中国神经再生研究(英文版)

中国神经再生研究(英文版) ›› 2016, Vol. 11 ›› Issue (3): 386-387.doi: 10.4103/1673-5374.179034

• 观点:神经损伤修复保护与再生 • 上一篇    下一篇

微型组织工程模型：打破了限制神经再生研究的壁垒？

  

  • 出版日期:2016-03-15 发布日期:2016-03-15
  • 基金资助:

    这篇文章中强调的我实验室的研究工作一直由美国杜兰大学奥利弗基金，摄政路易斯安那州委员会（LEQSF[2009-11]-RD-A-18），美国国立卫生研究院（NS065374）和美国国家科学基金会（CBET-1055990）资助。

Microscale tissue-engineered models: overcoming barriers to adoption for neural regeneration research

Michael J. Moore   

  1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, USA
  • Online:2016-03-15 Published:2016-03-15
  • Contact: Michael J. Moore, Ph.D., mooremj@tulane.edu.
  • Supported by:

    I thank all my present and former students and colleagues whose work contributed to this article. I apologize to the many worthy investigators whose work inspired these thoughts but who were not named due to space constraints. Thanks to Dr. Taby Ahsan for helpful discussions and suggestions for the text. The work from my laboratory highlighted in this article has been funded by the Oliver Fund of Tulane University, the Louisiana Board of Regents (LEQSF[2009-11]-RD-A-18), the NIH (NS065374), and the NSF (CBET-1055990).

PDF

536

摘要：

在过去十年里，利用组织工程细胞培养系统的研究工作正在稳步发展，其中一些在研究神经轴突生长和导向方面得到了很好的利用。这些系统已经被设计成可更好的模拟发育或修复神经系统的天然微环境，以达到控制微环境的目的。这些具有3D特性的培养系统提供了与生理更为相似的微环境，从而为研究影响轴突生长物理或分子变量提供条件。迄今为止，生物学家还没有充分将微型组织工程模型系统用于神经再生研究。因为分子神经学家需要通过假设来驱动研究，他们可以说是比生物工程师更适合研究这些模型的群体，因为这类模型更适合他们的设计和验证。但采用这些工具的主要障碍是也很明显：非标准化技术，以及需要专业的设备、装置和材料等。但是，一个更加微妙的障碍是因为工程师和分子生物学家研究面临的问题不同、学术范围不同、科学理论也不同。这些差异导致专家忽略或者摒除那些其他领域的进步方法，虽然它们可能是最相关的。组织工程化培养模式已经成熟，并正准备在神经再生研究中担任不可或缺的角色。

Abstract:

The last decade has seen a steady proliferation in the use of tissue-engineered cell culture systems, and these have been put to good use for studying neural axon growth and guidance. These systems have been designed to more closely mimic the natural microenvironment of the developing or repairing nervous system and to enable spatiotemporal control over certain aspects of the microenvironment. The 3D nature of these culture systems provides a more physiologically-relevant microenvironment, while spatiotemporal control addresses aspects of tissue architecture and molecular presentation for quantitative investigation into how specific physical or molecular variables might influence axon growth. These capabilities should be tremendously important to the study of neural regeneration, since it is well known that developing and regenerating axons of both the central and peripheral nervous systems respond to particular attractive or repulsive cues presented in their microenvironments that may be sensed by the growth cones of these extending axons. Tissue-engineered model systems are well suited to the investigation into precise mechanisms of action of these cues, the elucidation of novel mechanisms, and for testing potential therapeutic strategies.
To date, biologists have yet to fully leverage the engineering developments of these model systems for neural regeneration research. This is important because molecular neuroscientists, who are trained for hypothesis-driven research, are arguably better suited to the utilization of these models than bioengineers (such as this author), who may be better suited to their design and validation. The main barriers to adoption of these tools are somewhat obvious: nonstandardized techniques and the need for specialized equipment, devices, and materials. But a more subtle barrier arises because engineers and molecular biologists approach problems differently, frequent different circles, and speak different scientific languages. These differences lead various fields of experts to ignore the advances or dismiss the methodologies of those in other fields, though they may be most relevant. Tissue-engineered culture models have come of age, and are poised to play an integral role in neural regeneration research. For this to occur, the technical and intellectual barriers to adoption of these models can and must be overcome.