The periosteum serves as a local source of osteoprogenitor cells and vasculature, therefore influencing the key processes of osteogenesis and neovascularization during bone healing. However, it is often not considered in traditional bone tissue engineering strategies. The periosteum consists of two stratified cell layers, including an inner cambium layer, which serves as a local source of osteoblasts (OBs) and osteoprogenitor cells, and an outer fibrous layer, which hosts vasculature, collagen fibers, and support cells. While several studies have investigated different methodologies to produce tissue-engineered periosteum (TEP) substitutes, few have evaluated the roles of specific cell types within the inner cambium layer and their patterning in 3D environments on underlying bone tissue development. Therefore, we sought to investigate whether mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) alone, OBs alone, or a 1:1 mixture of the two would result in increased osteogenic differentiation of bone layer MSCs in a 3D bioprinted periosteum-bone coculture model in vitro. We first evaluated these effects in a 2D transwell model, demonstrating that OB-containing cultures, either alone or in a mixed population with MSCs, upregulated alkaline phosphatase activity and runt-related transcription factor 2 (RUNX2) expression. In the 3D bioprinted model, the mixed population showed higher levels of RUNX2 expression and calcium deposition, indicating increased osteogenic differentiation within the bone layer. Results obtained from this study provide evidence that a mixed population of MSCs and OBs within the inner cambium layer of TEP can increase bone regeneration.
Impact Statement
This work seeks to provide insight into each cell type’s effects within the periosteum’s inner cambium layer on surrounding bone tissue regeneration. The findings from this study will provide key biological components necessary to develop functional tissue-engineered periosteum, which can further aid in bone regeneration.
NybergEL, FarrisAL, HungBP, et al.3D-printing technologies for craniofacial rehabilitation, reconstruction, and regeneration. Ann Biomed Eng, 2017; 45(1):45–57; doi: 10.1007/s10439-016-1668-5
2.
EmodiO, CapuchaT, ShiloD, et al.Trends in cleft palate incidence in the era of obstetric sonography and early detection. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med, 2022; 35(25):9350–9355; doi: 10.1080/14767058.2022.2032635
3.
VyasT, GuptaP, KumarS, et al.Cleft of lip and palate: A review. J Family Med Prim Care, 2020; 9(6):2621–2625; doi: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_472_20
4.
AghaliA. Craniofacial bone tissue engineering: Current approaches and potential therapy. Cells, 2021 May;10(11):2993; doi: 10.3390/cells10112993
5.
ZukPA. Tissue engineering craniofacial defects with adult stem cells? Are we ready yet? Pediatr Res, 2008; 63(5):478–486; doi: 10.1203/PDR.0b013e31816bdf36
6.
LeviB, GlotzbachJP, WongVW, et al.Stem cells. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery, 2012; 23(1):319–323; doi: 10.1097/SCS.0b013e318241dbaf
TollemarV, CollierZJ, MohammedMK, et al.Stem cells, growth factors and scaffolds in craniofacial regenerative medicine. Genes Dis, 2016; 3(1):56–71; doi: 10.1016/j.gendis.2015.09.004
9.
DwekJR. The periosteum: What is it, where is it, and what mimics it in its absence? Skeletal Radiol, 2010; 39(4):319–323; doi: 10.1007/s00256-009-0849-9
10.
AllenMR, HockJM, BurrDB. Periosteum: Biology, regulation, and response to osteoporosis therapies. Bone, 2004; 35(5):1003–1012; doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2004.07.014
11.
LimJ, LeeJ, YunHS, et al.Comparison of bone regeneration rate in flat and long bone defects: Calvarial and tibial bone. Tissue Eng Regen Med, 2013; 10(6):336–340; doi: 10.1007/s13770-013-1094-9
12.
HoffmanMD, BenoitDSW. Emulating native periosteum cell population and subsequent paracrine factor production to promote tissue engineered periosteum-mediated allograft healing. Biomaterials, 2015; 52:426–440; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.02.064
13.
ShiX, ChenS, ZhaoY, et al.Enhanced osteogenesis by a biomimic pseudo-periosteum-involved tissue engineering Strategy. Adv Healthc Mater, 2013; 2(9):1229–1235; doi: 10.1002/adhm.201300012
14.
LaijunL, YuZ, ChaojingL, et al.An enhanced periosteum structure/function dual mimicking membrane for in-situ restorations of periosteum and bone. Biofabrication, 2021; 13(3):35041; doi: 10.1088/1758-5090/abf9b0
15.
LiuW, BiW, SunY, et al.Biomimetic organic-inorganic hybrid hydrogel electrospinning periosteum for accelerating bone regeneration. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl, 2020; 110:110670; doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2020.110670
16.
YangY, XuT, ZhangQ, et al.Biomimetic, stiff, and adhesive periosteum with osteogenic–angiogenic coupling effect for bone regeneration. Small, 2021; 17(14):e2006598; doi: 10.1002/smll.202006598
17.
CsakiC, MatisU, MobasheriA, et al.Co-culture of canine mesenchymal stem cells with primary bone-derived osteoblasts promotes osteogenic differentiation. Histochem Cell Biol, 2009; 131(2):251–266; doi: 10.1007/s00418-008-0524-6
18.
ParkYL, ParkK, ChaJM. 3D-bioprinting strategies based on in situ bone-healing mechanism for vascularized bone tissue engineering. Micromachines (Basel). 2021; 12(3):287; doi: 10.3390/mi12030287
19.
SharmaRI, SnedekerJG. Paracrine interactions between mesenchymal stem cells affect substrate driven differentiation toward tendon and bone phenotypes. PLoS One, 2012; 7(2):e31504; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0031504
20.
ZhangLF, QiJ, ZuoG, et al.Osteoblast-secreted factors promote proliferation and osteogenic differentiation of bone marrow stromal cells via VEGF/Heme-oxygenase-1 pathway. PLoS One, 2014; 9(6):e99946; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099946
21.
RammalH, EntzL, DubusM, et al.Osteoinductive material to fine-tune paracrine crosstalk of mesenchymal stem cells with endothelial cells and osteoblasts. Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 2019; 7:256; doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2019.00256
22.
McLoughlinST, McKennaAR, FisherJP. 4D bioprinting via molecular network contraction for membranous tissue fabrication. Adv Healthc Mater, 2023; 12(27):e2300642; doi: 10.1002/adhm.202300642
23.
McLoughlinST, WilcoxP, HanS, et al.Comparison of cation and anion‐mediated resolution enhancement of bioprinted hydrogels for membranous tissue fabrication. J Biomed Mater Res A, 2024; 112(12):2329–2345; doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.37783
24.
YuJR, JanssenM, LiangBJ, et al.A liposome/gelatin methacrylate nanocomposite hydrogel system for delivery of stromal cell-derived factor-1α and stimulation of cell migration. Acta Biomater, 2020; 108:67–76; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2020.03.015
25.
VimalrajS. Alkaline phosphatase: Structure, expression and its function in bone mineralization. Gene, 2020; 754:144855; doi: 10.1016/j.gene.2020.144855
26.
ZhangY, ChenW, YangS, et al.Up‐regulation of TβRIII facilitates the osteogenesis of supraspinous ligament‐derived fibroblasts from patients with ankylosing spondylitis. J Cell Mol Med, 2021; 25(3):1613–1623; doi: 10.1111/jcmm.16262
27.
LiuTM, LeeEH. Transcriptional regulatory cascades in Runx2-dependent bone development. Tissue Eng Part B Rev, 2013; 19(3):254–263; doi: 10.1089/ten.teb.2012.0527
28.
XuJ, LiZ, HouY, et al.Potential mechanisms underlying the Runx2 induced osteogenesis of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells. Am J Transl Res, 2015; 7(12):2527–2535.
29.
KoblenzerM, WeilerM, FragoulisA, et al.Physiological mineralization during in vitro osteogenesis in a biomimetic spheroid culture model. Cells, 2022; 11(17):2702; doi: 10.3390/cells11172702
30.
HannaH, MirLM, AndreFM. In vitro osteoblastic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells generates cell layers with distinct properties. Stem Cell Res Ther, 2018; 9(1):203; doi: 10.1186/s13287-018-0942-x
31.
LinZ, FatehA, SalemDM, et al.Periosteum: Biology and applications in craniofacial bone regeneration. J Dent Res, 2014; 93(2):109–116; doi: 10.1177/0022034513506445
32.
McLoughlinS, McKennaAR, FisherJP. Fabrication strategies for engineered thin membranous tissues. ACS Appl Bio Mater, 2023; 6(7):2546–2561; doi: 10.1021/acsabm.3c00133
33.
LiuL, ShangY, LiC, et al.Hierarchical nanostructured electrospun membrane with periosteum‐mimic microenvironment for enhanced bone regeneration. Adv Healthc Mater, 2021; 10(21):e2101195; doi: 10.1002/adhm.202101195
34.
WangT, ZhaiY, NuzzoM, et al.Layer-by-layer nanofiber-enabled engineering of biomimetic periosteum for bone repair and reconstruction. Biomaterials, 2018; 182:279–288; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.08.028
35.
BaldwinJG, WagnerF, MartineLC, et al.Periosteum tissue engineering in an orthotopic in vivo platform. Biomaterials, 2017; 121:193–204; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.11.016
36.
KangY, RenL, YangY. Engineering vascularized bone grafts by integrating a biomimetic periosteum and β-TCP Scaffold. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces, 2014; 6(12):9622–9633; doi: 10.1021/am502056q
37.
ZhangD, GaoP, LiQ, et al.Engineering biomimetic periosteum with β-TCP scaffolds to promote bone formation in calvarial defects of rats. Stem Cell Res Ther, 2017; 8(1):134; doi: 10.1186/s13287-017-0592-4
KangH, Aryal AcS, BarnesAM, et al.Antagonism between PEDF and TGF-β contributes to Type VI osteogenesis imperfecta bone and vascular pathogenesis. J Bone Miner Res, 2022; 37(5):925–937; doi: 10.1002/jbmr.4540
40.
LiY, WangJ, RenF, et al.Lactoferrin promotes osteogenesis through TGF-β receptor II binding in osteoblasts and activation of canonical TGF-β signaling in MC3T3-E1 cells and C57BL/6J mice. J Nutr, 2018; 148(8):1285–1292; doi: 10.1093/jn/nxy097
41.
WuM, WuS, ChenW, et al.The roles and regulatory mechanisms of TGF-β and BMP signaling in bone and cartilage development, homeostasis and disease. Cell Res, 2024; 34(2):101–123; doi: 10.1038/s41422-023-00918-9
42.
TsaiMT, LinDJ, HuangS, et al.Osteogenic differentiation is synergistically influenced by osteoinductive treatment and direct cell-cell contact between murine osteoblasts and mesenchymal stem cells. Int Orthop, 2012; 36(1):199–205; doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2018.09.013
43.
ShenQ, ChristakosS. The vitamin D receptor, Runx2, and the notch signaling pathway cooperate in the transcriptional regulation of osteopontin. J Biol Chem, 2005; 280(49):40589–40598; doi: 10.1074/jbc.M504166200
44.
InfanteA, RodríguezCI. Osteogenesis and aging: Lessons from mesenchymal stem cells. Stem Cell Res Ther, 2018; 9(1):244; doi: 10.1186/s13287-018-0995-x
45.
PiardC, JeyaramA, LiuY, et al.3D printed HUVECs/MSCs cocultures impact cellular interactions and angiogenesis depending on cell-cell distance. Biomaterials, 2019; 222:119423; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2019.119423
46.
JabariE, ChoeRH, KuzemchakB, et al.Strategies for the codelivery of osteoclasts and mesenchymal stem cells in 3D-printable osteochondral scaffolds. Tissue Eng Part C Methods, 2024; 30(8):323–334; doi: 10.1089/ten.tec.2024.0162
47.
HanS, KimJ, LeeG, et al.Mechanical properties of materials for stem cell differentiation. Adv Biosyst, 2020; 4(11); doi: 10.1002/adbi.202000247
48.
OkajcekovaT, StrnadelJ, PokusaM, et al.A comparative in vitro analysis of the osteogenic potential of human dental pulp stem cells using various differentiation conditions. Int J Mol Sci, 2020; 21(7):2280; doi: 10.3390/ijms21072280
