English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Tissue engineering and cell therapy represent significant emerging technologies in medicine. Tissue engineering is‚ "the persuasion of the body to heal itself, through the delivery to the appropriate sites of molecular signals, cells and supporting structures" (Williams, 1999). Various approaches have been described which are labelled tissue engineering, which form a continuum from complex regeneration of scaffold-based tissues to more simple cell-based therapies, where these supporting structures are usually absent or are present in the form of gels simply to aid cell delivery or encapsulation. In tissue engineering the implant to be delivered may frequently be a near mature functional product or a cell-seeded tissue scaffold, both derived in a bioreactor (Haycock, 2011). For cell-based therapies, a bioreactor is not necessary but may be used to amplify the cell numbers for the therapy. Indeed, a key element for both approaches is that they normally require significant expansion of the replacement cells, which have typically been derived in low numbers from small biopsy samples (Brittberg et al., 1994; Chiang et al., 2005; Thissen et al., 2005). A consequence of this expansion is that there can be a significant loss in the quality of cells available for the procedure. In many cases, monolayer cell culture has been the method of choice for cell expansion (Brittberg, 1999; Brittberg et al., 1994; Henderson et al., 2007). However, while this method is well established and simple it has problems. One of these is that certain cells may dedifferentiate and lose their phenotype and biochemical characteristics (Arterburn et al., 1995; Mallein-Gerin et al., 1991). For example, in extended culture, chondrocytes lose their rounded morphology (Fig. 1A) and develop an extended, fibroblast like appearance (Fig. 1B). Also, accompanying this morphological change, matrix biosynthesis switches from type II collagen to type I collagen (Aulthouse et al., 1989; Lefebvre et al., 1990; von der Mark et al., 1977). It is clear that the collagen produced changes from type II collagen (Fig. 2A), which is the characteristic collagen of articular, hyaline cartilage (Mayne, 1989; Miller & Matukas, 1969) to type I collagen (Fig. 2B), which is a mechanically-inferior fibrocartilage (Chiang et al., 2005; Wegener et al., 2009). Type I collagen is the principal collagen of many tissues,

Direct Use of Resorbable Collagen-Based Beads for Cell Delivery in Tissue Engineering and Cell Therapy Applications