Biological matrices and bionanotechnology

A crucial step towards the goal of tissue engineering a heart valve will be the choice of scaffold onto which an appropriate cell phenotype can be seeded. Successful scaffold materials should be amenable to modification, have a controlled degradation, be compatible with the cells, lack cytotoxicity and not elicit an immune or inflammatory response. In addition, the scaffold should induce appropriate responses from the cells seeded onto it, such as cell attachment, proliferation and remodelling capacity, all of which should promote the formation of a tissue construct that can mimic the structure and function of the native valve. This paper discusses the various biological scaffolds that have been considered and are being studied for use in tissue engineering a heart valve. Also, strategies to enhance the biological communication between the scaffold and the cells seeded onto it as well as the use of bionanotechnology in the manufacture of scaffolds possessing the desired properties will be discussed

In vitro heart valve tissue engineering

Heart valve replacement represents the most common surgical therapy for end-stage valvular heart diseases. A major drawback all contemporary heart valve replacements have in common is the lack of growth, repair, and remodeling capabilities. To overcome these limitations, the emerging field of tissue engineering is focusing on the in vitro generation of functional, living heart valve replacements. The basic approach uses starter matrices of either decellularized xenogeneic or biopolymeric materials configured in the shape of the heart valve and subsequent cell seeding. Moreover, in vitro strategies using mechanical loading in bioreactor systems have been developed to improve tissue maturation. This chapter gives a short overview of the current concepts and provides detailed methods for in vitro heart valve tissue engineering

A higher-level phylogenetic classification of the Fungi

A comprehensive phylogenetic classification of the kingdom Fungi is proposed, with reference to recent molecular phylogenetic analyses, and with input from diverse members of the fungal taxonomic community. The classification includes 195 taxa, down to the level of order, of which 16 are described or validated here: Dikarya subkingdom nov.; Chytridiomycota, Neocallimastigomycota phyla nov.; Monoblepharidomycetes, Neocallimastigomycetes class. nov.; Eurotiomycetidae, Lecarioromycetidae, Mycocaliciomycetidae subclass. nov.; Acarosporales, Corticiales, Baeomycetales, Candelariales, Gloeophyllales, Melanosporales, Trechisporales, Umbilicariales ords. nov. The clade containing Ascomycota and Basidiomycota is classified as subkingdom Dikarya, reflecting the putative synapomorphy of dikaryotic hyphae. The most dramatic shifts in the classification relative to previous works concern the groups that have traditionally been included in the Chytridiomycota and Zygomycota. The Chytridiomycota is retained in a restricted sense, with Blastocladiomycota and Neocallimastigomycota representing segregate phyla of flagellated Fungi. Taxa traditionally placed in Zygomycota are distributed among Glomeromycota and several subphyla incertae sedis, including Mucoromycotina, Entomophthoromycotina, Kickxellomycotina, and Zoopagomycotiria. Microsporidia are included in the Fungi, but no further subdivision of the group is proposed. Several genera of 'basal' Fungi of uncertain position are not placed in any higher taxa, including Basidiobolus, Caulochytrium, Olpidium, and Rozella. (c) 2007 The British Mycological Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved