Perniconi B.,French Institute of Health and Medical Research |
Perniconi B.,Maxillofacial Unit |
Coletti D.,French Institute of Health and Medical Research |
Coletti D.,University of Rome La Sapienza |
And 20 more authors.
Frontiers in Physiology | Year: 2014
The extracellular matrix (ECM) of decellularized organs possesses the characteristics of the ideal tissue-engineering scaffold (i.e., histocompatibility, porosity, degradability, non-toxicity). We previously observed that the muscle acellular scaffold (MAS) is a pro-myogenic environmentin vivo. In order to determine whether MAS, which is basically muscle ECM, behaves as a myogenic environment, regardless of its location, we analyzed MAS interaction with both muscle and non-muscle cells and tissues, to assess the effects of MAS on cell differentiation. Bone morphogenetic protein treatment of C2C12 cells cultured within MAS induced osteogenic differentiation in vitro, thus suggesting that MAS does not irreversibly commit cells to myogenesis.In vivo MAS supported formation of nascent muscle fibers when replacing a muscle (orthotopic position). However, heterotopically grafted MAS did not give rise to muscle fibers when transplanted within the renal capsule. Also, no muscle formation was observed when MAS was transplanted under the xiphoid process, in spite of the abundant presence of cells migrating along the laminin-based MAS structure. Taken together, our results suggest that MAS itself is not sufficient to induce myogenic differentiation. It is likely that the pro-myogenic environment of MAS is not strictly related to the intrinsic properties of the muscle scaffold (e.g., specific muscle ECM proteins). Indeed, it is more likely that myogenic stem cells colonizing MAS recognize a muscle environment that ultimately allows terminal myogenic differentiation. In conclusion, MAS may represent a suitable environment for muscle and non-muscle 3D constructs characterized by a highly organized structure whose relative stability promotes integration with the surrounding tissues. Our work highlights the plasticity of MAS, suggesting that it may be possible to consider MAS for a wider range of tissue engineering applications than the mere replacement of volumetric muscle loss. © 2014 Perniconi, Coletti, Aulino, Costa, Aprile, Santacroce, Chiaravalloti, Coquelin, Chevallier, Teodori, Adamo, Marrelli and Tatullo. Source