Biomaterials derived from biological matrices have been widely investigated due to their great therapeutic potential in regenerative medicine, since they are able to induce cell proliferation, tissue remodeling, and angiogenesis in situ. In this context, highly vascularized and proliferative tissues, such as the uterine wall, present an interesting source to produce acellular matrices that can be used as bioactive materials to induce tissue regeneration. Therefore, this study aimed to establish an optimized protocol to generate decellularized uterine scaffolds (dUT), characterizing their structural, compositional, and biomechanical properties. In addition, in vitro performance and in vivo biocompatibility were also evaluated to verify their potential applications for tissue repair. Results showed that the protocol was efficient to promote cell removal, and dUT general structure and extracellular matrix composition remained preserved compared with native tissue. In addition, the scaffolds were cytocompatible, allowing cell growth and survival. In terms of biocompatibility, the matrices did not induce any signs of immune rejection in vivo in a model of subcutaneous implantation in immunocompetent rats, demonstrating an indication of tissue integration after 30 days of implantation. In summary, these findings suggest that dUT scaffolds could be explored as a biomaterial for regenerative purposes, which is beyond the studies in the reproductive field.
Impact Statement
Extracellular matrix-derived biomaterials have been explored as a powerful tool to develop new therapeutic approaches for tissue repair. The development of novel methods to produce well-structured biocompatible scaffolds is essential for their further application, once their bioactivity is directly related to regenerative properties. Considering that the uterine extracellular matrix is an important component of the endometrial microenvironment, which is highly proliferative and angiogenic, this study aimed to establish an optimized protocol to generate porcine uterine scaffolds, demonstrating their structural and functional properties, which can support their application in further regenerative medicine studies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
HarmanRM, TheoretCL, Van De WalleGR. The horse as a model for the study of cutaneous wound healing. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle), 2021; 10(7):381–399; doi: 10.1089/WOUND.2018.0883
2.
HanG, CeilleyR. Chronic wound healing: A review of current management and treatments. Adv Ther, 2017; 34(3):599–610; doi: 10.1007/S12325-017-0478-Y
3.
TheoretCL, WilminkJM. Aberrant wound healing in the horse: Naturally occurring conditions reminiscent of those observed in man. Wound Repair Regen, 2013; 21(3):365–371; doi: 10.1111/WRR.12018
4.
ZomerHD, TrentinAG. Skin wound healing in humans and mice: Challenges in translational research. J Dermatol Sci, 2018; 90(1):3–12; doi: 10.1016/J.JDERMSCI.2017.12.009
5.
TottoliEM, DoratiR, GentaI, et al.Skin wound healing process and new emerging technologies for skin wound care and regeneration. Pharmaceutics, 2020; 12(8):1–30; doi: 10.3390/PHARMACEUTICS12080735
6.
DarwinE, Tomic-CanicM. Healing chronic wounds: Current challenges and potential solutions. Curr Dermatol Rep, 2018; 7(4):296–302; doi: 10.1007/S13671-018-0239-4
GuptaS, MohapatraD, ChittoriaR, et al.Human skin allograft: Is it a viable option in management of burn patients? J Cutan Aesthet Surg, 2019; 12(2):132–135; doi: 10.4103/JCAS.JCAS_83_18
9.
AshammakhiN, GhavaminejadA, TutarR, et al.Highlights on advancing frontiers in tissue engineering. n.d.; doi: 10.1089/ten.teb.2021.0012
10.
HanF, WangJ, DingL, et al.Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine: Achievements, future, and sustainability in Asia. Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 2020; 8:83; doi: 10.3389/FBIOE.2020.00083/BIBTEX
11.
JoyceK, FabraGT, BozkurtY, et al.Bioactive potential of natural biomaterials: Identification, retention and assessment of biological properties. Signal Transduct Target Ther, 2021; 6(1):175; doi: 10.1038/S41392-021-00512-8
12.
DasR, FernandezJG. Biomaterials for mimicking and modelling tumor microenvironment. Adv Exp Med Biol, 2022; 1379:139–170; doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-04039-9_6
13.
XueK, WangFK, SuwardiA, et al.Biomaterials by design: Harnessing data for future development. Mater Today Bio, 2021; 12:100165; doi: 10.1016/J.MTBIO.2021.100165
McInnesAD, MoserMAJ, ChenX. Preparation and use of decellularized extracellular matrix for tissue engineering. J Funct Biomater, 2022; 13(4); doi: 10.3390/JFB13040240
16.
MassaroMS, PálekR, RosendorfJ, et al.Decellularized xenogeneic scaffolds in transplantation and tissue engineering: Immunogenicity versus positive cell stimulation. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl, 2021; 127:112203; doi: 10.1016/J.MSEC.2021.112203
17.
HusseinKH, ParkKM, KangKS, et al.Biocompatibility evaluation of tissue-engineered decellularized scaffolds for biomedical application. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl, 2016; 67:766–778; doi: 10.1016/J.MSEC.2016.05.068
18.
NyameTT, ChiangHA, OrgillDP. Clinical applications of skin substitutes. Surg Clin North Am, 2014; 94(4):839–850; doi: 10.1016/J.SUC.2014.05.013
19.
El-HusseinyHM, MadyEA, KanedaM, et al.Comparison of bovine- and porcine-derived decellularized biomaterials: Promising platforms for tissue engineering applications. Pharmaceutics, 2023; 15(7):1906; doi: 10.3390/PHARMACEUTICS15071906
20.
MooreMA, SamsellB, WallisG, et al.Decellularization of human dermis using non-denaturing anionic detergent and endonuclease: A review. Cell Tissue Bank, 2015; 16(2):249–259; doi: 10.1007/S10561-014-9467-4
21.
FujiiM, TanakaR. Porcine small intestinal submucosa alters the biochemical properties of wound healing: A narrative review. Biomedicines, 2022; 10(9); doi: 10.3390/BIOMEDICINES10092213
22.
BaumJT, BaumGR, CoxCT, et al.Use and efficacy of porcine urinary bladder matrix for tissue regeneration: A review. Wounds, 2023; 35(10):E339–E375; doi: 10.25270/WNDS/23024
23.
ArezooN, MohammadH, MalihezamanM. Tissue engineering of mouse uterus using menstrual blood stem cells (MenSCs) and decellularized uterine scaffold. Stem Cell Res Ther, 2021; 12(1):475; doi: 10.1186/S13287-021-02543-Y
24.
Catalina Villamil BallesterosA, Ramiro Segura PuelloH, Andres Lopez-GarciaJ, et al.Bovine decellularized amniotic membrane: Extracellular matrix as scaffold for mammalian skin. n.d.; doi: 10.3390/polym12030590
25.
AlmeidaGHD, IglesiaRP, AraujoMS, et al.Uterine tissue engineering: Where we stand and the challenges ahead. Tissue Eng Part B Rev, 2022; 28(4):861–890; doi: 10.1089/TEN.TEB.2021.0062
26.
KuoCY, BakerH, FriesMH, et al.Bioengineering strategies to treat female infertility. Tissue Eng Part B Rev, 2017; 23(3):294–306; doi: 10.1089/TEN.TEB.2016.0385/ASSET/IMAGES/LARGE/FIGURE3.JPEG
27.
SchneiderKH, AignerP, HolnthonerW, et al.Decellularized human placenta chorion matrix as a favorable source of small-diameter vascular grafts. Acta Biomater, 2016; 29:125–134; doi: 10.1016/J.ACTBIO.2015.09.038
28.
KakabadzeZ, KakabadzeA, ChakhunashviliD, et al.Decellularized human placenta supports hepatic tissue and allows rescue in acute liver failure. Hepatology, 2018; 67(5):1956–1969; doi: 10.1002/HEP.29713
29.
AlizadehS, MahboobiL, NasiriM, et al.Decellularized placental sponge as an excellent carrier for human mesenchymal stem cells and management of full-thickness skin wounds: An in vitro and in vivo study. 2022; doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-2187166/v1
30.
FratiniP, CarreiraACO, AlcântaraD, et al.Endothelial differentiation of canine yolk sac cells transduced with VEGF. Res Vet Sci, 2016; 104:71–76; doi: 10.1016/J.RVSC.2015.11.010
31.
LorenzenE, FollmannF, JungersenG, et al.A review of the human vs. porcine female genital tract and associated immune system in the perspective of using minipigs as a model of human genital Chlamydia infection. Vet Res, 2015; 46(1):116; doi: 10.1186/S13567-015-0241-9
32.
DussoyerM, MichopoulouA, RousselleP. Decellularized scaffolds for skin repair and regeneration. Appl Sci, 2020; 10(10):3435; doi: 10.3390/APP10103435
33.
AlmeidaGHDR, da Silva-JúniorLN, GibinMS, et al.Perfusion and ultrasonication produce a decellularized porcine whole-ovary scaffold with a preserved microarchitecture. Cells, 2023; 12(14); doi: 10.3390/CELLS12141864
34.
AlmeidaGHDR, SilvaRSDA, GibinMS, et al.Region-specific decellularization of porcine uterine tube extracellular matrix: A new approach for reproductive tissue-engineering applications. Biomimetics, 2024; 9(7):382; doi: 10.3390/BIOMIMETICS9070382
35.
NurubhashaR, Sampath KumarNS, ThirumalasettiSK, et al.Extraction and characterization of collagen from the skin of Pterygoplichthys pardalis and its potential application in food industries. Food Sci Biotechnol, 2019; 28(6):1811–1817; doi: 10.1007/S10068-019-00601-Z
36.
KamaruzamanN, FauziMB, YusopSM. Characterization and toxicity evaluation of broiler skin elastin for potential functional biomaterial in tissue engineering. Polymers (Basel), 2022; 14(5); doi: 10.3390/POLYM14050963
37.
WangZ, WangL, LinS, et al.Isolation and characterization of collagen from the muscle of Amur sturgeon (Acipenser schrenckii). Biotechnol Bioproc E, 2014; 19(5):935–941; doi: 10.1007/S12257-013-0638-0/METRICS
38.
Vásquez-RiveraA, OldenhofH, HilfikerA, et al.Spectral fingerprinting of decellularized heart valve scaffolds. Spectrochim Acta A Mol Biomol Spectrosc, 2019; 214:95–102; doi: 10.1016/J.SAA.2019.02.006
39.
ShiQ, ChenC, LiM, et al.Characterization of the distributions of collagen and PGs content in the decellularized book-shaped enthesis scaffolds by SR-FTIR. BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 2021; 22(1):235; doi: 10.1186/S12891-021-04106-X
40.
SohutskayDO, PulsTJ, Voytik-HarbinSL. Collagen self-assembly: Biophysics and biosignaling for advanced tissue generation. Studies in Mechanobiology, Tissue Engineering and Biomaterials Vol. 23; Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2020, pp. 203–245; doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-20182-1_7
41.
NaraS, ChameettachalS, MidhaS, et al.Preservation of biomacromolecular composition and ultrastructure of a decellularized cornea using a perfusion bioreactor. RSC Adv, 2016; 6(3):2225–2240; doi: 10.1039/C5RA20745B
42.
BergholtMS, SerioA, AlbroMB. Raman spectroscopy: Guiding light for the extracellular matrix. Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 2019; 7:303; doi: 10.3389/FBIOE.2019.00303
43.
NguyenTT, HappillonT, FeruJ, et al.Raman comparison of skin dermis of different ages: Focus on spectral markers of collagen hydration. J Raman Spectroscopy, 2013; 44(9):1230–1237; doi: 10.1002/JRS.4355
44.
TimchenkoEV, TimchenkoPE, LichtenbergA, et al.Assessment of decellularization of heart bioimplants using a Raman spectroscopy method. J Biomed Opt, 2017; 22(9):91511; doi: 10.1117/1.JBO.22.9.091511
45.
ZhangQ, Andrew ChanKL, ZhangG, et al.Raman microspectroscopic and dynamic vapor sorption characterization of hydration in collagen and dermal tissue. Biopolymers, 2011; 95(9):607–615; doi: 10.1002/BIP.21618
46.
EmamiA, Talaei-KhozaniT, VojdaniZ, et al.Comparative assessment of the efficiency of various decellularization agents for bone tissue engineering. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater, 2021; 109(1):19–32; doi: 10.1002/JBM.B.34677
47.
NaeemEM, SajadD, Talaei-KhozaniT, et al.Decellularized liver transplant could be recellularized in rat partial hepatectomy model. J Biomed Mater Res A, 2019; 107(11):2576–2588; doi: 10.1002/JBM.A.36763
48.
VillaretA, IpinazarC, SatarT, et al.Raman characterization of human skin aging. Skin Res Technol, 2019; 25(3):270–276; doi: 10.1111/SRT.12643
49.
XiaoH, ChenX, LiuX, et al.Recent advances in decellularized biomaterials for wound healing. Mater Today Bio, 2023; 19:100589; doi: 10.1016/J.MTBIO.2023.100589
50.
LeonelECR, DadashzadehA, MoghassemiS, et al.New solutions for old problems: How reproductive tissue engineering has been revolutionizing reproductive medicine. Ann Biomed Eng, 2023; 51(10):2143–2171; doi: 10.1007/S10439-023-03321-Y
51.
AlmeidaGHDR, IglesiaRP, Rinaldi J deC, et al.Current trends on bioengineering approaches for ovarian microenvironment reconstruction. Tissue Eng Part B Rev, 2022; 29(3):260–298; doi: 10.1089/TEN.TEB.2022.0171
52.
HanQ, DuY. Advances in the application of biomimetic endometrium interfaces for uterine bioengineering in female infertility. Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 2020; 8:153; doi: 10.3389/FBIOE.2020.00153/BIBTEX
53.
BrownellD, ChabaudS, BolducS. Tissue engineering in gynecology. Int J Mol Sci, 2022; 23(20); doi: 10.3390/IJMS232012319
54.
HellströmM, BandsteinS, BrännströmM. Uterine tissue engineering and the future of uterus transplantation. Ann Biomed Eng, 2017; 45(7):1718–1730; doi: 10.1007/S10439-016-1776-2
55.
YoshimasaY, TakaoT, KatakuraS, et al.A decellularized uterine endometrial scaffold enhances regeneration of the endometrium in rats. Int J Mol Sci, 2023; 24(8):7605; doi: 10.3390/IJMS24087605/S1
56.
DaryabariSS, FendereskiK, GhorbaniF, et al.Whole-organ decellularization of the human uterus and in vivo application of the bio-scaffolds in animal models. J Assist Reprod Genet, 2022; 39(6):1237–1247; doi: 10.1007/S10815-022-02492-2
57.
SehicE, BrännströmM, HellströmM. Progress in preclinical research on uterus bioengineering that utilizes scaffolds derived from decellularized uterine tissue. Biomedical Materials & Devices, 2022; 1(1):66–73; doi: 10.1007/S44174-022-00036-X
58.
LawrenceE, SimsJ, GanderA, et al.The barriers and motivators to using human tissues for research: the views of UK-based biomedical researchers. Biopreserv Biobank, 2020; 18(4):266–273; doi: 10.1089/BIO.2019.0138
59.
CampoH, BaptistaPM, López-PérezN, et al.De- and recellularization of the pig uterus: A bioengineering pilot study. Biol Reprod, 2017; 96(1):34–45; doi: 10.1095/BIOLREPROD.116.143396
60.
ShibruMG, AliZM, AlmansooriAS, et al.Slaughterhouse waste: A unique and sustainable source for dECM-based Bioinks. Regen Med, 2024; 19(3):113–118; doi: 10.2217/RME-2023-0194
61.
HellströmM, El-AkouriRR, SihlbomC, et al.Towards the development of a bioengineered uterus: Comparison of different protocols for rat uterus decellularization. Acta Biomater, 2014; 10(12):5034–5042; doi: 10.1016/J.ACTBIO.2014.08.018
62.
DaryabariSS, KajbafzadehAM, FendereskiK, et al.Development of an efficient perfusion-based protocol for whole-organ decellularization of the ovine uterus as a human-sized model and in vivo application of the bioscaffolds. J Assist Reprod Genet, 2019; 36(6):1211–1223; doi: 10.1007/S10815-019-01463-4
63.
NeishabouriA, Soltani KhaboushanA, DaghighF, et al.Decellularization in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine: Evaluation, modification, and application methods. Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 2022; 10:805299; doi: 10.3389/FBIOE.2022.805299/BIBTEX
64.
BadylakSF, TaylorD, UygunK. Whole-organ tissue engineering: decellularization and recellularization of three-dimensional matrix scaffolds. Annu Rev Biomed Eng, 2011; 13:27–53; doi: 10.1146/ANNUREV-BIOENG-071910-124743
65.
Capella-MonsonísH, CramerM, TurnerN, et al.The composition and mechanical properties of porcine placental ECM from three different breeds. Biomed Phys Eng Express, 2023; 9(6); doi: 10.1088/2057-1976/ACFB05
66.
FathiI, ImuraT, InagakiA, et al.Decellularized whole-organ pre-vascularization: A novel approach for organogenesis. Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 2021; 9:756755; doi: 10.3389/FBIOE.2021.756755/BIBTEX
67.
KaczynskiP, Goryszewska-SzczurekE, BarylaM, et al.Novel insights into conceptus–maternal signaling during pregnancy establishment in pigs. Mol Reprod Dev, 2023; 90(7):658–672; doi: 10.1002/MRD.23567
68.
LenhartJA, RyanPL, OhlethKM, et al.Relaxin increases secretion of tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinase-1 and -2 during uterine and cervical growth and remodeling in the pig. Endocrinology, 2002; 143(1):91–98; doi: 10.1210/ENDO.143.1.8562
69.
GilpinA, YangY. Decellularization strategies for regenerative medicine: From processing techniques to applications. Biomed Res Int, 2017; 2017:9831534; doi: 10.1155/2017/9831534
70.
HuangD, LiangJ, YangJ, et al.Current status of tissue regenerative engineering for the treatment of uterine infertility. Tissue Eng Part B Rev, 2023; 29(5):558–573; doi: 10.1089/TEN.TEB.2022.0226
71.
WeiZ, HuY, HeX, et al.Biomaterializing the advances in uterine tissue engineering. iScience, 2022; 25(12):105657; doi: 10.1016/J.ISCI.2022.105657
72.
MikiF, MaruyamaT, MiyazakiK, et al.The orientation of a decellularized uterine scaffold determines the tissue topology and architecture of the regenerated uterus in rats. Biol Reprod, 2019; 100(5):1215–1227; doi: 10.1093/BIOLRE/IOZ004
73.
LiX, LvHF, ZhaoR, et al.Recent developments in bio-scaffold materials as delivery strategies for therapeutics for endometrium regeneration. Mater Today Bio, 2021; 11:100101; doi: 10.1016/J.MTBIO.2021.100101
74.
CramerMC, BadylakSF. Extracellular matrix-based biomaterials and their influence upon cell behavior. Ann Biomed Eng, 2020; 48(7):2132–2153; doi: 10.1007/S10439-019-02408-9
75.
WuT, GaoYY, TangXN, et al.Construction of artificial ovaries with decellularized porcine scaffold and its elicited immune response after xenotransplantation in mice. J Funct Biomater, 2022; 13(4):165; doi: 10.3390/JFB13040165/S1
76.
AhnS, LeeKY, ParkerKK, et al.Formation of multi-component extracellular matrix protein fibers. Sci Rep, 2018; 8(1):1913; doi: 10.1038/S41598-018-20371-8
77.
TotonelliG, MaghsoudlouP, GarriboliM, et al.A rat decellularized small bowel scaffold that preserves villus-crypt architecture for intestinal regeneration. Biomaterials, 2012; 33(12):3401–3410; doi: 10.1016/J.BIOMATERIALS.2012.01.012
78.
FrazãoLP, Vieira de CastroJ, Nogueira-SilvaC, et al.Decellularized human chorion membrane as a novel biomaterial for tissue regeneration. Biomolecules, 2020; 10(9):1–16; doi: 10.3390/BIOM10091208
79.
FranchiM, KyriakopoulouK, MierkeCT. Extracellular matrix cues regulate mechanosensing and mechanotransduction of cancer cells. Cells, 2024; 13(1):96; doi: 10.3390/CELLS13010096
de MeloLF, AlmeidaGHDR, AzariasFR, et al.Decellularized bovine skeletal muscle scaffolds: structural characterization and preliminary cytocompatibility evaluation. Cells, 2024; 13(8); doi: 10.3390/CELLS13080688
82.
FangS, McLeanJ, ShiL, et al.Anisotropic mechanical properties of the human uterus measured by spherical indentation. Ann Biomed Eng, 2021; 49(8):1923–1942; doi: 10.1007/S10439-021-02769-0
83.
FrankoR, FrankoY, Ribes MartinezE, et al.Mechanical properties of native and decellularized reproductive tissues: Insights for tissue engineering strategies. Sci Rep, 2024; 14(1):7347; doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-57867-5
84.
MahonOR, BroweDC, Diaz-PaynoPJ, et al.Extracellular matrix scaffolds derived from different musculoskeletal tissues drive distinct macrophage phenotypes and direct tissue-specific cellular differentiation. J Immunol Regen Med, 2021; 12:100041; doi: 10.1016/J.REGEN.2021.100041
85.
da Silva Nunes BarretoR, da Silva JúniorLN, Henrique Doná Rodrigues AlmeidaG, et al.Placental scaffolds as a potential biological platform for embryonic stem cells differentiation into hepatic-like cells lineage: A pilot study. Tissue Cell, 2023; 84:102181; doi: 10.1016/J.TICE.2023.102181
86.
TanJ, ZhangQY, HuangLP, et al.Decellularized scaffold and its elicited immune response towards the host: The underlying mechanism and means of immunomodulatory modification. Biomater Sci, 2021; 9(14):4803–4820; doi: 10.1039/D1BM00470K
87.
KasraviM, AhmadiA, BabajaniA, et al.Immunogenicity of decellularized extracellular matrix scaffolds: A bottleneck in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Biomater Res, 2023; 27(1):10; doi: 10.1186/S40824-023-00348-Z
88.
SheikhZ, BrooksPJ, BarzilayO, et al.Macrophages, foreign body giant cells and their response to implantable biomaterials. Materials (Basel), 2015; 8(9):5671–5701; doi: 10.3390/MA8095269
89.
AndersonJM. Biocompatibility and bioresponse to biomaterials. Principles of Regenerative Medicine. Elsevier Science, 2019, pp. 675–694; doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-809880-6.00039-4
90.
WitherelCE, AbebayehuD, BarkerTH, et al.Macrophage and fibroblast interactions in biomaterial-mediated fibrosis. Adv Healthc Mater, 2019; 8(4):e1801451; doi: 10.1002/ADHM.201801451
