The Arteriovenous Loop: Engineering of Axially Vascularized Tissue

Background: Most of the current treatment options for large-scale tissue defects represent a serious burden for the patients, are often not satisfying, and can be associated with significant side effects. Although major achievements have already been made in the field of tissue engineering, the clinical translation in case of extensive tissue defects is only in its early stages. The main challenge and reason for the failure of most tissue engineering approaches is the missing vascularization within large-scale transplants. Summary: The arteriovenous (AV) loop model is an in vivo tissue engineering strategy for generating axially vascularized tissues using the own body as a bioreactor. A superficial artery and vein are anastomosed to create an AV loop. This AV loop is placed into an implantation chamber for prevascularization of the chamber inside, e.g., a scaffold, cells, and growth factors. Subsequently, the generated tissue can be transplanted with its vascular axis into the defect site and anastomosed to the local vasculature. Since the blood supply of the growing tissue is based on the AV loop, it will be immediately perfused with blood in the recipient site leading to optimal healing conditions even in the case of poorly vascularized defects. Using this tissue engineering approach, a multitude of different axially vascularized tissues could be generated, such as bone, skeletal or heart muscle, or lymphatic tissues. Upscaling from the small animal AV loop model into a preclinical large animal model could pave the way for the first successful attempt in clinical application. Key Messages: The AV loop model is a powerful tool for the generation of different axially vascularized replacement tissues. Due to minimal donor site morbidity and the possibility to generate patient-specific tissues variable in type and size, this in vivo tissue engineering approach can be considered as a promising alternative therapy to current treatment options of large-scale defects

An essential function for the ATR-Activation-Domain (AAD) of TopBP1 in mouse development and cellular senescence

ATR activation is dependent on temporal and spatial interactions with partner proteins. In the budding yeast model, three proteins – Dpb11TopBP1, Ddc1Rad9 and Dna2 - all interact with and activate Mec1ATR. Each contains an ATR activation domain (ADD) that interacts directly with the Mec1ATR:Ddc2ATRIP complex. Any of the Dpb11TopBP1, Ddc1Rad9 or Dna2 ADDs is sufficient to activate Mec1ATR in vitro. All three can also independently activate Mec1ATR in vivo: the checkpoint is lost only when all three AADs are absent. In metazoans, only TopBP1 has been identified as a direct ATR activator. Depletion-replacement approaches suggest the TopBP1-AAD is both sufficient and necessary for ATR activation. The physiological function of the TopBP1 AAD is, however, unknown. We created a knock-in point mutation (W1147R) that ablates mouse TopBP1-AAD function. TopBP1-W1147R is early embryonic lethal. To analyse TopBP1-W1147R cellular function in vivo, we silenced the wild type TopBP1 allele in heterozygous MEFs. AAD inactivation impaired cell proliferation, promoted premature senescence and compromised Chk1 signalling following UV irradiation. We also show enforced TopBP1 dimerization promotes ATR-dependent Chk1 phosphorylation. Our data suggest that, unlike the yeast models, the TopBP1-AAD is the major activator of ATR, sustaining cell proliferation and embryonic development

The challenge of musculoskeletal tissue engineering – from cell cultures to large animal models

Engineering functional skeletal muscle tissue still remains a major challenge. So far clinically relevant sizes of functional skeletal muscle tissue could not be engineered yet. One of the obstacles to overcome is the development of a suitable scaffold for muscle tissue engineering in vivo, another is the lack of differentiation in expanded adult muscle precursor cells. Materials and different architectures of scaffolds which are used for engineering functional skeletal muscle are presented here as well as approaches to the differentiation challenge. Finally the translation from cell culture over small to large animal models for engineering axially vascularized musculoskeletal tissues will be described

Selective isolation and characterization of primary cells from normal breast and tumors reveal plasticity of adipose derived stem cells

Background There is a need to establish more cell lines from breast tumors in contrast to immortalized cell lines from metastatic effusions in order to represent the primary tumor and not principally metastatic biology of breast cancer. This investigation describes the simultaneous isolation, characterization, growth and function of primary mammary epithelial cells (MEC), mesenchymal cells (MES) and adipose derived stem cells (ADSC) from four normal breasts, one inflammatory and one triple-negative ductal breast tumors. Methods A total of 17 cell lines were established and gene expression was analyzed for MEC and MES (n = 42) and ADSC (n = 48) and MUC1, pan-KRT, CD90 and GATA-3 by immunofluorescence. DNA fingerprinting to track cell line identity was performed between original primary tissues and isolates. Functional studies included ADSC differentiation, tumor MES and MEC invasion co-cultured with ADSC-conditioned media (CM) and MES adhesion and growth on 3D-printed scaffolds. Results Comparative analysis showed higher gene expression of EPCAM, CD49f, CDH1 and KRTs for normal MEC lines; MES lines e.g. Vimentin, CD10, ACTA2 and MMP9; and ADSC lines e.g. CD105, CD90, CDH2 and CDH11. Compared to the mean of all four normal breast cell lines, both breast tumor cell lines demonstrated significantly lower ADSC marker gene expression, but higher expression of mesenchymal and invasion gene markers like SNAI1 and MMP2. When compared with four normal ADSC differentiated lineages, both tumor ADSC showed impaired osteogenic and chondrogenic but enhanced adipogenic differentiation and endothelial-like structures, possibly due to high PDGFRB and CD34. Addressing a functional role for overproduction of adipocytes, we initiated 3D-invasion studies including different cell types from the same patient. CM from ADSC differentiating into adipocytes induced tumor MEC 3D-invasion via EMT and amoeboid phenotypes. Normal MES breast cells adhered and proliferated on 3D-printed scaffolds containing 20 fibers, but not on 2.5D-printed scaffolds with single fiber layers, important for tissue engineering. Conclusion Expression analyses confirmed successful simultaneous cell isolations of three different phenotypes from normal and tumor primary breast tissues. Our cell culture studies support that breast-tumor environment differentially regulates tumor ADSC plasticity as well as cell invasion and demonstrates applications for regenerative medicine

When free flaps are not the first choice: is the distally based peroneus brevis still an option for foot and ankle reconstruction in the era of microsurgery?

Aim: Soft tissue defects with or without exposed bones in the lower extremity, ankle and the foot-with or without bone defects or exposed hardware-often require coverage with vascularized flaps. Free flaps, which add healthy tissue especially to the lower extremity instead of further injuring a limb, are the first choice in high volume microsurgical centres. Nevertheless, in some instances pedicled flaps may have indications when free flaps are not suitable.Methods: The distally based peroneus brevis flap is harvested from the lateral compartment of the leg based on the distal perforating arterial supply and covered with split skin.Results: We performed a total of 69 peroneus flaps between 2003 and 2017. Minor flap necroses at the distal tip were noted in 8% of the peroneus brevis reconstructions. Total flap loss occurred in 1 peroneus flap. Defect etiology and patient age were not associated with surgical outcome.Conclusion: While nowadays the first choice of lower extremity reconstruction is an appropriate free flap solution, the peroneus brevis muscle flap can also be seen as a valuable tool to reconstruct small to medium sized defects at the ankle, distal tibia, and the heel with an acceptable donor site morbidity. Despite the easily available variety of free flaps to achieve this purpose, still proper indications remain where a local flap can be a viable option in the hand of experienced plastic surgeons. However, caution is advisable in patients with peripheral arterial occlusive disease or venous insufficiency