Elsevier

Biomaterials

Volume 33, Issue 6, February 2012, Pages 1771-1781
Biomaterials

Consequences of ineffective decellularization of biologic scaffolds on the host response

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.10.054Get rights and content

Abstract

Biologic scaffold materials composed of extracellular matrix (ECM) are routinely used for a variety of clinical applications. Despite known variations in tissue remodeling outcomes, quantitative criteria by which decellularization can be assessed were only recently described and as a result, the amount of retained cellular material varies widely among commercial products. The objective of this study was to evaluate the consequences of ineffective decellularization on the host response. Three different methods of decellularization were used to decellularize porcine small intestinal ECM (SIS-ECM). The amount of cell remnants was quantified by the amount and fragmentation of DNA within the scaffold materials. The M1/M2 phenotypic polarization profile of macrophages, activated in response to these ECM scaffolds, was assessed in vitro and in vivo using a rodent model of body wall repair. The results show that, in vitro, more aggressive decellularization is associated with a shift in macrophage phenotype predominance from M1 to M2. While this shift was not quantitatively apparent in vivo, notable differences were found in the distribution of M1 vs. M2 macrophages within the various scaffolds. A clear association between macrophage phenotype and remodeling outcome exists and effective decellularization remains an important component in the processing of ECM-based scaffolds.

Introduction

The use of biologic scaffolds derived from decellularized mammalian tissues is commonplace. Such scaffolds are composed of extracellular matrix (ECM) and have been used to repair or replace a variety of damaged or diseased tissues including cardiac [1], [2], [3], esophageal [4], [5], dermal [6], and musculotendinous tissues [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], among others. These materials are typically regulated as devices and marketed as surgical mesh products; however, these ECM-based scaffolds can also serve as an inductive template for tissue repair and regeneration [12], [13], [14]. Numerous commercial products composed of allogeneic or xenogeneic ECM are now available for clinical use (Table 1).

Results of preclinical and clinical studies with biologic scaffolds have varied from very successful [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] to complete failure [20], [21], [22], [23]. The host response to these materials can be attributed to factors such as the source species (e.g., human, porcine, equine, or bovine), the tissue from which the ECM is isolated (e.g., dermis, small intestine, or pericardium), mechanical loading [24], [25], and the niche factors to which the scaffold is exposed following implantation. The decellularization, disinfection, and sterilization methods used during the manufacturing process can markedly influence the tissue remodeling response and functional outcome [26], [27]. Despite these known variations in functional outcome, no quantitative criteria by which decellularization can be assessed have been suggested until recently [26] and as a result, the amount of retained cellular material varies widely among commercial products composed of decellularized tissues [28]. The consequences of ineffective or incomplete decellularization upon the host response have not been systematically investigated.

The innate and acquired immune response to non-autologous cells is well established and understood by the tissue and organ transplantation community. However, the response to acellular xenogeneic or allogeneic biologic scaffold materials is less well understood. The macrophage represents a key component of the host response. Macrophages are activated in response to tissue damage, infection, or the presence of foreign antigens and subsequently release a variety of cytokines and chemokines [29]. Macrophages are now recognized to assume a variety of phenotypes characterized by distinct functional properties, surface markers, and their secreted cytokine profile [30]. Polarized macrophages are referred to as either M1 or M2 cells, mimicking the Th1/Th2 nomenclature. Classically activated, M1 proinflammatory macrophages express IL-12high, IL-23high, IL-10low; metabolize arginine; produce high levels of inducible nitric oxide synthetase (iNOS); secrete toxic reactive oxygen and nitric oxygen intermediates and inflammatory cytokines such as IL-1β, IL-6, and TNF. M1 macrophages are inducer and effector cells in Th1 type inflammatory responses. In contrast, M2, alternatively activated macrophages are induced by exposure to a variety of signals including the cytokines IL-4, IL-13, and IL-10, immune complexes, and glucocorticoid or secosteroid (vitamin D3) hormones. M2 activated macrophages express IL-12low, IL-23low, and IL-10high; have high levels of scavenger, mannose, and galactose receptors; produce arginase in the place of arginine which results in the secretion of ornithine and polyamines; are involved in polarized Th2 reactions; and possess the ability to facilitate tissue repair and constructive remodeling [29], [31], [32].

Previous studies have demonstrated the importance of macrophages in tissue repair and regeneration, particularly in applications involving biologic scaffolds [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]. Macrophages are responsible, in part, for the degradation of ECM scaffolds. Depletion of circulating macrophages severely attenuates scaffold degradation and the associated constructive remodeling response [37]. Non-crosslinked biologic scaffolds promote the expression of an M2 macrophage phenotype at the site of remodeling although a population of macrophages expressing markers of an M1 phenotype persists [34], [36]. Tidball has demonstrated that it is the switch from an M1 to M2 phenotype that stimulates progenitor cell differentiation and constructive tissue remodeling while an early M1 response stimulates progenitor cell recruitment and proliferation [33]. The ability of biologic scaffolds to promote expression of an M2 macrophage phenotype may therefore be critical to their ability to promote constructive tissue remodeling. However, the mechanism by which these biologic scaffolds promote M2 macrophage expression is currently unknown.

It is known that cell death incites a series of events that typically results in the classic cascade of inflammatory processes including polymorphonuclear leukocyte (PMN) and mononuclear cell accumulation, edema, fibroblast infiltration, and eventual scar tissue formation [38], [39], [40]. The presence of intact cells within a biologic scaffold material has been shown to elicit a greater proinflammatory response than use of the acellular biologic scaffold alone [36]. It is logical, therefore, that cell remnants within a partially decellularized tissue could elicit a proinflammatory response that would adversely affect a constructive tissue remodeling outcome. In fact, it has been shown that the presence of intact cells within implanted scaffolds can be associated with adverse remodeling [36]. In contrast, thoroughly decellularized biologic ECM scaffolds are known to promote a host response that is polarized towards the M2 macrophage phenotype and is associated with constructive tissue remodeling [34], [36], [37]. These two responses sit at the polar extremes of the host response to an implanted biologic scaffold. Little is known about which cell components stimulate an M1 macrophage response or if a threshold level for cellular material exists below which the M2 macrophage phenotype predominates. It has been suggested that the presence of mitochondria or mitochondrial DNA may be a stimulator of M1 macrophages given their primitive bacterial origin [41]. In light of the heterogeneity with regard to the amount and efficacy of decellularization in commercially available ECM scaffolds [28], a more thorough understanding of the effects of cell remnants upon the host response is needed.

The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effect of cell remnants (i.e., ineffective tissue decellularization) within biologic scaffolds upon in vitro and in vivo outcome measures. Three different methods were used to decellularize porcine small intestinal submucosal ECM (SIS-ECM). The amount of cellular material remaining was quantified by the amount and fragmentation of DNA. The polarization profile of activated macrophages in response to these ECM scaffolds was then assessed in vitro and in vivo using a rodent model of body wall repair.

Section snippets

Harvest and preparation of ECM from porcine small intestine

Preparation of small intestinal submucosa (SIS) ECM has been previously described [42], [43]. Briefly, jejunum was harvested from market weight (240–260 lbs.) pigs and split longitudinally. The superficial layers of the tunica mucosa were mechanically removed. Likewise, the tunica serosa and tunica muscularis externa were mechanically removed, leaving the tunica submucosa and basilar portions of the tunica mucosa. To produce ECM with differing amounts of remnant cellular material, three

DNA concentration and fragmentation in scaffolds

The amount of tissue decellularization following the three preparation methods was assessed using previously established guidelines for decellularization [26]. Intact nuclei were visible by H&E and DAPI staining on samples prepared with PBS washing only (Fig. 1A and B). No intact nuclei were seen by H&E staining on samples treated with PAA for either 1 hr (Fig. 1C) or 2 h (Fig. 1E) although potential fragments of DNA were seen attached to the ECM fibers in DAPI stained samples following 1 hr

Discussion

The present study attempts to determine the association between decellularization efficacy and host response by qualitative and quantitative methods. Quantitative criteria of decellularization have not been described until recently [26]. The presence of xenogeneic DNA within biologic scaffold materials has been suggested as a possible cause of an “inflammatory response” [20] in patients. Indeed, many commercial biologic scaffolds contain varying amounts of remnant DNA [28], [46]. This remnant

Conclusion

The results of this study show that decellularization efficacy of biologic scaffold materials is at least one determinant of the macrophage phenotype response. Although a cause-effect relationship between macrophage phenotype and remodeling outcome has not been definitely shown, a clear association exists. Effective decellularization remains an important component in the production of ECM-based scaffolds for therapeutic applications.

Acknowledgments

Funding for this study was provided through a grant from the National Institutes of Health (R01 AR054940).

References (69)

  • A.V. Boruch et al.

    Constructive remodeling of biologic scaffolds is dependent on early exposure to physiologic bladder filling in a canine partial cystectomy model

    J Surg Res

    (2010)
  • P.M. Crapo et al.

    An overview of tissue and whole organ decellularization processes

    Biomaterials

    (2011)
  • T.W. Gilbert et al.

    Decellularization of tissues and organs

    Biomaterials

    (2006)
  • T.W. Gilbert et al.

    Quantification of DNA in biologic scaffold materials

    J Surg Res

    (2009)
  • A. Mantovani et al.

    The chemokine system in diverse forms of macrophage activation and polarization

    Trends Immunol

    (2004)
  • A. Mantovani et al.

    Macrophage polarization: tumor-associated macrophages as a paradigm for polarized M2 mononuclear phagocytes

    Trends Immunol

    (2002)
  • B.N. Brown et al.

    Macrophage phenotype and remodeling outcomes in response to biologic scaffolds with and without a cellular component

    Biomaterials

    (2009)
  • R.A. Clark

    Biology of dermal wound repair

    Dermatol Clin

    (1993)
  • S.F. Badylak et al.

    Small intestinal submucosa as a large diameter vascular graft in the dog

    J Surg Res

    (1989)
  • S. Nagata et al.

    Autoimmunity and the clearance of dead cells

    Cell

    (2010)
  • S. Badylak et al.

    Morphologic study of small intestinal submucosa as a body wall repair device

    J Surg Res

    (2002)
  • D.O. Freytes et al.

    Biaxial strength of multilaminated extracellular matrix scaffolds

    Biomaterials

    (2004)
  • J.E. Reing et al.

    The effects of processing methods upon mechanical and biologic properties of porcine dermal extracellular matrix scaffolds

    Biomaterials

    (2010)
  • B.N. Brown et al.

    Surface characterization of extracellular matrix scaffolds

    Biomaterials

    (2010)
  • C.A. Barnes et al.

    The surface molecular functionality of decellularized extracellular matrices

    Biomaterials

    (2011)
  • J.D. Vaught et al.

    Detrusor regeneration in the rat using porcine small intestinal submucosal grafts: functional innervation and receptor expression

    J Urol

    (1996)
  • E. Rieder et al.

    Decellularization protocols of porcine heart valves differ importantly in efficiency of cell removal and susceptibility of the matrix to recellularization with human vascular cells

    J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg

    (2004)
  • B.M. Delavary et al.

    Macrophages in skin injury and repair

    Immunobiology

    (2011)
  • P. Akhyari et al.

    Myocardial tissue engineering: the extracellular matrix

    Eur J Cardiothorac Surg

    (2008)
  • P.V. Kochupura et al.

    Tissue-engineered myocardial patch derived from extracellular matrix provides regional mechanical function

    Circulation

    (2005)
  • S.F. Badylak et al.

    The use of extracellular matrix as an inductive scaffold for the partial replacement of functional myocardium

    Cell Transplant

    (2006)
  • S.A. Brigido et al.

    Effective management of major lower extremity wounds using an acellular regenerative tissue matrix: a pilot study

    Orthopedics

    (2004)
  • L.M. Dejardin et al.

    Tissue-engineered rotator cuff tendon using porcine small intestine submucosa – histologic and mechanical evaluation in dogs

    Am J Sport Med

    (2001)
  • S.F. Badylak et al.

    Biologic scaffolds for constructive tissue remodeling

    Biomaterials

    (2011)
  • Cited by (497)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    These authors contributed equally.

    View full text