Osteoimmunomodulation for the development of advanced bone biomaterials

A key tenet of bone tissue engineering is the development of scaffold materials that can stimulate stem cell differentiation in the absence of chemical treatment to become osteoblasts without compromising material properties. At present, conventional implant materials fail owing to encapsulation by soft tissue, rather than direct bone bonding. Here, we demonstrate the use of nanoscale disorder to stimulate human mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) to produce bone mineral in vitro, in the absence of osteogenic supplements. This approach has similar efficiency to that of cells cultured with osteogenic media. In addition, the current studies show that topographically treated MSCs have a distinct differentiation profile compared with those treated with osteogenic media, which has implications for cell therapies.

A key for long-term survival and function of biomaterials is that they do not elicit a detrimental immune response. As biomaterials can have profound impacts on the host immune response the concept emerged to design biomaterials that are able to trigger desired immunological outcomes and thus support the healing process. However, engineering such biomaterials requires an in-depth understanding of the host inflammatory and wound healing response to implanted materials. One focus of this review is to outline the up-to-date knowledge on immune responses to biomaterials. Understanding the complex interactions of host response and material implants reveals the need for and also the potential of "immunomodulating" biomaterials. Based on this knowledge, we discuss strategies of triggering appropriate immune responses by functional biomaterials and highlight recent approaches of biomaterials that mimic the physiological extracellular matrix and modify cellular immune responses. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Evidence is provided that macrophages can make M-1 or M-2 responses. The concept of M-1/M-2 fomented from observations that macrophages from prototypical Th1 strains (C57BL/6, B10D2) are more easily activated to produce NO with either IFN-gamma or LPS than macrophages from Th2 strains (BALB/c, DBA/2). In marked contrast, LPS stimulates Th2, but not Th1, macrophages to increase arginine metabolism to ornithine. Thus, M-1/M-2 does not simply describe activated or unactivated macrophages, but cells expressing distinct metabolic programs. Because NO inhibits cell division, while ornithine can stimulate cell division (via polyamines), these results also indicate that M-1 and M-2 responses can influence inflammatory reactions in opposite ways. Macrophage TGF-beta1, which inhibits inducible NO synthase and stimulates arginase, appears to play an important role in regulating the balance between M-1 and M-2. M-1/M-2 phenotypes are independent of T or B lymphocytes because C57BL/6 and BALB/c NUDE or SCID macrophages also exhibit M-1/M-2. Indeed, M-1/M-2 proclivities are magnified in NUDE and SCID mice. Finally, C57BL/6 SCID macrophages cause CB6F1 lymphocytes to increase IFN-gamma production, while BALB/c SCID macrophages increase TGF-beta production. Together, the results indicate that M-1- or M-2-dominant macrophage responses can influence whether Th1/Th2 or other types of inflammatory responses occur.