For tissue regeneration or repair, a suitable temporary scaffold needs to be constructed for delivering regenerative cells to damaged or diseased tissue. Scaffold types are currently categorised into 3D monolithic scaffolds, hydrogels, and microcarriers. Among these scaffolds, microcarrier systems offer an attractive method for cell amplification and enhancement of phenotype expression, and they have emerged as powerful injectable carriers to repair and reconstruct irregular defects in tissues and organs. In this article, several important issues related to polymeric porous microcarriers for tissue engineering are reviewed. The properties of porous microcarriers, including surface chemistry, pore structure, typical particle size, and specific density, and the corresponding effects on cell cultures are discussed. The fabrication techniques and biomaterials investigated for porous microcarriers are summarised, and their advantages and disadvantages are outlined. Recent advancements in the application of porous microcarriers, including bone and cartilage tissue engineering, are also presented.
ShapiraAFeinerRDvirT.Composite biomaterial scaffolds for cardiac tissue engineering. Int Mater Rev. 2016;61:1–19. doi: 10.1179/1743280415Y.0000000012
3.
O’BrienFJ.Biomaterials & scaffolds for tissue engineering. Mater Today. 2011;14:88–95. doi: 10.1016/S1369-7021(11)70058-X
4.
MelchelsFPBarradasAMvan BlitterswijkCAEffects of the architecture of tissue engineering scaffolds on cell seeding and culturing. Acta Biomater. 2010;6(11):4208–4217. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2010.06.012
5.
HuangSFuX.Naturally derived materials-based cell and drug delivery systems in skin regeneration. J Control Release. 2010;142(2):149–159. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2009.10.018
6.
LiGFWuJWangBSelf-Healing supramolecular self-assembled hydrogels based on poly(L-glutamic acid). Biomacromolecules. 2015;16(11):3508–3518. doi: 10.1021/acs.biomac.5b01287
Van WezelAL.Growth of cell-strains and primary cells on micro-carriers in homogeneous culture. Nature. 1967;216:64–65. doi: 10.1038/216064a0
9.
WangDWangMYWangAHPreparation of collagen/chitosan microspheres for 3D macrophage proliferation in vitro. Colloid Surface A. 2019;572:266–273. doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfa.2019.04.007
10.
CostaARWithersJRodriguesMEThe impact of microcarrier culture optimization on the glycosylation profile of a monoclonal antibody. Springer Plus. 2013;2(1):25. doi: 10.1186/2193-1801-2-25
11.
ParkYChenYOrdovasLVerfaillie, Hepatic differentiation of human embryonic stem cells on microcarriers. J Biotechnol. 2014;174:39–48. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2014.01.025
12.
Melero-MartinJMDowlingMASmithMExpansion of chondroprogenitor cells on macroporous microcarriers as an alternative to conventional monolayer systems. Biomaterials. 2006;27:2970–2979. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.01.023
13.
HuangZGuHYinXBone regeneration using injectable poly (γ-benzyl-L-glutamate) microspheres loaded with adipose-derived stem cells in a mouse femoral non-union model. Am J Transl Res. 2019;11(5):2641–2656.
14.
CustódioCACerqueiraMTMarquesAPCell selective chitosan microparticles as injectable cell carriers for tissue regeneration. Biomaterials. 2015;43:23–31. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.11.047
15.
ParkJSHongSJKimHYEvacuated calcium phosphate spherical microcarriers for bone regeneration. Tissue Eng Part A. 2010;16(5):1681–1691. doi: 10.1089/ten.tea.2009.0624
16.
HuangLXiaoLJung PoudelAPorous chitosan microspheres as microcarriers for 3D cell culture. Carbohydr Polym. 2018;202:611–620. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2018.09.021
17.
LiJLamATTohJPTunable volumetric density and porous structure of spherical poly-ε-caprolactone microcarriers, as applied in human mesenchymal stem cell expansion. Langmuir. 2017;33(12):3068–3079. doi: 10.1021/acs.langmuir.7b00125
18.
OverstreetMSohrabiAPolotskyACollagen microcarrier spinner culture promotes osteoblast proliferation and synthesis of matrix proteins. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Anim. 2003;39(5-6):228–234. doi: 10.1290/1543-706X(2003)039<0228:CMSCPO>2.0.CO;2
19.
PerezRADel ValleSAltankovGPorous hydroxyapatite and gelatin/hydroxyapatite microspheres obtained by calcium phosphate cement emulsion. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2011;97(1):156–166. doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.31798
20.
BarriasCCRibeiroCCBarbosaMA.Adhesion and proliferation of human osteoblastic cells seeded on injectable hydroxyapatite microspheres. Key Eng Mater. 2004;254:877–880.
21.
FengJChongMChanJApatite-based microcarriers for bone tissue engineering. Key Eng Mater. 2013;529:34–39. doi: 10.1016/j.msea.2013.09.011
22.
ChenXGLiuCSLiuCGPreparation and biocompatibility of chitosan microcarriers as biomaterial. Biochem Eng J. 2006;27:269–274. doi: 10.1016/j.bej.2005.08.021
23.
KuangRZhangZPJinXBNanofibrous spongy microspheres enhance odontogenic differentiation of human dental pulp stem cells. Adv Healthcare Mater. 2015;4:1993–2000. doi: 10.1002/adhm.201500308
24.
KankalaRKZhaoJLiuCGHighly porous microcarriers for minimally invasive in situ skeletal muscle cell delivery. Small. 2019;15(25):e1901397. doi: 10.1002/smll.201901397
25.
NilssonKBuzsakyFMosbachK.Growth of anchorage-dependent cells on macroporous microcarriers. Nat Biotechnol. 1986;4:989–990. doi: 10.1038/nbt1186-989
26.
HoffmanTKhademhosseiniALangerR.Chasing the paradigm: clinical translation of 25 years of tissue engineering. Tissue Eng Part A. 2019;25(9-10):679–687. doi: 10.1089/ten.tea.2019.0032
27.
NguyenLBangSNohI.Tissue regeneration of human mesenchymal stem cells on porous gelatin micro-carriers by long-term dynamic in vitro culture. Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2019;16(1):19–28. doi: 10.1007/s13770-018-00174-8
28.
TavassoliHAlhosseiniSNTayALarge-scale production of stem cells utilizing microcarriers: A biomaterials engineering perspective from academic research to commercialized products. Biomaterials. 2018;181:333–346. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.07.016
29.
YanagimachiRNodaYDFujimotoMThe distribution of negative surface charges on mammalian spermatozoa. Am J Anat. 1972;135(4):497–519. doi: 10.1002/aja.1001350405
30.
SaltzmanWMKyriakidesTR.Cell interactions with polymers. In: LanzaRChickW, editors. Principles of tissue engineering. 4th ed. Austin: Academic Press, R.G. Landes Company; 1997. p. 225–246.
31.
KatoDTakeuchiMSakuraiTThe design of polymer microcarrier surfaces for enhanced cell growth. Biomaterials. 2003;24:4253–4264. doi: 10.1016/S0142-9612(03)00319-3
32.
KiremitciMPiskinE.Cell adhesion to the surfaces of polymeric beads. Biomaterials: Art Cells Art Org. 1990;18:599–603.
33.
GuoSZhuXLiMParallel control over surface charge and wettability using polyelectrolyte architecture: effect on protein adsorption and cell adhesion. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2016;8(44):30552–30563. doi: 10.1021/acsami.6b09481
34.
JinHLJinWLGilsonKInteraction of cells on chargeable functional group gradient surfaces. Biomaterials. 1997;18:351–358. doi: 10.1016/S0142-9612(96)00128-7
35.
BaldwinSPSaltzmanWM.Polymers for tissue engineering. Trends Polym Sci. 1996;4(6):177–182.
36.
HakodaMShiragamiN.Effects of ion exchange capacities on attachment and growth of anchorage-dependent HeLa cell. Bioprocess Eng. 2000;23:523–527. doi: 10.1007/s004499900189
37.
MaroudasNG.Adhesion and spreading of cells on charged surfaces. J Theor Biol. 1975;49:417–424. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(75)90182-4
38.
HaynesCANordeW.Structures and stabilities of adsorbed proteins. J Colloid Interface Sci. 1995;169(2):313–328. doi: 10.1006/jcis.1995.1039
39.
HegemannDBlanchardNEHeubergerM.Reduced protein adsorption on plasma polymer films comprising hydrophobic/hydrophilic vertical chemical gradients. Plasma Process Polym. 2016;13(5):494–498. doi: 10.1002/ppap.201500228
40.
WebbKHladyVTrescoPA.Relative importance of surface wettability and charged functional groups on NIH3T3 fibroblast attachment, spreading, and cytoskeletal organization. Biomed Mater Res. 1998;41:422–430. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(19980905)41:3<422::AID-JBM12>3.0.CO;2-K
41.
UludagHDeVPTrescoPA.Technology of mammalian cell encapsulation. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2000;42:29–64. doi: 10.1016/S0169-409X(00)00053-3
42.
HutmacherDW.Scaffold in tissue engineering bone and cartilage. Biomaterials. 2000;21:2529–2543. doi: 10.1016/S0142-9612(00)00121-6
43.
AsghariFSamieiMAdibkiaKBiodegradable and biocompatible polymers for tissue engineering application: a review. Artif Cells Nanomed Biotechnol. 2017;45(2):185–192. doi: 10.3109/21691401.2016.1146731
44.
FangJJYongQZhangKXNovel injectable porous poly(γ-benzyl-L-glutamate) microcarriers for cartilage tissue engineering: preparation and evaluation. J Mater Chem B. 2015;3(6):1020–1031. doi: 10.1039/C4TB01333F
45.
WuJHLiPFDongCLRationally designed synthetic protein hydrogels with predictable mechanical properties. Nat Commun. 2018;9:620. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-02917-6
46.
SheikhZNajeebSKhurshidZBiodegradable materials for bone repair and tissue engineering applications. Materials (Basel). 2015;8(9):5744–5794. doi: 10.3390/ma8095273
47.
BliemRKatingerH.Scale-up engineering in animal cell technology: Part II. Trends Biotechnol. 1988;6:224–230. doi: 10.1016/0167-7799(88)90078-9
48.
MarkvichevaEGrandfilsCH.Microcarriers for animal cell culture. In: WillaertRNedovichV, editors. Fundamentals of cell immobilisation biotechnology. Dordrecht: Springer; 2004. p. 141–161.
49.
MankaniMHKuznetsovSAFowlerBIn vivo bone formation by human bone marrow stromal cells: effect of carrier particle size and shape. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2001;72:96–107. doi: 10.1002/1097-0290(20010105)72:1<96::AID-BIT13>3.0.CO;2-A
50.
QiuQQDucheynePAyyaswamyPS.Fabrication, characterization and evaluation of bioceramic hollow microspheres used as microcarriers for 3-D bone tissue formation in rotating bioreactors. Biomaterials. 1999;20:989–1001. doi: 10.1016/S0142-9612(98)00183-5
51.
MaldaJFrondozaCG.Microcarriers in the engineering of cartilage and bone. Trends Biotechnol. 2006;24:299–304. doi: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2006.04.009
52.
NgYCBerryJMButlerM.Optimization of physical parameters for cell attachment and growth on macroporous microcarriers. Biotechnol Bioeng. 1996;50:627–635. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0290(19960620)50:6<627::AID-BIT3>3.0.CO;2-M
KangSWLaWGKimBS.Open macroporous poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid) microspheres as an injectable scaffold for cartilage tissue engineering. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed. 2009;20:399–409. doi: 10.1163/156856209X412236
55.
ChoiSWZhangYYehYCBiodegradable porous beads and their potential applications in regenerative medicine. J Mater Chem. 2012;22:11442–11451. doi: 10.1039/c2jm16019f
56.
MessingRAOppermannRA.Pore dimensions for accumulating biomass. I. Microbes that reproduce by fission or by budding. Biotechnol Bioeng. 1979;21:49–58. doi: 10.1002/bit.260210105
57.
YangFHNiuXFGuXNBiodegradable magnesium-incorporated poly(L-lactic acid) microspheres for manipulation of drug release and alleviation of inflammatory response. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2019;11:23546–23557. doi: 10.1021/acsami.9b03766
58.
ChenCWLiuYXSunLYAntibacterial porous microcarriers with a pathological state responsive switch for wound healing. ACS Applied Bio Materials. 2019;2(5):2155–2161. doi: 10.1021/acsabm.9b00134
59.
SlepickaPKasalkovaNSSiegelJNano-structured and functionalized surfaces for cytocompatibility improvement and bactericidal action. Biotechnol Adv. 2015;33:1120–1129. doi: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2015.01.001
60.
LewinskiNAAvrutinVIzadiTInfluence of ZnO thin film crystallinity on in vitro biocompatibility. Toxicol Res (Camb). 2018;7(5):754–759. doi: 10.1039/C8TX00061A
61.
WilliamsDF.On the mechanisms of biocompatibility. Biomaterials. 2008;29:2941–2953. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.04.023
62.
WilliamsDF.Specifications for innovative, enabling biomaterials based on the principles of biocompatibility mechanisms. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2019;7:255. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2019.00255
63.
DwarshuisNJSongHWPatelAFunctionalized microcarriers improve T cell manufacturing by facilitating migratory memory T cell production and increasing CD4/CD8 ratio. bioRxiv. 2019. doi:10.1101/646760.
64.
BeeSLHamidZAAMarittiMApproaches to improve therapeutic efficacy of biodegradable PLA/PLGA microspheres: a review. Polym Rev. 2018;58(42):495–536. doi: 10.1080/15583724.2018.1437547
65.
ShiXJiangJSunLHydrolysis and biomineralization of porous PLA microspheres and their influence on cell growth. Colloids Surf B. 2011;85:73–80. doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2010.11.016
66.
ChungHJKimIKKimTGHighly open porous biodegradable microcarriers: in vitro cultivation of chondrocytes for injectable delivery. Tissue Eng A. 2008;14:607–615. doi: 10.1089/tea.2007.0263
67.
ShiXSunLJiangJBiodegradable polymeric microcarriers with controllable porous structure for tissue engineering. Macromol Biosci. 2009;9:1211–1218. doi: 10.1002/mabi.200900224
68.
ShiXCuiLSunHPromoting cell growth on porous PLA microspheres through simple degradation methods. Polym Degrad Stabil. 2019;161:319–325. doi: 10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2019.01.003
69.
YangJWanYQTuCFEnhancing the cell affinity of macroporous poly(L-lactide) cell scaffold by a convenient surface modification method. Polym Int. 2003;52:1892–1899. doi: 10.1002/pi.1272
70.
QuXWanYZhangHPorcine-derived xenogeneic bone/poly(glycolide-co-lactide-co-caprolactone) composite and its affinity with rat OCT-1 osteoblast-like cells. Biomaterials. 2006;27:216–225. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.05.101
71.
ArimaYIwataH.Preferential adsorption of cell adhesive proteins from complex media on self-assembled monolayers and its effect on subsequent cell adhesion. Acta Biomater. 2015;26:72–81. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2015.08.033
72.
DunehooALAndersonMMajumdarSCell adhesion molecules for targeted drug delivery. J Pharm Sci. 2006;95:1856–1872. doi: 10.1002/jps.20676
73.
WilsonCJCleggRELeavesleyDIMediation of biomaterial-cell interactions by adsorbed proteins: a review. Tissue Eng. 2005;11(1-2):1–18. doi: 10.1089/ten.2005.11.1
74.
TiminASLitvakMMGorinDACell-based drug delivery and use of nano-and microcarriers for cell functionalization. Adv Healthc Mater. 2018;7(3):201700818.
75.
FrangogiannisNG.The extracellular matrix in myocardial injury, repair, and remodeling. J Clin Invest. 2017;127(5):1600–1612. doi: 10.1172/JCI87491
76.
GilliesARLieberRL.Structure and function of the skeletal muscle extracellular matrix. Muscle Nerve. 2011;44(3):318–331. doi: 10.1002/mus.22094
77.
DavidenkoNHamaiaSBaxDVSelecting the correct cellular model for assessing of the biological response of collagen-based biomaterials. Acta Biomater. 2018;65:88–101. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2017.10.035
78.
HongYGaoCXieYCollagen-coated polylactide microspheres as chondrocyte microcarriers. Biomaterials. 2005;26(32):6305–6313. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.03.038
79.
LuGShengBWeiYCollagen nanofiber-covered porous biodegradable carboxymethyl chitosan microcarriers for tissue engineering cartilage. Eur Polym J. 2008;44:2820–2829. doi: 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2008.06.021
80.
ChoiYYagatiAKChoS.Electrochemical characterization of polyl-lysine coating on indium tin oxide electrode for enhancing celladhesion. J Nanosci Nanotechnol. 2015;15:7881–7885. doi: 10.1166/jnn.2015.11229
81.
ZhangHYJiaoJHJinH.Degradable poly-L-lysinemodified PLGA cell microcarriers with excellent antibacterial and osteogenic activity. Artif Cells Nanomed Biotechnol. 2019;47:2391–2404. doi: 10.1080/21691401.2019.1623230
82.
ChunKWYooHSYoonJJBiodegradable PLGA microcarriers forinjectable delivery of chondrocytes: effect of surface modification on cellattachment and function. Biotechnol Progress. 2004;20:1797–1801. doi: 10.1021/bp0496981
83.
YuanYShiXGanZModification of porous PLGA microspheres by poly-L-lysine for use as tissue engineering scaffolds. Colloid Surface B. 2018;161:162–168. doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2017.10.044
84.
VermaSKumarN.Effect of biomimetic 3D environment of an injectable polymeric scaffold on MG-63 osteoblastic-cell response. Mater Sci Eng C. 2010;30(8):1118–1128. doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2010.06.005
85.
CurranSJChenRCurranJMExpansion of human chondrocytes in an intermittent stirred flow bioreactor, using modified biodegradable microspheres. Tissue Eng. 2005;11(9):1312–1322. doi: 10.1089/ten.2005.11.1312
86.
AbstiensKGregoritzaMGoepferichAM.Ligand density and linker length are critical factors for multivalent nanoparticle-receptor interactions. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2019;11(1):1311–1320. doi: 10.1021/acsami.8b18843
87.
GuoYXuKWuCSurface chemical-modification for engineering the intrinsic physical properties of inorganic two-dimensional nanomaterials. Chem Soc Rev. 2015;44(3):637–646. doi: 10.1039/C4CS00302K
88.
RoyAValderramaMAMDaujatVStability of a biodegradable microcarrier surface: physically adsorbed versus chemically linked shells. J Mater Chem B. 2018;6:5130–5143. doi: 10.1039/C8TB01255E
89.
LuginbuehlVMeinelLMerkleHPLocalized delivery of growth factors for bone repair. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2004;58(2):197–208. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpb.2004.03.004
90.
BurgKJLAustinCECulbersonCR2000. A novel approach to tissue engineering: injectable composites. Transactions of the 2000 World Biomaterials Congress; Kamuela (HI).
91.
BurgKJBolandT.Minimally invasive tissue engineering composites and cell printing. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag. 2003;22(5):84–91. doi: 10.1109/MEMB.2003.1256277
92.
SpectorMLimTC.Injectable biomaterials: a perspective on the next wave of injectable therapeutics. Biomed Mater. 2016;11(1):014110. doi: 10.1088/1748-6041/11/1/014110
93.
MahoneyMJSaltzmanWM.Transplantation of brain cells assembled around a programmable synthetic microenvironment. Nat Biotechnol. 2001;19(10):934–939. doi: 10.1038/nbt1001-934
94.
LiuMZengXMaCInjectable hydrogels for cartilage and bone tissue engineering. Bone Res. 2017;5:17014. doi: 10.1038/boneres.2017.14
95.
NaqviSMVedicherlaSGansauJLiving cell factories-electrosprayed microcapsules and microcarriers for minimally invasive delivery. Adv Mater. 2016;28(27):5662–5671. doi: 10.1002/adma.201503598
96.
BertoloAHäfnerSTaddeiARInjectable microcarriers as human mesenchymal stem cell support and their application for cartilage and degenerated intervertebral disc repair. Eur Cell Mater. 2015;29:70–80. doi: 10.22203/eCM.v029a06
97.
DelcroixGJSchillerPCBenoitJPAdult cell therapy for brain neuronal damages and the role of tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2010;31(8):2105–2120. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.11.084
98.
KangSWJeonOKimBS.Poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) microspheres as an injectable scaffold, for cartilage tissue engineering. Tissue Eng. 2005;11(3):438–447. doi: 10.1089/ten.2005.11.438
99.
EcclesSACourtWPattersonL.In vitro assays for endothelial cell functions required for angiogenesis: proliferation, motility, tubular differentiation, and matrix proteolysis. Methods Mol Biol. 2016;1430:121–147. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-3628-1_8
100.
SmitsAMvan VlietPMetzCHHuman cardiomyocyte progenitor cells differentiate into functional mature cardiomyocytes: an in vitro model for studying human cardiac physiology and pathophysiology. Nat Protoc. 2009;4(2):232–243. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2008.229
101.
YangJZZhangYSYueKCell-laden hydrogels for osteochondral and cartilage tissue engineering. Acta Biomater. 2017;57:1–25. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2017.01.036
102.
HaoZSongZHuangJThe scaffold microenvironment for stem cell based bone tissue engineering. Biomater Sci. 2017;5(8):1382–1392. doi: 10.1039/C7BM00146K
JinGZParkJHSeoSJDynamic cell culture on porous biopolymer microcarriers in a spinner flask for bone tissue engineering: a feasibility study. Biotechnol Lett. 2014;36(7):1539–1548. doi: 10.1007/s10529-014-1513-6
105.
MercierNRCostantinoHRTracyMAPoly(lactide-co-glycolide) microspheres as a moldable scaffold for cartilage tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2005;26(14):1945–1952. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.06.030
106.
MaldaJKreijveldETemenoffJSExpansion of human nasal chondrocytes on macroporous microcarriers enhances redifferentiation. Biomaterials. 2003;24(28):5153–5161. doi: 10.1016/S0142-9612(03)00428-9
107.
NaidookRHEastonKAn emulsion preparation for novel microporous polymeric hemi-shells. Mater Lett. 2008;62:252–264. doi: 10.1016/j.matlet.2007.05.012
108.
LeeJOhYJLeeSKFacile control of porous structures of polymer microspheres using an osmotic agent for pulmonary delivery. J Control Release. 2010;146(1):61–67. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2010.05.026
109.
HuangCCWeiHJYehYCInjectable PLGA porous beads cellularized by hAFSCs for cellular cardiomyoplasty. Biomaterials. 2012;33:4069–4077. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.02.024
110.
ChoiSWYehYCZhangYUniform beads with controllable pore sizes for biomedical applications. Small. 2010;6:1492–1498. doi: 10.1002/smll.201000544
111.
LuGYZhuLKongLJPorous chitosan MCs for large scale cultivation of cells for tissue engineering: fabrication and evaluation. Tsinghua Sci Tech. 2006;11:427–432. doi: 10.1016/S1007-0214(06)70212-7
112.
MadihallySVMatthewHW.Porous chitosan scaffolds for tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 1999;20:1133–1142. doi: 10.1016/S0142-9612(99)00011-3
113.
RibeiroCCBarriasCCBarbosaMA.Preparation and characterisation of calcium-phosphate porous microspheres with a uniform size for biomedical applications. Mater Sci Mater Med. 2006;17(5):455–463. doi: 10.1007/s10856-006-8473-x
114.
RandleWLChaJMHwangYSIntegrated 3-dimensional expansion and osteogenic differentiation of murine embryonic stem cells. Tissue Eng. 2007;13:2957–2970. doi: 10.1089/ten.2007.0072
115.
CostantiniMGuzowskiJPawełJZElectric field assisted microfluidic platform for generation of tailorable porous microbeads as cell carriers for tissue engineering. Adv Funct Mater. 2018;28:1800874. doi: 10.1002/adfm.201800874
116.
WangJChengYYuYMicrofluidic generation of porous microcarriers for three-dimensional cell culture. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2015;7(49):27035–9. doi: 10.1021/acsami.5b10442
117.
HaoNJNieYZhangJXJ.Microfluidic synthesis of functional inorganic micro-/nanoparticles and applications in biomedical engineering. Int Mater Rev. 2018;63:461–487. doi: 10.1080/09506608.2018.1434452
118.
StraubJAChickeringDEChurchCCPorous PLGA micropaticles: AI-700, an intravenously administered ultrasound contrast agent for use in echocardiography. J Control Release. 2005;108:21–32. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2005.07.020
119.
CaiHLSharmaSLiuWYAerogel microspheres from natural cellulose nanofibrils and their application as cell culture scaffold. Biomacromolecules. 2014;15:2540–2547. doi: 10.1021/bm5003976
120.
WitschiCDoelkerE.Influence of the microencapsulation method and peptide loading on poly(lactic acid) and poly (lactic-co-glycolide acid) degradation during in vitro testing. J Control Release. 1998;51:327–341. doi: 10.1016/S0168-3659(97)00188-0
121.
DingLLeeTWangCH.Fabrication of monodispersed Taxol-loaded particles using electrohydrodynamic atomization. J Control Release. 2005;102:395–413. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2004.10.011
122.
ReydermanLStavchanskyS.Electrostatic spraying and its use in drug delivery-cholesterol microspheres. Int J Pharm. 1995;124:75–85. doi: 10.1016/0378-5173(95)00078-W
123.
MaengYJChoiSWKimHOCulture of human mesenchymal stem cells using electrosprayed porous chitosan microbeads. Biomed Mater Res A. 2010;92(3):869–876.
NisisakoTToriiTTakahashiTSynthesis of monodisperse bicolored Janus particles with electrical anisotropy using a microfluidic co-flow system. Adv Mater. 2006;18:1152–1156. doi: 10.1002/adma.200502431
126.
NieZParkJILiWAn ‘inside-out’ microfluidic approach to monodisperse emulsions stabilized by solid particles. J Am Chem Soc. 2008;130:16508–16509. doi: 10.1021/ja807764m
127.
YobasLMartensSOngWLHigh-performance flow-focusing geometry for spontaneous generation of monodispersed droplets. Lab Chip. 2006;6:1073–1079. doi: 10.1039/b602240e
128.
XuSNieZSeoMGeneration of monodisperse particles by using microfluidics: control over size, shape, and composition. Angew Chem Int Ed. 2005;44:724–728. doi: 10.1002/anie.200462226
129.
NykampGCarstensenUMüllerBW.Jet milling–a new technique for microparticle preparation. Int J Pharm. 2002;242:79–86. doi: 10.1016/S0378-5173(02)00150-3
130.
BaimarkY.Porous microspheres of methoxy poly(ethylene glycol)-b-poly (ε-caprolactoneco–D, L-lactide) prepared by a melt dispersion method. Polymer. 2009;50:4761–4767. doi: 10.1016/j.polymer.2009.07.032
131.
ChenAKReuvenySOhSK.Application of human mesenchymal and pluripotent stem cell microcarrier cultures in cellular therapy: achievements and future direction. Biotechnol Adv. 2013;31(7):1032–1046. doi: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.03.006
132.
SautierJMNefussiJRForestN.Mineralization and bone formation on microcarrier beads with isolated rat calvaria cell population. Calcif Tissue Int. 1992;50:527–532. doi: 10.1007/BF00582168
133.
MaldaJvan BlitterswijkCAGrojecMExpansion of bovine chondrocytes on microcarriers enhances redifferentiation. Tissue Eng. 2003;9:939–948. doi: 10.1089/107632703322495583
134.
BakerTGoodwinT.Three-dimensional culture of bovine chondrocytes in rotating-wall vessels: In vitro cell. Dev Biol Anim. 1997;33:358–365. doi: 10.1007/s11626-997-0006-5
135.
FreedLEVunjak-NovakovicGLangerR.Cultivation of cell-polymer cartilage implants in bioreactors. J Cell Biochem. 1993;51:257–264. doi: 10.1002/jcb.240510304
136.
BayramYDeveciMImirzaliogluNThe cell based dressing with living allogenic keratinocytes in the treatment of foot ulcers: a case study. Br J Plast Surg. 2005;58:988–996. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2005.04.031
137.
BüchelerMWirzCSchützATissue engineering of human salivary gland organoids. Acta Otolaryngol. 2002;122:541–545. doi: 10.1080/00016480260092372
MiaoGHChenXFDongHInvestigation of emulsified, acid and acid-alkali catalyzed mesoporous bioactive glass microspheres for bone regeneration and drug delivery. Mater Sci Engineer C: Mater. 2013;33:4236–4243. doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2013.06.022
140.
HongSJYuHSKimHW.Tissue engineering polymeric microcarriers with macroporous morphology and bone-bioactive surface. Macromol Biosci. 2009;9:639–645. doi: 10.1002/mabi.200800304
141.
QiaoHGuoTFZhengYDA novel microporous oxidized bacterial cellulose/arginine composite and its effect on behavior of fibroblast/endothelial cell. Carbohyd Polym. 2018;184:323–332. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2017.12.026
142.
KumbharJVJadhavSHBodasDSIn vitro and in vivo studies of a novel bacterial cellul ose-based acellular bilayer nanocomposite scaffold for the repair of osteochondral defects. Int J Nanomedicine. 2017;12:6437–6459. doi: 10.2147/IJN.S137361
143.
CzajaWKYoungDJKaweckiMThe future prospects of microbial cellulose in biomedical applications. Biomacromolecules. 2007;8:1–12. doi: 10.1021/bm060620d
144.
LauRKKwokACChanWKMechanical characterization of cellulosic thecal plates in dinoflagellates by nanoindentation. J Nanosci Nanotechnol. 2007;7:452–457. doi: 10.1166/jnn.2007.18041
145.
MärtsonMViljantoJHurmeTIs cellulose sponge degradable or stable as implantation material? An in vivo subcutaneous study in the rat. Biomaterials. 1999;20(21):1989–1995. doi: 10.1016/S0142-9612(99)00094-0
146.
WangYYuanXYuKFabrication of nanofibrous microcarriers mimicking extracellular matrix for functional microtissue formation and cartilage regeneration. Biomaterials. 2018;171:118–132. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.04.033
147.
FrancisSJKMatthewHWT.Application of chitosan-based polysaccharide biomaterials in cartilage tissue engineering: a review. Biomaterials. 2000;21:2589–2598. doi: 10.1016/S0142-9612(00)00126-5
FangJJZhangYYanSFPoly(l-glutamic acid)/chitosan polyelectrolyte complex porous microspheres as cell microcarriers for cartilage regeneration. Acta Biomater. 2014;10:276–288. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2013.09.002
150.
ZhaoHXuJLanWMicrofluidic production of porous chitosan/silica hybrid microspheres and its Cu(II) adsorption performance. Chem Eng J. 2013;229:82–89. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2013.05.093
151.
WuXBPengCHHuangFPreparation and characterization of chitosan porous microcarriers for hepatocyte culture. Hepatob Pancreat Dis Int. 2011;10:509–515. doi: 10.1016/S1499-3872(11)60086-6
152.
ChenRCurranSJCurranJM.The use of poly(L-lactide) and RGD modified microspheres as cell carriers in a low intermittency bioreactor for tissue engineering cartilage. Biomaterials. 2006;27:4453–4460. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.04.011
153.
YanSFXiaPFXuSHNanocomposite porous microcarriers based on strontium substituted HA-g-Poly(gamma-benzyl-L-glutamate) for bone tissue engineering. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2018;10(19):16270–16281. doi: 10.1021/acsami.8b02448
154.
XiaPFZhangKXGongYInjectable stem cell-laden open porous microgels that favour adipogenesis: in vitro and in vivo evaluation. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2017;9(40):34751–34761. doi: 10.1021/acsami.7b13065
155.
GaoLHuangZYYanSFSr-HA-graft-poly(γ-benzyl-L-glutamate) nanocomposite microcarriers: controllable Sr2+ release for accelerating osteogenenisis and bony nonunion repair. Biomacromolecules. 2017;18(11):3742–3752. doi: 10.1021/acs.biomac.7b01101
156.
XiaPFZhangKXFangJJA novel fabrication of open porous poly-(γ-benzyl-L-glutamate) microcarriers with large pore size to promote cellular infiltration and proliferation. Mater Lett. 2017;206:136–139. doi: 10.1016/j.matlet.2017.07.013
157.
LiJWanYZLiLFPreparation and characterization of 2,3-dialdehyde bacterial cellulose for potential biodegradable tissue engineering scaffolds. Mater Sci Eng C: Mater. 2009;29:1635–1642. doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2009.01.006
158.
SafersteinLSeraficaG.Cellulose oxidation by nitrogen dioxide in a perfluorinated tertiar amine solvent. US Patent. 2010;7:645–874.
159.
KumarVDangY.Biodegradable oxidized cellulose esters. US Patent. 2010;7:662–801.
LahijiASohrabiAHungerfordDSChitosan supports the expression of extracellular matrix proteins in human osteoblasts and chondrocytes. Biomed Mater Res. 2000;51(4):586–595. doi: 10.1002/1097-4636(20000915)51:4<586::AID-JBM6>3.0.CO;2-S
162.
ShakibaeiMDe SouzaPMerkerHJ.Integrin expression and collagen type II implicated in maintenance of chondrocyte shape in monolayer culture: an immunomorphological study. Cell Biol Int. 1997;21(2):115–125. doi: 10.1006/cbir.1996.0118
163.
GinjupalliKShaviGVAverineniRKPoly(α-hydroxy acid) based polymers: a review on material and degradation aspects. Polym Degrad Stabil. 2017;144:520–535. doi: 10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2017.08.024
164.
ZhouZHLiuLHLiuQQBiological assessment of composite materials based on poly-L-lactide and bovine bone. Int J Polym Mater. 2013;62(2):81–84. doi: 10.1080/00914037.2012.664213
165.
GentilePChionoVCarmagnolaIAn overview of poly (lactic-co-glycolic) acid (PLGA)-based biomaterials for bone tissue engineering. Int J Mol Sci. 2014;15(3):3640–3659. doi: 10.3390/ijms15033640
166.
SaitoELiuYMignecoFStrut size and surface area effects on long-term in vivo degradation in computer designed poly (l-lactic acid) three-dimensional porous scaffolds. Acta Biomater. 2012;8:2568–2577. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2012.03.028
167.
LiuXBaldursdottirSGAhoJElectrospinnability of poly Lactic-co-glycolic acid (PLGA): the role of solvent type and solvent composition. Pharm Res. 2017;34(4):738–749. doi: 10.1007/s11095-017-2100-z
168.
Castillo-DalíGVelázquez-CayónRSerrera-FigalloMAImportance of poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) in scaffolds for guided bone regeneration: a focused review. J Oral Implantol. 2015;41(4):e152–e157. doi: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-13-00225
169.
WashingtonMASwinerDJBellKRThe impact of monomer sequence and stereochemistry on the swelling and erosion of biodegradable poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid) matrices. Biomaterials. 2017;117:66–76. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.11.037
170.
ParkTG.Degradation of poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid) microspheres: effect of copolymer composition. Biomaterials. 1995;16:1123–1130. doi: 10.1016/0142-9612(95)93575-X
171.
LiJRothsteinSNLittleSRThe effect of monomer order on the hydrolysis of biodegradable poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) repeating sequence copolymers. J Am Chem Soc. 2012;134(39):16352–16359. doi: 10.1021/ja306866w
172.
WashingtonMABalmertSCFedorchakMVMonomer sequence in PLGA microparticles: effects on acidic microclimates and in vivo inflammatory response. Acta Biomater. 2018;65:259–227. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2017.10.043
173.
MaitzMF.Applications of synthetic polymers in clinical medicine. Biosurf Biotribol. 2015;1:161–176. doi: 10.1016/j.bsbt.2015.08.002
174.
ZhouHTounyAHBhaduriSB.Fabrication of novel PLA/CDHA bionanocomposite fibers for tissue engineering applications via electrospinning. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2011;22:1183–1193. doi: 10.1007/s10856-011-4295-6
175.
KempenDHLuLKimCControlled drug release from a novel injectable biodegradable microsphere/scaffold composite based on poly(propylene fumarate). J Biomed Mater Res A. 2006;77A:103–111. doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.30336
176.
TajbakhshSHajialiF.A comprehensive study on the fabrication and properties of biocomposites of poly (lactic acid)/ceramics for bone tissue engineering. Mater Sci Eng C: Mater. 2017;70:897–912. doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2016.09.008
177.
RenJZhaoPRenTPoly (D, L-lactide)/nano-hydroxyapatite composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering and biocompatibility evaluation. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2008;19:1075–1082. doi: 10.1007/s10856-007-3181-8
178.
IgnatiusAABetzOAugatPIn vivo investigations on composites made of resorbable ceramics and poly (lactide) used as bone graft substitutes. J Biomed Mater Res. 2001;58:701–709. doi: 10.1002/jbm.10024
179.
GinjupalliKAverineniRKShaviGVBiodegradable composite scaffolds of poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) 85:15 and nano-hydroxyapatite with acidic microclimate controlling additive. Polym Compos. 2017;38:1175–1182. doi: 10.1002/pc.23681
180.
HanJDDingJXWangZCThe synthesis, deprotection and properties of poly(γ-benzyl-L-glutamate). Sci China Chem. 2013;56:729–738. doi: 10.1007/s11426-013-4839-3
RenKHeCChengYInjectable enzymatically crosslinked hydrogels based on a poly (l-glutamic acid) graft copolymer. Polym Chem. 2014;5(17):5069–5076. doi: 10.1039/C4PY00420E
183.
CaoBYanSFCuiLA poly(acrylic acid)-block-poly(l-glutamic acid) diblock copolymer with improved cell adhesion for surface modification. Macromol Biosci. 2011;11:970–977. doi: 10.1002/mabi.201100010
184.
ZhangWJZhangKXYanSFA tough and self-healing poly(L-glutamic acid)-based composite hydrogel for tissue engineering. J Mater Chem B. 2018;6:6865–6876. doi: 10.1039/C8TB01981A
185.
ZhangKXFangHWQinYCFunctionalized scaffold for in-situ efficient gene transfection of MSCs spheroids towards chondrogenesis. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2018;10:6930–6941. doi: 10.1021/acsami.7b18859
186.
ZhangKXSongLWangJStrategy for constructing vascularized adipose units in poly(l-glutamic acid) hydrogel porous scaffold through inducing in-situ formation of ASCs spheroids. Acta Biomater. 2017;51:246–257. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2017.01.043
187.
YanSFZhangXZhangKXInjectable in situ forming poly(L-Glutamic Acid) hydrogels for cartilage tissue engineering. J Mater Chem B. 2016;4:947–961. doi: 10.1039/C5TB01488C
188.
ZhangKXYanSFLiGFIn-situ birth of MSCs multicellular spheroids in poly(L-glutamic acid)/chitosan scaffold for hyaline-like cartilage regeneration. Biomaterials. 2015;71:24–34. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.08.037
189.
YanSFWangTTFengLInjectable in situ self-crosslinking hydrogels based on poly(L-glutamic acid) and alginate for cartilage tissue engineering. Biomacromolecules. 2014;15:4495–4508. doi: 10.1021/bm501313t
190.
YanSFZhangKXLiuZWFabrication of poly(L-glutamic acid)/chitosan polyelectrolyte complex porous scaffolds for tissue engineering. J Mater Chem B. 2013;1:1541–1551. doi: 10.1039/c2tb00440b
191.
AndersonJM.Biological responses to materials. Annu Rev Mater Res. 2001;31:81–110. doi: 10.1146/annurev.matsci.31.1.81
192.
BergsmaEJRozemaFRBosRRForeign body reactions to resorbable poly (L-lactide) bone plates and screws used for the fixation of unstable zygomatic fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1993;51(6):666–670. doi: 10.1016/S0278-2391(10)80267-8
193.
HernándezRMOriveGMuruaAMicrocapsules and microcarriers for in situ cell delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2010;62(7-8):711–730. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2010.02.004
194.
MartinYEldardiriMLawrence-WattDJMicrocarriers and their potential in tissue regeneration. Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 2011;17(1):71–80. doi: 10.1089/ten.teb.2010.0559
195.
SunLYLinSZLiYSFunctional cells cultured on microcarriers for use in regenerative medicine research. Cell Transplant. 2011;20(1):49–62. doi: 10.3727/096368910X532792
196.
OliveiraMBManoJF.Polymer-based microparticles in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Biotechnol Prog. 2011;27(4):897–912. doi: 10.1002/btpr.618
197.
SartSAgathosSNLiY.Engineering stem cell fate with biochemical and biomechanical properties of microcarriers. Biotechnol Prog. 2013;29(6):1354–1366. doi: 10.1002/btpr.1825
198.
ParkJHPérezRAJinGZMicrocarriers designed for cell culture and tissue engineering of bone. Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 2013;19(2):172–190. doi: 10.1089/ten.teb.2012.0432
199.
LiBYWangXWangYPast, present, and future of microcarrier-based tissue engineering. J Orthop Trans. 2015;3:51–57.
200.
SaltzAKandalamU.Mesenchymal stem cells and alginate microcarriers for craniofacial bone tissue engineering: a review. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2016;104(5):1276–1284. doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.35647
201.
LiJLiXLuoTDevelopment of a magnetic microrobot for carrying and delivering targeted cells. Sci Robot. 2018;3:eaat8829. doi: 10.1126/scirobotics.aat8829
202.
SurraoDCKhanAAMcGregorAJCan microcarrier-expanded chondrocytes synthesize cartilaginous tissue in vitro?Tissue Eng Part A. 2011;17(15-16):1959–1967. doi: 10.1089/ten.tea.2010.0434
203.
SivandzadeFMashayekhanS.Design and fabrication of injectable microcarriers composed of acellular cartilage matrix and chitosan. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed. 2018;296:683–700. doi: 10.1080/09205063.2018.1433422
204.
LiuXJinXMaPX.Nanofibrous hollow microspheres self-assembled from star-shaped polymers as injectable cell carriers for knee repair. Nat Mater. 2011;10(5):398–406. doi: 10.1038/nmat2999
205.
KuangRZhangZPJinXBNanofibrous spongy microspheres for the delivery of hypoxia-primed human dental pulp stem cells to regenerate vascularized dental pulp. Acta Biomater. 2016;33:225–234. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2016.01.032
206.
ZhangZGupteMJJinXInjectable peptide decorated functional nanofibrous hollow microspheres to direct stem cell differentiation and tissue regeneration. Adv Funct Mater. 2015;25(3):350–360. doi: 10.1002/adfm.201402618
207.
ParkJHKimMKEl-FiqiABioactive and porous-structured nanocomposite microspheres effective for cell delivery: A feasibility study for bone tissue engineering. RSC Adv. 2014;4:29062–29071. doi: 10.1039/C4RA02199A
208.
TewSRedmanSKwanADifferences in repair responses between immature and mature cartilage. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;391:S142–S152. doi: 10.1097/00003086-200110001-00014
209.
ServiceRF.Tissue engineering. Coming soon to a knee near you: cartilage like your very own. Science. 2008;322:1460–1461. doi: 10.1126/science.322.5907.1460
RahmanRARadziMAASukriNMTissue engineering of articular cartilage: from bench to bed-side. Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2014;12:1–11. doi: 10.1007/s13770-014-9044-8
212.
MakrisEAGomollAHMalizosKNRepair and tissue engineering techniques for articular cartilage. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2015;11:21–34. doi: 10.1038/nrrheum.2014.157
213.
JunjiILarsEYosukeSClinical application of scaffolds for cartilage tissue engineering. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009;17(6):561–577. doi: 10.1007/s00167-008-0663-2
214.
El-AyoubiRDeGrandpréCDiRaddoRDesign and dynamic culture of 3D-scaffolds for cartilage tissue engineering. J Biomater Appl. 2011;25(5):429–444. doi: 10.1177/0885328209355332
215.
ChiangHJiangCC.Repair of articular cartilage defects: review and perspectives. J Formosan Med Assoc. 2009;108:87–101. doi: 10.1016/S0929-6646(09)60039-5
216.
PanchalingamKMJungSRosenbergLBioprocessing strategies for the large-scale production of human mesenchymal stem cells: a review. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2015;6:225. doi: 10.1186/s13287-015-0228-5
217.
MorilleMToupetKMontero-MeneiCNPLGA-based microcarriers induce mesenchymal stem cell chondrogenesis and stimulate cartilage repair in osteoarthritis. Biomaterials. 2016;88:60–69. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.02.022
218.
FreedLEVunjak-NovakovicG.Cultivation of cell-polymer tissue constructs in simulated microgravity. Biotechnol Bioeng. 1995;46(4):306–313. doi: 10.1002/bit.260460403
219.
ZhangLNingBJiaTMicrocarrier bioreactor culture system promotes propagation of human intervertebral disc cells. Ir J Med Sci. 2010;179(4):529–534. doi: 10.1007/s11845-010-0537-8
220.
RimNGShinCSShinH.Current approaches to electrospun nanofibers for tissue engineering. Biomed Mater. 2013;8(1):014102. doi: 10.1088/1748-6041/8/1/014102
221.
BruderSPFoxBS.Tissue engineering of bone: cell based strategies. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;367:S68–S83. doi: 10.1097/00003086-199910001-00008
222.
StoopR.Smart biomaterials for tissue engineering of cartilage. Injury. 2008;39:77–87. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2008.01.036
223.
GirãoAFSemitelaÂRamalhoGMimicking nature: fabrication of 3D anisotropic electrospun polycaprolactone scaffolds for cartilage tissue engineering applications. Compos Part B-Eng. 2018;154:99–107. doi: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.08.001
224.
AignerTStöveJ.Collagens-major component of the physiological cartilage matrix, major target of cartilage degeneration, major tool in cartilage repair. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2003;55(12):1569–1593. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2003.08.009
225.
PopaEGReisRLGomesME.Seaweed polysaccharide-based hydrogels used for the regeneration of articular cartilage. Crit Rev Biotechnol. 2015;35(3):410–424. doi: 10.3109/07388551.2014.889079
226.
RadhakrishnanJSubramanianASethuramanS.Injectable glycosaminoglycan-protein nano-complex in semi-interpenetrating networks: A biphasic hydrogel for hyaline cartilage regeneration. Carbohydr Polym. 2017;175:63–74. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2017.07.063
227.
ZhouYGaoHLShenLLChitosan microspheres with an extracellular matrix-mimicking nanofibrous structure as cell-carrier building blocks for bottom-up cartilage tissue engineering. Nanoscale. 2016;8(1):309–317. doi: 10.1039/C5NR06876B
228.
ThomasRGUnnithanARMoonMJElectromagnetic manipulation enabled calcium alginate Janus microsphere for targeted delivery of mesenchymal stem cells. Int J Biol Macromol. 2018;110:465–471. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.01.003
229.
XuFYXuLWangQ3D dynamic culture of rabbit articular chondrocytes encapsulated in alginate gel beads using spinner flasks for cartilage tissue regeneration. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:539789.
230.
GrasselSAhmedN.Influence of cellular microenvironment and paracrine signals on chondrogenic differentiation. Front Biosci. 2007;12:4946–4956. doi: 10.2741/2440
231.
LiaoJGuoXGrande-AllenKJBioactive polymer/extracellular matrix scaffolds fabricated with a flow perfusion bioreactor for cartilage tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2010;31(34):8911–8920. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.07.110
232.
LiJPeiM.Optimization of an in vitro three-dimensional microenvironment to reprogram synovium-derived stem cells for cartilage tissue engineering. Tissue Eng Part A. 2011;17(5-6):703–712. doi: 10.1089/ten.tea.2010.0339
233.
WeiGMaPX.Nanostructured biomaterials for regeneration. Adv Funct Mater. 2008;18(22):3568–3582. doi: 10.1002/adfm.200800662
234.
SmithLALiuXHuJThe enhancement of human embryonic stem cell osteogenic differentiation with nanofibrous scaffolding. Biomaterials. 2010;31(21):5526–5535. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.03.065
235.
ZhangZMarsonRLGeZSimultaneous nano- and microscale control of nanofibrous microspheres self-assembled from star-shaped polymers. Adv Mater. 2015;27(26):3947–3952. doi: 10.1002/adma.201501329
236.
HengBCCaoTLeeEH.Directing stem cell differentiation into the chondrogenic lineage in vitro. Stem Cells. 2004;22(7):1152–1167. doi: 10.1634/stemcells.2004-0062
237.
ThorogoodPVHinchliffeJR.An analysis of the condensation process during chondrogenesis in the embryonic chick hind limb. Embryol Exp Morphol. 1975;33(3):581–606.
238.
HsuSHHuangGS.Substrate-dependent Wnt signaling in MSC differentiation within biomaterial-derived 3D spheroids. Biomaterials. 2013;34:4725–4738. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.03.031
239.
FengZQChuXHuangNPThe effect of nanofibrous galactosylated chitosan scaffolds on the formation of rat primary hepatocyte aggregates and the maintenance of liver function. Biomaterials. 2009;30:2753–2763. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.01.053
240.
LinSJJeeSHHsaioWCFormation of melanocyte spheroids on the chitosan-coated surface. Biomaterials. 2005;26:1413–1422. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.05.002
241.
ChengNCWangSYoungTH.The influence of spheroid formation of human adipose-derived stem cells on chitosan films on stemness and differentiation capabilities. Biomaterials. 2012;33:1748–1758. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.11.049
242.
LutolfMPHubbellJA.Synthetic biomaterials as instructive extracellular microenvironments for morphogenesis in tissue engineering. Nat Biotechnol. 2005;23(1):47–55. doi: 10.1038/nbt1055
243.
MuschlerGFNakamotoCGriffithLG.Engineering principles of clinical cell-based tissue engineering. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-A(7):1541–1558. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200407000-00029
YuXHTangXYGohilSVBiomaterials for bone regenerative engineering. Adv Healthcare Mater. 2015;4:1268–1285. doi: 10.1002/adhm.201400760
246.
PinaSRibeiroVPMarquesCFScaffolding strategies for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine applications. Materials. 2019;12(11):E1824. doi: 10.3390/ma12111824
247.
ShekaranASimETanKYEnhanced in vitro osteogenic differentiation of human fetal MSCs attached to 3D microcarriers versus harvested from 2D monolayers. BMC Biotechnol. 2015;15:102. doi: 10.1186/s12896-015-0219-8
248.
PerezRARiccardiKAltankovGDynamic cell culture on calcium phosphate microcarriers for bone tissue engineering applications. J Tissue Eng. 2014;5:2041731414543965. doi: 10.1177/2041731414543965
249.
PerezRAAltankovGJorge-HerreroEMicro- and nanostructured hydroxyapatite-collagen microcarriers for bone tissue-engineering applications. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2013;7(5):353–361. doi: 10.1002/term.530
250.
FerreiraAMGentilePChionoVCollagen for bone tissue regeneration. Acta Biomater. 2012;8(9):3191–3200. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2012.06.014
251.
GuarinoVGloriaARaucciMGBioinspired composite and cell instructive platforms for bone regeneration. Int Mater Rev. 2012;57:256–275. doi: 10.1179/0950660812Z.00000000021
252.
ShenBWeiATaoHBMP-2 enhances TGF-β3-mediated chondrogenic differentiation of human bone marrow multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells in alginate bead culture. Tissue Eng A. 2009;15(6):1311–1320. doi: 10.1089/ten.tea.2008.0132
253.
WillimasDF.The Williams Dictionary of Biomaterials. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press; 1999.
