Open access peer-reviewed chapter - ONLINE FIRST

Use of Natural Biomaterials in Tissue Regeneration

Written By

Ayda Yari-Ilkhchi

Submitted: 03 March 2025 Reviewed: 20 May 2025 Published: 22 August 2025

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.1011108

Regenerative Biomaterials - Emerging Biomaterial Solutions to Aid Tissue Regeneration IntechOpen
Regenerative Biomaterials - Emerging Biomaterial Solutions to Aid... Edited by Yvonne Reinwald

From the Edited Volume

Regenerative Biomaterials - Emerging Biomaterial Solutions to Aid Tissue Regeneration [Working Title]

Dr. Yvonne Reinwald

Chapter metrics overview

3 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

Tissue engineering is a strong method for developing functional alternatives for regenerative medicine that plays a vital role in the therapy of patients. Effective tissue regeneration requires the creation of biologically active substrates with optimum physicochemical, mechanical, and biological properties. Biopolymers with superior biocompatibility and biodegradability are ideal for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Depending on the target tissue, several kinds of natural-driven biopolymers, including chitosan, hyaluronic acid, gelatin, and collagen, can be created to perform a variety of particular roles. In this chapter, we review the numerous types of biopolymers used to repair and regenerate tissues, such as skin, heart, nerve, bone, and cartilage, as well as their interactions with certain cells and tissues. In addition, particular cellular mechanisms are being investigated in tissue regeneration in order to clarify the effects of biopolymers on modulating cellular systems, considering their benefits and challenges. However, further advances are required to overcome the limitations and challenges associated with the use of biopolymers in tissue regeneration.

Keywords

  • natural polymers
  • biomaterials
  • biopolymers
  • tissue regeneration
  • tissue engineering
  • regenerative medicine

1. Introduction

Tissue regeneration, a fascinating subject of life science and biomedical engineering, replaces and regenerates biological activities of cells, tissues, or organs utilizing a combination of biomaterials, biomolecules, and cells [1]. Over the last few decades, the development of designed biomaterials has played a key role in the mechanical and biochemical properties that influence cell behavior and the enormous developments in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine [2, 3].

Tissue regeneration and tissue engineering are frequently used interchangeably in the treatment of damaged tissues and organs. Tissue engineering is a recently developed discipline in biomedicine that focuses on repairing and recreating tissues using biomaterials and living cells. Tissue engineering provides exciting technological advances and seeks to rebuild tissues in situ by various ways, like seeding cells onto bioactive substrates. These ways offer an alternative to traditional grafting and transplanting techniques. Tissue engineering developments have recently increased, owing to the introduction of novel biomaterials aimed at regenerating tissue function [4].

Natural biomaterials are known as biopolymers derived from plants and animals for biomedical science and therapeutic uses, particularly in tissue regeneration. These natural polymers are mostly categorized based on proteins and polysaccharides, which are biocompatible, biodegradable, renewable, and eco-friendly. Protein-based materials, such as collagen and gelatin, provide structural integrity and facilitate cellular adhesion, while polysaccharides like chitosan and alginate contribute to unique functional properties essential for tissue scaffolding. Diverse physical formats of polymers, including nanocomposites, films, nanofibers, and hydrogels, are used to prepare efficient substrates/scaffolds for tissue engineering. Among these, injectable hydrogels are increasingly receiving substantial clinical interest due to their potential to eliminate surgical procedures [5, 6, 7, 8]. The biocompatibility and controllable degradation rate of selected biopolymers are crucial to optimizing tissue regeneration. Consequently, a wide range of biopolymers have been engineered and successfully commercialized for use as substrates that facilitate tissue regeneration [4, 9].

Natural biomaterials can imitate the extracellular matrix (ECM), making them ideal for tissue engineering [5, 10]. These biomaterials have increased in popularity due to their ability to improve cell interactions and enhance recovery of tissue in a variety of healthcare areas, including orthopedics, dermatology, cardiology, and neurology [7]. These polymers have demonstrated remarkable performance in the repair of skin, bone, cartilage, cardiac, and nerve tissue, indicating that they are versatile and suitable to solve a wide range of tissue repair requirements. However, numerous obstacles, including immunological sensitivities, mechanical constraints, and production complications, provide substantial barriers to practical implementation. Ethical considerations also arise regarding the sourcing of biomaterials and ensuring equitable access to these advanced treatments.

This chapter provides the development of numerous natural biomaterials and their efficiency in repairing and regenerating various types of tissues, including skin, cardiac, nerve, bone, and cartilage. In addition, their unique characteristics, biological interactions, advantages, and challenges were investigated.

Advertisement

2. Natural biomaterials

Polymers are macromolecules made up of repeating monomers. Polymer-based biomaterials are useful materials for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine because they can be designed for particular applications. Their mechanical, chemical, and physical properties ensure biocompatibility and resistance to biological degradation. Furthermore, the low cost, simple transforming processes into various shapes, mimicking ECM and supporting cell attachment and growth, biodegradability, and biocompatibility make them suitable for a variety of medical applications, such as drug delivery, artificial organs, contact lenses, implants, and joint replacements. Polymeric biomaterials are made from natural and synthetic sources. Natural polymers are derived or synthesized from natural sources, such as plants, animals, and microorganisms. In contrast, synthetic polymers are based on polyesters, polyethylenes, polyurethanes, etc. Each type of polymer has advantages and limitations [11, 12, 13, 14].

2.1 Polysaccharide-based biopolymers

Polysaccharides, the biosphere’s most abundant macromolecules, are produced from glycoside bonds. They are an important component of plant and animal skeletal structures. Polysaccharides exhibit remarkable structural diversity compared to proteins due to the numerous combinations of sugar isomers and chemical bonds. This allows them to influence cellular environments. Natural polysaccharides show challenges for scaffold fabrication. The difference in their distribution, branching, and sequence of molecular weight hinders biological interactions and material flow, and many lack biodegradability. Therefore, chemical modifications of polysaccharides are required for biomedical applications. Chitosan, alginate, hyaluronic acid (HA), pectin, cellulose, and agarose are classified as the most common polysaccharides. Table 1 introduces and summarizes the properties of common natural biopolymers in tissue engineering and regeneration [4, 23, 27, 28].

BiopolymerSourcePropertiesRef.
Hyaluronic acidECM of epithelial and neural tissuesLubricity due to hyaluronic acid containing cartilage and synovial fluid structures, remarkable water solubility, limited mechanical strength, low retention time, high cost.[15]
Chondroitin sulfateECM of connective tissues like cartilagesContains cartilage components that stimulate chondrocytes to produce hyaluronic acid, high-water solubility, high viscosity, inexpensive, low mechanical strength.[16]
ChitosanCrustacean and insect exoskeletons, or bacterial and fungal cell wallsNatural abundance, biodegradability, non-toxicity, and molecular adsorption properties, biocompatibility, microbial resistance, immunogenicity, low cost, insoluble in neutral and high-pH aqueous solutions, mucoadhesive, hemostatic feature, requires chemical treatment to become water soluble prior to injection.[17]
AlginateDerived from marine brown seaweed and microorganismAbundant in nature, high solubility improved by 2+ ions (e.g., Ca), non-thrombogenic property, slow breakdown, affordable cost, moderate and ionic gelling mechanism, non-antigenicity, low interaction with protein, poor mechanical strength, chelating capability, sodium alginate dissolves slowly in water[18]
Xanthan gumExtracted from wheat, corn, soy, and dairyAbundant in nature, water solubility unaffected by pH, cheap, highly viscous, and rheologic properties similar to those of hyaluronic acid.[19]
HeparinExtracted from mucosal tissues of slaughtered meat animalsAble to bond with proteins and growth factors due to sulfated anionic glycosaminoglycan, anti-inflammatory, antithrombotic, high cost, hemorrhage and bruising risk, variable characteristics rely on molecular weight.[20]
AgaroseDerived from red algaeDissolves in boiling water, and a self-gelling polysaccharide, thermal-reversible, stable.[21]
CellulosePrimary structural component of plant cell wallsThe most common agro-polymer in nature, crystalline structure, insoluble in water and most organic solvents, high mechanical strength, biodegradable.[22]
CarrageenanExtracted from red algaeNatural hydrocolloid with different types, such as Kappa-, Iota-, and Lambda-carrageenan, used as a gel formation, stabilizing, thickening, and emulsifying agent, anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, anticancer, antihyperlipidemic, and anti-herpes properties.[1, 23]
CollagenExtracted from animal sourcesBiocompatibility, ability to crosslink at high temperatures, plays a role in cellular processes, low sensitivity, limited immunogenicity, weak mechanical strength, and nonconductive[24]
GelatinExtracted from animal sourcesRemarkable biocompatibility, biodegradability, low melting temperature, soluble in water, low mechanical strength[25]
Fibrin and fibrinogenProduced within the body from blood plasmaSoluble in water, biocompatible degradation debris, high flexibility, high biocompatibility, tunable degradability, improved cell attachment, able to shrink, poor mechanical and electrical performance, low melting point, minimal protein adsorption[26]

Table 1.

Summarizes the properties of common biopolymers in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine.

2.2 Polypeptide- and protein-based biopolymers

Proteins and peptides are agro-polymers, which can be derived renewably from animals, plants, and microorganisms. Peptides are shorter polymeric chains with ≤100 amino acids, while proteins have longer polymeric chains with ≥100 amino acids. Protein-based biopolymers utilized in tissue engineering include collagen, soybean proteins, fibrin, silk fibroin (SF), gelatin, etc. [29, 30]. Protein-based polymers are made up of amino acids bound together by strong amide bonds. They have acceptable biocompatibility and the ability to cause desired tissue responses, which make them ideal for tissue engineering. However, their usage in biomedical implants is limited by processing issues, possible immunological reactions, and insufficient mechanical strength, especially for load-bearing applications such as bone scaffolds [4, 13, 31]. Figure 1 illustrates various types of natural biopolymers used in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine.

Figure 1.

Schematic of natural biopolymer types used in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine.

Advertisement

3. Applications of natural biomaterials in tissue regeneration

Natural biomaterials originate from renewable sources, such as plants, animals, and microorganisms. They have a wide range of distinct, complicated ingredients, microstructures, and physiological features. These biomaterials, when implanted in tissue, should provide biological support for cell proliferation, attachment, growth, and differentiation, as well as simulate desired tissue behavior. The type, structure, and cell interactions of biopolymers rely on the tissue, and these differences should be examined when designing and implementing tissue repair and regeneration. Furthermore, certain diseases arise as a result of tissue and cellular reactivity to biopolymers. Because biomaterial selection is primarily determined by target tissue, we focus on biopolymer selection for a specific tissue engineering application [4, 32].

3.1 Skin tissue regeneration

The skin—the body’s first line of defense—is a complex organ consisting of the epidermis and dermis [33]. They can be deep or shallow, acute (burns, surgical incisions) or chronic (diabetic wounds, bedsores). Acute wounds typically heal within a couple of months, but chronic wounds take longer to recover from as they are often impacted by variables, including infection and inflammation, or underlying health conditions that often impact deeper tissues [34, 35]. Wound healing is a highly organized process that involves multiple cell types, growth factors, cytokines, and ECM components and occurs in four overlapping phases: hemostasis, inflammation, proliferation, and remodeling. Wound healing is a complex process involving a cascade of cellular events. The first phase is hemostasis, in which a blood clot forms, and the second phase is inflammation, when immune cells (neutrophils and macrophages) invade the area to remove debris and release growth factors [35]. During the proliferative phase, keratinocytes move to reepithelialize the wound, fibroblasts produce new ECM (mostly collagen type III), and new blood vessels grow (angiogenesis). Hair follicles and sweat gland epithelial stem cells also help to reepithelialize the skin. Activation of key signaling ways, like Wnt/β-catenin, hedgehog, and notch, is critical at this phase. Finally, during remodeling, the ECM is reformed (collagen type III is replaced by stronger collagen type I), excess cells are eliminated, and the wound compresses to its final shape [36, 37, 38].

The successful completion of each healing step depends on a complex interaction of signaling molecules. Growth factors (epidermal growth factor (EGF), keratinocyte growth factor (KGF), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and transforming growth factor beta (TGF-β)) and cytokines (interleukin (IL)-1β, -6, -8, -10, and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α)) help regulate cell activity and coordinate healing processes [38]. TGF-β stimulates fibroblasts and affects ECM synthesis, while interleukins regulate inflammation and immunological responses [39]. The body has an extraordinary natural healing mechanism, but the molecular mechanisms that regulate postnatal wound healing are different from those controlling embryonic skin growth. Therefore, it inhibits complete regeneration and frequently leads to scar formation [4]. Further research into these pathways, as well as the creation of biomaterials and medicines that resemble embryonic healing, may lead to improved wound management and tissue regeneration.

Currently, different skin treatments, such as ointments, wound dressings, and medical devices, are used; however, effective skin regeneration and wound healing remain a significant medical challenge. Gauze as a traditional dressing can be painful due to adherence to the lesion. Modern dressings make some improvements, but actual tissue regeneration is necessary. Thus, there’s a continued need for wound healing, and tissue regeneration using biomaterials is a key focus of global research. Various natural polymers, including chitosan, collagen, HA, alginate, and silk fibroin (SF), are used to promote wound healing and skin regeneration [40].

Chitosan improves wound healing and polymorphonucleated leukocyte (PMN) migration by increasing IL-8 excretion from neutrophils. Neutrophils overly express IL-8 (a neutrophil chemoattractant) in response to chitosan. This expression correlates with the degree of chitosan acetylation and affects hydrophobicity and PMN interaction [41]. In addition, chitosan improves macrophage activity during tissue regeneration, including inflammation, antigen presentation, phagocytosis, cytokine production (TNF-α, IL-1β, nitric oxide (NO)), and growth factor release [42]. Calcium alginate has demonstrated positive effects on skin wound repair and collagen synthesis. Now, commercial alginate-based substrates for wound dressing are available. Alginate helps diabetic wounds heal faster by increasing the ratio of collagen types I/III. The addition of drugs like Simvastatin improves angiogenesis through Akt/Erk signaling and upregulating hypoxia-inducible factor 1-alpha (HIF-1α) and VEGF [43, 44, 45].

SF is an attractive biopolymer used in wound healing applications. It improves cell proliferation, differentiation, and adhesion, accelerating healing through nuclear factor-kappa B (NF-κB) signaling. SF increases fibroblast activity, which is crucial for skin tissue repair. Produced peptides following trypsin SF digestion enhanced fibroblast proliferation. The addition of collagen to SF increases fibroblast proliferation. As a result, SF’s biocompatibility, affordability, hemostatic properties, ability to improve cell migration/recruitment, exudate absorption, and favorable mechanical properties make it widely applicable in wound care. Keratin, as another biopolymer, has been demonstrated to accelerate the process of wound repair [46, 47].

3.2 Bone tissue regeneration

More than 75 million people worldwide suffer from bone-related disorders, including bone fractures, osteoporosis, and bone defects. Traditional therapies like autografts, allografts, ceramic-coated, or inert metallic implants are quite expensive. Autologous bone is an efficient bone regeneration approach that promotes bone growth by direct bone bonding (osteoconduction) and differentiation of stem cells into bone cells (osteoinduction). This method elicits no immune reactions [1, 48]. Every year, grafted bones present a number of obstacles, including shortages of products, donor complications, and a 50% failure rate [47]. Biomaterial scaffolds are an excellent technique for bone tissue regeneration due to their osteoinduction and osteoconduction capabilities. Natural polymers, such as collagen, chitosan, alginate, and SF, are commonly used in bone tissue engineering due to their cost-effectiveness, biocompatibility, degradability, adaptability, and desirable mechanical qualities [49, 50]. Bone fractures and osteoporosis are leading causes of disability. While fractures commonly repair spontaneously, total restoration of bone strength and structure is not always possible. Fracture healing continues via inflammation, repair, and remodeling phases, with a strong emphasis on osteogenesis (the generation of new bone) supported by osteoprogenitor cell proliferation and osteoblast maturation. Drug therapy alone is frequently insufficient for full regeneration, emphasizing the necessity for biomaterials that stimulate osteogenesis to adequately restore fractures and bone deformities [4, 51]. Fracture healing and bone formation occur following complex molecular and cellular functions, particularly the expression of genes required for osteoblast differentiation. Runx2, a transcription factor, is critical for osteoblast development and mineralization [4]. Alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and osteocalcin (OCN) are two recognized osteoblast biomarkers that control osteoblast function and ECM mineralization during osteogenesis and restoration of bone. The increased expression of these biomarkers in osteoblasts indicates cell differentiation and maturation. Natural polymers, owing to their biocompatibility and biodegradability, are preferred compared to synthetic polymers in bone regeneration because they provide customized structures that can connect to cell receptors and serve as sites for enzymatic degradation [4, 52].

SF shows an extraordinary capacity for bone repair due to its structural similarity to collagen type I. Chitosan, with its antibacterial properties, shows promise in bone restoration. However, due to its lack of inherent osteoconductivity, chitosan is often combined with materials like hydroxyapatite (HAp) or calcium phosphate in composite scaffolds to better mimic bone. Chitosan nanofibers, when activated with Runx2 mRNA and protein, have been shown to increase osteoblast mineralization, proliferation, and maturation through Runx2-mediated regulation of osteoblast-associated gene expression [52]. Cellulose-based materials are considered a viable material for bone tissue regeneration because of their structure, high crystallinity, and high-water absorption capacity. Furthermore, the addition of particles in biopolymers increases mechanical properties and allows for better mimicry on bone [1].

Biomineralization, using simulated body fluid (SBF), is a valuable technique to induce apatite formation on porous scaffolds. It is performed for developing nanofeatured structures and predicting in vivo bone formation. Mineralization on biopolymers is enhanced by charged pendant groups that promote apatite nucleation. Functional groups with negative charges (like carboxylate and phosphate) and nucleation agents (like calcium phosphates and anionic proteins) are commonly used to electrostatically induce mineralization that leads to various biopolymer/calcium phosphate scaffolds for bone regeneration [53].

HAp, a stable calcium phosphate that resembles bone, is a common bioceramic in polymer matrices because of its osteoconductive properties, biocompatibility, minimal immunogenicity, and capacity to bind to hard tissue. HAp, which is made from phosphates found in biological fluids at a physiological pH, is appropriate for bone allografts and metal implantation [54, 55]. Despite rising valuable research on bone tissue creation, a lack of clinical proof impedes commercial applicability. To achieve this goal, more detailed research is needed to understand bone repair stages and design effective biopolymers for bone tissue regeneration.

3.3 Cartilage tissue regeneration

Cartilage tissue regeneration is a long-standing challenge in regenerative medicine. Autologous grafting is a common therapy method. The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS) reports that over 6 million people in the US suffer from knee-related disorders annually [1]. The damaged cartilage displays a low capacity for self-healing due to limited access to lymph nodes, neurons, blood vessels, and chondrocytes, which has limited migration potential. Medication can positively influence osteoarthritic injuries and cartilage regeneration [55]. Additionally, anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and osteochondral defects are other types of cartilage disorders that are predicted to cause disability in the near future. Postsurgical cartilage regeneration is challenging due to cartilage’s slow metabolism, creating a need for nonsurgical solutions. Cartilage, which protects bones in joints, comes in three types (fibro, hyaline, and elastic), with articular (hyaline) cartilage being essential for load bearing. This hyaline cartilage has a unique ECM made up of collagen and proteoglycans, which contributes to its flexibility and wear resistance [56]. Hyaluronan, heterotypic collagen fibrils, and proteoglycan glycosaminoglycan webs of aggrecan are the primary compounds of cartilage ECM, which serves as a wear-resistant and flexible tissue. Cartilages in the larynx, ear, and epiglottis are more flexible than hyaline. The fibrocartilage in the knee and between the vertebrae is rigid. Less blood vessels and neurites cause limited cartilage regeneration, leading to rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory illness, and joint degradation. Cartilage injuries cause ECM degradation and the recruitment of joint chondrocytes from adjacent locations, as well as decreased filtration and inflammatory cell vascularization [57, 58].

Various types of biopolymers, including collagen, fibrin, gelatin, cellulose, agarose, alginate, chitosan, and elastin, are utilized for cartilage tissue engineering. Several factors, such as growth factors and cytokines (transforming growth factors β (TGF-βs), platelet-derived growth factors (PDGFs), insulin-like growth factors (IGFs), fibroblast growth factors (FGFs), parathyroid hormone-related protein (PTHP), Wnt signaling pathway, etc.), and nutritional and metabolic factors (e.g., glucose, amino acids, and vitamins), are involved in chondrogenesis. TGF-βs promote chondrocyte proliferation, differentiation, and upregulation of chondrogenic transcription factors, resulting in collagen type II and aggrecan production [58, 59, 60].

When biopolymers fill the injured site, they promote cartilage regeneration by showing minimal donor site trouble, fewer implantation obstacles, and faster healing. To create successful cartilage-based tissue building, appropriate biomaterials must be used. These biopolymers should generate two distinct phases of connective tissue, a biomimetic area, and local cartilage frameworks that integrate with the native tissues. Collagen type II and glycosaminoglycan (GAG) are essential for the maintenance of chondrocytic phenotypes and stimulating chondrogenesis. Without them, chondrocytes change and produce fibrocartilaginous structures enriched in collagen type I, resulting in hyaline formation failure [4]. In a study, a chitosan-fabricated scaffold combined with rat mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) showed regeneration of cartilage tissue. This three-dimensional (3D) matrix of scaffold protects MSCs in the injured area and reduces poor transplanted cell distribution, which could be a limiting factor for the efficacy of autologous cell implantation [61]. Furthermore, an in vivo investigation found that chitosan-based hybrid scaffolds with HA promote chondrogenesis [62]. Another study demonstrated the healing properties of a chondrocyte fibrin solution, which resulted in efficient deposition of cartilage-specific ECM components [63]. Lately, numerous studies have been conducted on cartilage tissue repair and regeneration. However, the development and evaluation of scaffolds present a number of obstacles, including biomaterial selection, manufacturing procedures, and application. Their biological stability, biocompatibility, mechanical qualities, adequate biodegradation of produced scaffolds, and drug/growth factor administration are critical for cartilage repair and regeneration.

3.4 Cardiac tissue regeneration

The heart is a muscular organ that pumps and circulates blood through the circulatory system [64]. Poor regeneration and repair occurred in mature humans after heart injury or cardiac failure. Apoptosis (automated cell death), necrosis (injury-caused cell death), and oncosis (ischemic cell death) can all harm cardiomyocytes (CMs), resulting in cardiac dysfunction. Pathological conditions of the heart include necrosis and apoptosis. In oncosis, cells swell instead of shrinking, leading to damage. Myocardial infarctions during cardiac pathogenesis cause scar tissues and CMs sections are exchanged for fibrillar collagen and fibroblast-like cells. Cardiac tissue engineering has not advanced to the clinical level; however, stem cell transplantation has shown promising results in clinical cardiac trials. Cardiovascular diseases are strongly linked to increased oxidative damage to vascular endothelial cells. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation by vascular endothelial cells has a significant impact on the progression of various essential clinical illnesses, including atherosclerosis and hypocholesterolemia. High ROS levels in cells cause irreversible harm in a variety of ways, including the inactivation of key enzymes, membrane lipid oxidation, and apoptosis initiation. As a result, materials that may reduce the number of free radicals can prevent oxidative stress of cells. Researchers have focused their attention on polymer-based scaffolds transplanted with stem cells and external stimulation to repair damaged cardiac tissues [65, 66]. Biopolymers like collagen, chitosan, alginate, gelatin, fibrin, etc., are widely applied for cardiac tissue engineering. Chitosan can prevent damage from oxidative stress. Studies show that it lowers ROS levels similar to natural antioxidants and stops lipid oxidation. It also changes how endothelial cells release cytokines. Chitosan oligosaccharide reduces IL-8 production (by blocking certain signaling pathways) and lowers intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1) and E-selectin expression (by affecting mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) and NF-κB) [67, 68].

Mimicking tissue is critical in tissue engineering and regeneration; thus, substrates like hydrogels and scaffolds must be elastic and conductive in cardiac tissue engineering. Also, minimally invasive ways should be performed to decrease the risks and expenses associated with surgical procedures in tissue engineering. In research, collagen, Matrigel, and fibrin glue were utilized as thermosensitive injectable biopolymers, which increased angiogenesis and myofibroblast influx. Furthermore, another study found that injectable alginate-based hydrogels might cover injured portions and be replaced by connective tissues within 6 weeks [68].

A collagen-based scaffold displayed repair of cardiac defect and CM regeneration when implanted into a mouse heart as a patch [69]. Temperature, pH, and shear variations can all result in transitions of polymeric phase. Collagen type I is often soluble in weak acids and produces hydrogels if neutralized [70]. Similarly, chitosan is dissolved in dilute acidic conditions, and at physiological conditions (pH = 7–7.4), it self-assembles to form a hydrogel. Drugs, growth factors, or cells are added to prepared substrates to promote regeneration [71]. Developed chitosan-aniline oligomer/dibenzaldehyde-terminated polyethylene glycol (PEG) hydrogels loaded with cells as electroactive injectable biomaterials were used for cardiac cell therapy (Figure 2) [73]. Even though biopolymers show great promise for cardiac tissue repair and regeneration, there are still challenges to solve before clinical trials in real-world treatments. Key elements, such as choosing and distributing materials, injection dose, and time, are crucial for cardiac fixing and require further investigation. And, importantly, investigation in animals that are similar to humans is essential to find how these treatments work over the long term and make sure they are both safe and effective.

Figure 2.

Self-healable conductive injectable hydrogels based on chitosan-graft-aniline tetramer and dibenzaldehyde-terminated PEG as cell delivery vehicles for myocardial infarction. Reprinted from [72].

3.5 Nerve tissue regeneration

The nervous system is composed of the central nervous system (CNS) and the peripheral nervous system (PNS). Nervous system regeneration is a difficult subject in tissue engineering due to the restricted potential for self-regeneration of neural tissues [74, 75]. Neural damage has an impact on life quality and can be caused by accidents, strokes, or neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer’s, Huntington’s disease, multiple sclerosis, and Parkinson’s [75, 76, 77]. Astrocytes in the CNS generate glial scars as a result of complicated responses, preventing injured tissue healing. Schwann cells (SCs) are able to myelinate axons in the PNS, which aids in axon digestion (phagocytosis) during damage, resulting in neuronal regeneration. Following the lesion, SCs target neurons to form a tunnel effect that serves as a guiding way for axon repair, similar to an endoneurial tube. Studies have focused on identifying appropriate techniques to avoid further injury while stabilizing the wounded area. Sensory and motor function deficiencies in the PNS lead to paralysis of the impacted limb and intense neuropathic disorder [78, 79, 80]. The PNS lesions, when minor, can self-repair under favorable conditions. Wallerian degeneration begins after nerve injury when cellular/molecular activity spreads from distal to proximal parts of the nerve. This event results in the axoplasmic breakdown of microtubules and microfilaments, which is accompanied by changes in the nerve cell’s nucleus and increased protein synthesis to promote repair during a week [79].

SCs are essential for nerve function and undergo major alterations following damage. They transition from myelinating nerve cells to regenerative mode, breaking down the myelin coating. This process requires particular signaling molecules and cytokine release, which recruit macrophages to remove debris. Macrophages play a significant role in eliminating myelin debris and stay at the damage site for an extended duration [81, 82, 83]. SCs proliferate and align to form structures known as Büngner Bands, which serve as a scaffold for axonal regrowth. These Büngner Bands direct the regenerating axons, which extend at a pace of 1–3 mm per day, eventually leading to axonal expansion and probable functional restoration [84]. End-to-end neurorrhaphy is the significant standard for treating lesions in the PNS that are less than 1 cm in size, but autologous nerve grafting is required for bigger lesions. However, insufficient nerve transplants, neuroma formation, and immune system responses are all complicated problems with autologous grafting. As a result, the discovery of new neural therapy techniques is clinically crucial.

Polymers and conductive substrates, such as nanostructures, scaffolds, and hydrogels, are critical components in neural tissue engineering. Cell therapy, drug, gene, and growth factor delivery systems are examples of novel techniques for treating and regenerating nerve tissue lesions [85]. Derivatives or composites of chitosan, gelatin, collagen, cellulose, SF, and alginate are among the most commonly used biopolymers in nerve tissue development. Tissue engineering aids in the control of cell behavior and proliferation by creating a synthetic ECM employing biomaterials for cell culture and tissue regeneration. Hydrogel-based scaffolds can be used to create suitable three-dimensional (3D) microenvironments that mimic the extracellular environment for cell growth, promoting cell proliferation, attachment, and neuron survival [86]. The scaffolds should be biocompatible, biodegradable, safe, and anti-inflammatory, with sufficient porosity and mechanical strength to support cell growth and adhesion.

A study found that a HA-based hydrogel scaffold increased sorted embryonic stem cell-derived neural stem cell differentiation to oligodendrocytes, reduced inflammatory response, inhibited glial scar formation, and improved movement and spinal tissue integrity [87]. Another study found that combining agarose with conductive segments such as oligoaniline increased PC12 cell adhesion and proliferation [88]. Agarose promotes good cell adhesion qualities. Wen et al. discovered that a composite of nylon microfibers in an agarose matrix and subcellular filaments with sizes ranging from 5 to 30 μm can lead to the production of aligned and neurite growths in sympathetic neurons [89]. Furthermore, blends of agarose, alginate, chitosan, and aniline oligomers were employed to treat neurological disorders by developing an electrosensitive drug delivery platform. The resultant hydrogel facilitated the MSCs differentiation into dopaminergic neuron-like cells for dopamine supply in the CNS [90]. In another investigation, He et al. discovered that chitosan increases the growth and synthesis of proliferating cell nuclear antigens, as well as the mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase/extracellular signal-regulated kinase (MEK/ERK) and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/protein kinase B (PI3K/Akt) signaling systems in rat SCs [91].

Nerve regeneration is a complicated procedure that requires multiple components, signaling signs, and design substrates to be effective. Biomaterials have the high potential to contribute to nerve tissue healing after surgery; however, there are still problems, such as conductivity, biocompatibility, and biodegradability. Their practical application in clinical applications is constantly being investigated, and it is expected that as technology advances, these obstacles will be efficiently solved, paving the way for future progress in this sector.

Advertisement

4. Challenges and drawbacks

Natural biomaterials are increasing in attention in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine because of their inherent advantages, including biocompatibility, biodegradability, renewability, environmental sustainability, low immunogenicity, and structural mimicry with natural ECM. Furthermore, natural biopolymers can be employed as effective platforms for tissue regeneration due to their adjustable shapes, mechanical characteristics, and flexibility, as well as their chemistry and structure.

Despite their potential for tissue regeneration, they face significant obstacles to clinical translation. Degradation of biopolyesters in scaffold structures is a significant challenge. It can produce a solidified structure during scaffold preparation and make them unusable. Furthermore, creating features similar to natural tissues, including electrical conductivity, strength, and long-term stability, by polymers is still a major obstacle. The inherent viscoelasticity of hydrogels can also lead to deformation over time. This negatively affects cell adhesion, proliferation, and migration, which are crucial for successful tissue repair [92].

Besides mechanical properties, control of stem cell behavior within hydrogels is another critical challenge. Effective healing depends on guiding stem cell growth, differentiation, and integration into host tissues. This requires promoting cell migration and growth, mimicking the ECM signals, and ensuring seamless integration with surrounding tissues. Finally, minimizing immune responses and enhancing the bioactivity of biopolymer-based implants are crucial for their successful application in regenerative therapies. Addressing these multiple challenges through improved substrate design and optimized properties is essential for realizing the full potential of these materials in tissue engineering [93, 94].

Advertisement

5. Conclusion and future approaches

Tissue engineering has significant potential to improve patients’ lives by repairing damaged organs with functional constructions. This has prompted further research into developing biocompatible biomaterials that mimic tissue features. However, individual biopolymers frequently have limitations, including mechanical strength, biocompatibility, and the capability to replicate the original ECM. To address these limitations, biomaterials are combined with reinforcing agents, such as nanoparticles or synthetic polymers with complementing properties. These mixed materials, known as biocomposites, combine several functions into a single biomaterial. Biopolymer properties are improved with a secondary biopolymer that complements the initial polymer or with a combination of additives, especially nanomaterials. Biocomposites can be classified according to their obtained resources, such as microorganisms, agro-resources, and biotechnology. Polymer biocomposites perform well in tissue engineering and repair due to their high biocompatibility and adjustable characteristics. Recently, the rise of 3D and four-dimensional (4D) printing processes has highlighted the significance of biocomposites in this field. However, in order to create complex biomaterials for tissue recovery, multifunctional biocomposites must be designed to imitate host tissue behavior. Biocomposites are poised to play an increasingly important role in developing advanced substrates for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. The current chapter discusses biopolymer uses and advances in tissue engineering and regeneration, as well as their biological interactions, features, advantages, and challenges. A key challenge lies in classifying sustainable composites for regenerative medicine, which requires more data, statistics, and reliable reporting—a current point of discussion among scientists, practitioners, and biomedical engineers. Finally, the integration of machine learning algorithms in designing and creating smart biocomposites should be considered.

References

  1. 1. Kesharwani P, Alexander A, Shukla R, Jain S, Bisht A, Kumari. Tissue regeneration properties of hydrogels derived from biological macromolecules: A review. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules. 2024;271:132280. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.132280
  2. 2. Farag MM. Recent trends on biomaterials for tissue regeneration applications: Review. Journal of Materials Science. 2023;58(2):527-558. DOI: 10.1007/s10853-022-08102-x
  3. 3. Ciolacu DE, Nicu R, Ciolacu F. Natural polymers in heart valve tissue engineering: Strategies, advances and challenges. Biomedicine. 2022;10(5):1095. DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines10051095
  4. 4. Zarrintaj P, Seidi F, Youssefi Azarfam M, Khodadadi Yazdi M, Erfani A, Barani M. Biopolymer-based composites for tissue engineering applications: A basis for future opportunities. Composites Part B: Engineering. 2023;258:110701. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2023.110701
  5. 5. Boles L, Alexander C, Pace L, Haggard W, Bumgardner J, Jennings J. Development and evaluation of an injectable chitosan/β-glycerophosphate paste as a local antibiotic delivery system for trauma care. Journal of Functional Biomaterials. 2018;9(4):56-71. DOI: 10.3390/jfb9040056
  6. 6. Chauvette JF, Hia IL, Farahani RD, Plante R, Piccirelli N, Therriault D. Non-planar multinozzle additive manufacturing of thermoset composite microscaffold networks. Composites Part B: Engineering. 2023;256:110627. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2023.110627
  7. 7. Saranya M, Koivisto JT, Carvalho ACM, Sato F, Lassenberger A, Porcar L. Aligned multi-walled carbon nanotube-embodied hydrogel via low magnetic field: A strategy for engineering aligned injectable scaffolds. Composites Part B: Engineering. 2023;248:110398. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2022.110398
  8. 8. Tamayol A, Akbari M, Zilberman Y, Comotto M, Lesha E, Serex L. Flexible pH-sensing hydrogel fibers for epidermal applications. Advanced Healthcare Materials. 2016;5(6):711-719. DOI: 10.1002/adhm.201500553
  9. 9. Liu H, Wang F, Wu W, Dong X, Sang L. 4D printing of mechanically robust PLA/TPU/Fe3O4 magneto-responsive shape memory polymers for smart structures. Composites Part B: Engineering. 2023;248:110382. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2022.110382
  10. 10. Pramanik S, Kharche S, More N, Ranglani D, Singh G, Kapusetti G. Natural biopolymers for bone tissue engineering: A brief review. Engineered Regeneration. 2023;4(2):193-204. DOI: 10.1016/j.engreg.2022.12.002
  11. 11. Zhang H, Lin X, Cao X, Wang Y, Wang J, Zhao Y. Developing natural polymers for skin wound healing. Bioactive Materials. 2024;33:355-376. DOI: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2023.11.012
  12. 12. Krishani M, Shin WY, Suhaimi H, Sambudi NS. Development of scaffolds from bio-based natural materials for tissue regeneration applications: A review. Gels. 2023;9(2):100. DOI: 10.3390/gels9020100
  13. 13. Reddy MSB, Ponnamma D, Choudhary R, Sadasivuni KK. A comparative review of natural and synthetic biopolymer composite scaffolds. Polymers. 2021;13(7):1105. DOI: 10.3390/polym13071105
  14. 14. Gomez-Florit M, Pardo A, Domingues RMA, Graça AL, Babo PS, Reis RL. Natural-based hydrogels for tissue engineering applications. Molecules. 2020;25(24):5858. DOI: 10.3390/molecules25245858
  15. 15. Saravanakumar K, Park S, Santosh SS, Ganeshalingam A, Thiripuranathar G, Sathiyaseelan A. Application of hyaluronic acid in tissue engineering, regenerative medicine, and nanomedicine: A review. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules. 2022;222:2744-2760. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2022.10.055
  16. 16. Zhai P, Peng X, Li B, Liu Y, Sun H, Li X. The application of hyaluronic acid in bone regeneration. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules. 2020;151:1224-1239. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.10.169
  17. 17. Mishra A, Omoyeni T, Singh PK, Anandakumar S, Tiwari A. Trends in sustainable chitosan-based hydrogel technology for circular biomedical engineering: A review. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules. 2024;276:133823. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.133823
  18. 18. Balakrishnan B, Joshi N, Jayakrishnan A, Banerjee R. Self-crosslinked oxidized alginate/gelatin hydrogel as injectable, adhesive biomimetic scaffolds for cartilage regeneration. Acta Biomaterialia. 2014;10(8):3650-3663. DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2014.04.031
  19. 19. Kumar A, Rao KM, Han SS. Application of xanthan gum as polysaccharide in tissue engineering: A review. Carbohydrate Polymers. 2018;180:128-144. DOI: 0.1016/j.carbpol.2017.10.009
  20. 20. Liang Y, Kiick KL. Heparin-functionalized polymeric biomaterials in tissue engineering and drug delivery applications. Acta Biomaterialia. 2014;10(4):1588-1600. DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2013.07.031
  21. 21. Zarrintaj P, Manouchehri S, Ahmadi Z, Saeb MR, Urbanska AM, Kaplan DL. Agarose-based biomaterials for tissue engineering. Carbohydrate Polymers. 2018;187:66-84. DOI: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2018.01.060
  22. 22. Domingues RMA, Gomes ME, Reis RL. The potential of cellulose nanocrystals in tissue engineering strategies. Biomacromolecules. 2014;15(7):2327-2346. DOI: 10.1021/bm500524s
  23. 23. Razak SIA, Wahab IF. Polysaccharides as composite biomaterials. In: Poletto M, editor. Composites from Renewable and Sustainable Materials. Rijeka: IntechOpen; 2016. DOI: 10.5772/65263
  24. 24. Norahan MH, Amroon M, Ghahremanzadeh R, Mahmoodi M, Baheiraei N. Electroactive graphene oxide-incorporated collagen assisting vascularization for cardiac tissue engineering. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A. 2019;107(1):204-219. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.36555
  25. 25. Tijore A, Irvine SA, Sarig U, Mhaisalkar P, Baisane V, Venkatraman S. Contact guidance for cardiac tissue engineering using 3D bioprinted gelatin patterned hydrogel. Biofabrication. 2018;10(2):025003. DOI: 10.1088/1758-5090/aaa15d
  26. 26. Barsotti MC, Felice F, Balbarini A, Di Stefano R. Fibrin as a scaffold for cardiac tissue engineering. Biotechnology and Applied Biochemistry. 2011;58(5):301-310. DOI: 10.1002/bab.49
  27. 27. Khodadadi Yazdi M, Sajadi SM, Seidi F, Rabiee N, Fatahi Y, Rabiee M. Clickable polysaccharides for biomedical applications: A comprehensive review. Progress in Polymer Science. 2022;133:101590. DOI: 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2022.101590
  28. 28. Tiwari S, Patil R, Bahadur P. Polysaccharide based scaffolds for soft tissue engineering applications. Polymers. 2018;11(1):1. DOI: 10.3390/polym11010001
  29. 29. Kargozar S, Hashemian SJ, Soleimani M, Milan PB, Askari M, Khalaj V. Acceleration of bone regeneration in bioactive glass/gelatin composite scaffolds seeded with bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells over-expressing bone morphogenetic protein-7. Materials Science and Engineering: C. 2017;75:688-698. DOI: 10.1016/j.msec.2017.02.097
  30. 30. Gagner JE, Kim W, Chaikof EL. Designing protein-based biomaterials for medical applications. Acta Biomaterialia. 2014;10(4):1542-1557. DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2013.10.001
  31. 31. Mahmodi G, Zarrintaj P, Taghizadeh A, Taghizadeh M, Manouchehri S, Dangwal S. From microporous to mesoporous mineral frameworks: An alliance between zeolite and chitosan. Carbohydrate Research. 2020;489:107930. DOI: 10.1016/j.carres.2020.107930
  32. 32. Liu S, Yu JM, Gan YC, Qiu XZ, Gao ZC, Wang H. Biomimetic natural biomaterials for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine: New biosynthesis methods, recent advances, and emerging applications. Military Medical Research. 2023;10(1):16. DOI: 10.1039/c8cs00187a
  33. 33. Nilforoushzadeh MA, Khodadadi Yazdi M, Baradaran Ghavami S, Farokhimanesh S, Mohammadi Amirabad L, Zarrintaj P. Mesenchymal stem cell spheroids embedded in an injectable thermosensitive hydrogel: An In situ drug formation platform for accelerated wound healing. ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering. 2020;6(9):5096-5109. DOI: 0.1021/acsbiomaterials.0c00988
  34. 34. Sun X, Zhang Y, Cui J, Zhang C, Xing C, Bian H. Advanced multilayer composite dressing with co-delivery of gelsevirine and silk fibroin for burn wound healing. Composites Part B: Engineering. 2023;253:110549. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2023.110549
  35. 35. Zarrintaj P, Moghaddam AS, Manouchehri S, Atoufi Z, Amiri A, Amirkhani MA. Can regenerative medicine and nanotechnology combine to heal wounds? The search for the ideal wound dressing. Nanomedicine (London, England). 2017;19:2403-2422. DOI: 10.2217/nnm-2017-0173
  36. 36. Gholipourmalekabadi M, Sapru S, Samadikuchaksaraei A, Reis RL, Kaplan DL, Kundu SC. Silk fibroin for skin injury repair: Where do things stand? Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews. 2020;153:28-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.addr.2019.09.003
  37. 37. Bielefeld KA, Amini-Nik S, Alman BA. Cutaneous wound healing: Recruiting developmental pathways for regeneration. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences. 2013;70(12):2059-2081. DOI: 10.1038/nature07039
  38. 38. Gurtner GC, Werner S, Barrandon Y, Longaker MT. Wound repair and regeneration. Nature. 2008;453(7193):314-321
  39. 39. Foitzik K, Paus R, Doetschman T, Dotto GP. The TGF-beta2 isoform is both a required and sufficient inducer of murine hair follicle morphogenesis. Developmental Biology. 1999;212(2):278-289. DOI: 10.1006/dbio.1999.9325
  40. 40. Dhivya S, Padma VV, Santhini E. Wound dressings—A review. Biomedicine. 2015;5(4):22. DOI: 10.7603/s40681-015-0022-9
  41. 41. Farhadihosseinabadi B, Zarebkohan A, Eftekhary M, Heiat M, Moosazadeh Moghaddam M, Gholipourmalekabadi M. Crosstalk between chitosan and cell signaling pathways. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences. 2019;76(14):2697-2718. DOI: 10.1007/s00018-019-03107-3
  42. 42. Li H, Shi B, Yan S, Zhao T, Li J, Guo X. Effects of chitosan on the secretion of cytokines and expression of inducible nitric oxide synthase mRNA in peritoneal macrophages of broiler chicken. Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology. 2014;57(4):466-471. DOI: 0.1590/S1516-8913201401903
  43. 43. Yu W, Jiang YY, Sun TW, Qi C, Zhao H, Chen F. Design of a novel wound dressing consisting of alginate hydrogel and simvastatin-incorporated mesoporous hydroxyapatite microspheres for cutaneous wound healing. RSC Advances. 2016;6(106):104375-104387. DOI: 10.1039/c6ra 20892d
  44. 44. Wang T, Gu Q, Zhao J, Mei J, Shao M, Pan Y. Calcium alginate enhances wound healing by up-regulating the ratio of collagen types I/III in diabetic rats. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Pathology. 2015;8(6):6636-6645
  45. 45. Chouhan D, Mandal BB. Silk biomaterials in wound healing and skin regeneration therapeutics: From bench to bedside. Acta Biomaterialia. 2020;103:24-51. DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2019.11.050
  46. 46. Yamada H, Igarashi Y, Takasu Y, Saito H, Tsubouchi K. Identification of fibroin-derived peptides enhancing the proliferation of cultured human skin fibroblasts. Biomaterials. 2004;25(3):467-472. DOI: 10.1016/S0142-9612(03)00540-4
  47. 47. Zhang J, Liu W, Schnitzler V, Tancret F, Bouler JM. Calcium phosphate cements for bone substitution: Chemistry, handling and mechanical properties. Acta Biomaterialia. 2014;10(3):1035-1049. DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2013.11.001
  48. 48. Rezwan K, Chen QZ, Blaker JJ, Boccaccini AR. Biodegradable and bioactive porous polymer/inorganic composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2006;27(18):3413-3431. DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.01.039
  49. 49. Samadi A, Hasanzadeh R, Azdast T, Abdollahi H, Zarrintaj P, Saeb MR. Piezoelectric performance of microcellular polypropylene foams fabricated using foam injection molding as a potential scaffold for bone tissue engineering. Journal of Macromolecular Science, Part B. 2020;59(6):376-389. DOI: 10.1080/00222348.2020.1730573
  50. 50. Rachner TD, Khosla S, Hofbauer LC. Osteoporosis: Now and the future. The Lancet. 2011;377(9773):1276-1287. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62349-5
  51. 51. Swetha M, Sahithi K, Moorthi A, Srinivasan N, Ramasamy K, Selvamurugan N. Biocomposites containing natural polymers and hydroxyapatite for bone tissue engineering. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules. 2010;47(1):1-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2010.03.015
  52. 52. Koç A, Finkenzeller G, Elçin AE, Stark GB, Elçin YM. Evaluation of adenoviral vascular endothelial growth factor-activated chitosan/hydroxyapatite scaffold for engineering vascularized bone tissue using human osteoblasts: In vitro and in vivo studies. Journal of Biomaterials Applications. 2014;29(5):748-760. DOI: 10.1177/0885328214544769
  53. 53. Li J, Baker BA, Mou X, Ren N, Qiu J, Boughton RI. Biopolymer/calcium phosphate scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Advanced Healthcare Materials. 2016;6(9):7048-7060. DOI: 10.1039/C5RA22987A
  54. 54. Chen L, Liu HL, Gu Y, Feng Y, Yang HL. Lumbar interbody fusion with porous biphasic calcium phosphate enhanced by recombinant bone morphogenetic protein-2/silk fibroin sustained-released microsphere: An experimental study on sheep model. Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine. 2015;26(3):126. DOI: 10.1007/s10856-015-5463-x
  55. 55. Burrage PS. Matrix metalloproteinases: Role in arthritis. Frontiers in Bioscience. 2006;11(1):529
  56. 56. Farokhi M, Mottaghitalab F, Fatahi Y, Saeb MR, Zarrintaj P, Kundu SC. Silk fibroin scaffolds for common cartilage injuries: Possibilities for future clinical applications. European Polymer Journal. 2019;115:251-267. DOI: 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2019.03.035
  57. 57. Salati MA, Khazai J, Tahmuri AM, Samadi A, Taghizadeh A, Taghizadeh. Agarose-based biomaterials: Opportunities and challenges in cartilage tissue engineering. Polymers. 2020;12(5):1150. DOI: 10.3390/polym12051150
  58. 58. Usami Y, Gunawardena AT, Iwamoto M, Enomoto-Iwamoto M. Wnt signaling in cartilage development and diseases: Lessons from animal studies. Laboratory Investigation. 2016;96(2):186-196. DOI: 10.1038/labinvest.2015.142
  59. 59. Gu M, Fan S, Zhou G, Ma K, Yao X, Zhang Y. Effects of dynamic mechanical stimulations on the regeneration of in vitro and in vivo cartilage tissue based on silk fibroin scaffold. Composites Part B: Engineering. 2022;235:109764. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2022.109764
  60. 60. Houschyar KS, Tapking C, Borrelli MR, Popp D, Duscher D, Maan ZN. Wnt pathway in bone repair and regeneration—What do we know so far. Frontiers in Cell and Development Biology. 2019;6:170. DOI: 10.3389/fcell.2018.00170
  61. 61. Meng Q, Man Z, Dai L, Huang H, Zhang X, Hu X. A composite scaffold of MSC affinity peptide-modified demineralized bone matrix particles and chitosan hydrogel for cartilage regeneration. Scientific Reports. 2015;5(1):17802. DOI: 10.1038/srep17802
  62. 62. Correia CR, Moreira-Teixeira LS, Moroni L, Reis RL, van Blitterswijk CA, Karperien M. Chitosan scaffolds containing hyaluronic acid for cartilage tissue engineering. Tissue Engineering Part C: Methods. 2011;17(7):717-730. DOI: 10.1089/ten.tec.2010.0467
  63. 63. Tuli R, Nandi S, Li WJ, Tuli S, Huang X, Manner PA. Human mesenchymal progenitor cell-based tissue engineering of a single-unit osteochondral construct. Tissue Engineering. 2004;10(7-8):1169-1179. DOI: 10.1089/ten.2004.10.1169
  64. 64. Chandika P, Heo SY, Kim TH, Oh GW, Kim GH, Kim MS. Recent advances in biological macromolecule based tissue-engineered composite scaffolds for cardiac tissue regeneration applications. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules. 2020;164:2329-2357. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.08.054
  65. 65. Nguyen AH, Marsh P, Schmiess-Heine L, Burke PJ, Lee A, Lee J. Cardiac tissue engineering: State-of-the-art methods and outlook. Journal of Biological Engineering. 2019;13(1):57. DOI: 10.1186/s13036-019-0185-0
  66. 66. Wu GJ, Tsai GJ. Chitooligosaccharides in combination with interferon-γ increase nitric oxide production via nuclear factor-κB activation in murine RAW264.7 macrophages. Food and Chemical Toxicology. 2007;45(2):250-258. DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2006.07.025
  67. 67. Liu H-t, Huang P, Ma P, Liu Q-s, Yu C, Du Y-g. Chitosan oligosaccharides suppress LPS-induced IL-8 expression in human umbilical vein endothelial cells through blockade of p38 and Akt protein kinases. Acta Pharmacologica Sinica. 2011;32(4):478-486
  68. 68. Landa N, Miller L, Feinberg MS, Holbova R, Shachar M, Freeman I. Effect of injectable alginate implant on cardiac remodeling and function after recent and old infarcts in rat. Circulation. 2011;32(4):478-486. DOI: 10.1038/aps.2011.10
  69. 69. Shi C, Li Q, Zhao Y, Chen W, Chen B, Xiao Z. Stem-cell-capturing collagen scaffold promotes cardiac tissue regeneration. Biomaterials. 2011;32(10):2508-2515. DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.12.026
  70. 70. Altomare L, Bonetti L, Campiglio CE, De Nardo L, Draghi L, Tana F. Biopolymer-based strategies in the design of smart medical devices and artificial organs. The International Journal of Artificial Organs. 2018;41(6):337-359. DOI: 10.1177/0391398818765323
  71. 71. Ungerleider JL, Christman KL. Concise review: Injectable biomaterials for the treatment of myocardial infarction and peripheral artery disease: Translational challenges and progress. Stem Cells Translational Medicine. 2014;3(9):1090-1099. DOI: 10.5966/sctm.2014-0049
  72. 72. Yari-Ilkhchi A, Ebrahimi-Kalan A, Farhoudi M, Mahkam M. Design of graphenic nanocomposites containing chitosan and polyethylene glycol for spinal cord injury improvement. RSC Advances. 2021;11(33):19992-20002. DOI: 10.1039/D1RA00861G
  73. 73. Dong R, Zhao X, Guo B, Ma PX. Self-healing conductive injectable hydrogels with antibacterial activity as cell delivery carrier for cardiac cell therapy. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces. 2016;8(27):17138-17150. DOI: 10.1021/acsami.6b04911
  74. 74. Yari-Ilkhchi A, Mahkam M, Ebrahimi-Kalan A, Zangbar HS. Design and synthesis of nano-biomaterials based on graphene and local delivery of cerebrolysin into the injured spinal cord of mice, promising neural restoration. Nanoscale Advances. 2024;6(3):990-1000. DOI: 10.1039/D3NA00760J
  75. 75. Zarrintaj P, Saeb MR, Ramakrishna S, Mozafari M. Biomaterials selection for neuroprosthetics. Current Opinion in Biomedical Engineering. 2018;6:99-109. DOI: 10.1016/j.cobme.2018.05.003
  76. 76. Fitch MT, Silver J. CNS injury, glial scars, and inflammation: Inhibitory extracellular matrices and regeneration failure. Experimental Neurology. 2008;209(2):294-301. DOI: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2007.05.014
  77. 77. Hammam IA, Winters R, Hong Z. Advancements in the application of biomaterials in neural tissue engineering: A review. Biomedical Engineering Advances. 2024;8:100132. DOI: 10.1016/j.bea.2024.100132
  78. 78. Sofroniew MV. Astrocyte reactivity: Subtypes, states, and functions in CNS innate immunity. Trends in Immunology. 2020;41(9):758-770. DOI: 10.1016/j.it.2020.07.004
  79. 79. Seckel BR. Enhancement of peripheral nerve regeneration. Muscle and Nerve. 1990;13(9):785-800. DOI: 10.1002/mus.880130904
  80. 80. Alhadidi QM, Bahader GA, Arvola O, Kitchen P, Shah ZA, Salman MM. Astrocytes in functional recovery following central nervous system injuries. The Journal of Physiology. 2024;602(13):3069-3096. DOI: 10.1113/JP284197
  81. 81. Avellino AM, Hart D, Dailey AT, Mackinnon M, Ellegala D, Kliot M. Differential macrophage responses in the peripheral and central nervous system during Wallerian degeneration of axons. Experimental Neurology. 1995;136(2):183-198. DOI: 10.1006/exnr.1995.1095
  82. 82. Avellino AM, Dailey AT, Harlan JM, Sharar SR, Winn RK, McNutt LD. Blocking of up-regulated ICAM-1 does not prevent macrophage infiltration during Wallerian degeneration of peripheral nerve. Experimental Neurology. 2004;187(2):430-444. DOI: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2004.02.004
  83. 83. Gaudet AD, Popovich PG, Ramer MS. Wallerian degeneration: Gaining perspective on inflammatory events after peripheral nerve injury. Journal of Neuroinflammation. 2011;8(1):110. DOI: 10.1186/1742-2094-8-110
  84. 84. Chiono V, Tonda-Turo C. Trends in the design of nerve guidance channels in peripheral nerve tissue engineering. Progress in Neurobiology. 2015;131:87-104. DOI: 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2015.0601
  85. 85. Saberi A, Jabbari F, Zarrintaj P, Saeb MR, Mozafari M. Electrically conductive materials: Opportunities and challenges in tissue engineering. Biomolecules. 2019;9(9):448. DOI: 10.3390/biom9090448
  86. 86. Subramanian A, Krishnan UM, Sethuraman S. Development of biomaterial scaffold for nerve tissue engineering: Biomaterial mediated neural regeneration. Journal of Biomedical Science. 2009;16(1):108. DOI: 10.1186/1423-0127-16-108
  87. 87. Zarei-Kheirabadi M, Sadrosadat H, Mohammadshirazi A, Jaberi R, Sorouri F, Khayyatan F. Human embryonic stem cell-derived neural stem cells encapsulated in hyaluronic acid promotes regeneration in a contusion spinal cord injured rat. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules. 2020;148:1118-1129. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.01.219
  88. 88. Zarrintaj P, Bakhshandeh B, Rezaeian I, Heshmatian B, Ganjali MR. A novel electroactive agarose-aniline pentamer platform as a potential candidate for neural tissue engineering. Scientific Reports. 2017;7(1):17187. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-17486-9
  89. 89. Bellamkonda RV. Peripheral nerve regeneration: An opinion on channels, scaffolds and anisotropy. Biomaterials. 2006;27(19):3515-3518. DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.02.030
  90. 90. Alizadeh R, Zarrintaj P, Kamrava SK, Bagher Z, Farhadi M, Heidari F. Conductive hydrogels based on agarose/alginate/chitosan for neural disorder therapy. Carbohydrate Polymers. 2019;224:115161. DOI: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2019.115161
  91. 91. He B, Liu SQ, Chen Q, Li HH, Ding WJ, Deng M. Carboxymethylated chitosan stimulates proliferation of Schwann cells in vitro via the activation of the ERK and Akt signaling pathways. European Journal of Pharmacology. 2011;667(1):195-201. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejphar.201106.001
  92. 92. Placone JK, Navarro J, Laslo GW, Lerman MJ, Gabard AR, Herendeen GJ. Development and characterization of a 3D printed, keratin-based hydrogel. Annals of Biomedical Engineering. 2017;45(1):237-248. DOI: 10.1007/s10439-016-1621-7
  93. 93. Zhao Y, Wang Y, Niu C, Zhang L, Li G, Yang Y. Construction of polyacrylamide/graphene oxide/gelatin/sodium alginate composite hydrogel with bioactivity for promoting Schwann cells growth. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A. 2018;106(7):1951-1964. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.36393
  94. 94. Kumar P, Ciftci S, Barthes J, Knopf-Marques H, Muller CB, Debry C. A composite gelatin/hyaluronic acid hydrogel as an ECM mimic for developing mesenchymal stem cell-derived epithelial tissue patches. Journal of Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine. 2020;14(1):45-57. DOI: 10.1002/term.2962

Written By

Ayda Yari-Ilkhchi

Submitted: 03 March 2025 Reviewed: 20 May 2025 Published: 22 August 2025