4.5 Review

Current opportunities and challenges in skeletal muscle tissue engineering

Journal

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/term.190

Keywords

tissue engineering; regenerative medicine; stem cells; satellite cells; myoblasts; skeletal muscle; facial muscle

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of this article is to give a concise review of the current state of the art in tissue engineering (TE) of skeletal muscle and the opportunities and challenges for future clinical applicability. The endogenous progenitor cells of skeletal muscle, i.e. satellite cells, show a high proneness to muscular differentiation, in particular exhibiting the same characteristics and function as its donor muscle. This suggests that it is important to use an appropriate progenitor cell, especially in TE facial muscles, which have a exceptional anatomical and fibre composition compared to other skeletal muscle. Muscle TE requires an instructive scaffold for structural support and to regulate the proliferation and differentiation of muscle progenitor cells. Current literature suggests that optimal scaffolding could comprise of a fibrin gel and cultured monolayers of muscle satellite cells obtained through the cell sheet technique. Tissue-engineered muscle constructs require an adequate connection to the vascular system for efficient transport of oxygen, carbon dioxide, nutrients and waste products. Finally, functional and clinically applicable muscle constructs depend on adequate neuromuscular junctions with neural cells. To reach this, it seems important to apply optimal electrical, chemotropic and mechanical stimulation during engineering and discover other factors that influence its formation. Thus, in addition to approaches for myogenesis, we discuss the current status of strategies for angiogenesis and neurogenesis of TE muscle constructs and the significance for future clinical use. Copyright (C) 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available