Skip to main content
Download PDF

Progress in biomechanical stimuli on the cell-encapsulated hydrogels for cartilage tissue regeneration

Biomaterials Research volume 27, Article number: 22 (2023) Cite this article

A Correction to this article was published on 24 July 2023

This article has been updated

Abstract

Background

Worldwide, many people suffer from knee injuries and articular cartilage damage every year, which causes pain and reduces productivity, life quality, and daily routines. Medication is currently primarily used to relieve symptoms and not to ameliorate cartilage degeneration. As the natural healing capacity of cartilage damage is limited due to a lack of vascularization, common surgical methods are used to repair cartilage tissue, but they cannot prevent massive damage followed by injury.

Main body

Functional tissue engineering has recently attracted attention for the repair of cartilage damage using a combination of cells, scaffolds (constructs), biochemical factors, and biomechanical stimuli. As cyclic biomechanical loading is the key factor in maintaining the chondrocyte phenotype, many studies have evaluated the effect of biomechanical stimulation on chondrogenesis. The characteristics of hydrogels, such as their mechanical properties, water content, and cell encapsulation, make them ideal for tissue-engineered scaffolds. Induced cell signaling (biochemical and biomechanical factors) and encapsulation of cells in hydrogels as a construct are discussed for biomechanical stimulation-based tissue regeneration, and several notable studies on the effect of biomechanical stimulation on encapsulated cells within hydrogels are discussed for cartilage regeneration.

Conclusion

Induction of biochemical and biomechanical signaling on the encapsulated cells in hydrogels are important factors for biomechanical stimulation-based cartilage regeneration.

Introduction

Human tissue has a limited capacity for self-regeneration, which has prompted widespread interest in tissue regeneration and sped up the development of regenerative medicine that can replace or fix damaged organs or tissues. To create functional replacements for injured tissues, tissue engineering combines the principles of biology and engineering. One of the main research directions in tissue engineering is the regulation of cell fate [1]. Multiple environmental signals, including biochemical stimuli, mechanical forces, biomaterial characteristics, scaffold properties and extracellular matrix properties, work together to promote tissue formation [2]. The requirements to create tissue constructions that can mimic native tissues in terms of function, architecture, composition, and dynamics are still present in studies on the regeneration of diseased and injured tissues [3].

There are ample evidences that cells are under specific conditions and exposed to different types of stress, including tensile, compressive, and shear stress in normal biological systems [4]. As examples, endothelial cells are more responsive to shear loads, fibroblasts are more responsive to tensile loads, and chondrocytes more responsive to compressive loads [5]. Some tissues, such as bone, cartilage, tendon, and dental tissues, are considered to be the most load-bearing tissues, which mean that the cells of those tissues encounter different loads and forces under physiological conditions [6, 7]. It can be concluded that for growth and remodeling or for maintaining biomechanical hemostasis of the load-bearing tissue, biomechanical factors should be considered in tissue engineering constructs [4, 5]. Moreover, traditional 2D culture has several limitations in mimicking the responses of patient tissues and organs, and 2D culture systems are unable to simulate specific cell characteristics [8]. In light of this, recent research has focused on 3D models that more closely resemble natural microenvironments [8, 9].

Cartilage is a connective tissue found in different parts of the human body. Based on the ECM component, it is categorized as hyaline, fibrous, and elastic cartilage [10, 11]. Elastic cartilage contains a high amount of elastin, which gives it biomechanical springiness and flexibility. It contains both collagen types I and II, and can be found in locations such as the outer ear and epiglottis [11]. Fibrocartilage is a strong and flexible connective tissue which is found in intervertebral discs and knee meniscus, and its main component is collagen type I. While fibrocartilage has low compressive and high tensile characteristics, hyaline cartilage has higher compressive strength and lower tensile strength [12]. Hyaline cartilage is the third and most common form of cartilage and mainly contains type II collagen. Further, it is divided into articular and non-articular hyaline cartilage. Articular cartilage can be found on the surface of articulating bones, but non-articular cartilage can be found on the nose, larynx, and end of the ribs [11]. Because collagen type I is a marker of fibrocartilage and hyaline cartilage contains little to no collagen type I, its presence of collagen type I poses a significant obstacle to the regeneration of articular cartilage [12, 13]. It is necessary to assess the amount of collagen type I/collagen type II in all cartilage regeneration studies, as a high collagen type I/collagen type II ratio indicates fibrocartilage formation rather than hyaline cartilage formation [12].

The articular cartilage has substantial clinical significance because its damage can result in serious musculoskeletal dysfunction [14]. Cartilage has received considerable interest in tissue engineering because of its limited ability to heal and repair due to lack of blood supply. Articular cartilage is a load-bearing and avascular tissue with different zones that covers the bone surface as a smooth and lubricating layer to reduce wear during movement and distribute force along the joint (Fig. 1A) [10, 15]. Articular chondrocytes are the only cells in the healthy cartilage that produce and maintain the cartilaginous matrix. The matrix components provide articular cartilage with biomechanical properties [4, 16]. The extracellular matrix (ECM) and pericellular matrix (PCM) are the two principal components of articular cartilage. PCM aids in shielding cartilage chondrocytes from mechanical pressures, which is weak in osteoarthritis patients [17]. It is necessary to apply biomechanical stimulation of sufficient magnitude to develop and maintain healthy articular cartilage phenotypes [18]. Following cartilage under loading, chondrocytes undergo a variety of physiological changes, including hydrostatic pressure, osmotic pressure, and electric potential gradient changes, which are known to affect their metabolism [4]. Overloading of cartilage causes injury (under 50–70% strain) and cell death (under 70–90% strain) [19]. The optimal biomechanical conditions for in vitro cartilage tissue engineering likely depend on the desired outcome (e.g., homeostasis, maturation, or mineralization) [20]. The cell response to biomechanical stimulation depends on the culture conditions, including the type of scaffold and time of force administration [21].

Fig. 1
figure 1

A Various zones and structure of articular cartilage, B Cartilage Tissue regeneration; different types of cartilage tissue and affective factors in tissue regeneration

Full size image

Two types of biomaterial supports can be used for cartilage regeneration: hydrogels and microporous scaffolds [22]. Hydrogels are polymers with the ability to absorb high water content and a structure similar to that of the native tissue [23]. Hydrogels are biocompatible and can be used as substrates in soft tissue engineering [24, 25]. In addition, the structure can be modified by creating a composite with other polymers or nanoparticles [26, 27]. Various hydrogels, including the biomedical polymers of gelatin-methacrylate(GelMA), hyaluronic acid, collagen, chondroitin sulfate, chitosan, and agarose, have been used in cartilage tissue engineering and regeneration [28,29,30,31,32,33]. It was also shown that by embedding chondrocytes within the hydrogel, the phenotype and morphology of the cells are maintained in normal conditions [34]. However, the main limitation of hydrogels is their low strength to forces. Therefore, as a biomaterial in a physiological scenario for cartilage repair, the characterization of additional favorable properties is desired, such as bioadhesion to cartilage, the ability to embed high cell densities while minimizing exogenous cell invasion, and the maintenance of its mechano-resilience under simulated joint load [35].

As mentioned earlier, the physical and chemical characteristics of the substrate can affect cell fate, as cells can translate and sense biomechanical cues in their environments [36]. To mimic native tissue in in vitro tissue engineering, it is necessary for the tissue engineering scientists and engineers to understand these signals and copy the stimulation occurring in native tissue. In this article, we review different signaling pathways and applications of biomechanical stimulations in hydrogel-based cartilage tissue engineering, as shown in (Fig. 1B).

Signals for tissue regeneration

Cell Signaling in tissue engineering

Tissue engineering scaffolds are ideal when they are biocompatible and can mimic the native tissue microenvironment and biomechanical properties. In addition, the biodegradability of a scaffold should be considered based on its application to tissue engineering. Stem cell fate can be regulated by interactions between the scaffold microenvironment and cells. These interactions mainly include chemical and physical signals [37]. Therefore, to study the characteristics of a hydrogel scaffold for specific applications, it is necessary to understand the underlying mechanisms of chemical and physical cues affecting cell behavior and other living components [37].

Biochemical signaling

A variety of biochemical factors can affect cell functions, including the chemical and biochemical properties and morphologies of the ECM material surface, combination of bioactive materials, cell adhesion proteins and peptides, cell coculture, and cell adhesion [38]. For example, stem cells respond to growth factors. Several growth factors, including platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), insulin-like growth factor(IGF)-1, hepatocyte growth factor(HGF), bone morphological proteins(BMP), transforming growth factor(TGF), fibroblast growth factor(FGF), epidermal growth factor(EGF), and angiopoietin are among these types [39, 40]. Growth factors have also been used to induce cell differentiation and proliferation. Stem cells can differentiate into vascular endothelial cells when certain growth factors such as VEGF are present [41]. As for heart repair, the literature reports that injection of VEGF-gene modified MSC into the heart followed by myocardial infarction increased cell implantation and improved cardiac function compared to unmodified MSC [42]. Regeneration fields, such as bone and cartilage regeneration, also use growth factors. A wide range of cytokines are known to promote bone formation, including BMP, PDGF, TGF-beta, FGF, and IGF; or BMP is known to induce chondrogenic and osteogenic differentiation in mesenchymal stem cell [43,44,45]. The characteristics of the biomaterial are also important when it comes to cell fate affected by biochemical signaling [46]. For example, cell adhesion is dependent on the biomaterial species and compositions as well as cell adhesion peptides and proteins used as the substrates, which can affect cell differentiation, migration, and proliferation. Peptides such as RGD, LDV, YIGSR have been synthesized and applied for cell adhesion in tissue engineering. Cell membrane receptors, such as integrins, are links between the cell and its microenvironment, and are important for cells to be connected to the ECM. In addition, the biomaterials can cause cell toxicity and lead to apoptosis depending on their species and compositions [47]. However, owing to unknown signaling pathways in cells, it is challenging to guide and manipulate cell fate.

Biomechanical signaling

Development of advanced fabrication devices using various methods has enabled scientists to overcome some of these challenges [48]. A variety of scaffolds, microchips and bioreactors with different features and functions have been developed via micro/nano engineering methods to study the effect of biomechanical cues in the microenvironment on cell fate in tissue engineering [49,50,51,52,53]. As mentioned above, receptor-ligand interactions, ion channel gates, and other biomechanical cues can be detected by cells as they can convert external stimuli in their environment, such as scaffold properties, substrate topography, and applied tension and compression, into electrochemical responses [54]. These microenvironments can be stimulated and controlled by biomechanical signals from a bioreactor such as compression with static, dynamic and shear stress as well as electrical stimulus. This indicates that externally applied biomechanical cues cause a potential change in the cell membrane and lead to electrochemical activities. Recently, investigating cell responses to biomechanical factors in the environment has become a topic of interest because it is possible to direct cell fate in a specific and desired application [55].

Stimulation signaling in cartilage tissue engineering

In cartilage tissue engineering, biomechanical stimulation is used to develop and maintain the function of cartilage tissue, which is important for tissue transplantation [56,57,58]. The biomechanical environment under in vivo conditions, such as fluid shear, compression, and hydrostatic pressure, and cyclic load bearing should be considered when developing engineered articular cartilage. Various types of stimulating loads or biomechanical cues on cells, leading to the initiation of biochemical signaling pathways (Fig. 2A). Bioreactors are also designed to apply adequate 3-dimensional biomechanical stimuli like native cartilage for preferable creating engineered in vitro tissues. Petri-dishes are utilized 2-dimensionally to provide nutrition as a basic static bioreactor [59]. However, simulation to the cells of biomechanical forces by bioreactors such as pressure or tension is required for cartilage tissue regeneration by providing mechanisms such as stirring, compression or rolling. The native cartilage stress state is reflected and controlled by each of the applied forced by the bioreactor. By using bioreactors for cartilage tissue construction, it is not only possible to apply noncontact forces, such as magnetic or electric field forces, but also to control environmental conditions, such as hydrogel species and composition, ions, pHs and temperatures. It is important to note that bioreactors in cartilage tissue engineering have two main advantages. A bioreactor can be used to mimic the physical and biomechanical conditions necessary for cartilage growth and development. Alternatively, we can measure the online tissue status and behavior of chondrocytes using digital image processing technology to improve cartilage development in vitro by assessing the impact of different culture conditions [60]. Physiological loading bioreactor systems have been adopted for cultivating engineered cartilage tissues with load-bearing capabilities under the concept of cartilage functional tissue engineering (FTE). Various in vitro and in vivo studies have demonstrated that biomechanical loading maintains articular cartilage [61]. Through dynamic compression loading applied to engineered constructs using agarose as a scaffold material, extracellular matrix composition can be modulated, resulting in cartilage tissues with a Young's modulus close to native values [62]. Bian et el. used agarose hydrogel seeded with adult canine chondrocytes that were subjected to dynamic loading to determine the efficacy of a modified FTE protocol. In their study, the dynamic loading of constructs using bioreactors was applied in unconfined axial compressive deformational loading and sliding contact loading methods for 3 h each day (Fig. 2B) [63]. In another study, Tran et al. have tried to centrifuge a high-density chondrocyte resuspension on an agarose layer in order to create tissue-engineered cartilage from porcine chondrocytes without using a scaffold. They have also increased the biomechanical and biochemical properties of their constructs by culturing them in a bioreactor to apply biomechanical stimulation. With this method, sizeable tissue-engineered cartilage can be produced from porcine chondrocytes [64].

Fig. 2
figure 2

A schematic of biomechanical factors affecting encapsulated cell leading to the initiation of biochemical signaling pathways and different cellular responses, B mechanism of applying shear stress on hydrogel-based scaffold in a bioreactor, C myoblast maturation with a striated pattern under different strain forces observed with a confocal microscope, derived from [65]

Full size image

Following section focuses on hydrogels designed for delivering biomechanical signals to cells encapsulated in hydrogels in tissue engineering applications.

Hydrogels to deliver biomechanical cues

Both natural and synthetic hydrogels can be used as an ECM to deliver biomechanical cues to the cells. Generally, natural polymer-based hydrogels exhibit weaker biomechanical properties with better biocompatibility, whereas synthetic polymer-based hydrogels exhibit higher mechanical stability with better design ability. However, altering the constituent polymer compositions, functional groups, molecular weight, and crosslinking method can change the final biochemical, morphological and biomechanical properties of hydrogels [66].

3D culture microenvironment in cell-encapsulated hydrogels

Owing to the differences between in vitro 2D and 3D cell environments, engineering of 3D scaffolds has emerged as a novel approach in tissue engineering. Among all the biomaterials used in this approach, hydrogel-based scaffolds have shown great potential for easy cell encapsulation with biocompatibility and biomimetic of ECM properties, as they can mimic the 3D cell environment of natural tissues. The hydrogel-based scaffold should induce changes in cell functions to regulate cell fate (proliferation, migration, and differentiation) by withstanding biomechanical loads and allowing nutrient transport [67, 68]. To design a hydrogel scaffold that delivers biomechanical stimulation to cells, it is important to study its polymer species and their properties and stimulation approaches. The results of 2D studies of different cells, such as mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), showed that cell behavior differs by manipulating the mechanical properties of scaffolds, such as stiffness and mechanical loads [69, 70]. In 3D models, the development of hydrogel-based scaffolds allows researchers to tune the biocompatibility, water content, biomechanical loads, and other mechanical and physical properties to mimic a 3D cell environment of tissues.

The most important method for manipulating the degrees of stiffness is altering the polymer species, composition, concentration of the hydrogel. Glioblastoma is an aggressive type of cancer that is resistant to conventional treatments. To study the most invasive phenotype of glioblastoma, Erickson et al. fabricated chitosan–hyaluronic acid polyelectrolyte scaffolds with various stiffness values. The results indicated that glioblastoma cells were more resistant to chemotherapy when cultured in scaffolds with higher stiffness [71]. Pore size and shapes are other factors that affect the cell fate. Brennan et al. observed that human bone marrow stem cell scaffolds showed better results with a 100 μm pore size poly(ε-caprolactone) scaffold than 200 and 300 μm, leading to collagen and mineral deposition of hMSCs into the scaffolds. The pore size decrease caused the scaffold stiffer, which had a positive effect on the osteogenic differentiation of the stem cells, leading to deposition of collagen and mineral into the scaffolds [72]. The use of different cross-linking agents (physical and chemical) for hydrogels also leads to different stiffness values. Sridharan et al. used three different crosslinkers for collagen to study macrophages behavior on scaffolds. As shown in the results, macrophage responses to chemical and physical crosslinkers are not the same, and they can be chosen based on the application. They reported that EDAC (1-Ethyl-3-(3-dimethylaminopropyl)carbodiimide) cross-linking promotes both proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory responses from macrophages. That makes it a suitable cross-linking agent for tissue engineering applications, but genipin cross-linked scaffolds may be suitable for applications where any inflammatory response needs to be suppressed [73]. Hydrogel properties such as polymer species, composition, molecular weight, crosslinking density, mechanical heterogeneity and related environments such as time, pH, temperature, and addition of nanomaterials such as calcium phosphate, carbon nanotubes and fibers are among other methods used to alter the stiffness of hydrogel-based scaffolds [74].

Biomechanical loads are other parameters that cells encapsulated in hydrogels can sense, and it is important to study their responses as ligaments, tendons, cartilage, heart beating, muscles, and many other tissues exposed to these mechanical loads. Kong et al. developed a microdevice that mimics the biochemical microenvironment of cardiac tissue. This device applies compression to gelatin-methacrylate(GelMA) hydrogel scaffolds containing cardiac fibroblasts. As revealed by their study, cardiac fibroblasts can spread into the hydrogel-based scaffold and proliferate under cyclic compression. Additionally, a transition of phenotypes from fibroblast to myofibroblast was observed under 15 – 20% of strains [75]. In another study by Chen et al., myoblast cell encapsulated GelMA microfibers were treated with different ratios of uniaxial stretching. Myofiber growth and contractility increased depending to the stretching ratio (Fig. 2C) [65]. The effect of cyclic tensile loads on hMSCs cultured in poly(ethylene glycol)-based hydrogel scaffolds was also examined. No difference was observed in the cell populations in both the control and mechanically stimulated samples. However, cells under cyclic strains tend to express tendon/ligament fibroblastic genes [76]. In another study by Jeon et al., hMSCs were encapsulated in an alginate-gelatin hydrogel to study the impact of biomechanical cues on cell fate. Cyclic loadings in this research led to osteogenic differentiation and enhanced proliferation [77]. Rinoldi et al. observed enhanced cell fate as the result of biomechanical and biochemical stimulation on a cell-laden hydrogel thin layer on fiber substrates [78]. In another study, Lin et al. synthesized methacrylated hyaluronic acid to encapsulate MSCs, and the cell-containing scaffolds were exposed to compression loading. 7 days preconditioning incubation of MSCs in the chondrogenic induction medium containing 10 ng/mL TGF-β1 and another 7 days growth in basal growth medium (α-MEM) were administered before hydrogel encapsulation. Synergistic effects on chondrogenic differentiation and more viability were observed as a consequence of precondition and mechanical loads [79]. Overall, applying mechanical stretches and compressions, shear stress, and stress/strains to hydrogel-based scaffolds, as well as altering their stiffness, are methods for manipulating cell fate in tissue engineering applications [80].

As mentioned earlier, 3D-culture of cells in a hydrogel scaffold, subjecting it to suitable biomechanical stimuli before implantation, is one approach to cartilage tissue regeneration. Another approach is using injectable hydrogels to make a 3D microenvironment in the human body. It is an emerging strategy that can deliver growth factors and therapeutic cells to the defect area, also it is less invasive and can easily fill the irregular shape and depth of the defect area [81, 82]. Several natural polymers have been utilized in injectable systems, including collagen, chitosan, gelatin, alginate, hyaluronan, elastin, heparin and chondroitin sulfate as examples [83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91]. A wide variety of injectable systems have been studied, but fibrin-, hyaluronic-, gelatin- and alginate-based hydrogels have received the most attention. There are several methods for in situ gelation, including photo, chemical and enzymatic crosslinking, pH-induced and temperature-induced gelation, ionic and hydrophobic interactions [83]. Table 1 shows some examples of cell-encapsulating hydrogels used in cartilage tissue engineering.

Table 1 Examples of cell-encapsulating hydrogel used in cartilage tissue regeneration. Further detailed information of stimulation, cells and gels is described in Table2
Full size table

Factors affecting cellular responses on biomechanical stimuli-induced cartilage tissue regeneration via cell-encapsulated hydrogels

As articular cartilage is subjected to different biomechanical forces, several in vivo and in vitro studies have been conducted to evaluate the effect of biomechanical stimuli on chondrogenesis. Biomechanical stimulus is a promising tool for designing a biomimetic 3D environment for chondrogenic models [101]. In addition to imitating the natural tissue environment, biomechanical stimuli can 1) help cells penetrate the hydrogel scaffold [102], 2) enhance the mechanical properties of regenerative cartilage tissues [103, 104], and 3) enhance nutrient delivery and local oxygen availability for cells in hydrogels [105].

It is well recognized that articular cartilage has different zones as described in previous, and the properties of each zone differ [106, 107]. The in vivo biomechanical load condition in the cartilage varies in the zones, with the strain in the superficial zone being the highest and that in the deep zone being the lowest. Chondrocytes on the surface endure both compressive and shear strains, but stimulation in the deeper layers is mostly compressive. This biomechanical load causes a different elastic modulus; in the superficial zone, it is less than that in the deep zone [108, 109]. Several factors should be considered to imitate the natural properties of the cartilage environment and determine the ideal setting for biomechanical stimuli to promote cartilage growth [110]. In following section, the factors affecting cellular response is discussed for some significant recent studies.

Cell type

For 3D-cell-laden hydrogels, several cell types, such as different types of stem cells or specific tissue cell types, or their co-cultures have been used for tissue regeneration. Stem cell source is a crucial factor that should be considered when designing cartilage-engineered constructs. MSCs are well-known for being a great cell source owing to easiness of cell isolation, ability to self-renew, and chondrogenic differentiation. Comparing all MSC source, synovium-derived mesenchymal stem cells (SMSCs) are one of the promising stem cells for cartilage regeneration [98, 111]. It should be also considered that during chondrogenic development, BMSCs exhibit a much higher tendency for osteogenesis [112]. Ossification and hypertrophic differentiation during chondrogenic induction are yet another significant issue in long-term MSC cultures [113]. Researchers have assessed several cell types for their chondrogenic models because each type of stem cell responds differently to biomechanical stimulation. In the study by Luo et al., two different sources of stem cells were utilized to study the effect of dynamic culture on cells encapsulated in agarose hydrogel: Porcine BM derived stem cells (BMSCs) and fat pad(FP)-derived stem cells (FPSCs); BMSCs were a better choice to attain cartilage matrix with better biomechanical properties, suppressed hypertrophy, and increased matrix accumulation compared to FPSCs [114]. Another study by Carroll et al. showed that adding physiological amounts of hydrostatic pressure (HP) to both infrapatellar fat pad-derived multipotent stromal cells (FPSCs) and multipotent stromal cells derived from porcine bone marrow (BMSCs) encapsulated in agarose hydrogels enhanced their biomechanical function and promoted the growth of a more stable cartilaginous phenotype [115]. In both groups, HP enhanced sulfated glycosaminoglycans (sGAG), but in FPSCs, HP caused less collagen accumulation compared to BMSCs [115]. HP can maintain the cartilaginous phenotype in FPSCs in the absence of chondrogenic medium (containing transforming growth factor, TGF-β3) compared with free swelling samples [115]. Terminal differentiation, a hypertrophic phenotype and precursor of endochondral ossification, is the greatest obstacle to the use of MSCs. In this regard, a study evaluated the compression-loading effect on the inhibition of hypertrophy in MSC encapsulated in agarose hydrogels. They described a biomimetic hydrogel with PEG as the main component, and two extracellular matrix analogs (cellular adhesion peptide based on RGD and a sGAG based on chondroitin sulfate) were integrated into the PEG hydrogel. This hydrogel enhanced chondrogenesis by upregulating collagen type II, but due to the expression of collagen X, the hypertrophy phenotype of cells was evident. However, applying biomechanical stimuli in certain regimes, (10% 0.3 Hz) and (5% 1 Hz), resulted in a more stable chondrogenic phenotype by inhibiting collagen X expression in the constructs [116].

Pre-culture conditioning before biomechanical stimulation

Throughout the chondrogenic differentiation process, stem cells' mechanosensitive response may vary [117]. Therefore, the duration of biomechanical stimuli and preculture before applying biomechanical stimuli is a crucial factor for cell fate. Dynamic compression at an early stage with limited preculture time downregulates chondrogenic markers such as COL2 and SOX9 [98]. Loading without preculture downregulates the sulphated glycosaminoglycans amount [118]. In the research conducted by McDermott et al., prior to two weeks of either static culture or dynamic compression, human bone marrow stromal cells (hMSCs) were cultured in fibrin hydrogels under chondrogenic priming conditions different times including 0, 2, 4, or 6 weeks. Their findings showed that a low priming time preserves chondrocyte homeostasis, and a long priming time causes cartilage maturation [20].

Cell density

Cell density is another crucial factor that regulates the effect of biomechanical stimuli on chondrogenesis, because cell density directly affects the density of progenitor cell condensation in cartilage formation. Bian et al. observed that the lower cell density encapsulated at the initiation time caused a delay in the effect of mechanical load on the construct compared to the high cell density in the long-time culture (70 days). The expression of hypertrophic markers by human MSC is considerably reduced by dynamic compressive loading, and the degree of calcification in MSC-seeded HA hydrogels is suppressed [113]. Therefore, when using MSCs, it is essential to have a proper cell-seeding density for cartilage tissue creation.

Growth factors

Biomechanical load can be used individually or in combination with other factors such as chondrogenic growth factors. TGF-β family; such as TGF-β1 and TGF-β3; is one the most popular growth factor for inducing chondrogenesis [119, 120]. Biomechanical stimuli are a promising tool for inducing chondrogenesis even in the absence of TGF-β [121]. Huang et al. showed that although TGF-β1 alone could be a promising tool to enhance chondrogenesis, collagen type II gene expression in rabbit BM-MSCs was more efficiently induced by the combination of cyclic compressive loading and TGF-β1 therapy, rather than by TGF-β1 alone. The effects of biomechanical stimulation on different stem cell types vary. Bone marrow MSC encapsulated in hydrogels express chondrogenic markers under biomechanical stimulation in the absence of TGF-β1. However, the expression of chondrogenic genes was downregulated in hEBd (human embryoid body-derived) stem cells in the absence of TGF-1. However, biomechanical compression promoted chondrogenic differentiation of hEBd cells after two weeks of TGF-1 conditioning. In particular, stimulation of 2.0–2.5 h (with 10% strain and 1 Hz) seems to be ideal for both cell groups in terms of their chondrogenic development, as demonstrated by the increase in gene expression and/or ECM formation [104]. Ge et al. investigated the effect of biomechanical dynamic compression on encapsulated human synovium-derived mesenchymal stem cells in agarose hydrogels, with and without TGF- β3. Pro-chondrogenic genes were upregulated by biomechanical compression alone, but the TGF- β3 therapy caused these genes to be upregulated much more. Regardless of TGF- β3 presence or absence, mechanical compression had an anti-hypertrophy impact [98].

In another study, Antunes et al. evaluated the effect of biomechanical and FGF-18v biochemical signals on primary bovine articular chondrocytes embedded in a fibrin-hyaluronan hydrogel. The moderate multiaxial load applied to the constructs showed an increase in sGAG/DNA. A significant effect of FGF-18v was observed only during loading, but not at rest. It increased cartilage ECM components such as ACAN, COMP, COL2, and PRG4, and decreased joint destruction factors, including MMP-9 and MMP-13 [122].

Aisenbrey et al. used a photo-clickable hydrogel for encapsulating induced pluripotent mesenchymal progenitor cells (iPS-MPs), and the individual and synergistic effect of TGF-β3, BMP2 and dynamic compression were evaluated. The best condition to induce stable chondrogenesis was the combination of TGF-β3 and compression loading, which also led to the inhibition of hypertrophy. Positive TGF-βRI expression with load enhanced Smad2/3 signaling and low SMAD1/5/8 signaling was observed. In summary, this study reports a promising cartilage-mimetic hydrogel for iPS-MPs that when combined with appropriate biochemical and biomechanical cues induces a stable chondrogenic phenotype [123].

Biomechanical stimulation (Load magnitude and frequency)

The scaffold could be subjected to a wide range of frequencies and loads. This range should be selected based on the target tissues. It has been proven that, for cartilage tissue, the load and frequency of loading should resemble human walking. Based on research conducted by Natenstedt et al., the best condition for cartilage tissue is 5–10 MPa with a frequency of 1 Hz for a week or more [124]. Kowsari-Esfahan et al. used microfluidic device for unidirectional compressive stimulation for cells and showed that 10% strain (among 0, 5, 10, 15, and 20%) was the optimal to induce chondrogenesis in encapsulated ADSCs in alginate hydrogel [125].

Type and number of applied biomechanical forces

Different bioreactors have been utilized to study the effects of external biomechanical stimuli on proliferation and chondrogenesis, including shear bioreactors, compression and perfusion, and hydrostatic pressure (HP) bioreactors [126]. Some studies have applied one biomechanical stimulus, and some have used hybrid bioreactors to apply multiple loads to the designed construct [127, 128]. In a study by Ogura et al., human articular chondrocytes encapsulated in agarose hydrogel and hydrostatic pressure and/or deviatoric stress were administered singly or in combination. They showed that each of these biomechanical stimulations played an independent role in altering cell proliferation and metabolic functions. In a cell construct, HP will be helpful promotes the synthesis of cartilage ECMs, whereas deviatoric stress has an ECM-catabolic effect [129].

Cochis et al. tested a novel thermos-reversible methyl-cellulose (MC) hydrogel. MSC were encapsulated in the MC solution and added to the polyurethane (PU) porous scaffold. The combination of shear and compression leads to a significant increase in chondrogenic gene expression and increased collagen 2 and GAGs [127]. In another study, a perfusion/pressurized bioreactor that combines shear stress and oscillating hydrostatic pressure (OHP) was used to study the effect of shear stress and shear stress/OHP with and without CM supplementation for cartilage regeneration in different culture techniques, including micro-mass, pellet and encapsulation. Bovine articular chondrocytes encapsulated in 2% agarose hydrogel were used. Regarding biochemical and biomechanical parameters, samples cultivated in pellets and micro-mass do not differ noticeably. However, agarose encapsulation significantly increased GAG and collagen secretion. Shear stress/OHP caused a higher increase in GAG and collagen secretion compared to individual shear stress. Moreover, it suppressed the expression of non-chondrogenic markers, including Collagen X, Collagen 1, and β1 integrin. It also increased the elastic moduli of the samples. CM had no significant effect on chondrogenesis [130]. Shadi et al. produced a chondrocyte-laden decellularized scaffold subjected to dynamic compression and shear stimuli in an ad hoc bioreactor. Decellularized ECM scaffolds appear to provide an appropriate microenvironment for chondrocyte activity. It was also shown that the bioreactor could mimic a load-bearing meniscus during joint movement [21].

Some studies of the biomechanical stimulation of cell-encapsulating hydrogels and cell responses are listed in Table 2 with the information of preculture time, biomechanical stimulation type and frequency, magnitude and its duration as well as cell types employed.

Table 2 Mechanical stimulation on cell containing hydrogel and responses
Full size table

Other studies

In an in vivo study by Lin et al., a scaffold composed of methacrylate hyaluronic acid hydrogel was used to encapsulate bone marrow-derived MSCs (Fig. 3A). In the first step, manipulated mesenchymal stem cells (M-MSCs) were obtained, and the cells were loaded in methacrylated hyaluronic acid. Afterwards, the constructs were dynamically loaded in chondrogenic media using the CartiGen Bioreactor System for 14 days. The constructs were subcutaneously implanted in nude mice for 30 days and osteochondral defects in rats for 8 weeks. Thirty days after implantation in nude mice, dynamical loading promoted neocartilage production in the hydrogel encapsulated with M-MSCs (Fig. 3A (6)). A rat model of osteochondral defects showed improved cartilage healing as well after 14 days implantation [79].

Fig. 3
figure 3

A 1: Procedure for chondrogenic preconditioning to obtain manipulated mesenchymal stem cells (M-MSCs), 2: Methacrylated hyaluronic acid (MeHA) loaded with cells undergoes UV-initiated x-linking, 3: compressive stress in a bioreactor for the MeHA hydrogel containing cells, 4: The constructions were subcutaneously implanted in nude mice for 30 days following 14 days of culture in a bioreactor, 5: Implantation in osteochondral defect in rats for 8 weeks after culturing in bioreactor for 14 days, 6: Following implantation in naked mice, a representative gross view of the resulting constructions is shown, reproduced content [79]. B The setup of the in vitro experiment and perfusion chamber, 1: Extraction and amplification of chondrocyte followed by seeding cells in fibrin hydrogel for 3 weeks in both static (well plate) and perfusion bioreactor while being exposed to BMP-2, insulin, and T3 (BIT), 2: Top and side views of macroscopic images displaying the cartilage gel centered in the human osteochondral block, reproduced content [133]. C 1: Schematic of the production process of alginate microgels, 2: Mixing concentrated alginate microgels with agarose hydrogel after 9 days culture, 3: Appling cyclic strain (5 ± 2%) to the agarose constructs containing alginate microgels in the custom-made bioreactor, reproduced content [17]. D 1–4: Osteochondral harvesting and defect creations, 5: osteochondral defect models are stimulated using a joint bioreactor with joint-specific biomechanical stimuli, reproduced content [132]. Reproduced content is open access-Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

Full size image

In an in vivo study by Dufour et al., synergistic effect of three combined soluble factors (BMP-2, insulin, and tri-iodothyronine, that is, BIT) and perfusion bioreactor on human chondrocyte cell encapsulated in the fibrin hydrogel were evaluated. Firstly, the cells were amplified in chondrogenic medium, followed by seeding cells in fibrin hydrogel for 3 weeks in both static and perfusion bioreactor while being exposed to BIT (Fig. 3B (1)). Treatment with a perfusion bioreactor before implantation caused integration with the native tissue (Fig. 3B (2)), as well as the secretion of cartilage matrix components such as type II and type VI collagen [133].

In a recent work and strategy used by Fredrikson et al., single chondrocytes were encapsulated in alginate microgels to mimic the PCM and microenvironment of a single chondrocyte cell using drop-based microfluidics (Fig. 3C (1)). Afterwards, single-cell microgels were embedded in agarose hydrogel to make the whole construct more accurate for the in vitro chondrocyte mechano-transduction model (Fig. 3C (2)). Higher collagen VI formation is reported in chondrocyte embedded microgels. The microgels displayed distinct metabolomic profiles from the uncompressed and monolayer controls after dynamic compression (Fig. 3C (3)) [17].

Behrendt et al. encapsulated human bone marrow–derived mesenchymal stem cells in tyramine-modified hyaluronic acid (HA-Tyr) hydrogels for osteochondral defects repair strategies. This bio-adhesive material is a promising carrier under biomechanical conditions for activating endogenous TGF-β1 in cells. For multiaxial loading, cell-laden hydrogels were subjected to 10% compression superimposed onto a 0.5-N preload and shear loading (± 25º) at 1 Hz for 1 h per day, 5 times in a week for 28 days [35].

As an ex vivo culture model, an osteochondral defect model was developed in a bioreactor that replicates the multi-axial motion of an articulating joint [132]. Osteochondral defects were created in the explant, filled with chondrocyte-laden fibrin-polyurethane scaffold, and subjected to confined shear and compression loads (Fig. 3D). Owing to the confined model, a hydrostatic pressure can also be built. More cartilage matrix deposition and chondrogenic differentiation occurred in the loaded samples than in the unloaded samples.

Summary and future direction

Owing to the importance of cartilage tissue regeneration, several studies have been performed to design models to imitate the natural cartilage environment and to match the native whole joint situation; however, none of them could completely mimic the entire complex structure of articular cartilage.

It is well recognized that biomechanical stimuli are a prominent tool for controlling the homeostasis and maturation process of chondrocytes. Along with biomechanical stimulation, several other factors should be considered including cell type and source, cell density, scaffold composition and properties, biochemical signals like growth factors, preculturing time before applying biomechanical stimuli, biomechanical stimulus type, bioreactor design, stimulation period, frequency, and loading patterns and frequency. Many studies have endeavored to determine optimized loading parameters for chondrogenic differentiation, especially in terms of magnitude and frequency. More studies should be conducted on other parameters, including loading initiation time and loading duration. A popular in vitro stimulation for cell-seeded biomaterials is cyclic compression loading because biomechanical stimulation within the joints is closest to this mode. However, the use of a hybrid bioreactor and synergistic effect of multiple and diverse loadings on the construct should be considered.

Since chondrocyte phenotypic expression can be preserved in agarose culture and its biochemical and biomechanical properties are analogous to those of natural cartilage, agarose hydrogel is mostly used in biomechanical loading studies. Therefore, as a construct for cartilage regeneration under biomechanical stimuli, more complex and advanced biomaterials mimicking native tissue should be considered. Moreover, few studies have attempted to replicate implantable cartilage constructs for clinical use.

Totally the advancement of cell-based therapy for repairing cartilage tissue can be achievable by chondrogenic preconditioning, implantable scaffold together with biomechanical stimulation to be able to load bearing in physiological condition.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Change history

Abbreviations

BMP:

Bone morphological proteins

ECM:

Extracellular matrix

EGF:

Epidermal growth factor

GelMA:

Gelatin-methacrylate

FGF:

Fibroblast growth factor

HA-Tyr:

Tyramine-modified hyaluronic acid

HGF:

Hepatocyte growth factor

HP:

Hydrostatic pressure

IGF:

Insulin-like growth factor

MC:

Methyl-cellulose

MeHA:

Methacrylated hyaluronic acid

M-MSCs:

Manipulated mesenchymal stem cells

MSC:

Mesenchymal stem cells

OHP:

Oscillating hydrostatic pressure

PCM:

Pericellular matrix

PDGF:

Platelet-derived growth factor

PU:

Polyurethane

sGAG:

Sulfated glycosaminoglycans

TGF:

Transforming growth factor

References

  1. Zelinka A, Roelofs AJ, Kandel RA, De Bari C. Cellular therapy and tissue engineering for cartilage repair. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2022;30:1547–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2022.07.012. (Available from:).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Zhang H, Liu MF, Liu RC, Shen WL, Yin Z, Chen X. Physical microenvironment-based inducible scaffold for stem cell differentiation and tendon regeneration. Tissue Eng. - Part B Rev. 2018. p. 443–53. https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.teb.2018.0018.

  3. Hong H, Seo YB, Kim DY, Lee JS, Lee YJ, Lee H, et al. Digital light processing 3D printed silk fibroin hydrogel for cartilage tissue engineering. Biomater Elsevier BV. 2020;232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2019.119679.

  4. Fahy N, Alini M, Stoddart MJ. Mechanical stimulation of mesenchymal stem cells: Implications for cartilage tissue engineering. J Orthop Res. 2018;36:52–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.23670.

  5. Eichinger JF, Haeusel LJ, Paukner D, Aydin RC, Humphrey JD, Cyron CJ. Mechanical homeostasis in tissue equivalents: a review. Biomech Model Mechanobiol. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 2021;20:833–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10237-021-01433-9. (Available from:).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Askari E, Rasouli M, Darghiasi SF, Naghib SM, Zare Y, Rhee KY. Reduced graphene oxide-grafted bovine serum albumin/bredigite nanocomposites with high mechanical properties and excellent osteogenic bioactivity for bone tissue engineering. Bio-Design Manuf. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42242-020-00113-4.

  7. Jeong CG, Atala A. 3D printing and Biofabrication for load bearing tissue engineering. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2015;881:3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22345-2_1.

  8. Fang Y, Eglen RM. Three-Dimensional Cell Cultures in Drug Discovery and Development. SLAS Discov. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087057117696795.

  9. Kapałczyńska M, Kolenda T, Przybyła W, Zajączkowska M, Teresiak A, Filas V, et al. 2D and 3D cell cultures – a comparison of different types of cancer cell cultures. Arch Med Sci. 2018;14:910–9. https://doi.org/10.5114/aoms.2016.63743.

  10. Huey DJ, Hu JC, Athanasiou KA. Unlike bone, cartilage regeneration remains elusive. Science. 2012;917–21. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1222454.

  11. Bielajew BJ, Hu JC, Athanasiou KA. Collagen: quantification, biomechanics and role of minor subtypes in cartilage. Nat Rev Mater. 2020;5:730–47. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-020-0213-1.

  12. Alizadeh Sardroud H, Wanlin T, Chen X, Eames BF. Cartilage Tissue Engineering Approaches Need to Assess Fibrocartilage When Hydrogel Constructs Are Mechanically Loaded. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022;9:1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Mithoefer K, Mcadams T, Williams RJ, Kreuz PC, Mandelbaum BR. Clinical efficacy of the microfracture technique for articular cartilage repair in the knee: An evidence-based systematic analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37:2053–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546508328414.

  14. Mobasheri A, Rayman MP, Gualillo O, Sellam J, Van Der Kraan P, Fearon U. The role of metabolism in the pathogenesis of osteoarthritis. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrrheum.2017.50.

  15. Gadjanski I, Spiller K, Vunjak-Novakovic G. Time-Dependent Processes in Stem Cell-Based Tissue Engineering of Articular Cartilage. Stem Cell Rev Reports. 2012;8:863–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12015-011-9328-5.

  16. Esfandyar A, et al. "Local delivery of chemotherapeutic agent in tissue engineering based on gelatin/graphene hydrogel." J Mater Res Technol. 2021;12:412–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2021.02.084.

  17. Fredrikson JP, Brahmachary PP, Erdoğan AE, Archambault ZK, Wilking JN, June RK, et al. Metabolomic Profiling and Mechanotransduction of Single Chondrocytes Encapsulated in Alginate Microgels. Cells. 2022;11. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells11050900.

  18. Salinas EY, Hu JC, Athanasiou K. A Guide for Using Mechanical Stimulation to Enhance Tissue-Engineered Articular Cartilage Properties. Tissue Eng - Part B Rev. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.teb.2018.0006.

  19. Sanchez-Adams J, Leddy HA, McNulty AL, O’Conor CJ, Guilak F. The Mechanobiology of Articular Cartilage: Bearing the Burden of Osteoarthritis. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2014;16:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11926-014-0451-6.

  20. McDermott AM, Eastburn EA, Kelly DJ, Boerckel JD. Effects of chondrogenic priming duration on mechanoregulation of engineered cartilage. J Biomech Elsevier Ltd. 2021;125:110580.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Shadi M, Talaei-Khozani T, Sani M, Hosseinie R, Parsaei H, Vojdani Z. Optimizing artificial meniscus by mechanical stimulation of the chondrocyte-laden acellular meniscus using ad hoc bioreactor. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2022;13:1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Panadero JA, Lanceros-Mendez S, Ribelles JLG. Differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells for cartilage tissue engineering: Individual and synergetic effects of three-dimensional environment and mechanical loading. Acta Biomater. 2016;33:1–12.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Mantha S, Pillai S, Khayambashi P, Upadhyay A, Zhang Y. Smart Hydrogels in Tissue Engineering and. Int J Pharm. 2019;12:33.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Naahidi S, Jafari M, Logan M, Wang Y, Yuan Y, Bae H, et al. Biocompatibility of hydrogel-based scaffolds for tissue engineering applications. Biotechnol Adv. 2017. p. 530–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2017.05.006.

  25. Kirschner CM, Anseth KS. Hydrogels in healthcare: From static to dynamic material microenvironments. Acta Mater. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2012.10.037.

  26. Bhattacharyya A, Janarthanan G, Kim T, Taheri S, Shin J, Kim J, et al. Modulation of bioactive calcium phosphate micro/nanoparticle size and shape during in situ synthesis of photo-crosslinkable gelatin methacryloyl based nanocomposite hydrogels for 3D bioprinting and tissue engineering. Biomater Res [Internet]. BioMed Central; 2022;26:1–17. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40824-022-00301-6. 

  27. Satarkar NS, Hilt JZ. Magnetic hydrogel nanocomposites for remote controlled pulsatile drug release. J Control Release. 2008;130:246–51.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Salati MA, Khazai J, Tahmuri AM, Samadi A, Taghizadeh A, Taghizadeh M, et al. Agarose-Based biomaterials: Opportunities and challenges in cartilage tissue engineering. Polymers (Basel). 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12051150.

  29. Yuan T, Zhang L, Li K, Fan H, Fan Y, Liang J, et al. Collagen hydrogel as an immunomodulatory scaffold in cartilage tissue engineering. J Biomed Mater Res - Part B Appl Biomater. 2014;102:337–44.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kim IL, Mauck RL, Burdick JA. Hydrogel design for cartilage tissue engineering: A case study with hyaluronic acid. Biomaterials. 2011;32:8771–82.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Li H, Qi Z, Zheng S, Chang Y, Kong W, Fu C, et al. The Application of Hyaluronic Acid-Based Hydrogels in Bone and Cartilage Tissue Engineering. Adv Mater Sci Eng. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/3027303.

  32. Gao G, Schilling AF, Hubbell K, Yonezawa T, Truong D, Hong Y, et al. Improved properties of bone and cartilage tissue from 3D inkjet-bioprinted human mesenchymal stem cells by simultaneous deposition and photocrosslinking in PEG-GelMA. Biotechnol Lett. 2015;37:2349–55.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Gu L, Li T, Song X, Yang X, Li S, Chen L, et al. Preparation and characterization of methacrylated gelatin/bacterial cellulose composite hydrogels for cartilage tissue engineering. Regen Biomater. 2021;7:195–202.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Vega SL, Kwon MY, Burdick JA. Recent advances in hydrogels for cartilage tissue engineering. Eur Cells Mater. 2017.10.22203/eCM.v033a05

  35. Behrendt P, Ladner Y, Stoddart MJ, Lippross S, Alini M, Eglin D, et al. Articular Joint-Simulating Mechanical Load Activates Endogenous TGF- b in a Highly Cellularized Bioadhesive Hydrogel for Cartilage Repair. Am J Sports Med. 2020;210–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546519887909.

  36. Ravalli S, Szychlinska MA, Lauretta G, Musumeci G. New insights on mechanical stimulation of mesenchymal stem cells for cartilage regeneration. Appl Sci. 2020;10. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10082927.

  37. Chen X, Fan H, Deng X, Wu L, Yi T, Gu L, et al. Scaffold structural microenvironmental cues to guide tissue regeneration in bone tissue applications. Nanomater. 2018. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano8110960.

  38. Bertucci TB, Dai G. BiBertucci TB, Dai G. Biomaterial engineering for controlling pluripotent stem cell fate. Stem Cells Int. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/9068203.

  39. Ponte AL, Marais E, Gallay N, Langonné A, Delorme B, Hérault O, et al. The In Vitro Migration Capacity of Human Bone Marrow Mesenchymal Stem Cells: Comparison of Chemokine and Growth Factor Chemotactic Activities. Stem Cells. 2007;25:1737–45.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Knight C, James S, Kuntin D, Fox J, Newling K, Hollings S, et al. Epidermal growth factor can signal via β-catenin to control proliferation of mesenchymal stem cells independently of canonical Wnt signalling. Cell Signal Elsevier. 2019;53:256–68.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Pons J, Huang Y, Arakawa-Hoyt J, Washko D, Takagawa J, Ye J, et al. VEGF improves survival of mesenchymal stem cells in infarcted hearts. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2008;376:419–22.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Tang JM, Wang JN, Zhang L, Zheng F, Yang JY, Kong X, et al. VEGF/SDF-1 promotes cardiac stem cell mobilization and myocardial repair in the infarcted heart. Cardiovasc Res. 2011;91:402–11.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Darghiasi SF, Askari E, Naghib SM. The Effect Of A Novel In Situ Akermanite-Monticilite Nanocomposite On Osteogenic Differentiation Of Mouse Mesenchymal Stem Cells. Progress in Canadian Mechanical Engineering. v 4. 2021. https://doi.org/10.32393/csme.2021.27.

  44. Lienemann PS, Lutolf MP, Ehrbar M. Biomimetic hydrogels for controlled biomolecule delivery to augment bone regeneration. Adv Drug Deliv Rev [Internet]. Elsevier BV. 2012;64:1078–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2012.03.010.

  45. Kuttappan S, Mathew D, ichiro Jo J, Tanaka R, Menon D, Ishimoto T, et al. Dual release of growth factor from nanocomposite fibrous scaffold promotes vascularisation and bone regeneration in rat critical sized calvarial defect. Acta Biomater. 2018;78:36–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2018.07.050. (Available from:).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Xing F, Li L, Zhou C, Long C, Wu L, Lei H, et al. Regulation and directing stem cell fate by tissue engineering functional microenvironments: Scaffold physical and chemical cues. Stem Cells Int. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/2180925.

  47. Palecek SP, Loftust JC, Ginsberg MH, Lauffenburger DA, Horwitz AF. Integrin-ligand binding properties govern cell migration speed through cell-substratum adhesiveness. Nature. 1997;385:537–40.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Ghazali HS, Askari E, Ghazali ZS, Naghib SM, Braschler T. Lithography-based 3D printed hydrogels: From bioresin designing to biomedical application. Colloid and Interface Science Communications. Elsevier BV. 2022;50:100667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colcom.2022.100667.

  49. Mabry KM, Lawrence RL, Anseth KS. Dynamic stiffening of poly(ethylene glycol)-based hydrogels to direct valvular interstitial cell phenotype in a three-dimensional environment. Biomaterials. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.01.047.

  50. Khetan S, Guvendiren M, Legant WR, Cohen DM, Chen CS, Burdick JA. Degradation-mediated cellular traction directs stem cell fate in covalently crosslinked three-dimensional hydrogels. Nat Mater. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat3586.

  51. Guvendiren M, Burdick JA. Stiffening hydrogels to probe short- and long-term cellular responses to dynamic mechanics. Nat Commun. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1792.

  52. Hazeltine LB, Selekman JA, Palecek SP. Engineering the human pluripotent stem cell microenvironment to direct cell fate. Biotechnology Advances. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.03.002.

  53. Ghazali ZS, Eskandari M, Bonakdar S, Renaud P, Mashinchian O, Shalileh S, et al. Neural priming of adipose-derived stem cells by cell-imprinted substrates. Biofabrication. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/abc66f.

  54. Chen W, Shao Y, Li X, Zhao G, Fu J. Nanotopographical surfaces for stem cell fate control: Engineering mechanobiology from the bottom. Nano Today. 2014;9:759–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nantod.2014.12.002.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Zhang Y, Habibovic P. Delivering Mechanical Stimulation to Cells: State of the Art in Materials and Devices Design. Adv Mater. 2022;34. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.202110267.

  56. Theodoropoulos JS, DeCroos AJN, Petrera M, Park S, Kandel RA. Mechanical stimulation enhances integration in an in vitro model of cartilage repair. Knee Surgery, Sport Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24:2055–64.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Grad S, Eglin D, Alini M, Stoddart MJ. Physical stimulation of chondrogenic cells in vitro: A review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:2764–72.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Li K, Zhang C, Qiu L, Gao L, Zhang X. Advances in application of mechanical stimuli in bioreactors for cartilage tissue engineering. Tissue Eng - Part B Rev. 2017;23:399–411.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Tran-Khanh N, Hoemann CD, McKee MD, Henderson JE, Buschmann MD. Aged bovine chondrocytes display a diminished capacity to produce a collagen-rich, mechanically functional cartilage extracellular matrix. J Orthop Res. 2005;23:1354–62.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Sophia Fox AJ, Bedi A, Rodeo SA. The basic science of articular cartilage: Structure, composition, and function. Sports Health. 2009;1:461–8.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Jin M, Frank EH, Quinn TM, Hunziker EB, Grodzinsky AJ. Tissue shear deformation stimulates proteoglycan and protein biosynthesis in bovine cartilage explants. Arch Biochem Biophys. 2001;395:41–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Mauck RL, Soltz MA, Wang CCB, Wong DD, Chao PHG, Valhmu WB, et al. Functional tissue engineering of articular cartilage through dynamic loading of chondrocyte-seeded agarose gels. J Biomech Eng. 2000;122:252–60.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Bian L, Fong JV, Lima EG, Stoker AM, Ateshian GA, Cook JL, et al. Dynamic mechanical loading enhances functional properties of tissue-engineered cartilage using mature canine chondrocytes. Tissue Eng - Part A. 2010;16:1781–90.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Tran SC, Cooley AJ, Elder SH. Effect of a mechanical stimulation bioreactor on tissue engineered, scaffold-free cartilage. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2011;108:1421–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Chen X, Du W, Cai Z, Ji S, Dwivedi M, Chen J, et al. Uniaxial Stretching of Cell-Laden Microfibers for Promoting C2C12 Myoblasts Alignment and Myofibers Formation. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2020;12:2162–70. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.9b22103.

  66. Kim MS, Kim JH, Min BH, Chun HJ, Han DK, Lee HB. Polymeric scaffolds for regenerative medicine. Polym Rev. 2011;51(1):23–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/15583724.2010.537800.

  67. Mueller C, Trujillo-Miranda M, Maier M, Heath DE, O’Connor AJ, Salehi S. Effects of External Stimulators on Engineered Skeletal Muscle Tissue Maturation. Adv Mater Interfaces. 2021;8.

  68. Mohajeri M, Eskandari M, Ghazali ZS, Ghazali HS. Cell encapsulation in alginate-based microgels using droplet microfluidics. A review on gelation methods and applications. Biomed Phys Eng Express. 8(2):022001. https://doi.org/10.1088/2057-1976/ac4e2d.

  69. Rasouli M, Darghiasi SF, Naghib SM, Rahmanian M. Multifunctional Hydroxyapatite-based Nanoparticles for Biomedicine: Recent Progress in Drug Delivery and Local Controlled Release. Curr Mech Adv Mater. 2020. https://doi.org/10.2174/2666184501999200420072949.

  70. Engler AJ, Sen S, Sweeney HL, Discher DE. Matrix Elasticity Directs Stem Cell Lineage Specification. Cell. 2006;

  71. Erickson AE, Levengood SKL, Sun J, Chang F. Fabrication and Characterization of Chitosan – Hyaluronic Acid Scaffolds with Varying Stiffness for Glioblastoma Cell Culture. 2018;1800295:1–9. Advanced healthcare materials. https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.201800295

  72. Brennan CM, Eichholz KF, Hoey DA. "The effect of pore size within fibrous scaffolds fabricated using melt electrowriting on human bone marrow stem cell osteogenesis." Biomed Mater. 2019;14(6):065016. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-605X/ab49f2.

  73. Brien FJO. Macrophage Polarization in Response to Collagen Sca ff old Sti ff ness Is Dependent on Cross-Linking Agent Used To Modulate the Sti ff ness. 2019;

  74. Luo T, Tan B, Zhu L, Wang Y, Liao J. A Review on the Design of Hydrogels With Different Stiffness and Their Effects on Tissue Repair. 2022;10:1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Kong M, Lee J, Yazdi IK, Miri AK, Lin YD, Seo J, et al. Cardiac Fibrotic Remodeling on a Chip with Dynamic Mechanical Stimulation. Adv Healthc Mater. 2019;8:1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Doroski DM, Levenston ME, Temenoff JS. Cyclic tensile culture promotes fibroblastic differentiation of marrow stromal cells encapsulated in poly(ethylene glycol)-based hydrogels. Tissue Eng - Part A. 2010;16:3457–66.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Jeon O, Shin JY, Marks R, Hopkins M, Kim TH, Park HH, et al. Highly elastic and tough interpenetrating polymer network-structured hybrid hydrogels for cyclic mechanical loading-enhanced tissue engineering. Chem Mater. 2017;29:8425–32.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Rinoldi C, Fallahi A, Yazdi IK, Campos Paras J, Kijeńska-Gawrońska E, Trujillo-De Santiago G, et al. Mechanical and Biochemical Stimulation of 3D Multilayered Scaffolds for Tendon Tissue Engineering. ACS Biomater Sci Eng. 2019;5:2953–64.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Lin S, Lee WYW, Feng Q, Xu L, Wang B, Man GCW, et al. Synergistic effects on mesenchymal stem cell-based cartilage regeneration by chondrogenic preconditioning and mechanical stimulation. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2017;8:1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Huang G, Wang L, Wang S, Han Y, Wu J, Zhang Q, et al. Engineering three-dimensional cell mechanical microenvironment with hydrogels. Biofabrication. 2012;4. https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5082/4/4/042001.

  81. Liu M, Zeng X, Ma C, Yi H, Ali Z, Mou X, et al. Injectable hydrogels for cartilage and bone tissue engineering. Bone Res. 2017;5. https://doi.org/10.1038/boneres.2017.14.

  82. Askari E, Seyfoori A, Amereh M, Gharaie SS, Ghazali HS, Ghazali ZS, et al. Stimuli-responsive hydrogels for local post-surgical drug delivery. Gels. 2020;6:1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Balakrishnan B, Banerjee R. "Biopolymer-based hydrogels for cartilage tissue engineering." Chem Rev. 2011;111(8):4453-74. https://doi.org/10.1021/cr100123h.

  84. Kaixuan R, et al. "Injectable glycopolypeptide hydrogels as biomimetic scaffolds for cartilage tissue engineering." Biomater. 2015;51:238-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.02.026.

  85. Gong Y, Wang C, Lai RC, Su K, Zhang F, Wang DA. An improved injectable polysaccharide hydrogel: Modified gellan gum for long-term cartilage regeneration in vitro. J Mater Chem. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1039/B818090C.

  86. Bidarra SJ, Barrias CC, Granja PL. "Injectable alginate hydrogels for cell delivery in tissue engineering." Acta Biomater. 2014;10(4):1646-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2013.12.006.

  87. Hye Jin S, Thambi T, Sung Lee D. "Heparin-based temperature-sensitive injectable hydrogels for protein delivery." J Mater Chem B. 2015;3(45):8892-901. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5TB01399B.

  88. Wang F, et al. "Injectable, rapid gelling and highly flexible hydrogel composites as growth factor and cell carriers." Acta Biomater. 2010;6(6):1978-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2009.12.011.

  89. Fathi A, Mithieux SM, Wei H, Chrzanowski W, Valtchev P, Weiss AS, et al. Elastin based cell-laden injectable hydrogels with tunable gelation, mechanical and biodegradation properties. Biomaterials. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.03.026.

  90. Sargeant TD, et al. "An in situ forming collagen–PEG hydrogel for tissue regeneration." Acta Biomater. 2012;8(1):124-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2011.07.028.

  91. Li Y, Huayu T, Xuesi C. "Hyaluronic acid based injectable hydrogels for localized and sustained gene delivery." Journal of controlled release: official journal of the Controlled Release Society. 2015;213:e140-1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconrel.2015.05.237.

  92. Han SS, Yoon HY, Yhee JY, Cho MO, Shim HE, Jeong JE, et al. In situ cross-linkable hyaluronic acid hydrogels using copper free click chemistry for cartilage tissue engineering. Polym Chem. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7PY01654A.

  93. He T, Li B, Colombani T, Joshi-Navare K, Mehta S, Kisiday J, et al. Hyaluronic Acid-Based Shape-Memory Cryogel Scaffolds for Focal Cartilage Defect Repair. Tissue Eng - Part A. 2021;

  94. Li T, Song X, Weng C, Wang X, Sun L, Gong X, et al. Self-crosslinking and injectable chondroitin sulfate/pullulan hydrogel for cartilage tissue engineering. Appl Mater Today. 2018;

  95. Bachmann B, Spitz S, Schädl B, Teuschl AH, Redl H, Nürnberger S, et al. Stiffness Matters: Fine-Tuned Hydrogel Elasticity Alters Chondrogenic Redifferentiation. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2020;

  96. Vaca-González JJ, Clara-Trujillo S, Guillot-Ferriols M, Ródenas-Rochina J, Sanchis MJ, Ribelles JLG, et al. Effect of electrical stimulation on chondrogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells cultured in hyaluronic acid – Gelatin injectable hydrogels. Bioelectrochem. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioelechem.2020.107536.

  97. Gao Y, Kong W, Li B, Ni Y, Yuan T, Guo L, et al. Fabrication and characterization of collagen-based injectable and self-crosslinkable hydrogels for cell encapsulation. Colloids Surfaces B Biointerfaces. 2018;

  98. Ge Y, Li Y, Wang Z, Li L, Teng H, Jiang Q. Effects of Mechanical Compression on Chondrogenesis of Human Synovium-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Agarose Hydrogel. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2021;9:1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Karabıyık Acar Ö, Bedir S, Kayitmazer AB, Kose GT. Chondro-inductive hyaluronic acid/chitosan coacervate-based scaffolds for cartilage tissue engineering. Int J Biol Macromol. 2021;

  100. Santos VH, Pfeifer JPH, de Souza JB, Milani BHG, de Oliveira RA, Assis MG, et al. Culture of mesenchymal stem cells derived from equine synovial membrane in alginate hydrogel microcapsules. BMC Vet Res. 2018;

  101. Uzieliene I, Bironaite D, Bernotas P, Sobolev A, Bernotiene E. Mechanotransducive biomimetic systems for chondrogenic differentiation in vitro. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22.

  102. Theodoridis K, Aggelidou E, Manthou M, Demiri E, Bakopoulou A, Kritis A. Assessment of cartilage regeneration on 3D collagen-polycaprolactone scaffolds: Evaluation of growth media in static and in perfusion bioreactor dynamic culture. Colloids Surfaces B Biointerfaces. 2019;183:110403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2019.110403.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  103. Nebelung S, Gavenis K, Lüring C, Zhou B, Mueller-Rath R, Stoffel M, et al. Simultaneous anabolic and catabolic responses of human chondrocytes seeded in collagen hydrogels to long-term continuous dynamic compression. Ann Anat. 2012;194:351–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aanat.2011.12.008.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  104. Terraciano V, Hwang N, Moroni L, Park H Bin, Zhang Z, Mizrahi J, et al. Differential Response of Adult and Embryonic Mesenchymal Progenitor Cells to Mechanical Compression in Hydrogels. Stem Cells. 2007;25:2730–8. https://doi.org/10.1634/stemcells.2007-0228.

  105. Daly AC, Sathy BN, Kelly DJ. Engineering large cartilage tissues using dynamic bioreactor culture at defined oxygen conditions. J Tissue Eng. 2018;9.

  106. Zhiguang Q, et al. "Bioinspired stratified electrowritten fiber-reinforced hydrogel constructs with layer-specific induction capacity for functional osteochondral regeneration." Biomater. 2021;266:120385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2020.120385.

  107. Sharifi N, Gharravi AM. Shear bioreactors stimulating chondrocyte regeneration, a systematic review. Inflamm Regen Inflammation and Regeneration. 2019;39:1–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  108. Livia R, et al. "Articular cartilage regeneration in osteoarthritis." Cells. 2019;8(11):1305. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells8111305.

  109. Paggi CA, Hendriks J, Karperien M, Le Gac S. Emulating the chondrocyte microenvironment using multi-directional mechanical stimulation in a cartilage-on-chip. Lab Chip Royal Society of Chemistry. 2022;22:1815–28.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  110. Sawatjui N, Limpaiboon T, Schrobback K, Klein T. Biomimetic scaffolds and dynamic compression enhance the properties of chondrocyte- and MSC-based tissue-engineered cartilage. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2018;12:1220–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  111. Pei M, He F, Vunjak-Novakovic G. Synovium-derived stem cell-based chondrogenesis. Differentiation. Differentiation. 2008;76:1044–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1432-0436.2008.00299.x.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  112. Djouad F, et al. "Transcriptional profiles discriminate bone marrow-derived and synovium-derived mesenchymal stem cells." Arthritis Res Ther. 2005;7(6):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/ar1827.

  113. Bian L, Zhai DY, Zhang EC, Mauck RL, Burdick JA. Dynamic compressive loading enhances cartilage matrix synthesis and distribution and suppresses hypertrophy in hMSC-laden hyaluronic acid hydrogels. Tissue Eng - Part A. 2012;18:715–24.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  114. Luo L, Thorpe SD, Buckley CT, Kelly DJ. The effects of dynamic compression on the development of cartilage grafts engineered using bone marrow and infrapatellar fat pad derived stem cells. Biomed Mater. IOP Publishing; 2015;10.

  115. Carroll SF, Buckley CT, Kelly DJ. Cyclic hydrostatic pressure promotes a stable cartilage phenotype and enhances the functional development of cartilaginous grafts engineered using multipotent stromal cells isolated from bone marrow and infrapatellar fat pad. J Biomech. 2014;47:2115–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2013.12.006.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  116. Aisenbrey EA, Bryant SJ. Mechanical loading inhibits hypertrophy in chondrogenically differentiating hMSCs within a biomimetic hydrogel. J Mater Chem B. 2016;

  117. Mouw JK, Connelly JT, Wilson CG, Michael KE, Levenston ME. Dynamic Compression Regulates the Expression and Synthesis of Chondrocyte-Specific Matrix Molecules in Bone Marrow Stromal Cells. Stem Cells. 2007;25:655–63.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  118. Thorpe SD, Buckley CT, Vinardell T, O’Brien FJ, Campbell VA, Kelly DJ. The response of bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells to dynamic compression following tgf-β3 induced chondrogenic differentiation. Ann Biomed Eng. 2010;38:2896–909.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Cheng G, Davoudi Z, Xing X, Yu X, Cheng X, Li Z, et al. Advanced Silk Fibroin Biomaterials for Cartilage Regeneration. ACS Biomater Sci Eng. 2018;4:2704–15.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  120. Deng Y, Sun AX, Overholt KJ, Yu GZ, Madalyn R, Alexander PG, et al. HHS Public Access. 2019;167–76.

  121. Huang CC, Hagar KL, Frost LE, Sun Y, Cheung HS. Effects of Cyclic Compressive Loading on Chondrogenesis of Rabbit Bone-Marrow Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells. Stem Cells. 2004;22:313–23.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  122. Antunes BP, Vainieri ML, Alini M, Monsonego-Ornan E, Grad S, Yayon A. Enhanced chondrogenic phenotype of primary bovine articular chondrocytes in Fibrin-Hyaluronan hydrogel by multi-axial mechanical loading and FGF18. Acta Biomater Elsevier Ltd. 2020;105:170–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  123. Aisenbrey EA, et al. "Dynamic mechanical loading and growth factors influence chondrogenesis of induced pluripotent mesenchymal progenitor cells in a cartilage-mimetic hydrogel." Biomater Sci. 2019;7(12):5388-403. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9BM01081E.

  124. Natenstedt J, Kok AC, Dankelman J, Tuijthof GJM. What quantitative mechanical loading stimulates in vitro cultivation best? J Exp Orthop. 2015;2:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40634-015-0029-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  125. Kowsari-Esfahan R, et al. "A microfabricated platform for the study of chondrogenesis under different compressive loads." J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2018;78:404–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.12.002.

  126. Zhao J, et al. "Bioreactors for tissue engineering: An update." Biochem Eng J. 2016;109:268-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2016.01.018.

  127. Cochis A, et al. "Bioreactor mechanically guided 3D mesenchymal stem cell chondrogenesis using a biocompatible novel thermo-reversible methylcellulose-based hydrogel." Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep45018.

  128. Stampoultzis T, Peyman K, Pioletti DP. "Thoughts on cartilage tissue engineering: A 21st century perspective." Curr Res Transl Med. 2021;69(3):103299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retram.2021.103299.

  129. Ogura T, et al. "Effects of hydrostatic pressure and deviatoric stress on human articular chondrocytes for designing neo‐cartilage construct." J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2019;13(7):1143–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/term.2863.

  130. Nazempour A, et al. "Combined effects of oscillating hydrostatic pressure, perfusion and encapsulation in a novel bioreactor for enhancing extracellular matrix synthesis by bovine chondrocytes." Cell Tissue Res. 2017;370:179–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00441-017-2651-7.

  131. Huang C‐Y, Charles, et al. "Effects of cyclic compressive loading on chondrogenesis of rabbit bone‐marrow derived mesenchymal stem cells." Stem Cells. 2004;22(3):313–23. https://doi.org/10.1634/stemcells.22-3-313.

  132. Vainieri ML, et al. "Mechanically stimulated osteochondral organ culture for evaluation of biomaterials in cartilage repair studies." Acta Biomater. 2018;81:256–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2018.09.058.

  133. Dufour A, Mallein-Gerin F, Perrier-Groult E. "Direct Perfusion Improves Redifferentiation of Human Chondrocytes in Fibrin Hydrogel with the Deposition of Cartilage Pericellular Matrix." Appl Sci. 2021;11(19):8923. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11198923.

  134. Shah N, Morsi Y, Manasseh R. From mechanical stimulation to biological pathways in the regulation of stem cell fate. Cell Biochem Funct. 2014;32:309–25.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study has been supported by Seoul National University of Science and Technology.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Convergence Institute of Biomedical Engineering and Biomaterials, Seoul National University of Science and Technology, Seoul, 01811, Republic of Korea

    Shiva Taheri, Amitava Bhattacharyya & Insup Noh

  2. Department of Nanotechnology, School of Advanced Technologies, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, 1684613114, Iran

    Hanieh Sadat Ghazali

  3. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, 158754413, Iran

    Zahra Sadat Ghazali

  4. Functional, Innovative, and Smart Textiles, PSG Institute of Advanced Studies, Coimbatore, 641004, India

    Amitava Bhattacharyya

  5. Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Seoul National University of Science and Technology, Seoul, 01811, Republic of Korea

    Amitava Bhattacharyya & Insup Noh

Authors
  1. Shiva Taheri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hanieh Sadat Ghazali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zahra Sadat Ghazali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Amitava Bhattacharyya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Insup Noh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

ST wrote the manuscript and drew the figures. HG and ZG also contributed to the manuscript writing. AB and IN revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Insup Noh.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not required for this study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Taheri, S., Ghazali, H.S., Ghazali, Z.S. et al. Progress in biomechanical stimuli on the cell-encapsulated hydrogels for cartilage tissue regeneration. Biomater Res 27, 22 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40824-023-00358-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40824-023-00358-x

Keyword

Biomaterials Research

ISSN: 2055-7124

Contact us