Characterization of Inflammatory and Fibrotic Aspects of Tissue Remodeling of Acellular Dermal Matrix in a Nonhuman Primate Model.

HaYeun Ji, Abby Sukarto, Daniel Deegan, Frank Fan
Author Information
  1. HaYeun Ji: Aziyo Biologics, Inc., Silver Spring, Md.
  2. Abby Sukarto: Aziyo Biologics, Inc., Silver Spring, Md.
  3. Daniel Deegan: Aziyo Biologics, Inc., Silver Spring, Md.
  4. Frank Fan: Aziyo Biologics, Inc., Silver Spring, Md.

Abstract

Human acellular dermal matrices (hADMs) are applied in various soft tissue reconstructive surgeries as scaffolds to support tissue remodeling and regeneration. To evaluate the clinical efficacy of hADM implants, it is integral that the hADM does not induce a host chronic inflammatory response leading to fibrotic encapsulation of the implant. In this study, we characterized the inflammatory and fibrosis-related tissue remodeling response of 2 commercial hADM products (SimpliDerm and AlloDerm RTU) in a nonhuman primate model using histology and gene expression profiling.
METHODS: Eighteen African green monkeys with abdominal wall defects were applied to evaluate the performance of SimpliDerm and AlloDerm RTU implants (N = 3) at 2, 4, and 12-weeks post-implantation. Using histology and gene expression profiling, tissue responses such as implant integration, degradation, cell infiltration, immune response, neovascularization, and pro-fibrotic responses over time were evaluated.
RESULTS: SimpliDerm showed a lower initial inflammatory response and slower implant degradation rate than AlloDerm RTU evidenced by histomorphological analysis. These factors led to a more anti-inflammatory and pro-remodeling microenvironment within SimpliDerm, demonstrated by lower TNFα levels and lower expression levels of pro-fibrotic markers, and promoted tissue repair and regeneration by 3-months post-implantation.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, histology and gene expression profiling analyses shown in this study demonstrated an effective model for analyzing hADM performance in terms of host inflammatory and fibrotic response. Further studies are warranted to fully evaluate the utility of this novel hADM in the clinical setting and verify the prognosis of our pre-clinical analysis model.

References

  1. Am J Pathol. 2015 Oct;185(10):2596-606 [PMID: 26118749]
  2. Biomaterials. 2012 Feb;33(6):1771-81 [PMID: 22137126]
  3. Cell Tissue Res. 2016 Sep;365(3):521-38 [PMID: 27351420]
  4. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2002 Nov;14(6):681-5 [PMID: 12410091]
  5. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017 Dec 27;5(12):e1576 [PMID: 29632762]
  6. Adv Healthc Mater. 2018 Mar;7(5): [PMID: 29271580]
  7. J Leukoc Biol. 2013 Jun;93(6):875-81 [PMID: 23505314]
  8. Differentiation. 2010 Apr-Jun;79(4-5):232-43 [PMID: 20395036]
  9. Matrix Biol. 2004 Jul;23(4):251-7 [PMID: 15296939]
  10. J Invest Dermatol. 2008 Jul;128(7):1812-20 [PMID: 18185533]
  11. Transl Res. 2014 Apr;163(4):268-85 [PMID: 24291155]
  12. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2017 Aug;105(8):2109-2118 [PMID: 28263432]
  13. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014 Apr;8(4):ZC14-7 [PMID: 24959509]
  14. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013 Jan;131(1):9e-18e [PMID: 22990174]
  15. Acta Biomater. 2014 Jan;10(1):183-93 [PMID: 24055455]
  16. Genome Res. 2015 Dec;25(12):1921-33 [PMID: 26377836]
  17. Lab Invest. 2008 Jun;88(6):579-90 [PMID: 18427552]
  18. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base. 2019 Feb;80(1):46-50 [PMID: 30733900]
  19. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2017 May;70(5):568-576 [PMID: 28341592]
  20. BMC Bioinformatics. 2012 Jun 18;13:134 [PMID: 22708584]
  21. Methods Mol Biol. 2011;695:17-39 [PMID: 21042963]
  22. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2015 Jul 29;4(3):271-8 [PMID: 26288732]
  23. Hernia. 2011 Apr;15(2):141-5 [PMID: 21072551]
  24. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009 Jul;124(1):82-91 [PMID: 19568048]
  25. Tissue Eng Part A. 2008 Dec;14(12):2009-19 [PMID: 18593339]
  26. Ann Biomed Eng. 2015 Mar;43(3):577-92 [PMID: 25213186]
  27. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015 Jun;135(6):1740-1748 [PMID: 26017603]
  28. Eur Cytokine Netw. 2005 Jun;16(2):104-16 [PMID: 15941681]
  29. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2007 Dec 1;83(3):879-86 [PMID: 17567860]
  30. Eplasty. 2014 Jan 31;14:e7 [PMID: 24570768]
  31. Eplasty. 2017 Jan 5;17:e1 [PMID: 28119764]
  32. J Tissue Eng. 2013 Sep 10;4:2041731413505305 [PMID: 24555005]
  33. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2017 Jul;28(7):2053-2067 [PMID: 28209809]
  34. Tissue Eng Part A. 2017 Oct;23(19-20):1152-1159 [PMID: 28457179]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0tissuehADMresponseinflammatorySimpliDermexpressionevaluateimplantAlloDermRTUmodelhistologygeneprofilinglowerappliedremodelingregenerationclinicalimplantshostfibroticstudy2performancepost-implantationresponsesdegradationpro-fibroticanalysisdemonstratedlevelsHumanacellulardermalmatriceshADMsvarioussoftreconstructivesurgeriesscaffoldssupportefficacyintegralinducechronicleadingencapsulationcharacterizedfibrosis-relatedcommercialproductsnonhumanprimateusingMETHODS:EighteenAfricangreenmonkeysabdominalwalldefectsN=3412-weeksUsingintegrationcellinfiltrationimmuneneovascularizationtimeevaluatedRESULTS:showedinitialslowerrateevidencedhistomorphologicalfactorsledanti-inflammatorypro-remodelingmicroenvironmentwithinTNFαmarkerspromotedrepair3-monthsCONCLUSIONS:Overallanalysesshowneffectiveanalyzingtermsstudieswarrantedfullyutilitynovelsettingverifyprognosispre-clinicalCharacterizationInflammatoryFibroticAspectsTissueRemodelingAcellularDermalMatrixNonhumanPrimateModel

Similar Articles

Cited By