Description
Patients with altered inflammatory response, due to metabolic diseases (e.g., diabetes mellitus), chronic inflammation, autoimmune diseases and pharmaceutical treatments often experience delayed or incomplete tissue repair, including poor bone healing [1]. Current therapeutic strategies rely on controlling stem cell differentiation and macrophage polarization towards pro-/anti-inflammatory cells, by using soluble factors and bio-instructive materials [2,3]. However, cells are also guided by biochemical cues. They respond to physical cues (e.g., mechanical [4] and vibration [5], bioelectricity [6,7]), regulating their fate and function. Therefore the use of biophysical cues has been increasingly investigated, at both laboratory and biobank scales for clinical applications and represents an emerging field in regenerative medicine, offering potentially safer, tunable and more precise approaches.
In particular, the endogenous bioelectric signalling that is orchestrated by ion channels and ion pumps [7,8], referred to as the bioelectric code, has gained growing interest. Externally applied electric fields (EFs) can alter this code, influencing cell membrane potential, directing cell migration, and modulating cell function (e.g., stem cell differentiation, change in cytokine secretion in T-cells) [9–12]. Yet, there remains a critical knowledge gap on how EFs influence monocyte commitment towards pro-/anti-inflammatory macrophages. This lack of understanding slows down the point of translation to reach immune response regulation and tissue repair in clinical settings driven by electrical cues.
To address this, the proposed PhD project will develop an “inflammation on a chip” device, designed to host, monitor and electrically guide monocytes to macrophage differentiation. This device will take advantage of a multidisciplinary approach, by integrating microelectrodes to deliver precise electrical stimulation protocols to drive monocytes to differentiate into macrophages, and a real time monitoring of inflammatory biomarkers to evaluate their commitment towards either pro- or anti-inflammatory cells within a microfluidic system integration.
This innovative model will provide first insights into bioelectric regulation of inflammatory cells, opening new therapeutic avenues for tissue engineering, regenerative medicine and inflammation disorders. Beyond that, the inflammation on a chip device could become an essential model for studying immune cells in controlled microenvironments, opening the way to investigate patient specific responses, ultimately contributing to personalised medicine.
Bibliography
Bibliography
1 Loi F, Córdova LA, Pajarinen J, Lin T, Yao Z, Goodman SB. Inflammation, fracture and bone repair. Bone 2016;86:119–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2016.02.020.
2 Genin M, Clement F, Fattaccioli A, Raes M, Michiels C. M1 and M2 macrophages derived from THP-1 cells differentially modulate the response of cancer cells to etoposide. BMC Cancer 2015;15:577. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-015-1546-9.
3 Whitaker R, Hernaez-Estrada B, Hernandez RM, Santos-Vizcaino E, Spiller KL. Immunomodulatory Biomaterials for Tissue Repair. Chem Rev 2021;121:11305–35. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c00895.
4 Engler AJ, Sen S, Sweeney HL, Discher DE. Matrix Elasticity Directs Stem Cell Lineage Specification. Cell 2006;126:677–677.
5 Robertson SN, Campsie P, Childs PG, Madsen F, Donnelly H, Henriquez FL, et al. Control of cell behaviour through nanovibrational stimulation: nanokicking. Phil Trans R Soc A 2018;376:20170290. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2017.0290.
6 Sundelacruz S, Levin M, Kaplan DL. Membrane potential controls adipogenic and osteogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells. PLoS ONE 2008;3:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0003737.
7 Levin M, Pezzulo G, Finkelstein JM. Endogenous Bioelectric Signaling Networks: Exploiting Voltage Gradients for Control of Growth and Form. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2017;19:353–87. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071114-040647.
8 Whited JL, Levin M. Bioelectrical controls of morphogenesis: from ancient mechanisms of cell coordination to biomedical opportunities. Current Opinion in Genetics & Development 2019;57:61–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gde.2019.06.014.
9 Hoare JI, Rajnicek AM, McCaig CD, Barker RN, Wilson HM. Electric fields are novel determinants of human macrophage functions. Journal of Leukocyte Biology 2016;99:1141–51. https://doi.org/10.1189/jlb.3A0815-390R.
10 Arnold CE, Rajnicek AM, Hoare JI, Pokharel SM, Mccaig CD, Barker RN, et al. Physiological strength electric fields modulate human T cell activation and polarisation. Sci Rep 2019;9:17604. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-53898-5.
11 Bicer M, Sheard J, Iandolo D, Boateng SY, Cottrell GS, Widera D. Electrical Stimulation of Adipose-Derived Stem Cells in 3D Nanofibrillar Cellulose Increases Their Osteogenic Potential. Biomolecules 2020;10:1696. https://doi.org/10.3390/biom10121696.
12 Dong Y, Suryani L, Zhou X, Muthukumaran P, Rakshit M, Yang F, et al. Synergistic Effect of PVDF-Coated PCL-TCP Scaffolds and Pulsed Electromagnetic Field on Osteogenesis. IJMS 2021;22:6438. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22126438.