Journal of Biotechnology & Biomaterials
Open Access

Tissue engineering; Regenerative medicine; Human derived biomaterials; Bioactivity

Introduction

Human-derived biomaterials offer several advantages for tissue engineering applications, including excellent biocompatibility, immunocompatibility, and bioactivity. These materials closely mimic the native tissue microenvironment, providing structural support and signaling cues that promote cellular adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation. Moreover, human-derived biomaterials are less likely to elicit adverse immune responses or cause rejection when implanted into the body, making them attractive candidates for regenerative medicine [1,2].

Description

One of the most widely studied human-derived biomaterials in tissue engineering is Decellularized Extracellular Matrix (ECM). ECM is the natural scaffold that provides structural support and biochemical cues for cells within tissues. Decellularization techniques remove cellular components while preserving the ECM's composition and architecture, creating a biomimetic scaffold for tissue regeneration. Decellularized ECM has been used in various tissue engineering applications, including cardiac, musculoskeletal, and vascular tissue regeneration, demonstrating its ability to promote cell attachment, proliferation, and tissue-specific differentiation [3].

Another promising human-derived biomaterial is Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP), derived from the patient's own blood. PRP contains a high concentration of growth factors and cytokines that stimulate tissue repair and regeneration processes. PRP has been incorporated into scaffolds or used as a bioactive coating to enhance the regenerative potential of tissue engineering constructs [4,5]. It has shown promising results in promoting wound healing, bone regeneration, and cartilage repair in preclinical and clinical studies [6].

Furthermore, cell-derived biomaterials, such as decellularized cell sheets or Extracellular Vesicles (EVs), have emerged as novel approaches for tissue engineering. Cell sheets are generated by culturing cells on thermo responsive surfaces, allowing for the noninvasive harvesting of intact cell layers rich in ECM proteins and signaling molecules [7]. Similarly, EVs, which are Nano sized membrane vesicles secreted by cells, contain bioactive cargo such as proteins, nucleic acids, and lipids that regulate cellular behavior and tissue regeneration. Cell-derived biomaterials offer the advantage of preserving the native cell-secreted ECM and bioactive molecules, making them promising candidates for tissue engineering applications [8].

Despite the significant advancements, challenges remain in the widespread adoption of human-derived biomaterials in tissue engineering [9]. These challenges include standardization of decellularization protocols, optimization of cell-derived biomaterial production, and scalability of manufacturing processes. Addressing these challenges requires interdisciplinary collaboration among researchers, clinicians, and industry partners to develop robust and reproducible strategies for harnessing the potential of human-derived biomaterials in regenerative medicine [10].

Conclusion

In conclusion, human-derived biomaterials hold great promise for tissue engineering applications, offering biomimetic scaffolds with tailored properties for promoting tissue regeneration and repair. Continued research efforts aimed at optimizing biomaterial processing techniques, elucidating their interactions with cells and tissues, and translating these innovations into clinical therapies are essential for realizing the full potential of human-derived biomaterials in regenerative medicine.

1. Warnock JN, Al-Rubeai M (2006). Bioreactor systems for the production of biopharmaceuticals from animal cells. Biotechnol Appl Biochem 45:1-12.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

2. Harding MW, Marques LLR, Howard RJ (2009). Can filamentous fungi form biofilms? Trends Microbiol. 17: 475-480.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

3. Fukuda H (1995). Immobilized microorganism bioreactors. In Asenjo JA, Merchuk JC. Bioreactor system design. Marcel Dekker Inc, New York. 339-375.

Google Scholar

4. Gross R, Schmid A, Buehler K (2012).Catalytic biofilms: a powerful concept for future bioprocesses. In: Lear G, Lewis GD (eds) Microbial biofilms. 193-222.
5. Kobayashi M, Shimizu S (2000). Nitrile hydrolases. Curr Opin Chem Biol. 4: 95-102.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

6. Murphy CD (2012). The microbial cell factory. Org Biomol Chem. 10:1949-1957.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

7. Crueger W, Crueger A, Brock TD (1990). Biotechnology. A textbook of industrial microbiology, 2nd edn. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland.

Google Scholar

8. Kersters K, Lisdiyanti P, Komagata K (2006). The family Acetobacteracea: the genera Acetobacter, Acidomonas, Asaia, Gluconacetobacter, Gluconobacter, and Kozakia. In: Dworkin M (ed) Prokaryotes, vol 5. Springer Science? Business Media, New York.163-200.

Google Scholar

9. Li XZ, Hauer B, Rosche B (2007). Single-species microbial biofilm screening for industrial applications. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 76:1255-1262.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

10. Cronenberg CCH, Ottengraf SPP, Vandenheuvel JC (1994). Influence of age and structure of penicillium chrysogenum pellets on the internal concentration profiles. Bioprocess Eng. 10: 209-216.

Google Scholar