Developing quantitative MRI parameters to characterize host response and tissue ingrowth into collagen scaffolds
Mohammed Salman Shazeeb
Department of Radiology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, USA
Search for more papers by this authorStuart Howes
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, USA
Search for more papers by this authorSivakumar Kandasamy
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, USA
Search for more papers by this authorThelge Buddika Peiris
Department of Mathematical Sciences, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, USA
Search for more papers by this authorChristopher H. Sotak
Department of Radiology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, USA
Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, USA
DeceasedSearch for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
George D. Pins
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, USA
Correspondence
George D. Pins, Ph.D., Department of Biomedical Engineering, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Life Sciences & Bioengineering Center, 4010, 100 Institute Road, Worcester MA 01609, USA.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorMohammed Salman Shazeeb
Department of Radiology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, USA
Search for more papers by this authorStuart Howes
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, USA
Search for more papers by this authorSivakumar Kandasamy
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, USA
Search for more papers by this authorThelge Buddika Peiris
Department of Mathematical Sciences, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, USA
Search for more papers by this authorChristopher H. Sotak
Department of Radiology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, USA
Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, USA
DeceasedSearch for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
George D. Pins
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, USA
Correspondence
George D. Pins, Ph.D., Department of Biomedical Engineering, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Life Sciences & Bioengineering Center, 4010, 100 Institute Road, Worcester MA 01609, USA.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
The in vivo evaluation of soft biomaterial implant remodeling routinely requires the surgical removal of the implant for subsequent histological assessment of tissue ingrowth and scaffold remodeling. This approach is very resource intensive, often destructive, and imposes practical limitations on how effectively these materials can be evaluated. MRI has the potential to non-invasively monitor the remodeling of implanted collagen scaffolds in real time. This study investigated the development of a model system to characterize the cellular infiltration, void area fraction, and angiogenesis in collagen scaffold implants using T2 relaxation time and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps along with conventional histological techniques. Initial correlations found statistically significant relationships between the MRI and histological parameters for various regions of the implanted sponges: T2 versus cell density (r ≈ −0.83); T2 versus void area fraction (r ≈ +0.78); T2 versus blood vessel density (r ≈ +0.95); ADC versus cell density (r ≈ −0.77); and ADC versus void area fraction (r ≈ +0.84). This suggests that MRI is sensitive to specific remodeling parameters and has the potential to serve as a non-invasive tool to monitor the remodeling of implanted collagen scaffolds, and to ultimately assess the ability of these scaffolds to regenerate the functional properties of damaged tissues such as tendons, ligaments, skin or skeletal muscle.
REFERENCES
- 1Langer R, Vacanti JP. Tissue engineering. Science. 1993; 260(5110): 920-926.
- 2Yannas IV, Burke JF, Orgill DP, Skrabut EM. Wound tissue can utilize a polymeric template to synthesize a functional extension of skin. Science. 1982; 215(4529): 174-176.
- 3Bell E, Ehrlich HP, Buttle DJ, Nakatsuji T. Living tissue formed in vitro and accepted as skin-equivalent tissue of full thickness. Science. 1981; 211(4486): 1052-1054.
- 4Bitar KN, Zakhem E. Design strategies of biodegradable scaffolds for tissue regeneration. Biomed Eng Comput Biol. 2014; 6: 13-20.
- 5Hosseinkhani M, Mehrabani D, Karimfar MH, Bakhtiyari S, Manafi A, Shirazi R. Tissue engineered scaffolds in regenerative medicine. World J Plast Surg. 2014; 3(1): 3-7.
- 6Lutolf MP, Hubbell JA. Synthetic biomaterials as instructive extracellular microenvironments for morphogenesis in tissue engineering. Nat Biotechnol. 2005; 23(1): 47-55.
- 7Mafi P, Hindocha S, Mafi R, Khan WS. Evaluation of biological protein-based collagen scaffolds in cartilage and musculoskeletal tissue engineering--a systematic review of the literature. Curr Stem Cell Res Ther. 2012; 7(4): 302-309.
- 8Langer R, Vacanti J. Advances in tissue engineering. J Pediatr Surg. 2015; 51(1): 8-12.
- 9Ramshaw JA. Biomedical applications of collagens. J Biomed Mater Res B. 2015; 104(4): 665-675.
- 10Pieper JS, van Wachem PB, van Luyn MJA, et al. Attachment of glycosaminoglycans to collagenous matrices modulates the tissue response in rats. Biomaterials. 2000; 21(16): 1689-1699.
- 11Rutgers M, van Pelt MJ, Dhert WJ, Creemers LB, Saris DB. Evaluation of histological scoring systems for tissue-engineered, repaired and osteoarthritic cartilage. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2010; 18(1): 12-23.
- 12Longo UG, Loppini M, Romeo G, Maffulli N, Denaro V. Histological scoring systems for tissue-engineered, ex vivo and degenerative meniscus. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013; 21(7): 1569-1576.
- 13Traore AS, Woerly S, Doan VD, Marois Y, Guidoin R. In vivo magnetic resonance imaging and relaxometry study of a porous hydrogel implanted in the trapezius muscle of rabbits. Tissue Eng. 2000; 6(3): 265-278.
- 14Freiman M, Voss SD, Mulkern RV, Perez-Rossello JM, Callahan MJ, Warfield SK. In vivo assessment of optimal b-value range for perfusion-insensitive apparent diffusion coefficient imaging. Med Phys. 2012; 39(8): 4832-4839.
- 15Thevenaz P, Unser M. User-friendly semiautomated assembly of accurate image mosaics in microscopy. Microsc Res Tech. 2007; 70(2): 135-146.
- 16Sharkawy AA, Klitzman B, Truskey GA, Reichert WM. Engineering the tissue which encapsulates subcutaneous implants. I. Diffusion properties. J Biomed Mater Res. 1997; 37(3): 401-412.
- 17Bailey AJ. Perspective article: the fate of collagen implants in tissue defects. Wound Repair Regen. 2000; 8(1): 5-12.
- 18Anderson JM, Cook G, Costerton B, et al. Host Reactions to Biomaterials and Their Evaluation. 2nd ed. San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press; 2004.
- 19Chakraborti S, Mandal M, Das S, Mandal A, Chakraborti T. Regulation of matrix metalloproteinases: an overview. Mol Cell Biochem. 2003; 253(1–2): 269-285.
- 20Lee CR, Grodzinsky AJ, Spector M. The effects of cross-linking of collagen-glycosaminoglycan scaffolds on compressive stiffness, chondrocyte-mediated contraction, proliferation and biosynthesis. Biomaterials. 2001; 22(23): 3145-3154.
- 21Urenjak J, Williams SR, Gadian DG, Noble M. Proton nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy unambiguously identifies different neural cell types. J Neurosci. 1993; 13(3): 981-989.
- 22Tonnesen MG, Feng X, Clark RA. Angiogenesis in wound healing. J Investig Dermatol Symp Proc. 2000; 5(1): 40-46.
- 23O'Brien FJ, Harley BA, Yannas IV, Gibson L. influence of freezing rate on pore structure in freeze-dried collagen-GAG scaffolds. Biomaterials. 2004; 25(6): 1077-1086.
- 24Nebelung S, Brill N, Tingart M, et al. Quantitative OCT and MRI biomarkers for the differentiation of cartilage degeneration. Skeletal Radiol. 2016; 45(4): 505-516.
- 25Ravindran S, Kotecha M, Huang CC, et al. Biological and MRI characterization of biomimetic ECM scaffolds for cartilage tissue regeneration. Biomaterials. 2015; 71: 58-70.
- 26Potter K, Butler JJ, Horton WE, Spencer RG. Response of engineered cartilage tissue to biochemical agents as studied by proton magnetic resonance microscopy. Arthritis Rheum. 2000; 43(7): 1580-1590.
- 27Watrin-Pinzano A, Ruaud JP, Cheli Y, et al. Evaluation of cartilage repair tissue after biomaterial implantation in rat patella by using T2 mapping. Magma (New York, NY). 2004; 17(3–6): 219-228.
- 28Fujihara Y, Nitta N, Misawa M, et al. T2 and apparent diffusion coefficient of MRI reflect maturation of tissue-engineered auricular cartilage subcutaneously transplanted in rats. Tissue Eng Part C Methods. 2016; 22(5): 429-438.
- 29Sun Y, Geutjes P, Oosterwijk E, Heerschap A. In vivo magnetic resonance imaging of type I collagen scaffold in rat: improving visualization of bladder and subcutaneous implants. Tissue Eng Part C Methods. 2014; 20(12): 964-971.
- 30Welsch GH, Trattnig S, Domayer S, Marlovits S, White LM, Mamisch TC. Multimodal approach in the use of clinical scoring, morphological MRI and biochemical T2-mapping and diffusion-weighted imaging in their ability to assess differences between cartilage repair tissue after microfracture therapy and matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte transplantation: a pilot study. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2009; 17(9): 1219-1227.
- 31Chou MC, Tsai PH, Huang GS, et al. Correlation between the MR T2 value at 4.7 T and relative water content in articular cartilage in experimental osteoarthritis induced by ACL transection. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2008; 17(4): 441-447.
- 32Nugent AE, Reiter DA, Fishbein KW, et al. Characterization of ex vivo-generated bovine and human cartilage by immunohistochemical, biochemical, and magnetic resonance imaging analyses. Tissue Eng Part A. 2010; 16(7): 2183-2196.
- 33Burstein D, Bashir A, Gray ML. MRI techniques in early stages of cartilage disease. Invest Radiol. 2000; 35(10): 622-638.
- 34Paul PK, Rubin AS, Wang J, Mezrich RS, Douglas FL. MRI T2 relaxation time reflects the inflammatory changes in a arthritis rat model at multiple time points. Paper presented at: Images of the Twenty-First Century. Proceedings of the Annual International Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society; November 9–12, 1989; Seattle, WA. pp. 580–581.
- 35Pohlmann A, Tilling LC, Robinson A, et al. Progression and variability of TNBS colitis-associated inflammation in rats assessed by contrast-enhanced and T2-weighted MRI. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2008; 15(4): 534-545.
- 36Ling CR, Foster MA. Changes in NMR relaxation time associated with local inflammatory response. Phys Med Biol. 1982; 27(6): 853-860.
- 37Henning EC, Azuma C, Sotak CH, Helmer KG. Multispectral tissue characterization in a RIF-1 tumor model: monitoring the ADC and T2 responses to single-dose radiotherapy. Part II. Magn Reson Med. 2007; 57(3): 513-519.
- 38Hayashida Y, Hirai T, Morishita S, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of metastatic brain tumors: comparison with histologic type and tumor cellularity. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2006; 27(7): 1419-1425.
- 39Lyng H, Haraldseth O, Rofstad EK. Measurement of cell density and necrotic fraction in human melanoma xenografts by diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med. 2000; 43(6): 828-836.
- 40Helmer KG, Meiler MR, Sotak CH, Petruccelli JD. Comparison of the return-to-the-origin probability and the apparent diffusion coefficient of water as indicators of necrosis in RIF-1 tumors. Magn Reson Med. 2003; 49(3): 468-478.
- 41Ahn JM, Yoon HK, Suh YL, et al. Infantile fibromatosis in childhood: findings on MR imaging and pathologic correlation. Clin Radiol. 2000; 55(1): 19-24.
