4.8 Article

Decellularized extracellular matrix: New promising and challenging biomaterials for regenerative medicine

期刊

BIOMATERIALS
卷 289, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2022.121786

关键词

Tissue engineering; Decellularized extracellular matrix; Injectable hydrogels; Electrospun scaffolds; Bioprinted scaffolds

资金

  1. National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [RGPIN-2018-03843, ALLRP 548623-19]
  2. Canada Research Chair research stipend
  3. National Institutes of Health [R01 DC-018577-01A1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Extracellular matrix is a promising biomaterial candidate for regenerative medicine applications due to its rich biomolecules. Decellularized extracellular matrix (dECM) has been developed in various forms, such as injectable hydrogels, electrospun scaffolds, and bioprinted scaffolds, to engineer different tissue types. This review paper highlights the challenges, fabrication methods, and progress made for each tissue type, aiming to push dECM biomaterials towards effective and specialized tissue repair.
Extracellular matrix is rich in biomolecules including structural proteins, glycosaminoglycans, and small mole-cules that are important for the maintenance and repair of tissue. Decellularized extracellular matrix (dECM) is expected to retain these key biomolecules and makes it a promising biomaterial candidate for regenerative medicine applications. To date, dECM-particle based biomaterials have been developed to engineer over 15 tissue types or organs, with the ultimate goal of mimicking specific biological and physical properties of the native tissue. The most common scaffold types are injectable hydrogels, electrospun scaffolds and bioprinted scaffolds. The purpose of this review paper is to highlight key challenges, fabrication methods and progress made for each tissue type, along with the discussion of other elements that are integral to push dECM biomaterials towards effective and specialized tissue repair.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据