Abstract
Respiratory diseases have a major impact on global health. The airway epithelium, which acts as a frontline defence, is one of the most common targets for inhaled allergens, irritants, or micro-organisms to enter the respiratory system. In the tissue engineering field, biomaterials play a crucial role. Due to the continuing high impact of respiratory diseases on society and the emergence of new respiratory viruses, in vitro airway epithelial models with high microphysiological similarities that are also easily adjustable to replicate disease models are urgently needed to better understand those diseases. Thus, the development of biomaterial scaffolds for the airway epithelium is important due to their function as a cell-support device in which cells are seeded in vitro and then are encouraged to lay down a matrix to form the foundations of a tissue for transplantation. Studies conducted in in vitro models are necessary because they accelerate the development of new treatments. Moreover, in comparatively controlled conditions, in vitro models allow for the stimulation of complex interactions between cells, scaffolds, and growth factors. Based on recent studies, the biomaterial scaffolds that have been tested in in vitro models appear to be viable options for repairing the airway epithelium and avoiding any complications. This review discusses the role of biomaterial scaffolds in in vitro airway epithelium models. The effects of scaffold, physicochemical, and mechanical properties in recent studies were also discussed.
Keywords: airway epithelium, biomaterial, scaffold, mucociliary differentiation, in vitro
1. Introduction
Respiratory diseases have a massive impact on global health. The top 20 causes of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) in the 2020 Global Burden of Disease Report include four of the “big five” lung diseases after examining all ages and all nation income levels [1]. The fourth major cause is lower tract respiratory infection, the sixth is chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the twelfth is tuberculosis (TB), and the seventeenth is lung cancer. According to the Forum of International Respiratory Societies held in 2017, there are an estimated 65 million people with moderate to severe COPD, about 334 million people suffer from asthma, 10.4 million people developed TB in 2015, acute lower respiratory tract infections have been identified as one of the top three causes of death and disability in both children and adults, and lung cancer kills 1.6 million people each year. In addition, inhalation of particulate matter (PM) has been linked to morbidity and mortality in cardiopulmonary disorders such as COPD, asthma, lung cancer, pneumonia, ischemic heart disease, and stroke in recent epidemiological and experimental studies [2,3]. The nose, as the primary organ exposed to environmental microbes, pollutants, and allergens, plays a leading role in the development of respiratory diseases. Therefore, it is not surprising that upper airway inflammation is so common nowadays. According to one researcher [4], epithelial cells, which form a protective lining on the surfaces of airways and alveoli within the lungs, serve as the initial recipients of inhaled substances originating from various external sources, such as the environment or workplace. Following an injury, the airway epithelium must undergo rapid repair and renewal to regain its integrity and functionality [5].
The airway epithelium plays an important role in the lungs’ defence against pathogens. In vitro models can be used to investigate the basic steps of the wound healing process, as well as the role of various cytokines and extracellular matrix (ECM) components in triggering behavioural changes in wound-healing epithelial cells. Moreover, the airway epithelium maintains a conduit for air to pass to and from the alveoli. Airway epithelium cells (ECs) line the airways and transfer gases to and from the alveoli [4]. They are the most numerous cell type in the lung and the first to meet inhaled chemicals; hence, they play a crucial role in host defence control. The airway tract can be divided into two zones: the respiratory zone, responsible for oxygenating the blood, and the conditioning zone, which cleans, moistens, and transports inhaled air to the distal part of the airways [6]. In addition, the continuous layer that covers the respiratory tract’s surface known as the airway epithelium is made up of cells joined by adhesion and tight junctions [7]. In the proximal intrapulmonary airways, the epithelium is pseudostratified, with basal cells serving as progenitors [8].
Moreover, the airway epithelium, which lines the respiratory tract, possesses several key features that enable it to perform crucial functions in the respiratory system. Some of the main features of the airway epithelium include ciliated and mucus-producing cells. Both types of cell beat in coordinated motions to move mucus and trapped particles upward, helping to clear the airways of debris and pathogens [9]. Goblet cells, interspersed within the epithelium, produce mucus, further aiding in trapping and expelling inhaled contaminants [10], while the tight junctions between epithelial cells form a barrier, regulating ion and molecule passage while safeguarding the airway’s integrity [11]. Additionally, immune cells, including macrophages and dendritic cells, are stationed within the epithelium to detect and respond to pathogens [12]. The airway epithelium’s capacity for self-repair and regeneration ensures resilience in the face of damage, while sensory receptors allow it to detect irritants and initiate protective measures. These remarkable features collectively enable the airway epithelium to serve as a critical defence mechanism against respiratory infections and maintain the vital process of gas exchange in the lungs.
To ensure adequate health and safety conditions, it is increasingly essential to establish credible experimental models for the clinical utilization of biomaterials and for predicting the success or failure of implants. The practice of operating outside of a living creature in a controlled environment is known as in vitro modelling. In vitro models have quickly gained the potential to establish a link between animal and clinical studies by providing more comprehensive systems that mimic the natural key aspects of human tissue structure, biochemistry, biomechanics, and functions [13]. Moreover, a recent study successfully proved that in vitro human alveolar models bring a great new powerful platform for discovering the cellular behaviour and activity of human lung alveolar stem/progenitor cells, cell–cell crosstalk, host–pathogen interactions, drug screening, and toxicity studies [14].
Biomaterials provide artificial tissues with physical support as well as potent topographical and chemical cues to guide cell behaviour. The fabrication of biomaterial scaffolds in an in vitro airway epithelium model may be a good solution to assist in the formation of new functional tissues for medical purposes. Scaffolds act as three-dimensional porous solid biomaterials to provide a template for the regeneration of defects while encouraging cell attachment, proliferation, extracellular matrix production, and the restoration of arteries, nerves, muscles, and bones, among other things [15]. Different biomaterial scaffolds can be tuned to adjust porosity, gelation time, and degradation rate to provide tailorable biomaterials that potentiate the cell survival and differentiation that enable therapeutic effects. Moreover, to improve cell signalling or ECM production, the biomimicry methodology of arranging diverse cellular components to mimic living tissue like growth factors, hormones, ECM proteins, and others has been applied [16].
To this point, there has been no comprehensive systematic review or meta-analysis conducted to explore the role of biomaterials in the development of the airway epithelium in in vitro models. Given the current high level of interest in biomaterial-based interventions, it is now opportune to undertake such a review. Our systematic review and meta-analysis have the overarching goal of evaluating the potential of appropriate biomaterials for constructing an in vitro model of airway epithelium development. This review delves into the pivotal role played by biomaterial scaffolds within the context of in vitro models of the airway epithelium. It explores how these scaffolds contribute to the development and functionality of these models. In addition to discussing the general significance of biomaterial scaffolds, this review takes a closer look at the specific effects they exert. This examination encompasses the scaffold’s physicochemical properties, such as its composition, surface characteristics, and chemical interactions, as well as its mechanical properties, such as stiffness and elasticity. Recent studies investigating these aspects are thoroughly examined and analysed. By doing so, this review aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of how biomaterial scaffolds influence the creation and performance of in vitro airway epithelium models, shedding light on their potential applications and advancements in the field. Thus, this review is important to understand the properties of ideal biomaterials for an in vitro airway epithelium model and to enhance the development of suitable biomaterials in the future for use as part of an in vitro airway epithelium model.
Figure 1 shows the use of an ideal biomaterial for the in vitro airway epithelium model.
Figure 1.
The use of ideal biomaterial for in vitro airway epithelium model.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Search Criteria
Comprehensive research articles were retrieved from three databases: PubMed, Scopus, and Science Direct. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to identify and retrieve the literature [17]. The search strategy or searching method used two sets of keyword combinations, which were “biomaterials” OR “scaffold” OR “material” OR “natural material” AND “airway epithelium” OR “respiratory epithelium” AND “in vitro”. Any disagreements between the authors were settled by reviewing the abstracts and full texts to ascertain the criteria employed in the studies. Table 1 shows the full list of the inclusion/exclusion criteria imposed.
Table 1.
List of inclusion/exclusion criteria.
Inclusion Criteria | Exclusion Criteria |
---|---|
|
|
2.2. Data Extraction and Analysis
Specific categories for data analysis were developed before evaluating the recognized publications; these related to the cellular and biomaterial inputs that were used in the airway epithelium and the biological and biomechanical outcome measures. The cellular input comprised the type of cells used while biomaterial inputs comprised biomaterial composition, technique of further crosslinking, and biological functionalization. In this analysis, three steps were used to fulfil the requirements of this review. First, the titles of the articles were screened. Then, the selected papers were subjected to an abstract analysis. Lastly, articles published that did not focus on the specific categories stated above were removed.
3. Results
3.1. Study Characteristics
Among the articles chosen, all the articles were biomaterials-based and reported on physicochemical, mechanical, and biological properties, particularly in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. All of the studies were published between the years 2012 and 2022. The flowchart in Figure 2 summarizes the study selection approach. With that, the data were summarized including physicochemical and mechanical properties and biological properties such as cellular response. A summary of all the studies included is displayed in Table 2.
Figure 2.
Flow diagram of article selection and data extraction management.
3.2. Physicochemical, Mechanical, and Biological Properties
In developing a new biomaterial for future use in an in vitro airway model, there are physicochemical and mechanical properties such as biodegradation, swelling ratio, porosity, ultrastructure, mechanical strength, contact angle, and water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) that need to be studied. Mechanical properties, corrosion/degradation resistance, and electrical/optical properties are the most important physicochemical features of a material [18]. In this review, 8 out of the 16 articles reported their findings on the physicochemical and mechanical properties of the biomaterials or scaffolds, including ultrastructure, porosity, contact angle, degradation, and trans-epithelial electrical resistance measurements, while the other articles focused on the biological properties. For ultrastructure, the average diameter of the scaffolds is between 0.24 and 454 µm [18,19,20], while for pore and porosity, the average of the data is between 2.8 and 469 µm and 10.45 and 90% [20,21,22]. According to one researcher [19], the contact angle of their Electrospun Poly (Methylmethacrylate) (PMMA) nanofibers was higher than 90°, while in the study reported in [20], their hydrogel showed that the contact angle was lower than 90°, which indicated hydrophilicity of the scaffolds.
Cell attachment and spreading are two of the important biological properties to observe in the development of suitable biomaterial scaffolds. According to several recent studies, the structural characteristics of a scaffold control the biological qualities of cells, which are essential for the formation of tissue substitutes [23]. In addition, cell attachment is the first stage in a series of cell–biomaterial interactions, and it is critical for cellular activities like cell guidance, proliferation, and differentiation. Cell attachment assays are used to measure adhesion between cells or between a cell and a surface or extracellular matrix. The objective of this parameter is to determine the percentage of cell attachment at a certain time after the cell was seeded. The cell attachment rate needs to be higher than 80% to achieve a good result in cell attachment and spreading. Epithelial cells must attach and form a monolayer to achieve epithelial barrier function [24]. In this review, in vitro outcomes including cell attachment, differentiation, and proliferation were also measured. The most used cell types in the studies are human bronchial epithelial cells (HBECs), respiratory epithelial cells (RECs), and the bronchial epithelial cell line (Calu-3). The results are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2.
A summary of studies of physicochemical, mechanical, and biological properties of biomaterials/scaffolds in in vitro airway epithelium models.
Type of Biomaterials/Scaffolds | Type of Cells | Outcomes | Conclusion |
---|---|---|---|
Microgrooved gelatin hydrogel crosslinked with glutaraldehyde [25] |
Human bronchial epithelial cell line (BEAS-2B) |
1. Topographical
|
|
Non-woven bilayered biodegradable chitosan-gelatin-polylactide (CGP) with hyaluronic acid (HA) immobilization scaffold [22] |
Human respiratory epithelium cells (HRECs) |
1. Physicochemical properties
|
|
Three-dimensionally printed porous structure of a thermoresponsive injectable polyethercarbonate (3D-TIPS) stiffness-softening elastomer nanohybrid impregnated with collagen nanofibrous hydrogel [26] |
|
1. Mechanical properties
|
|
Electrospun nanofibers of poly(ε-caprolactone)/ depolymerized chitosan (PCL/chitosan) [27] |
Porcine tracheobronchial epithelial (PTBE) cells |
1. Mechanical properties
|
|
|
Respiratory epithelial cells (RECs) |
1. Contact angle
|
|
Three-dimensional-printing of silk fibroin/hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (SF/HPMC) thixotropic hydrogel [20] |
Normal human bronchial epithelial cell line (BEAS-2B) |
1. Ultrastructure
|
|
Electrospun polyethylene terephthalate scaffold (PET) [18] |
The epithelial cell line (Calu-3) The fibroblast (MRC-5) cell lines |
1. Trans-epithelial electrical resistance (TEER) measurements
|
|
Novel electrospun biphasic scaffold [21] |
MRC5 and CALU3 cell lines |
1. Diameter
|
|
Collagen IV- and laminin-containing extracellular matrix [28] |
Human bronchial epithelial cells (HBECs) |
1. Cell attachment, differentiation, and proliferation
|
Collagen IV and laminin, two extracellular matrix proteins, are crucial for respiratory epithelial adhesion and growth in vitro. |
Fibrin gel [29] |
Respiratory epithelial cells |
1. Cell differentiation
|
|
Porous three-dimensional silk fibroin scaffolds (3D SF) [30] |
Human tracheobronchial epithelial cells (HBECs) |
1. Cell viability and proliferation:
|
|
|
Calu-3 bronchial epithelial cell line |
1. Biocompatibility:
|
|
Microfluidic lung airway-on-a-chip with arrayable suspended gels [32] |
|
1. Cell adhesion:
|
|
Human plasma [33] |
|
1. Histological analysis:
|
|
Urinary bladder-derived ECM hydrogels [34] |
Human bronchial epithelial cells (HBECs) |
1. Cell Proliferation and differentiation
|
|
|
|
1. Cell differentiation and proliferation
|
|
4. Discussion
In tissue engineering, approaches to the development of biomaterials in airway regeneration, especially the airway epithelium, are currently limited. Currently, in vitro models with high microphysiological similarity, that are at the same time easily tuneable to simulate disease models, are not readily available due to a lack of knowledge on the topographical and biochemical requirements for the formation of an in vitro airway epithelium with mucociliary function. Therefore, this review was conducted to determine the best biomaterials to develop an airway epithelial graft for future use. According to a study [24], there are selection criteria to identify the potential biomaterial based on specific criteria, for example, the epithelial graft must have a good mechanical strength, of more than 1.39 ± 0.16 MPa, to allow for transferability and surgical manipulation. Other than that, the biomaterials must be maintained from degradation until epithelial development is complete. Cell attachment and spreading also need to achieve at least 80%, the metabolic activity must be maintained, early focal adhesion formation is required within 2 h, and differentiation into 20% ciliated cells and 5% goblet cells is necessary.
Based on a previous study, mechanical properties are those that influence a material’s mechanical strength and ability to be moulded into a desired shape [36]. Moreover, some treatments might be affected by the mechanical properties of the material such as the heat treatment procedure and the operating temperature, which can alter the mechanical properties. There are numerous experimental methods for the characterization of biomaterials that are extensively used such as tensile yield stress, Young’s modulus, and fatigue stress. For the best mechanical properties, the biomaterial scaffold used in the airway epithelium must have mechanical strength that allows for transferability and surgical manipulation; as an example from a recent study, it was found that the PCL/chitosan scaffold had great mechanical strength compared to others [27].
We discovered that the choice of cell type, the type of materials to fabricate the biomaterial, and the study duration varied greatly between studies and that these differences may have influenced the studies’ outcomes in many cases. Furthermore, certain constraints of the cell culture used for implantation on the biomaterials were sometimes limited, such as the expenses of cell procurement, possible immunogenic responses, and regulatory hurdles placed on biological devices [37]. From a previous study, the urinary bladder-derived ECM hydrogels can support the growth and differentiation of HBECs [34]. Moreover, they also demonstrated excellent homogeneity, structural integrity, and cellular compatibility. In addition, when using a cell-seeded biomaterial method, the pre-implantation culture period is more important than cell type [38]. In this review, we found that the microgrooved gelatin hydrogel crosslinked with glutaraldehyde allowed 99.48% of BEAS-2B spreading by 10 days, while for the metabolic activity increased over 10 days [25]. Other than that, HRECs actively migrated, proliferated, and reached confluence on the nonwoven bilayered biodegradable chitosan–gelatine–polylactide (CGP) with immobilised hyaluronic acid (HA) scaffold but, unfortunately, the mucociliary differentiation was inhibited when the overall scaffold thickness was increased to 350 µm, regardless of HA treatment [22]. In addition, one study found that the metabolic activity and proliferation after 10 days were higher in 3D-TIPS with collagen compared to untreated 3D-TIPS scaffolds, and mostly hBEpiCs that still contained basal cells were not differentiated [26].
Furthermore, a cell viability test must be conducted to understand the conditions and also limits related to biocompatibility. The importance of running the test is that it can give valuable insight into a variety of elements of the material or structure, including the acceptability of surface changes, three-dimensional architecture, oxygen transport, compatibility with degradation products, and many more [39]. In this review, there are a few studies that conducted cell viability tests. A previous study proved that the cell viability on the scaffold was higher than 90% and the addition of HPMC may not be affected by the biocompatibility of SF; the HBECs showed good adhesion, proliferation, and growth and could maintain strong viability on the scaffold over 21 days, while the PCL and PCL-chitosan scaffolds were biocompatible and could maintain cell viability for 14 days [20,30,31]. For cell proliferation, the BEAS-2B cells were able to proliferate on the 3D-printed scaffold.In SF/HPMC scaffolds during the culture phase, the BEAS-2B cells demonstrated strong adhesion, proliferation, and growth on the scaffolds [20].
Biodegradable scaffold design is fundamental to the advancement of tissue engineering and organ regeneration. The rapid biodegradation of biomaterials after implantation is currently a major flaw in tissue engineering products [40]. Moreover, the reason that biodegradable scaffolds are widely regarded as essential components in tissue engineering is because they serve as temporary templates with mechanical and biological properties that are similar to those of the natural extracellular matrix (ECM) [41]. Before the regeneration of biologically functional tissue or a natural ECM, the biodegradable scaffold enables the manipulation of cell adhesion, invasion, proliferation, and differentiation. However, after a certain period, the scaffold is no longer needed and should be deteriorated [42]. With hydrolysable polymers, this may be achievable, resulting in nontoxic degradation products. Based on this review, only one study reported the degradation of a scaffold. The gelatine hydrogel reported by one researcher [25] could only maintain 29.900 ± 5.096% of its initial mass in lysozyme, while it degraded completely in all other enzyme combinations within the first week.
In addition, in airway epithelium, the mucociliary clearance function is an important basic innate defensive mechanism that protects the lungs from pollutants, allergens, and infections absorbed through the airway. The mucociliary escalator is controlled by respiratory cilia, which operate in conjunction with secreted airway mucus to remove inhaled debris and pathogens from the conducting airways [43]. Additionally, cilia in the lungs are also one of the initial points of contact between the host and inhaled micro-organisms. A multitude of respiratory conditions, such as COPD, cystic fibrosis, sinusitis, and persistent respiratory infections, are associated with impaired mucociliary function caused by abnormal cilia [44]. Most of the biomaterials or scaffolds in this review showed that they could support cell differentiation, except for the collagen IV- and laminin-containing extracellular matrixes and the AGR0.5COLL0.5 scaffold, in which the cells in the scaffold failed to differentiate properly [35,45].
Moreover, when contemplating the selection of biomaterials for forthcoming research, it is essential to meticulously assess a range of crucial factors. The top priority among these is biocompatibility, which dictates how effectively the material interacts with living tissues and whether it triggers any adverse responses. The mechanical attributes of the biomaterial are of great significance and guarantee that it possesses the necessary strength and durability for its intended purpose. Other than that, biodegradability is another factor of importance, particularly when applications require gradual absorption. Careful examination of the chemical composition is imperative to avoid potential toxicity or impurities. Moreover, aspects such as ease of processing, maintenance of sterility, adherence to regulatory approvals, and cost-effectiveness all warrant careful consideration. The biomaterial’s interaction with tissue, its potential for immunogenicity, its long-term stability, and ethical concerns regarding its source and environmental impact all hold pivotal roles in the decision-making process. Tailoring the choice to a specific application and drawing insights from previous research in the field can provide valuable guidance. Ultimately, a rigorous assessment of these critical elements ensures that the selected biomaterial aligns with the goals, safety criteria, and ethical standards of the future study or application.
Finally, we recognize that the lack of quantitative meta-analyses of the articles included limits our evaluation considerably. This is because there were a wide range of reported outcomes, as well as a lack of uniformity in the units or grading systems used. Only one in vitro study was included in this study, resulting in limited findings. The criteria used were justified by the fact that the goal of this study was to highlight the significance of the early stages of biomaterial development. Finally, for future evaluation, statistical analysis is proposed to improve the outcome of this study.
5. Conclusions
In conclusion, this study proved that the innovation of biomaterials such as hydrogel, sponge, film 3D-TIPS, and others has made a great contribution to repairing airway epithelia. To adapt to their biological surroundings and to produce a beneficial biological response, the biomaterials must meet several bulk and surface requirements. Moreover, the scaffold design also plays an important role in the development of a quality biomaterial such as the selection of material either from natural or synthetic sources. This selection should be emphasized due to the effect of the material itself on the physicochemical and mechanical properties, topography, and cellular response of biomaterial. Finally, these summary findings provide new information for further investigations, especially in the respiratory system, and at the same time might be more beneficial in the development of new advanced biomaterials to gain better results.
Acknowledgments
This article was written under a project that was approved by the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Research Ethics Committee and funded by the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS) (FRGS/1/2020/SKK0/UKM/02/7) provided by Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) Malaysia.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, Y.L. and A.K.N.; methodology, A.K.N.; validation, Y.L. and A.K.N.; formal analysis, A.K.N.; investigation, A.K.N.; data curation, A.K.N.; writing—original draft preparation, A.K.N.; writing—review and editing, F.I.M.F., N.N.M., M.B.F., and Y.L.; visualization, A.K.N.; supervision, N.N.M., M.B.F., and Y.L.; project administration, Y.L.; funding acquisition, Y.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Institutional Review Board Statement
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Research Ethics Committee (UKM PPI/111/8/JEP-2021-005; date of approval: 7 December 2021).
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement
The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Funding Statement
This research was funded by the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS) (FRGS/1/2020/SKK0/UKM/02/7) provided by Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) Malaysia.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
References
- 1.Forum of International Respiratory Societies. Levine S., Marciniuk D., Aglan A., Celedón J.C., Fong K., Horsburgh R., Malhotra A., Masekela R., Mortimer K., et al. The Global Impact of Respiratory Disease. 3rd ed. European Respiratory Society; Lausanne, Switzerland: 2021. [(accessed on 22 September 2021)]. Available online: https://www.firsnet.org/images/publications/FIRS_Master_09202021.pdf. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Burnett R.T., Pope C.A., III, Ezzati M., Olives C., Lim S.S., Mehta S., Shin H.H., Singh G., Hubbell B., Brauer M., et al. An integrated risk function for estimating the global burden of disease attributable to ambient fine particulate matter exposure. Environ. Health Perspect. 2014;122:397–403. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1307049. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Fiordelisi A., Piscitelli P., Trimarco B., Coscioni E., Iaccarino G., Sorriento D. The mechanisms of air pollution and particulate matter in cardiovascular diseases. Heart Fail. Rev. 2017;22:337–347. doi: 10.1007/s10741-017-9606-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Hiemstra P.S., Grootaers G., van der Does A.M., Krul C.A., Kooter I.M. Human lung epithelial cell cultures for analysis of inhaled toxicants: Lessons learned and future directions. Toxicol. In Vitro. 2018;47:137–146. doi: 10.1016/j.tiv.2017.11.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Iosifidis T., Garratt L.W., Coombe D.R., Knight D.A., Stick S.M., Kicic A. Airway epithelial repair in health and disease: Orchestrator or simply a player? Respirology. 2016;21:438–448. doi: 10.1111/resp.12731. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Soleas J.P., Paz A., Marcus P., McGuigan A., Waddell T.K. Engineering Airway Epithelium. J. Biomed. Biotechnol. 2012;2012:982971. doi: 10.1155/2012/982971. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Amatngalim G.D., Hiemstra P.S. Airway Epithelial Cell Function and Respiratory Host Defense in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Chin. Med. J. 2018;131:1099–1107. doi: 10.4103/0366-6999.230743. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Johnston S.L., Goldblatt D.L., Evans S.E., Tuvim M.J., Dickey B.F. Airway Epithelial Innate Immunity. Front. Physiol. 2021;12:749077. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2021.749077. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Davis J.D., Wypych T.P. Cellular and functional heterogeneity of the airway epithelium. Mucosal Immunol. 2021;14:978–990. doi: 10.1038/s41385-020-00370-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Cortez V., Schultz-Cherry S. The role of goblet cells in viral pathogenesis. FEBS J. 2021;288:7060–7072. doi: 10.1111/febs.15731. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Linfield D.T., Raduka A., Aghapour M., Rezaee F. Airway tight junctions as targets of viral infections: Tight Junctions and Viral Infections. Tissue Barriers. 2021;9:1883965. doi: 10.1080/21688370.2021.1883965. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Holtzman M.J., Byers D.E., Alexander-Brett J., Wang X. The role of airway epithelial cells and innate immune cells in chronic respiratory disease. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2014;14:686–698. doi: 10.1038/nri3739. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Ozgun A., Lomboni D., Arnott H., Staines W.A., Woulfe J., Variola F. Biomaterials-based strategies for in vitro neural models. Biomater. Sci. 2022;10:1134–1165. doi: 10.1039/D1BM01361K. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Evans K.V., Lee J.-H. Alveolar wars: The rise of in vitro models to understand human lung alveolar maintenance, regeneration, and disease. STEM CELLS Transl. Med. 2020;9:867–881. doi: 10.1002/sctm.19-0433. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Nikolova M.P., Chavali M.S. Recent advances in biomaterials for 3D scaffolds: A review. Bioact. Mater. 2019;4:271–292. doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2019.10.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Jammalamadaka U., Tappa K. Recent advances in biomaterials for 3D printing and tissue engineering. J. Funct. Biomater. 2018;9:22. doi: 10.3390/jfb9010022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Fadilah N.I.M., Isa I.L.M., Zaman W.S.W.K., Tabata Y., Fauzi M.B. The Effect of Nanoparticle-Incorporated Natural-Based Biomaterials towards Cells on Activated Pathways: A Systematic Review. Polymers. 2022;14:476. doi: 10.3390/polym14030476. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Harrington H., Cato P., Salazar F., Wilkinson M., Knox A., Haycock J.W., Rose F., Aylott J.W., Ghaemmaghami A.M. Immunocompetent 3D model of human upper airway for disease modeling and in vitro drug evaluation. Mol. Pharm. 2014;11:2082–2091. doi: 10.1021/mp5000295. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Rabiatul A., Lokanathan Y., Rohaina C., Chowdhury S., Aminuddin B., Ruszymah B. Surface modification of electrospun poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) nanofibers for the development of in vitro respiratory epithelium model. J. Biomater. Sci. Polym. Ed. 2015;26:1297–1311. doi: 10.1080/09205063.2015.1088183. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Zhong N., Dong T., Chen Z., Guo Y., Shao Z., Zhao X. A novel 3D-printed silk fibroin-based scaffold facilitates tracheal epithelium proliferation in vitro. J. Biomater. Appl. 2019;34:3–11. doi: 10.1177/0885328219845092. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Morris G.E., Bridge J.C., Brace L.A., Knox A.J., Aylott J.W., Brightling C.E., Ghaemmaghami A.M., Rose F.R.A.J. A novel electrospun biphasic scaffold provides optimal three-dimensional topography for in vitro co-culture of airway epithelial and fibroblast cells. Biofabrication. 2014;6:035014. doi: 10.1088/1758-5082/6/3/035014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Romanova O.A., Tenchurin T.H., Demina T.S., Sytina E.V., Shepelev A.D., Rudyak S.G., Klein O.I., Krasheninnikov S.V., Safronova E.I., Kamyshinsky R.A., et al. Non-woven bilayered biodegradable chitosan-gelatin-polylactide scaffold for bioengineering of tracheal epithelium. Cell Prolif. 2019;52:e12598. doi: 10.1111/cpr.12598. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Busra F.M., Lokanathan Y., Nadzir M.M., Saim A., Idrus R.B.H., Chowdhury S.R. Attachment, proliferation, and morphological properties of human dermal fibroblasts on ovine tendon collagen scaffolds: A comparative study. Malays. J. Med. Sci. 2017;24:33–43. doi: 10.21315/mjms2016.24.2.5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Varma R., Aoki F.G., Soon K., Karoubi G., Waddell T.K. Optimal biomaterials for tracheal epithelial grafts: An in vitro systematic comparative analysis. Acta Biomater. 2018;81:146–157. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2018.09.048. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Soleas J.P., Waddell T.K., McGuigan A.P. Topographically grooved gel inserts for aligning epithelial cells during air–liquid-interface culture. Biomater. Sci. 2015;3:121–133. doi: 10.1039/C4BM00237G. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Wu L., Magaz A., Huo S., Darbyshire A., Loizidou M., Emberton M., Birchall M., Song W. Human airway-like multilayered tissue on 3D-TIPS printed thermoresponsive elastomer/collagen hybrid scaffolds. Acta Biomater. 2020;113:177–195. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2020.07.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Mahoney C., Conklin D., Waterman J., Sankar J., Bhattarai N. Electrospun nanofibers of poly(ε-caprolactone)/depolymerized chitosan for respiratory tissue engineering applications. J. Biomater. Sci. Polym. Ed. 2016;27:611–625. doi: 10.1080/09205063.2016.1144454. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Hamilton N.J., Lee D.D.H., Gowers K.H., Butler C.R., Maughan E.F., Jevans B., Orr J.C., McCann C.J., Burns A.J., MacNeil S., et al. Bioengineered airway epithelial grafts with mucociliary function based on collagen IV- and laminin-containing extracellular matrix scaffolds. Eur. Respir. J. 2020;55:1901200. doi: 10.1183/13993003.01200-2019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Albers S., Thiebes A.L., Gessenich K.L., Jockenhoevel S., Cornelissen C.G. Differentiation of respiratory epithelium in a 3-dimensional co-culture with fibroblasts embedded in fibrin gel. Multidiscip. Respir. Med. 2016;11:6. doi: 10.1186/s40248-016-0046-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Chen Z., Zhong N., Wen J., Jia M., Guo Y., Shao Z., Zhao X. Porous Three-Dimensional Silk Fibroin Scaffolds for Tracheal Epithelial Regeneration In Vitro and In Vivo. ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng. 2018;4:2977–2985. doi: 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.8b00419. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.O’Leary C., Soriano L., Fagan-Murphy A., Ivankovic I., Cavanagh B., O’Brien F.J., Cryan S.-A. The Fabrication and in vitro Evaluation of Retinoic Acid-Loaded Electrospun Composite Biomaterials for Tracheal Tissue Regeneration. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2020;8:190. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.00190. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Humayun M., Chow C.-W., Young E.W.K. Microfluidic lung airway-on-a-chip with arrayable suspended gels for studying epithelial and smooth muscle cell interactions. Lab A Chip. 2018;18:1298–1309. doi: 10.1039/C7LC01357D. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Yunus M.H.M., Rashidbenam Z., Fauzi M.B., Idrus R.B.H., Bin Saim A. Evaluating feasibility of human tissue-engineered respiratory epithelium construct as a potential model for tracheal mucosal reconstruction. Molecules. 2021;26:6724. doi: 10.3390/molecules26216724. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Ravindra A., D’Angelo W., Zhang L., Reing J., Johnson S., Myerburg M., Badylak S.F. Human Bronchial Epithelial Cell Growth on Homologous Versus Heterologous Tissue Extracellular Matrix. J. Surg. Res. 2021;263:215–223. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2021.01.040. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Kreimendahl F., Ossenbrink S., Köpf M., Westhofen M., Schmitz-Rode T., Fischer H., Jockenhoevel S., Thiebes A.L. Combination of vascularization and cilia formation for three-dimensional airway tissue engineering. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A. 2019;107:2053–2062. doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.36718. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Murugan S.S. Mechanical Properties of Materials: Definition, Testing and Application. Int. J. Mod. Stud. Mech. Eng. (IJMSME) 2020;6:28–38. [Google Scholar]
- 37.McGowan K.B., Stiegman G. Regulatory Challenges for Cartilage Repair Technologies. Cartilage. 2013;4:4–11. doi: 10.1177/1947603512460756. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Vázquez A.G.G., Ferreras L.A.B., Bennett K.E., Casey S.M., Brama P.A., O’Brien F.J. Systematic Comparison of Biomaterials-Based Strategies for Osteochondral and Chondral Repair in Large Animal Models. Adv. Health Mater. 2021;10:e2100878. doi: 10.1002/adhm.202100878. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Fang I.-J., Trewyn B.G. Application of Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticles in Intracellular Delivery of Molecules and Proteins. Methods Enzymol. 2012;508:41–59. doi: 10.1016/b978-0-12-391860-4.00003-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Salleh A., Mustafa N., Teow Y.H., Fatimah M.N., Khairudin F.A., Ahmad I., Fauzi M.B. Dual-Layered Approach of Ovine Collagen-Gelatin/Cellulose Hybrid Biomatrix Containing Graphene Oxide-Silver Nanoparticles for Cutaneous Wound Healing: Fabrication, Physicochemical, Cytotoxicity and Antibacterial Characterisation. Biomedicines. 2022;10:816. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines10040816. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Guarino V., Raucci M., Ronca A., Cirillo V., Ambrosio L. Bone Substitute Biomaterials. Woodhead Publishing; Sawston, UK: 2014. Multifunctional scaffolds for bone regeneration; pp. 95–117. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Ball V. Biomaterials for Organ and Tissue Regeneration: New Technologies and Future Prospects. Elsevier; Amsterdam, The Netherlands: 2020. Physicochemical properties of biomaterials; pp. 19–32. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Eon Kuek L., Lee R.J. First contact: The role of respiratory cilia in host-pathogen interactions in the airways. Am. J. Physiol. Lung Cell Mol. Physiol. 2020;319:603–619. doi: 10.1152/ajplung.00283.2020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Jing J.C., Chen J.J., Chou L., Wong B.J.F., Chen Z. Visualization and Detection of Ciliary Beating Pattern and Frequency in the Upper Airway using Phase Resolved Doppler Optical Coherence Tomography. Sci. Rep. 2017;7:8522. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-08968-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Hamilton N., Bullock A.J., MacNeil S., Janes S.M., Birchall M. Tissue engineering airway mucosa: A systematic review. Laryngoscope. 2014;124:961–968. doi: 10.1002/lary.24469. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.