Exploring the Role of Spatial Confinement in Immune Cell Recruitment and Regeneration of Skin Wounds
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Microporous annealed particle (MAP) scaffolds are injectable granular materials comprised of micron sized hydrogel particles (microgels). The diameter of these microgels directly determines the size of the interconnected void space between particles where infiltrating or encapsulated cells reside. This tunable porosity allows the authors to use MAP scaffolds to study the impact of spatial confinement (SC) on both cellular behaviors and the host response to biomaterials. Despite previous studies showing that pore size and SC influence cellular phenotypes, including mitigating macrophage inflammatory response, there is still a gap in knowledge regarding how SC within a biomaterial modulates immune cell recruitment in vivo in wounds and implants. Thus, the immune cell profile within confined and unconfined biomaterials is studied using small (40 µm), medium (70 µm), and large (130 µm) diameter spherical microgels, respectively. This work uncovered that MAP scaffolds impart regenerative wound healing with an IgG1‐biased Th2 response. MAP scaffolds made with large microgels promote a balanced pro‐regenerative macrophage response, resulting in enhanced wound healing with mature collagen regeneration and reduced inflammation levels.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Wound Healing and Treatments · Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Management · Surgical site infection prevention
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Biomedical Engineering Duke University 101 Science Drive Campus Box 90281 Durham NC 27708 USA
Department of Pathology Duke University School of Medicine Durham NC 27710 USA
Clinical Science Departments of Neurology and Dermatology Duke University Durham NC 27708 USA
Funding
National Institutes of Health
References (74)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/0142-9612(84)90060-710.1016/0142-9612(84)90060-7 ↗
2. 10.1097/00002480-198804000-0000510.1097/00002480-198804000-00005 ↗
3. 10.1007/s00281-011-0244-110.1007/s00281-011-0244-1 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.smim.2007.11.00410.1016/j.smim.2007.11.004 ↗
5. 10.1073/pnas.16212419910.1073/pnas.162124199 ↗
6. 10.1002/jbm.a.3122110.1002/jbm.a.31221 ↗
7. 10.1002/adhm.20170028910.1002/adhm.201700289 ↗
8. 10.1002/jbm.a.3259510.1002/jbm.a.32595 ↗
9. 10.1002/jbm.a.3410410.1002/jbm.a.34104 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2020.05.00410.1016/j.bioactmat.2020.05.004 ↗
11. 10.1002/jbm.a.3289310.1002/jbm.a.32893 ↗
12. 10.1073/pnas.100644210710.1073/pnas.1006442107 ↗
13. 10.1007/s10439-013-0933-010.1007/s10439-013-0933-0 ↗
14. 10.1002/biot.20170029710.1002/biot.201700297 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.apmt.2019.10046610.1016/j.apmt.2019.100466 ↗
16. 10.1088/1748-6041/6/1/01500710.1088/1748-6041/6/1/015007 ↗
17. 10.1002/jbm.a.1050910.1002/jbm.a.10509 ↗
18. 10.1038/s41563-018-0190-610.1038/s41563-018-0190-6 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.copbio.2018.11.00110.1016/j.copbio.2018.11.001 ↗
20. 10.1002/adhm.20220223910.1002/adhm.202202239 ↗
21. 10.1002/btm2.1021710.1002/btm2.10217 ↗
22. Liu Y. · bioRxiv · 2022
23. 10.1038/s41578-019-0148-610.1038/s41578-019-0148-6 ↗
24. 10.1002/adhm.20170025410.1002/adhm.201700254 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.actbio.2022.04.02310.1016/j.actbio.2022.04.023 ↗
26. 10.1038/s41563-020-00844-w10.1038/s41563-020-00844-w ↗
27. 10.1021/acsami.7b1845810.1021/acsami.7b18458 ↗
28. 10.1038/nmat429010.1038/nmat4290 ↗
29. 10.1038/nmat429410.1038/nmat4294 ↗
30. 10.1002/smll.20190314710.1002/smll.201903147 ↗
31. 10.1002/adhm.20180016010.1002/adhm.201800160 ↗
32. 10.1002/adma.20227009210.1002/adma.202270092 ↗
33. Widener A. E. · J. Biomed. Mater. Res. J. of Biomedical Mater. Research Part A · 2023 · 111 · 9
34. 10.1002/lary.2844210.1002/lary.28442 ↗
35. 10.1039/C8BM01286E10.1039/C8BM01286E ↗
36. 10.1016/j.actbio.2018.07.01510.1016/j.actbio.2018.07.015 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.10.04010.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.10.040 ↗
38. 10.1002/adfm.20190007110.1002/adfm.201900071 ↗
39. 10.1002/advs.20190052010.1002/advs.201900520 ↗
40. 10.1002/adhm.20210064410.1002/adhm.202100644 ↗
41. 10.1002/adhm.20220098910.1002/adhm.202200989 ↗
42. a)L.Riley P.Cheng T.Segura 2022 https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs‐1766378/v1;
43. Liu Y. · bioRxiv · 2022
44. Liu Y. · bioRxiv · 2022 · 2022
45. 10.3389/fimmu.2020.0218710.3389/fimmu.2020.02187 ↗
46. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2019.11973910.1016/j.biomaterials.2019.119739 ↗
47. 10.1016/j.tibtech.2019.01.00610.1016/j.tibtech.2019.01.006 ↗
48. 10.3390/cells1111182410.3390/cells11111824 ↗
49. 10.1002/advs.20220488210.1002/advs.202204882 ↗
50. 10.1007/BF0100277210.1007/BF01002772 ↗
51. 10.1089/wound.2013.048510.1089/wound.2013.0485 ↗
52. 10.4103/2347-9264.15886210.4103/2347-9264.158862 ↗
53. 10.1111/iep.1234610.1111/iep.12346 ↗
54. 10.1089/wound.2016.069610.1089/wound.2016.0696 ↗
55. 10.1038/s41584-019-0324-510.1038/s41584-019-0324-5 ↗
56. Klingberg F. · The J. of Pathol. · 2013 · 2 · 229
57. 10.1007/s12079-021-00605-710.1007/s12079-021-00605-7 ↗
58. Frangogiannis N. G. · J. Exp. Med. · 2020 · 3 · 217
59. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.05.05310.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.05.053 ↗
60. 10.3389/fmolb.2021.77386610.3389/fmolb.2021.773866 ↗
61. 10.1038/s41596-021-00550-010.1038/s41596-021-00550-0 ↗
62. Hady T. F. · Acta Biomater. · 2023
63. Chan N. R. · J. Tissue Eng. Regener. Med. · 2023 · 166 · 297
64. 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-10-020710.1158/1535-7163.MCT-10-0207 ↗
65. Li K. · Cell Biosci. · 2021 · 11
66. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.03.07810.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.03.078 ↗
67. 10.1002/adhm.20230082310.1002/adhm.202300823 ↗
68. Riley L. · Small · 2022
69. 10.1111/j.1067-1927.2004.12404.x10.1111/j.1067-1927.2004.12404.x ↗
70. 10.1016/j.jconrel.2018.05.00610.1016/j.jconrel.2018.05.006 ↗
71. 10.1371/journal.pone.019852810.1371/journal.pone.0198528 ↗
72. 10.1038/nprot.2014.02410.1038/nprot.2014.024 ↗
73. 10.1039/C5TB00807G10.1039/C5TB00807G ↗
74. Benavides F. · J. of dermatological science · 2009 · 1 · 53