Review
Open Access
Cell interactions and osteogenic differentiation on marine sponge-derived scaffolds: a systematic review
Abstract

Marine sponges, with their unique blend of organic and inorganic components, hold promise as biomaterials for bone tissue engineering. In this study, we systematically reviewed and comprehensively analysed in vitro assays evaluating osteogenic cell behaviour on scaffolds derived from marine sponges. Additionally, we investigated the potential of these scaffolds to induce cell differentiation and viability. Our analysis included 2,291 publications, with nine studies meeting the eligibility criteria for qualitative analysis. Results consistently showed strong adhesion of osteogenic cells to marine sponge-derived scaffolds facilitated by the interconnected porous structure. Cells exhibited elongated morphologies along scaffold fibres, indicative of a favourable growth environment. Comparative analyses demonstrated superior cell adhesion on marine sponge-derived scaffolds compared to other materials. Cell proliferation was observed across all studies, with a notable increase throughout the culture period. Marine sponge-derived scaffolds induced osteogenic differentiation, evidenced by osteocalcin and osteopontin expression. Notably, differences in cellular differentiation were attributed to diverse scaffold manufacturing methods. Our study highlighted the lack of standardised test procedures and the moderate risk of bias in the analysed studies, emphasising the need for further research with established protocols. Overall, this comprehensive analysis sheds light on osteogenic cell interactions with marine sponge-derived scaffolds, positioning them as promising biomaterials for bone tissue engineering. Understanding cellular responses to these scaffolds opens new possibilities for advanced research and regenerative medicine applications.

Keywords

Biomaterials; bone engineering; marine sponges; osteogenic cells; scaffold; tissue engineering

Preview
References
  • [1]Akter F. Principles of Tissue Engineering. In Tissue Engineering Made Easy. Elsevier, 2016. pp. 3-16.
  • [2]Alaribe FN, Manoto SL, Motaung SCKM. Scaffolds from biomaterials: advantages and limitations in bone and tissue engineering. Biologia. 2016, 71(4):353-366.
  • [3]Sharma B, Elisseeff JH. Engineering Structurally Organized Cartilage and Bone Tissues. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2004, 32(1):148-159.
  • [4]Barros AA, Aroso IM, Silva TH, Mano JF, Duarte ARC; et al. Surface Modification of Silica-Based Marine Sponge Bioceramics Induce Hydroxyapatite Formation. Cryst. Growth Des 2014, 14(9):4545-4552.
  • [5]Xie J, Peng C, Zhao Q, Wang XL, Yuan HH; et al. Osteogenic differentiation and bone regeneration of iPSC-MSCs supported by a biomimetic nanofibrous scaffold. Acta Biomater. 2016, 29:365-379.
  • [6]Olson JL, Atala A, Yoo JJ. Tissue Engineering: Current Strategies and Future Directions. Chonnam Med J. 2011, 47(1):1.
  • [7]Florencio-Silva R, Sasso GRDS, Sasso-Cerri E, Simões MJ, Cerri PS. Biology of Bone Tissue: Structure, Function, and Factors That Influence Bone Cells. Biomed Res. Int. 2015, 2015:1-17.
  • [8]Hankenson KD, Zimmerman G, Marcucio R. Biological perspectives of delayed fracture healing. Injury. 2014, 45:S8-S15.
  • [9]Cheung WH, Miclau T, Chow SKH, Yang FF, Alt V. Fracture healing in osteoporotic bone. Injury. 2016, 47:S21-S26.
  • [10]Schwartz AV. Epidemiology of fractures in type 2 diabetes. Bone. 2016, 82:2-8.
  • [11]Zhang H, Wu X, Quan L, Ao Q. Characteristics of Marine Biomaterials and Their Applications in Biomedicine. Mar Drugs. 2022, 20(6):372.
  • [12]Vacelet J, Boury-Esnault N. Carnivorous sponges. Nature. 1995, 373(6512):333-335.
  • [13]Muricy G, ed. Catalogue of Brazilian Porifera. Museu Nacional; 2011.
  • [14]Bayari SH, Şen EH, Ide S, Topaloglu B. Structural studies on Demospongiae sponges from Gökçeada Island in the Northern Aegean Sea. SAA 2018, 192:368-377.
  • [15]Granito RN, Ribeiro DA, Rennó ACM, Ravagnani C, Bossini PS; et al. Effects of biosilicate and bioglass 45S5 on tibial bone consolidation on rats: a biomechanical and a histological study. J Mater Sci: Mater Med. 2009, 20(12):2521-2526.
  • [16]Wang X, Schröder HC, Müller WEG. Biocalcite, a multifunctional inorganic polymer: Building block for calcareous sponge spicules and bioseed for the synthesis of calcium phosphate-based bone. Beilstein J Nanotechnol. 2014, 5:610-621.
  • [17]Wiens M, Wang X, Schröder HC, Kolb U, Schlossmacher U; et al. The role of biosilica in the osteoprotegerin/RANKL ratio in human osteoblast-like cells. Biomaterials. 2010, 31(30):7716-7725.
  • [18]Gabbai-Armelin PR, Kido HW, Cruz MA, Prado JPS, Avanzi IR; et al. Characterization and Cytotoxicity Evaluation of a Marine Sponge Biosilica. Mar Biotechnol. 2019, 21(1):65-75.
  • [19]Hench LL. The story of Bioglass®. J Mater Sci: Mater Med. 2006, 17(11):967-978.
  • [20]Cen L, Liu W, Cui L, Zhang W, Cao Y. Collagen Tissue Engineering: Development of Novel Biomaterials and Applications. Pediatr Res. 2008, 63(5):492-496.
  • [21]Silva T, Moreira-Silva J, Marques A, Domingues A, Bayon Y; et al. Marine Origin Collagens and Its Potential Applications. Mar. Drugs 2014, 12(12):5881-5901.
  • [22]Henkel J, Woodruff MA, Epari DR, Steck R, Glatt V; et al. Bone Regeneration Based on Tissue Engineering Conceptions — A 21st Century Perspective. Bone Res. 2013, 1(3):216-248.
  • [23]Lanza R, Langer RS, Vacanti J, eds. Principles of Tissue Engineering. 4th ed. Elsevier/Academic Press; 2014.
  • [24]Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al., eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2nd ed. Wiley-Blackwell; 2020.
  • [25]Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC; et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009, 6(7):e1000100.
  • [26]Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6(7):e1000097.
  • [27]Schneider K, Schwarz M, Burkholder I, Kopp-Schneider A, Edler L; et al. “ToxRTool”, a new tool to assess the reliability of toxicological data. Toxicol. Lett. 2009, 189(2):138-144.
  • [28]Clarke SA, Choi SY, McKechnie M, Burke G, Dunne N; et al. Osteogenic cell response to 3-D hydroxyapatite scaffolds developed via replication of natural marine sponges. J Mater Sci: Mater Med. 2016, 27(2):22.
  • [29]Green D, Howard D, Yang X, Kelly M, Oreffo ROC. Natural Marine Sponge Fiber Skeleton: A Biomimetic Scaffold for Human Osteoprogenitor Cell Attachment, Growth, and Differentiation. Tissue Eng. 2003, 9(6):1159-1166.
  • [30]Kaya M, Bilican I, Mujtaba M, Sargin I, Haskoylu ME; et al. Sponge-derived natural bioactive glass microspheres with self-assembled surface channel arrays opening into a hollow core for bone tissue and controlled drug release applications. J. Chem. Eng. 2021, 407:126667.
  • [31]Lin Z, Solomon KL, Zhang X, Pavlos NJ, Abel T; et al. In vitro Evaluation of Natural Marine Sponge Collagen as a Scaffold for Bone Tissue Engineering. Int J Biol Sci. 2011, 7(7):968-977.
  • [32]Machałowski T, Idaszek J, Chlanda A, Heljak M, Adam Piasecki et al. Naturally prefabricated 3D chitinous skeletal scaffold of marine demosponge origin, biomineralized ex vivo as a functional biomaterial. Carbohydr. Polym. 2022, 275:118750.
  • [33]Mutsenko VV, Bazhenov VV, Rogulska O, Tarusin DN, Schütz K; et al. 3D chitinous scaffolds derived from cultivated marine demosponge Aplysina aerophoba for tissue engineering approaches based on human mesenchymal stromal cells. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2017, 104:1966-1974.
  • [34]Mutsenko VV, Gryshkov O, Lauterboeck L, Rogulska O, Tarusin DN; et al. Novel chitin scaffolds derived from marine sponge Ianthella basta for tissue engineering approaches based on human mesenchymal stromal cells: Biocompatibility and cryopreservation. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2017, 104:1955-1965.
  • [35]Pallela R, Venkatesan J, Janapala VR, Kim SK. Biophysicochemical evaluation of chitosan-hydroxyapatite-marine sponge collagen composite for bone tissue engineering. J Biomed Mater Res. 2012, 100A(2):486-495.
  • [36]Zheng MH, Hinterkeuser K, Solomon K, Kunert V, Pavlos NJ, Xu J. Collagen-Derived Biomaterials in Bone and Cartilage Repair. Macromol Symp. 2007, 253(1):179-185.
  • [37]Bharadwaz A, Jayasuriya AC. Recent trends in the application of widely used natural and synthetic polymer nanocomposites in bone tissue regeneration. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2020, 110:110698.
  • [38]Wan MC, Qin W, Lei C, Li QH, Meng M; et al. Biomaterials from the sea: Future building blocks for biomedical applications. Bioact. Mater. 2021, 6(12):4255-4285.
  • [39]Granito RN, Custódio MR, Rennó ACM. Natural marine sponges for bone tissue engineering: The state of art and future perspectives. J Biomed Mater Res. 2017, 105(6):1717-1727.
  • [40]Hench LL, Jones JR. Bioactive Glasses: Frontiers and Challenges. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2015, 3.
  • [41]Jones JR. Reprint of: Review of bioactive glass: From Hench to hybrids. Acta Biomaterialia. 2015, 23:S53-S82.
  • [42]Wang S, Wang X, Draenert FG, Albert O, Schröder HC; et al. Bioactive and biodegradable silica biomaterial for bone regeneration. Bone. 2014, 67:292-304.
  • [43]Qin D, Wang N, You XG, Zhang AD, Chen XG, Liu Y. Collagen-based biocomposites inspired by bone hierarchical structures for advanced bone regeneration: ongoing research and perspectives. Biomater Sci. 2022, 10(2):318-353.
  • [44]Song W, Li S, Tang Q, Chen L, Yuan Z. In vitro biocompatibility and bioactivity of calcium silicate‑based bioceramics in endodontics (Review). Int J Mol Med. 2021, 48(1):128.
  • [45]Molvinger K, Quignard F, Brunel D, Boissière M, Devoisselle JM. Porous Chitosan-Silica Hybrid Microspheres as a Potential Catalyst. Chem Mater. 2004, 16(17):3367-3372.
  • [46]Chang JS, Kong ZL, Hwang DF, Chang KLB. Chitosan-Catalyzed Aggregation during the Biomimetic Synthesis of Silica Nanoparticles. Chem Mater. 2006, 18(6):1714-1714.
  • [47]Gil Mur FJ. Accelerating mineralization of biomimetic surfaces. In: Biomineralization and Biomaterials. Elsevier 2016. pp. 267-289.
  • [48]Codrea CI, Croitoru AM, Baciu CC, Melinescu A, Ficai D; et al. Advances in Osteoporotic Bone Tissue Engineering. JCM. 2021, 10(2):253.
  • [49]Schröder HC, Wang XH, Wiens M, Diehl-Seifert B, Kropf K; et al. Silicate modulates the cross-talk between osteoblasts (SaOS-2) and osteoclasts (RAW 264.7 cells): Inhibition of osteoclast growth and differentiation. J Cell Biochem. 2012, 113(10):3197-3206.
  • [50]Karageorgiou V, Kaplan D. Porosity of 3D biomaterial scaffolds and osteogenesis. Biomaterials. 2005, 26(27):5474-5491.
  • [51]Ashworth JC, Mehr M, Buxton PG, Best SM, Cameron RE. Cell Invasion in Collagen Scaffold Architectures Characterized by Percolation Theory. Adv Healthcare Mater. 2015, 4(9):1317-1321.
  • [52]Woodard JR, Hilldore AJ, Lan SK, Park CJ, Morgan AW; et al. The mechanical properties and osteoconductivity of hydroxyapatite bone scaffolds with multi-scale porosity. Biomaterials. 2007, 28(1):45-54.
  • [53]Feng Y, Zhu S, Mei D, Li J, Zhang JX; et al. Application of 3D Printing Technology in Bone Tissue Engineering: A Review. CDD. 2021, 18(7):847-861.
  • [54]Kim HD, Amirthalingam S, Kim SL, Lee SS, Rangasamy J, Hwang NS. Biomimetic Materials and Fabrication Approaches for Bone Tissue Engineering. Adv Healthcare Mater. 2017, 6(23):1700612.
  • [55]Li S, Li G, Lian X, Hu JQ, Li ML; et al. Ntegrated porous polyetheretherketone/hydroxyapatite scaffolds: design, manufacturing and performance evaluation. Compos. - A: Appl. Sci 2023, 173:107656.
  • [56]Habibovic P, Barralet JE. Bioinorganics and biomaterials: Bone repair. Acta Biomater. 2011, 7(8):3013-3026.
  • [57]Jaroszewicz J, Idaszek J, Choinska E, Szlazak K, Hyc A; et al. Formation of calcium phosphate coatings within polycaprolactone scaffolds by simple, alkaline phosphatase based method. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2019, 96:319-328.
  • [58]Murphy WL, McDevitt TC, Engler AJ. Materials as stem cell regulators. Nature Mater. 2014, 13(6):547-557.
  • [59]Goudouri OM, Chatzistavrou X, Kontonasaki E, et al. Study of the Bioactive Behavior of Thermally Treated Modified 58S Bioactive Glass. KEM. 2008, 396-398:131-134.
  • [60]Bellucci D, Cannillo V, Sola A. An overview of the effects of thermal processing on bioactive glasses. Sci Sintering. 2010, 42(3):307-320.
  • [61]Humphries MJ. Cell Adhesion Assays. MB. 2001, 18(1):57-62.
  • [62]Khalili A, Ahmad M. A Review of Cell Adhesion Studies for Biomedical and Biological Applications. IJMS. 2015, 16(8):18149-18184.
  • [63]Hong S, Ergezen E, Lec R, Barbee KA. Real-time analysis of cell–surface adhesive interactions using thickness shear mode resonator. Biomaterials. 2006, 27(34):5813-5820.
  • [64]Sarkis-Onofre R, Skupien J, Cenci M, Moraes R, Pereira-Cenci T. The Role of Resin Cement on Bond Strength of Glass-fiber Posts Luted Into Root Canals: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of In Vitro Studies. Oper. Dent. 2014, 39(1):E31-E44.
  • [65]Soares FZM, Follak A, Da Rosa LS, Montagner AF, Lenzi TL; et al. Bovine tooth is a substitute for human tooth on bond strength studies: A systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies. Dent. Mater. 2016, 32(11):1385-1393.