. 2018; 3(5):21-37.
[13] 刘伟,陈剑,宋佳,等.兔骨髓间充质干细胞的分离、培养及鉴定[J].中国实验诊断学,2013,17(8):1366-1369.
[14] CHEN P, ZHENG L, WANG Y, et al. Desktop-stereolithography 3D printing of a radially oriented extracellular matrix/mesenchymal stem cell exosome bioink for osteochondral defect regeneration. Theranostics. 2019;9(9):2439-2459.
[15] KOELLING S, KRUEGEL J, IRMER M, et al. Migratory chondrogenic progenitor cells from repair tissue during the later stages of human osteoarthritis. Cell Stem Cell. 2009;4(4):324-335.
[16] GONG H, FEI H, XU Q, et al. 3D-engineered GelMA conduit filled with ECM promotes regeneration of peripheral nerve. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2020;108(3):805-813.
[17] TABATABAEI F, MOHARAMZADEH K, TAYEBI L. Fibroblast encapsulation in gelatin methacryloyl (GelMA) versus collagen hydrogel as substrates for oral mucosa tissue engineering. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2020; 10(4):573-577.
[18] SHAHABIPOUR F, OSKUEE RK, DEHGHANI H, et al. Cell-cell interaction in a coculture system consisting of CRISPR/Cas9 mediated GFP knock-in HUVECs and MG-63 cells in alginate- GelMA based nanocomposites hydrogel as a 3D scaffold. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2020;108(8):1596-1606.
[19] ZHAO X, LIU S, YILDIRIMER L, et al. Injectable Stem Cell-Laden Photocrosslinkable Microspheres Fabricated Using Microfluidics for Rapid Generation of Osteogenic Tissue Constructs. Adv Funct Mater. 2016;26(17):2809-2819.
[20] RATHEESH G, VAQUETTE C, XIAO Y. Patient-Specific Bone Particles Bioprinting for Bone Tissue Engineering. Adv Healthc Mater. 2020; 9(23):e2001323.
[21] HUANG L, ZHANG Z, GUO M, et al. Biomimetic Hydrogels Loaded with Nanofibers Mediate Sustained Release of pDNA and Promote In Situ Bone Regeneration. Macromol Biosci. 2021;21(4):e2000393.
[22] GAO J, DING X, YU X, et al. Cell-Free Bilayered Porous Scaffolds for Osteochondral Regeneration Fabricated by Continuous 3D-Printing Using Nascent Physical Hydrogel as Ink. Adv Healthc Mater. 2021;10(3): e2001404.