3.9 Review

Current strategies of mechanical stimulation for maturation of cardiac microtissues

Journal

BIOPHYSICAL REVIEWS
Volume 13, Issue 5, Pages 717-727

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1007/s12551-021-00841-6

Keywords

Mechanical stimulation; Cardiac microtissues; Maturation

Categories

Funding

  1. Politecnico di Milano within the CRUI-CARE Agreement
  2. European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant [860715]
  3. [841975]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The translation focuses on the importance of mechanical stimulation in promoting a positive response in cardiac tissues and how different strategies have been applied in achieving this goal. It also highlights the distinction between passive and active stimulation, as well as the application of mechanical stimulation in disease modeling.
The most advanced in vitro cardiac models are today based on the use of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs); however, the maturation of cardiomyocytes (CMs) has not yet been fully achieved. Therefore, there is a rising need to move towards models capable of promoting an adult-like cardiomyocytes phenotype. Many strategies have been applied such as co-culture of cardiomyocytes, with fibroblasts and endothelial cells, or conditioning them through biochemical factors and physical stimulations. Here, we focus on mechanical stimulation as it aims to mimic the different mechanical forces that heart receives during its development and the post-natal period. We describe the current strategies and the mechanical properties necessary to promote a positive response in cardiac tissues from different cell sources, distinguishing between passive stimulation, which includes stiffness, topography and static stress and active stimulation, encompassing cyclic strain, compression or perfusion. We also highlight how mechanical stimulation is applied in disease modelling.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available