Skip to content
naulon

Corrected on May 5, 2021.

Source: the publisher, via Crossref · checked Oct 21, 2026 · Read the notice

Bioactive potential of natural biomaterials: identification, retention and assessment of biological properties

Kieran Joyce, Georgina Targa Fabra, Yagmur Bozkurt and 1 more

Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy · 2021 · Review · CC BY

doi:10.1038/s41392-021-00512-8

Abstract

Biomaterials have had an increasingly important role in recent decades, in biomedical device design and the development of tissue engineering solutions for cell delivery, drug delivery, device integration, tissue replacement, and more. There is an increasing trend in tissue engineering to use natural substrates, such as macromolecules native to plants and animals to improve the biocompatibility and biodegradability of delivered materials. At the same time, these materials have favourable mechanical properties and often considered to be biologically inert. More importantly, these macromolecules possess innate functions and properties due to their unique chemical composition and structure, which increase their bioactivity and therapeutic potential in a wide range of applications. While much focus has been on integrating these materials into these devices via a spectrum of cross-linking mechanisms, little attention is drawn to residual bioactivity that is often hampered during isolation, purification, and production processes. Herein, we discuss methods of initial material characterisation to determine innate bioactivity, means of material processing including cross-linking, decellularisation, and purification techniques and finally, a biological assessment of retained bioactivity of a final product. This review aims to address considerations for biomaterials design from natural polymers, through the optimisation and preservation of bioactive components that maximise the inherent bioactive potency of the substrate to promote tissue regeneration.

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 21, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

Introduction

The design and functionalisation of implantable biomaterials have seen significant progress in the last few decades, with an increasing number of implantable biomaterials on the market every year., Biomaterials are widely used in tissue engineering solutions in combination with cells, synthetic materials, and therapeutic molecules to produce advanced therapeutic medicinal products., A three-dimensional polymeric scaffold often provides a support structure for the delivery of cells and biologically actives components. There is an increasing trend in tissue engineering to use naturally occurring macromolecules as a starting material due to their advantageous properties, since such materials are well tolerated, promoting cellular adhesion, and subsequent tissue formation to facilitate body integration while their biodegradability allows for tissue remodelling. The architecture of an exogenous construct should resemble the interconnecting network of the native tissue for increased cell infiltration, nutrient diffusion, and metabolite elimination. The mechanical properties of these natural polymers can be modulated to resist compressive forces, match tissue properties, and exert mechanical stimulus on cells. Innate material biological activity, cell-recognition and subsequent signalling cascades induced by natural polymers are not often highlighted in the scaffold design process, and not well characterised in final scaffold properties and function.

Natural polymers include nucleic acids, polysaccharides, proteins, lipids and complex macromolecules such as proteoglycans. Biological activity may be imparted upon a material through the use of natural polymers derived from non-mammalian and mammalian sources. Cellulose is the most common non-mammalian biopolymer on earth. At the same time, collagens are the most abundant mammalian polymers and the main component of the extracellular matrix (ECM) in most soft and hard mammalian tissues accounting for approximately 30% of all protein mass in the body. Twenty-eight types of collagens have been identified throughout various tissues where, for example, Collagen type I is most abundant in hard connective tissues like bone and tendon, collagen type II is more abundantly present in articular surfaces, and collagen IV is primarily found in the basal lamina of the basement membrane. The highly organised architecture of proteins, proteoglycans and polysaccharides in the ECM not only provides mechanical support to tissues, but plays a crucial role in regulating tissue function, cell differentiation, and maintenance of phenotype.

These natural polymers can form non-cytotoxic hydrogels and scaffolds either through self-assembly or using cross-linking techniques to recapitulate natural tissue properties. Fibrous proteins contain highly repetitive amino acid sequences responsible for their unique mechanical properties. Sequence repetition results in the formation of homogenous-recurring secondary structures (beta-sheets, fibrils, and coils) promoting self-polymerisation and self-assembly into complex, well-organised architectures. Non-self-assembling polymers can be cross-linked using chemical or physical methods to form stable hydrogels with retained polymeric properties.

This review aims to capture the biological properties of natural macromolecules and ECM components used in tissue engineering to inform biomaterial design for optimal biological performance. We discuss the range of naturally occurring properties in these materials, their initial characterisation, methods of cross-linking and material processing for tuning final biological properties, assessed by biological assays. The design of next-generation implantable materials will require detailed characterisation of modifications such as phosphorylation, sulphation, glycosylation, and other post-translational modifications (PTMs) modulate the structure and cell–matrix interactions in implant-tissue responses. These PTMs enhance receptor and lectin recognition of peptide sequences of protein-based molecules and carbohydrate motifs of polysaccharides on the cell surface, which induce intracellular signalling. These recognition processes are also influenced by ligand availability, which may be masked by the structural organisation of secondary and tertiary structures. A larger structural organisation like molecular weight,, fibril formation, folding and cross-linking, are crucial for cell response to the material. We characterise the significant biological motifs, structure, and complex architectures of common starting materials that dictate cell behaviour and tissue responses differentiating from disease phenotypes. Cells are sensitive to organisational motifs discussed above, such as fibril status, molecule length, and molecular weight as these may indicate tissue degradation and induce an inflammatory response. Finally, this review aims to highlight the importance of target tissue and substrate material characterisation, starting material selection and processing based on innate biologically active motifs, with final validation of retained biological motifs in the final product to regenerate the target tissue.

Functions and bioactivities of natural polymers

Large macromolecules such as proteins (collagen, silk, elastin, gelatin, keratin, titin, fibrin, and mucin), polysaccharides (glycosaminoglycans, cellulose, methylcellulose, amylose, chitin, starch, dextran, agarose, and alginate), proteoglycans (aggrecan, versican, neurocan, and lumican), and nucleic acids (DNA/RNA) are used primarily to fulfil a physical function, as a scaffold, carrier, or substrate for functional modifications, however, these starting polymers possess intrinsic biological activity to enhance the bioactivity of the final material (Fig. 1). Further, these macromolecules are cross-linked heavily with non-natural cross-linking methods to add functionality. While the focus has moved to include these biological components in implantable biomaterials, implant design, material processing, and final production fail to take advantage of the multitude of biological functions these components possess. Innate motifs, domains and properties of natural polymers (non-mammalian and mammalian) have been outlined in Table 1.

Non-mammalian polymers

Non-mammalian natural polymers are in high abundance and easily sourced. These polymers that include chitosan, alginate, and dextran are easily extracted and purified from plant sources yielding a low-cost material with low antigenicity., Chitosan, a water-soluble derivative of chitin is a natural polysaccharide made of glucosamine and a fraction of N-acetyl-glucosamine. This biodegradable, non-toxic polymer can be obtained by processing chitin extracted from crustaceans through a deacetylation process. Chitosan possesses the highest chelating ability of all-natural polymers, a vital detoxification property. Chitin and chitosan interact with regenerating islet-derived protein 3-alpha (RegIIIA), a secreted C-type lectin (formerly HIP/PAP) induce STAT3 tyrosine phosphorylation and stimulate interleukin-22 and interleukin-6 secretion. Galectin-3 binds to β-galactosides of chitin to activate extracellular-signal-regulated kinase (ERK), protein kinase B (AKT), and Janus kinase/signal transducer and activator of transcription protein (JAK/STAT1) signalling pathways, resulting in a dysregulated release of pro-inflammatory cytokines., Chitin and chitosan oligomers and fragments activate toll-like receptor/myeloid differentiation primary response 88 (TLR/MyD88), fibrinogen C domain-containing protein 1 (FIBCD1), and NK cell receptor protein 1 (NKR-P1) to upregulate cytokines and chemokines and activate natural killer (NK) cytotoxicity.– Chitosan has been shown to induce IL-10 secretion into animal blood and suppress colitis, through the modulation of nuclear factor kappa-B (NF-κB) signalling., Overall, chitin induces cell proliferation and differentiation, while also propagating an immunomodulatory effect. While chitin and chitosan are attractive materials due to their availability and biodegradability, pro-inflammatory signalling may be a drawback for widespread use, especially in degenerative disease with upregulated inflammatory cascades.

Alginate is a naturally occurring polysaccharide found in seaweed commonly used in drug delivery devices. Agarose is a polysaccharide, comprised of a basic repeat unit consisting of 1,3-linked-d-galactopyranose and 1,4-linked 3,6-anhydrous-α-l-galactopyranose, derived from algae. It is often used as a matrix to encapsulate cells and undergoes thermal cross-linking. Methylcellulose is a non-toxic polysaccharide derived from cellulose that undergoes gelation at 37 °C. Cellulose, methylcellulose, and agarose are all also used commonly in the biomedical industry. Cellulose does induce toll-like receptor (TLR)2-mediated NF-κB activation, promoting immunomodulatory responses, however, these materials are mainly considered inert and suitable for in vitro assays. The limitation of using these materials is that mammalian cells lack receptors to bind to these plant-based polysaccharides, and do not produce catabolic enzymes to degrade them. This lack of cell–matrix interaction will influence gene expression in cultured cells, altering cell phenotype.

Dextran is a neutral, biodegradable polysaccharide with an α-(1,6) pyranose ring linkage, formed from sucrose by dextransucrose enzyme by different bacterial strains. These properties make it suitable for use as scaffolds in tissue engineering. Dextran has been shown to increase cell adhesion and proliferation and upregulates gene expression of endothelial markers. These effects were mediated by upregulation of phosphoinositide 3-kinases (PI3K/Akt), ERK1/2, c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK), and p38 mitogen-activated protein kinases pathways in response to dextran. Dextran has been evaluated to demonstrate antioxidant, anticoagulant, and immunomodulatory properties through physical properties and the activation of pathways mentioned above, however, its use is limited by its mechanical properties when used in isolation.

Silk is a natural fibre obtained from silkworms (Bombyx mori) and spiders (Nephila clavipes). Silk fibroin is a fibrous protein consisting of 17 amino acids that, together with Sericin, makes up a silk fibre. This material does not induce adverse effects in implanted tissue. It has been widely used in skin closure sutures due to its tensile strength. Functional differences have been characterised in among silks originating from different species due to heterogeneity in amino acid sequence. Silk fibroin binds to receptor activation of nuclear factor κB ligand (RANKL) causing ERK1/2 signalling and expression of NF-κBp65, which promotes induction of osteoclastogenesis. Fibroin and Sericin are recognised by α5β1 integrin at VITTDSDGNE and NINDFDED peptide sequences to upregulate of c-Jun and c-Jun protein phosphorylation. Moreover, fibroin and sericin stimulate phosphorylation of ERK 1/2 and JNK 1/2 kinases., Silk fibre proteins, fibroin and sericin, activate intracellular pathways that are immunomodulatory and induce cell proliferation and differentiation.

Non-mammalian polymers maintain a prominent role in tissue engineering given their abundance, relative ease of isolation, and proven efficacy. The application of these materials in implantable devices warrants further consideration given the pro-immunogenic responses recorded in several studies, though this may be initiated by low isolation and antigen removal. The prominence of these materials is unlikely to diminish significantly given the role of silk products in wound healing, for example, while further integration to regenerate tissues and organs internally is less promising.

Mammalian polymers

The use of mammalian polymers can be advantageous over non-mammalian counterparts due to their enhanced biocompatibility and biodegradability, although potentially limited by their inherently low mechanical properties when unmodified or disorganised. While their isolation is more complicated than non-mammalian substrates, their biological activity through receptor recognition sites and conformational changes prompt further research into their use. These polymers include proteins such as collagen, gelatin and elastin, polysaccharides such as hyaluronic acid, heparan sulphate, and chondroitin sulphate and combinations in the form of glycoproteins and proteoglycans.

Collagen is a highly suitable natural polymer for tissue engineering purposes, considering it is the main constituent of the ECM that promotes cell proliferation and tissue formation due to its mechanical and biological properties. Collagen plays a crucial role in maintaining the structural integrity and spatial organisation of the ECM and is involved in essential cell activities such as morphogenesis, ECM deposition, tissue repair, and remodelling. Collagen-based implantable materials are fabricated using purified collagen solutions, isolated from animal tissues such as skin, tendon, or articular cartilage and can be discussed in two distinct categories; hydrogels made up of collagen fibres that may be further modified and decellularised tissues with complete collagen architecture. Decellularised matrices arise from whole tissues that are treated to remove cells and immunogenic antigens, retaining the original ECM organisation of the tissue with functional proteins intact. Both of these approaches to using collagen as a scaffold have advantages and disadvantages when considering the bioactivity of the final matrices.

The bioactivity of collagen has been studied in detail, and its peptide sequences induce intracellular signalling through many pathways. Herein, we summarise the many roles of collagen in cell–material interactions. Many collagen-sequence specific receptors have been characterised to date. Several integrins (α1β1, α2β1, α10β1, and α11β1) bind to the GFOGER peptide sequence of collagen activating the Erk1/Erk2 (p44/42) mitogen-activated protein kinase signal transduction pathway to promote cell survival, adhesion, and migration. Upon ligand binding, integrins undergo conformational changes to induce “outside-in” signalling. This activates multiple signalling events that differ across cell populations and are dependent on other signalling receptor activation.

Gly-Pro-Hyp (GPO) repeats are recognised collagen ligand binding sites, crucial for fibril alignment essential to protect against external stresses on the tissue. These GPO repeats are subject to glycation, increasing the stiffness of the tissue. Leukocyte-associated Ig-like receptor (LAIR-1) and G6b-B receptors, expressed on megakaryocytes and platelets, are specific for GPO repeats and act to inhibit differentiation of immune cells. LAIR-1 is present during osteoclastogenesis and inhibits bone remodelling. LAIR-1 contains two immunoreceptor tyrosine-based inhibition motifs (ITIMs), which when phosphorylated, recruit Src homology phosphatase 1 (SHP-1) and SHP-2. These phosphatases directly dephosphorylate Syk, Zap70, and PLCγ, preventing immunoreceptor tyrosine-based activation motif (ITAM)-mediated stimulation of protein kinases and calcium signalling., G6b-B, an inhibitory platelet receptor, is activated by collagen fragments, such as in response to the recognition of damaged epithelium., G6b-B contains one ITIM and an immunoreceptor tyrosine-based switch motif (ITSM), which in contrast to ITIM (directly signals through activation of phosphatases), interferes with ITAM activity through adaptor molecules. In megakaryocytes and platelets, G6b-B interferes with ITAM-mediated signalling induced by collagen binding to Immunoglobulin (Ig) superfamily member Glycoprotein VI (GPVI).

Collagen activates stimulatory receptors such as osteoclast associated receptor (OSCAR) and GPVI. OSCAR is specific to the GPOGPX′GFX′ sequence of the triple-helical peptide. It induces nuclear factor of activated T-cells (NFAT) signalling via the CD3ζ cytoplasmic signalling domain to induce osteoclast differentiation, and sustained function GPVI is located on platelet surfaces and binds to collagen fragments in coagulation. Collagen binds to OSCAR or GPVI to recruit ITAM-containing FcR-γ chains. OSCAR activation causes the initiation of calcium signalling, which is necessary for the activation of NFAT c1, and osteoclastogenic transcription factor. Activated GPVI binds Syk to the FcR-γ chain, which in turn activates Syk proteins and tyrosine phosphorylation. These interactions are dependent on the intact fibrillar conformation of collagen to activate downstream signalling for osteoclastogenesis and coagulation, respectively.

GPVI is also specific for GPO repeats on collagen, activating platelet adhesion and aggregation through inside-out signalling of integrins. Urokinase plasminogen activator receptor-associated protein (uPARAP/Endo180, FN-II domain) is specific for the collagenase cleavage site, GXY triplets, which may be masked by the triple-helical conformation of native collagen. When the collagen triple helix unfolds during degradation, these motifs are recognised and internalised. This process plays a role in tissue remodelling and bone development., The lectin domain of uPARAP/Endo180 binds to glycosylated motifs on collagen, modulating the endocytic efficiency of the receptor towards favouring highly glycosylated collagens such as basement membrane collagen IV. Glycosylation motif distribution on collagen also affects digestion rates by mammalian collagenase, where mono-glycosylated (Gal-Hyl) and diglycosylated (Glc-Gal-Hyl) reduced enzyme activity and increased thermal stability of collagen. Thus, sourced collagen as a starting material may be hyper-glycosylated or hypo-glycosylated to tune the biomaterial towards desired properties for its intended application.

Triple helical formation of collagen peptides stabilises formed fibrils, providing characteristic mechanical properties. Phosphorylation of collagen peptide is a significant modification that stabilises the triple helix independent of sequence. Phosphorylation/dephosphorylation acts as a stabilisation switch, changing melting temperature by up to 13 °C, effecting synthesis assembly and signalling. The Discoidin domain receptors 1 and 2 (DDR1/2) recognise intact collagen I, II, and III fibrils activating tyrosine auto-phosphorylation with a unique activation pathway, to induce receptor internalisation. Activation of DDRs promotes cell survival, proliferation and migration., Dysregulation of DDR1 is involved in the development of fibrosis, atherosclerosis, arthritis, and cancer.

Collagen architecture is formed by fibrils and fibre formation and transglutaminase induced crosslinks formed by linking glutamine and lysine residues to reinforce the three-dimensional structure. These crosslinked collagen fibrils act as a substrate for osteoclasts and bone mineralisation. On a supramolecular level, collagen binding of growth factors such as transforming growth factor-β (TGFβ) modulates the ligand-receptor activity increasing TGFβ signalling. Synthesis and organised deposition of collagen fibres increases ECM stiffness and promotes an intracellular actomyosin network organisation in epithelial cells. This mechanosensing process mediated by the activation of Rho-associated kinase (RHOA-ROCK) signalling pathway to initiate cell contraction. The importance of collagen on branching morphogenesis and tissue formation is apparent, when collagenase treatment completely inhibits submandibular gland cleft formation and branching. Collagen may be the further process to form gelatin, synthetic colloids made of denatured collagen polypeptides, a product of bovine cartilage degradation. This synthetic polymer retains the GxOGER and RGD sequences, sensed by αvβ3 and α5β1 integrins to activate ERK signalling and regulate cell adhesion and mechanosensing. Collagen exerts a multitude of biological activities through numerous receptor interactions and signalling cascades that are sequence, conformation, PTM, and organisationally dependent. Thus, there is a broad scope for tuning collagen based starting materials through manipulation of the base sequence, PTM coverage, fibril formation, and cross-linking to create the final product with the desired biological activities. Collagen has been used in hydrogel blends to increase cellular interaction and attachment. 3D hydrogel network of collagen/alginate exhibited uniform distribution of collagen fibrils and maintained neural progenitor cell attachment via α1β1, α2β1 integrin. Adherent neurons on collagen fibrils within the 3D hydrogel matrix promoted the maturation and formation of neural networks. Collagen may be modified with carbohydrate residues to mimic natural PTMs to differentially influence the glyco-signature of primary neuronal cells.

Hyaluronan is a simple, non-sulphated glycosaminoglycan that is a significant constituent of the ECM. Hyaluronan is a crucial component in the pericellular matrices of migrating cells in the developing embryo, in proliferating cells in regenerating tissues and in other dynamic cellular events. This hydrated pericellular substrate interacts with proteoglycans and other extracellular macromolecules to form a template that facilitates cell migration, and the assembly of ECM and pericellular matrices. Hyaluronan interacts with cell surface receptors, such as receptor for HA-mediated motility (RHAMM) and cluster of differentiation-44 (CD44). CD44 and RHAMM both contain a B(X7)B sequence where B is an essential amino acid residue, arginine or lysine, and the X’s contain at least one essential amino acid but can be any other non-acidic amino acids, which will bind to the HA disaccharide units of N-acetyl glucosamine and glucuronic acid., In morphogenesis, interactions between hyaluronan with the cell surface receptors RHAMM and CD44 are involved in cell locomotion and proliferation, which are critical events in morphogenesis., HA–CD44 interactions mediate endocytic removal of HA, a critical regulatory process in essential stages of embryonic development. Hyaluronan–CD44 signalling can activate Rho and Rac1 GTPases, leading to reorganisation of the actin cytoskeleton erbB2 tyrosine kinase activation, and cell proliferation through src-related tyrosine kinases, and NF-κB. RHAMM activation induces a protein tyrosine kinase signal transduction pathway (pp60c-src) causing downstream activation, that modulates focal adhesions for RHAMM-associated mediated cell motility. High molecular weight (HMW) HA has been shown to promote tumorigenesis, antiangiogenic and anti-inflammatory responses in breast-cancer cell lines while low molecular weight (LMW) HA is implicated in cell motility, CD44 cleavage, and angiogenesis. LMW fragmentation products of HA induce phosphorylation of p38/p42/p44 MAP-kinases and nuclear translocation of NF-κB, which are components of the TLR-4 signalling pathway, a pro-inflammatory signalling pathway., Thus, the molecular weight of the HA ligand is crucial for its recognition and biological function. The biological activity of HA is well characterised, especially concerning the influence of MW on immunomodulatory effects. Biomaterial design using HA as a starting material must consider the molecular weight of HA, cross-linking method for receptor binding and degradation and fragmentation products to ensure suitability for the final application, promote an anti-inflammatory response and to mitigate adverse effects.

Elastin is a crucial ECM protein that provides elasticity and integrity to tissues. Elastin binds αVβ3 integrins at the RKRK sequence promoting cytoskeletal assembly and cell adhesion. Elastin is also bound by Elastin receptor complex at GxxPG consensus sequences, which activates the ERK1/2 pathway through a signal dependent on protein kinase A and phosphoinositide 3-kinase c (PI3Kc), regulating pro-tumoral signalling. The mature elastin matrix triggers G-protein coupled receptor-mediated Rho signalling pathway to induce actin-stress fibre organisation, inhibit proliferation, and regulate migration. Maintenance of the RKRK sequence of elastin and availability in the final product is essential for cell integration and organisation in the material.

Peptide sequence availability is also necessary for Laminins, ECM proteins found mostly in the basal lamina of the basement membrane, to activate signalling cascades. Laminin isoforms are ligands for α6β1 and αVβ1 integrins, which activate Jak/STAT-pathways, MAPK-pathways, and PI3K/Akt-pathways. These processes influence cell renewal, differentiation, and promote retained expression of pluripotency markers. The tenascin specific sequence, VFDNFVLK, is recognised by α7 and α9β1, αVβ3 integrin to activate p38 MAPK signalling. This interaction has been shown to affect neuronal differentiation and mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) migration. The tenascin specific sequence may be preserved or blocked, through targeted cross-linking, depending on desired material function.

Proteoglycans (PGs), commonly used in tissue engineering, are glycosylated proteins typically found in the ECM, anchored to HA. Aggregating PGs, such as aggrecan and versican, aggregate on HA via link protein interactions. Aggrecan is the most glycosylated PG, consisting of up to 30 keratan sulphate (KS) chains and 150 chondroitin sulphate (CS) chains, and is highly abundant in cartilage. These glycosaminoglycan (GAG) chains form negatively charged aggregates that efficiently retain water and resist compression and deformation. Versican is a large interstitial PG with many chondroitin sulphate chains with an apparent MW of more than 1000 kDa. Versican is bound by leukocyte adhesion molecules L-selectin and P-selectin on its CS domains, which may only occur depending on sulphation pattern., The carbohydrate-binding domain of CD44 also recognises the CS chains of versican. Versican can induce integrin and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) activation to initiate neuronal cell differentiation. Versican also has an ability to bind chemokines, downregulating their function. Recently, different isoforms of versican have been shown to induce opposite effects on cell proliferation, likely through competitive binding of CD44 with HA.

Nonaggregating PGs, such as small leucine-rich PGs (SLRPs), consist of relatively smaller protein cores with fewer GAG chains than aggregating PGs. SLRPs including decorin, biglycan, lumican, fibromodulin, and proline arginine-rich end leucine-rich repeat protein (PRELP) all interact heavily with cell-surface receptors. Decorin, the most abundant SLRP in cartilage, binds to low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 1 (LRP-1) and causes internalisation of the complex, modulating of TGFβ signalling via Smad 2/3/7 and PI3K activation. Decorin also binds EGFR, triggering dimerization, endocytosis and degradation of the decorin-receptor complex, presumably inhibiting signalling. Lumican interacts with Transforming growth factor-β receptor 1 (ALK5) activating pERK1/2 signalling to promote wound healing. Fibromodulin, decorin, asporin, and biglycan both bind TGFβ and other growth factors and potentially inhibit activity., The glycosaminoglycan-binding domain of PRELP acts as a cell type-specific NF-κB inhibitor via CS-annexin II-dependent internalisation to impairs osteoclastogenesis. SLRPs are integral to the structural architecture of connective tissues through the binding collagens, ECM glycoproteins, and other extracellular and membrane bound components. Decorin, lumican, fibromodulin, PRELP, asporin, and chondroadherin all regulate collagen fibrillogenesis, to determine fibril diameter, spacing, and patterning.

The above-discussed PGs contain GAG chains with many functions. These have been shown to assert biological activity on their own or in aggregation with PGs. Chondroitin sulfate in CS proteoglycans (CSPG) is recognised by annexin-6, aiding in cell surface localisation and cell adhesion. Receptor protein tyrosine phosphatase σ (PTPσ), on the first immunoglobulin-like domain, and its subfamily member LAR act as transmembrane receptors that mediate growth inhibition of CSPGs activating signalling pathways (RhoA, Akt, and Erk)., Activation of PTPσ by CSPGs selectively inactivated collapsin response mediator protein (CRMP2), APC, S6 kinase, and cAMP response element-binding protein (CREB).

In contrast, leukocyte common antigen-related (LAR) phosphatase activation inactivated PKCζ, cofilin and liver kinase b1 (LKB1) and deletion of both receptors exhibit additive enhancement of axon growth in adult neuronal cultures in vitro. CSPGs also bind two receptors for myelin-associated growth inhibitors, Nogo receptors 1 and 3, where blockade of these receptors significantly increases CSPG signalling and promotes central nervous system (CNS) axon regeneration. HA, Chondroitin sulfate and heparan sulfate can capture anti-DNA antibodies due to a negative charge interaction, modulating the activity of these antibodies and possibly inducing an inflammatory response.,

Many keratan sulfate proteoglycan (KSPG)-cell receptor interactions have been characterised. Macrophages adhere to lumican core protein and spread rapidly; however, this process is inhibited by intact KS chains. The highly sulphated KSPGs of cornea inhibit macrophage adhesion; however, lumican desulphation occurs in corneal disease and localises macrophages to inflamed tissue. KSPGs also act as a barrier to neurite outgrowth in vitro and direct axon growth during development and regeneration in vivo. KS chains bind to insulin-like growth factor binding protein-2 (IGFBP2) and interact with sonic hedgehog (SHH), FGF1, and FGF2. KS disaccharides activate Robo-slit to induce Rho GTPase activity. This mediates actin depolymerisation, cytoskeletal reorganisation and cell signalling.

Heparan sulphate, and HSPGs (syndecan, perlecan, and glypicans) cell–matrix interactions mediate endocytosis via caveolin-mediated pathways or lipid raft-mediated pathways. Small GTPases, such as Cdc42, Rac1, RhoA, RhoG, and ARF6 as well as actin also regulate HSPG internalisation., HSPG serves as a receptor for APRIL, a proliferation-inducing ligand, which is a member of the tumour necrosis factor (TNF) family, to promote cell proliferation and tumour growth. Very-low density lipoprotein (VLDL) binding and internalisation is dependent on complexing with cell-surface HSPGs. LRP-1 regulates HSPG expression through complexing, thus controlling the availability of VLDL binding sites at the cell surface. Upon dissociation from LRP-1, HSPGs bind to and internalise VLDL independent of LRP-1 endocytic activity.

ECM proteoglycans play an essential regulatory role in the organisation, degradation and cell signalling. The native properties and tissue-specific composition of the ECM provide an inherent biological activity to promote cell adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation. The ECM also acts as a reservoir of growth factors regulating protein synthesis and cell proliferation. The remodelling of ECM components induced by matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) is a crucial process to allow cell migration and integration. Overall, ECM based implants act as dynamic and supportive scaffolds affecting cell migration, and differentiation, highlighting the role of cell–ECM interactions and ECM motifs as key stem cell determinants. Material processing and implant design must consider the above cell–matrix interactions to fulfil the starting material’s bioactive potential. This overview of cell–matrix interactions also highlights the variability of motif expression in different tissues and development, physiology, and disease. The starting material may consist of a purified protein, polysaccharide, or glycoprotein or be comprised of hundreds of constituents if derived from whole tissue products. We have highlighted the copious cell–material interactions that have been described in the literature with the most common starting materials. With material design trending towards more sophisticated and composite devices, we underscore the critical considerations to be made for innate material activity and further processing to modulate the activity of the final product to fulfil its application (proposed workflow described in Fig. 2).

Characterisation of the initial target tissue and starting material

There has also been an increasing understanding of the role of abundant proteins, polysaccharides, and link proteins in modulating cell growth and tissue organisation. These molecules can also be highly modified with PTMs, including sulphation, phosphorylation, and glycosylation, which effect properties and function, necessitating characterisation to match the desired properties of the target tissue. Therefore, the initial characterisation of tissues and starting materials (Table 2) can inform device design to incorporate a combination of polymers with suitable modifications based on tissue characterisation to recapitulate the structure and function of the target microenvironment.

Variation in the ECM composition of tissues can depend on age, gender, ethnicity, disease, lifestyle habits, and most prominently developmental stage. To design a device that reflects the structure and composition of the native tissue, complete, and rigorous profiling of the target tissue must first be performed. “Omics” approaches have been utilised to understand the state of the ECM in disease and tune implanted biomaterials accordingly. Proteome analysis refers to the systematic identification and quantification of the complete proteome of a biological system. For example, proteomics analyses suggest that compared with decellularised human lung, decellularised rat liver has different proteoglycan, ECM glycoprotein, and secreted factors content. These distinct molecular compositions could make these biomaterials useful for different biological applications. Determination of the matrisome components, which support cell growth, differentiation, and original tissue architecture and microvascular network, is useful to produce biomaterial with improved bioactivity. This analysis is also useful to determine compositional changes that occur in the ECM in disease processes. Quantitative proteomic analysis of ECM featuring characterisation of site-specific post-translational modifications on collagen reveals dynamic growth factor-mediated regulation of prolyl-3-hydroxylation and lysyl glycosylation. Characterisation of PTMs on proteins are essential to determine protein function and modified PTMs that are often implicated in disease. A database of PTM-disease associations, has been developed with detailed annotations to analyse further the relations between PTMs and their effect on protein function in human diseases. Proteomic analysis of the ECM has been coupled with decellularisation processing to study the native ECM structure in health and disease. In contrast, lipidomic profiling is performed less extensively. All tissue present specific lipid distributions and concentrations. Alterations of lipid homeostasis have been linked to cardiovascular disease, cancers and neurodegenerative diseases, among others.

Glycomic characterisation of tissues in physiological and disease conditions highlights the aberrant expression of glycans to identify markers of disease and inform the material design to address aberration., Recent technical advances have been made in glycomic analyses of N-linked and O-linked glycans, as well as glycosylated PTMs on the protein backbone of glycoproteins and proteoglycans. N-glycan retrieval by peptide N-glycosidase F, and subsequent isolation and characterisation protocols are well described, whereas O-glycans cannot be cleaved with an analogous enzyme as no such enzyme has been found in nature. Therefore, the N-glycome of cells and tissues is routinely analysed over other classes of glycoconjugates. N-glycome substrate and starting material characterisation will inform the bioactivity and specific material–host interactions.

Initial characterisation of a material using the techniques mentioned above offers insight into the molecular composition of the material, the natural modifications to material constituents and the innate bioactivity of such material based on the sequences and motifs present with known biological effect. Such a methodology may also be employed to assess the target tissue to match the molecular signature of a material to the intended tissue to provide the correct biological cues for implantation. Ultimately, the properties of all materials will be dictated by isolation methods used to produce starting materials and the source of the material. While the manufacturing techniques used to isolate polymers such as collagen for commercial use are beyond the review’s scope, it is essential to recognise that materials from different suppliers can vary greatly despite similar origins and batch-to-batch variability often cited. This necessitates careful consideration when comparing materials and results from different formulations, mitigated by in-house characterisation of starting materials.

Material processing, cross-linking, and assembly

It is clear that natural polymers have innate biological properties that greatly influence cell and tissue responses; however, the processing and functionalisation of these materials can hinder final properties and potency. In this section, we consider processing techniques for the maintenance of bioactivity during the production of biomaterial-based devices. As mentioned previously, the use of natural-based polymers has increased exponentially due to their biocompatibility, biodegradability, and non-toxic properties. They provide not only necessary mechanical support due to their physical properties, but also bioactive traits that influence cell behaviour and tissue homeostasis, making them suitable candidates for regenerative therapies. ECM components, such as collagen, HA and proteoglycans, create porous network matrices that facilitate cell–matrix and cell–cell interactions. Therefore, when creating a biomaterial, it is necessary to consider the native tissue architecture and mimic this three-dimensional microenvironment through cross-linking, decellularisation, and purification techniques.

Organised networks are formed from materials such as collagen or fibronectin, which possess self-assembling properties, or starting materials coupled with cross-linking methods or a combination of both. Self-assembling properties of macromolecules may be lost during processing, depending on extraction, purification, and sterilisation methods necessary for their final application., Cross-linking modifications aim to fulfil the mechanical demands required by the application while also modulating the intrinsic biological properties of the natural polymer for the desired effect. Cross-linking methods can also be used in self-assembling polymers to modulate specific properties we wish to enhance or control, such as mechanical stability, degradation rate, and immunogenicity of the terminal device that will be implanted in the damaged tissue.

Physical and chemical cross-linking are the two main strategies employed to form these polymeric networks, although some enzymatic approaches have also been explored., The site-specificity of cross-linking will determine access to biologically active motifs and function, potentially mask sites of immunogenicity and provide structural support.– Cross-linking materials can be tuned to form enzyme cleavable linkages to promote remodelling and complete integration. However, natural elements can be considered to make materials resistant to degradation, such as glycosylated barriers. There is an abundance of tuneable features to be modulated when developing a scaffold to procure a suitable microenvironment for a given application. In this section, these cross-linking methods will be assessed, analysing the specific properties they provide to material structure and exploring the biological influences they may have on the material’s bioactivity (summarized in Table 3).

Higher concentrations of cross-linker involve a higher number of covalent bonds in the polymer network, and as a result, there is an increase in the stiffness and a decrease in the degradation rate of the biomaterial., These changes can modify protein structure and drop the affinity in binding motifs, may ultimately affect the biological function of a protein or drop their enzymatic activity. Also, increasing the amount of crosslinker, and thus the number of the chemical agent’s functional groups, is linked to higher risks of cytotoxicity.

Several aspects must be considered when designing a biomaterial that will be chemically cross-linked. To begin with, what family of cross-linking agents will be used according to the functional groups that will be involved in the covalent bond (NHS ester reaction or maleimide reaction, for instance). Other important aspects that should be considered are the functionality, cleavability, structural modifications, spacer arm composition, length and structure of the conjugating agent, etc.

Degradation and subsequent by-products must be considered designing a biomaterial set for regenerative therapies. Matrix digestion by metalloproteases, allows cells to recognise ECM degradation products to synthesise and reorganise a new matrix. While it is essential to minimise the degradation products of synthetic materials, natural polymers also degrade to produce deleterious by-products with undesirable biological effects. This effect is exemplified by hyaluronic acid where high molecular weight HA molecules exert an anti-angiogenic effect, highly present in avascular tissues such as cartilage. However, under high degradation rates, producing smaller HA products, are associated with neovascularisation and pro-inflammatory response, thus playing an essential role in wound healing, but also tumour progression and metastasis. This effect may be mitigated through an optimised degradation profile and observed cellular response.

Several methods of cross-linking are discussed below; however, it is important to note that these methods are almost entirely limited by the initial starting material unless further modified. Thus, we have considered the additional biologically active characteristics encompassed by these techniques to offer further insight into method suitability for given applications.

Physical cross-linking

Physical cross-linking may be divided into ionic/electrostatic interactions and hydrophobic/hydrophilic interactions. Physical cross-linking is based on the formation of reversible intermolecular interactions. This approach’s main advantage is the low cytotoxicity, assured by the absence of chemical agents involved in the reaction. Cross-linking is triggered by certain stimuli, such as pH or temperature. At the same time, the physical attraction that forms the crosslinked product can be disrupted at high stresses but restored once the force is removed, providing these materials with self-healing capacities and injectable properties under room temperature., However, the mechanical loading forces that these materials can sustain is limited due to the reversible binding of physical interactions in this network. Self-assembling polymers also demonstrate physical cross-linking through various interactions and are thus discussed separately.

Ionic/electrostatic interactions are based on the reversible bonding between two opposite charges that come from either ions or macromolecules formed by positively or negatively charged groups. These facilitate the formation of polyelectrolytes complexes (PECs) to generate a network., For example, chitosan is a positively charged polysaccharide, formed by N-acetylglucosamine and glucosamine residues. It can form polyelectrolyte complexes (PECs) via electrostatic interactions between its cationic groups and the anionic groups from various anionic macromolecules such as pectin, chondroitin sulphate, and alginate. Alginate, a polysaccharide composed of mannuronic and glucuronic acid residues, provides anionic charges to its structure and allows crosslinking with divalent cations such as calcium, barium, or magnesium, among others. These divalent ions will serve as reactive bridges to other anionic molecules or more alginate chains, resulting in a gel structure. Alginate beads show high mucoadhesive properties, prolonging their residence in mucosal tissues showing great potential for mucosal drug delivery. Also, the porosity of ionic alginate hydrogels allows nutrient exchange, making them perfect for cell encapsulation., The viscoelasticity shown by ionic crosslinked gels better mimics the natural properties of tissues and can influence cell behaviour., However, the release of cross-linking ions due to the disintegration of the alginate beads can lead to homeostatic imbalances in resident cells, affecting the response of the tissue to the therapeutic effect of the material or encapsulated drugs. Mammalian cells lack degradative enzymes to cleave alginate polysaccharide chains and thus, remodelling is inhibited. Interestingly, the mechanism for physical cross-linking that involves chelation of Ca2+ is a potent antibacterial motif with the capability of disrupting biofilm. This chelating site has also been shown to bind other monovalent and divalent ions, to attenuate hypertension through increased salt excretion when administered systemically in a rat model. These ionic properties attributed to functional groups can be further tuned by chemical substitution at the polysaccharide chain: ionic group substitution effects cell–matrix interactions, growth factor binding and cell migration and proliferation.

Hydrophobic interactions involve water-soluble polymers with hydrophobic end groups, side chains or monomers, where polymerisation occurs due to thermal or ultrasonic induction by amphiphilic blocks that contain both hydrophobic and hydrophilic groups that make them suitable for self-assembly at a given temperature. These properties enable soluble formulations at room temperature, to form gel-solid structure under physiological conditions at 37 °C. Methylcellulose can form thermoresponsive hydrogels as well as gelatin or elastin-like polypeptides (ELPs), among others. ELPs derive from the recurring amino acid sequence Val-Pro-Gly-Xaa-Gly (being Xaa any amino acid except Pro), that can be found in the hydrophobic domain of tropoelastin. They can be used in many biomedical applications, including differentiation stem cells, drug delivery– or formation of layer systems with other polymers that can ultimately be used as coatings to enhance cell adhesion or carry biologically active molecules. The highly repetitive sequence GAGAGS of some natural proteins such as silk fibroin, allow the formation of the antiparallel beta-sheet crystalline region that permits its self-assembly into an organised structure through methods such as ultrasonic induction. Cross-linking can also be used to modify specific biological properties of the polymer, where the degree of ultrasonic modifications alter the triple helical structure of collagen to modulate integrin-mediated cell attachment and facilitate cell migration and ECM remodelling. Hydrophobic interactions do not exclusively involve material interactions, but also encompass cell–material interactions, heavily influencing non-receptor mediated cell adhesion, protein adsorption, and activity of surface functional groups. Further discussions on these interactions is beyond the scope of this review, however, these interactions are highly cell and material dependent.

Self-assembly

Some of the natural polymers used for biomaterial design have self-assembling properties, meaning they naturally generate non-covalent intermolecular interactions between them to form these networks. Most of the interactions involved in self-assembly involve non-covalent interactions, such as hydrogen bonding, Van der Waals forces, electrostatic forces, hydrophobic interactions or π–π stacking of aromatic rings, like those involved in physical cross-linking. These non-covalent interactions promote the assembly of many native polymers and structures into a higher level of structural complexity, such as lipids into micelles or bilayers and α-helix or β-sheet structural motifs of proteins.

Some examples of self-assembling macromolecules include DNA, proteins and peptides, lipids, etc. These elements possess certain structural features that allow their self-polymerisation. Collagen most notably self-assembles with fibrillar conformation through alpha helical formations. Laminin and elastin possess similar properties while fibronectin’s N-terminal domain (especially the domain I1-5) allows the assembly of its dimers in a 3D-structure. Ternary complexes are formed by cooperative interactions between repeats I1-5, III1 and the cell or heparin domains, which are thought to be important during fibrillogenesis.

Lipids such as fatty acids self-assemble due to hydrophobic interactions, assembling and forming bilayer structures when exposed to water. This characteristic makes them suitable in bioengineering as delivery systems of molecules or drugs. Hydrogen bonds and dipolar interactions between lipid monomers can derive to stiffer gels or form lipid rafts, which exert essential biological functions, such as signal transduction at the cell surface in hematopoietic cells., Phospholipid modifications can also be applied to peptides to allow self-assembly formation and enhance cellular internalisation. This is exemplified by adding palmitoyl tails to a cell-penetrating peptide to provide with hydrophobic capacities, and enhance self-assembling behaviour to develop an intracellular delivery system for hydrophobic drugs internalised into these bilayer carriers.

The principal for self-assembly relies on complementary ionic bonds involving amino acid sequences alternating positively-charged and negatively-charged (Lys and Arg mainly used as positively-charged residues, whereas Glu and Asp are used as negatively-charged forces)., This capacity is encoded within the primary amino acid sequence of the peptide, but the process usually requires the interaction with external molecules, for instance, integrin α5β1 cooperation to promote fibronectin’s assembly. This property can be tuned by modulating the concentration of these external molecules involved in the reaction, by adjusting the interactions between the molecules and the material or by adding an external stimulus into the formulation for instance, such as pH, concentration, ionic strength, or temperature, similar to the physical cross-linking interactions previously described. Considering these are non-covalent bonds, they are incredibly weak when considered individually, but can derive to highly stable assemblies when many of these interactions are combined. To preserve the natural self-assembling properties of starting materials, cross-linking methods or functionalisation through conjugation steps retain accessibility to essential motifs to facilitate interaction and assembly. This technique of structural organisation is advantageous for avoiding toxic by-products of chemical cross-linking reagents in sensitive cell and tissue types.

Chemical cross-linking

While physical cross-linking is often a natural property of macromolecules, it may not suffice for the mechanical properties necessary in a given application. Chemical cross-linking is based on the bond between functional groups present in the primary structure of a polymer (such as carboxylic groups, hydroxyl groups, or primary amines) with the reactive groups given by a cross-linking agent (such as aldehydes, carbodiimides, etc.). As a result, a covalent bond is obtained, to enhance biomechanical stability and tuneability for degradation. Chemically crosslinked materials can achieve more excellent stability, more extended durability, and higher mechanical properties compared to physically cross-linked substrates. Biomaterials have been crosslinked with a vast range of chemical approaches, including photo-polymerisation, enzyme catalysed reactions, “click chemistry”, Schiff base formation, oxime crosslink, Michael addition of dynamic covalent chemistry., However, in this review, we focus on the reactive groups most commonly associated with biological motifs in biomaterial research and their implications and effects in the final function.

One of the most common cross-linking strategies is based on the carbodiimide chemistry. The reaction involves carboxylic groups, present on the starting material that will interact with the primary amine groups of peptides sequences, or a synthetic polymer functionalised with amine groups, to generate a stable covalent-based network. EDC (1-ethyl-3-(3-dimethylamino propyl-carbodiimide hydrochloride) is widely used together with NHS (N-hydroxy-succinimide), to react with the carboxylic groups and generate a reactive ester group that can bond to the primary amines., Nonetheless, despite being an efficient approach for the mechanical stabilisation of, for instance, collagen,, EDC utilises most of the carboxylate groups of the primary structure provided by glutamate or aspartate. These amino acids are essential for the interaction with integrin-cell receptors in collagen and gelatin, in the cell-binding motifs CxOGER and RGD (tripeptide domain of Arg-Gly-Asp), respectively. In this regard, many strategies have been explored to restore this functionality, such as cross-linking triple helical peptides (THP) to synthetic polymers in order to mimic the lost CxOGER motif and replicate the collagen’s cellular binding capacity., It can also be bound to the same collagen by conjugating the pre-designed THP sequence to a photoreactive moiety, diazirine, allowing ultraviolet light (UV)-dependent covalent coupling to collagen films. This approach has been reported to re-establish not only integrin-binding interactions,– but also Discoidin Domain Receptor 2 (DDR2) and the A3 domain of VWF, both critical for wound healing and myocardial repair. Other strategies have also been explored for RGD motif restoration.

Other chemical cross-linking methods widely used in the biomedical field are amine-based reactions, where the amine reactive groups in the surface structure of the polymer are being utilised for crosslinking. Examples of such crosslinkers include NHS ester, imido esters, pentafluorophenyl ester, and hydroxymethyl phosphine. An increase in the degree of cross-linking is translated into a reduction of the reactive groups available in the primary sequence, which may affect the motif integrity or influence its function. Thus, modulating the degree of cross-linking and thus, the number of free amines still available can have a significant impact in the biomaterial’s biological function. For example, in a chitosan/tripolyphosphate scaffold, the amine availability is determined by the pH of the solution and therefore influences the proliferation of bone marrow mesenchymal cells. This can be applied not only to amine cross-linking, but also to other reactive groups. Crucially, this amine-based reaction selectively attacks the N-terminus of peptides, preserving biologically active sites and cell–matrix interactions; however, this selectivity is dependent on reactive ester synthesis, which may non-specifically target sequences.

Another mechanism includes sulfhydryl reactive groups as a core for cross-linking. In contrast with the previous examples, this group tends to be part of the protein’s secondary or tertiary structure in the side chain of cysteine residues, which generate intermolecular interactions via disulphide bonds., Therefore, to make these groups available for others and crosslink, they must be reduced to sulfhydryl groups. Thiol-acrylate reactions are commonly referred to as “click reactions”, and they have been used to incorporate specific functional motifs to a cysteine-based cross-linker. The principle of this approach is to incorporate certain functionalities in a biomaterial to enhance cell attachment through integrin interaction, for instance. This strategy is mainly conducted through thiols due to their high reactivity, and also they are easily quantifiable to keep track of the cross-linking units used. This method of chemical cross-linking is specific for cysteine containing sequences, and preserves remaining biologically active sequences for bioactivity.

Aldehyde reactive groups can also be applied for cross-linking, by oxidation of carbonyl groups in carbohydrates to generate covalent bonds. Examples include hydrazides or alkoxyamines, while glutaraldehyde (GTA) is one of the crosslinkers mostly used, reacting with primary amines of the polymer, such as collagen., Usually, it reacts only with the surface of the molecule, leading to intermolecular crosslinks that allow the bonding between collagen fibres and leading to very stable networks. However, GTA shows high cytotoxicity effects and alternative crosslinkers can be used to provide similar enzymatic stability but to lower cell mortality, such as genipin. Beside of its cytotoxicity, it has been shown that GTA cross-linking can induce a charge shift in the collagen fibre, reducing the positive charges without disrupting the overall structure of the macromolecule, having thus implications on the behaviour on cell response and attachment to the scaffold.

Photoreactive crosslinkers have also gained much attention, especially for in situ gelation approaches., An example of photochromophore includes, for instance, diazirine.,, Among their multiple applications, such as drug delivery, photoresponsive hydrogels have also been used as a matrix for cell cultures. These photomotifs can promote oligosaccharide release in hydrogel matrices, or promote the oligomerisation of hydrogel matrices containing binding motifs such as RGD, which in turn interacts with integrin-complexes in cell membranes, being able to guide cell growth and differentiation.– Moreover, the degradation of the hydrogel can also be modulated via light-stimulus, being able to regulate cell migration of stem cells, making photo-polymerisation an attractive cross-linking approach.

There is a multitude of cross-linking techniques available in tissue engineering, each with variable specificity, toxicity, degradability, and mechanical properties. While cross-linking approach may be dictated by the mode of delivery for a biomedical application, it is worth-considering the sequence specificity of cross-linking initiators and the subsequent impact on bioactive motifs of the starting polymer.

The use of cross-linking methods with one specific substrate can mitigate off-target reactions that interfere with antigen and motif expression. However, this becomes exponentially more complex if the material substrate is a mixture of proteins, GAGs, lipids, etc. In this case, an interpenetrating network consisting of an artificial substrate to create a synthesised matrix that contains natural components may be favourable depending on the target.

Isolation and processing to preserve the natural architecture

While using macromolecules as starting molecules, further crosslinked to form mature networks is an attractive approach to material design, decellularisation techniques for organs and tissues have obvious structural and biological advantages. The basic principle of the decellularisation process is removing the cellular content of ECM while preserving its native microstructure, molecular composition, and surface chemistry. Decellularised substrates contain more significant structural organisation with specific biological cues over crosslinked substrates. A key challenge to the clinical translation of decellularised scaffolds lies in processing techniques to remove cells and immunogenic motifs from the starting material, while maintaining the bioactive properties and ECM architecture to promote scaffold integration, cell proliferation, and tissue regeneration.

Current standards for evaluating decellularised products focus on remaining nucleic acid content and removal of known immunogenic epitope such as alpha-galactose using enzymatic treatments. Although the no authority has strictly defined standards for decellularisation, criteria cited includes no visible nuclei, DNA content should not exceed 200 base pair length and total DNA content should not exceed 50 ng per mg of material. However, these techniques fail to capture numerous proteins and polysaccharides that induce immunogenic responses.

Design of biomaterials from natural polymers aims to optimise the substrate’s inherent bioactivity to promote tissue regeneration by identifying and preserving bioactive components to ensure high potency final product. From starting material isolation to final processing, material treatments to remove antigenicity and contaminants must not perturb the natural structure beyond biological activity. Non-mammalian polysaccharides are unlikely to induce TLR receptor activation, but rather impurities in an isolated starting material are responsible for an inflammatory response. While TLR ligands include carbohydrate moieties, the non-carbohydrate portion of molecules such as lipopolysaccharide activates receptor signalling pathways. The effect of TLR’s carbohydrate-binding domains is unknown, although it has been shown that inhibition of polysaccharide binding inhibits macrophage activation. Purification techniques must be optimised to remove pro-inflammatory antigens while retaining desired material properties.

Decellularisation efficacy and complete removal of cellular components are essential for the biomaterial compatibility and biomaterial–host interactions.– Physical processes and sonication, chemical detergents, and enzymatic treatments have been used in combined decellularisation procedures. However, these decellularisation techniques can alter the structural integrity and native function of ECM components.,

Physical degradation includes snap freezing and lyophilisation, freeze-thaw cycles and mechanical destruction. Physical methods are useful as they do not perfuse the tissues with harmful solvent or chemicals yet these techniques disrupt ECM organisation, which is crucial for applications such as cardiac valves and ligaments. Solvent extraction (ethanol) is useful for membrane removal; however, prolonged exposure can disrupt protein integrity. Acidic treatments are used for decalcification as well as decellularisation but these cause oxidative damage to GAGs and collagen.

Detergents can be classified as non-ionic (Triton X-100), ionic (sodium dodecyl sulphate), cationic (Cetyltrimethylammonium bromide, CTAB) and zwitterionic (3-[(3-cholamidopropyl)dimethylammonio]-1-propanesulfonate, CHAPS). These are used to disrupt lipid membranes, induce cell lysis and denature proteins. While non-ionic detergents preserve protein–protein interactions, ionic detergents tend to denature proteins. Also, cationic detergents induce structural changes in ECM components while zwitterionic compounds generally induce minimal ECM disruption although these are often used in conjunction with endonucleases to ensure DNA disruption. Detergent removal and protein purification must also be considered using dialysis, gel filtration, and column separation depending on detergent used and end application.

Enzymatic treatments degrade cell proteins and antigens and reduce DNA content in decellularisation protocols. Trypsin is a serine protease commonly used as an enzymatic decellularisation that effectively cleaves peptides of unwanted proteins. However, it will disrupt ECM components with prolonged incubation times and is entirely unsuitable if the bioactive molecule to be retained is a K/R containing peptide. Endonucleases and exonuclease cleave phosphodiester bonds between nucleotides to remove immunogenic nucleic acids, yet these enzymes themselves are immunogenic and can be difficult to remove from the final product. Decellularisation protocols vary based on the source and characteristics of the tissue. Optimisation of processing techniques are required to preserve the native properties/motifs of the ECM (or macromolecules within the ECM) depending on whether the active component of the material is protein, carbohydrate, or lipid-based., Such optimisation is further complicated by complex matrix products with multiple active components. In these mixtures, there must be a trade-off between physical methods of decellularisation, which do not retain tissue architecture, and detergent methods with potential motif denaturation.

Final characterisation to investigate retained activity

Optimisation of biomaterials is often assessed by the final characteristics of a range of materials to dictate the final optimised formulation. While products must satisfy mechanical testing and biocompatibility studies to be considered, increased focus has been targeted towards developing bioassays to mimic tissue and disease microenvironments to assess the product’s biological effect. This assessment of materials’ efficacy and potency may be a useful screening tool to rule out potential candidate formulations, saving costs on ex vivo and in vivo studies down the line. Herein, we discuss several methods of investigation to determine the biological activity of biomaterial products (Table 4).

While initial tissue characterization techniques aim to identify crucial and unique biological motifs through multiomic studies, the same techniques can evaluate biomaterial products that aim to replicate the same tissues. In addition, screening methods may be used to investigate post-translational modification of proteins with carbohydrates using capillary electrophoresis. Such methods allow classifying a complex mixture of carbohydrate chains to examine the binding between HA oligosaccharides and hyaluronan-binding proteins (HABP), for instance.

3D scaffolds can be designed to increase cell adhesion through optimisation of construct architecture, physical parameters, and chemistry (available binding sites). Evaluation of these materials requires the rapid and reliable assessment of biological motif availability and subsequent integrin recognition, which may be compromised during processing. 2D systems may provide a reliable way of screening a broad range of compositions and treatments such as cross-linking on integrin-specific cell binding. At the same time, 3D scaffolds reveal morphological features responsible for a significant amount of non-integrin specific interactions on scaffolds, which should be considered when assessing the biological activity of 3D substrates. Systematic alteration of material properties can be screened using these assays to optimise biological activity. While much focus has been on modifying these naturally occurring macromolecules to optimise given properties, further characterisation, and utilisation of intrinsic properties are needed to enhance tuning of these materials to fulfil the desired function.

ECM properties and signalling cues are tightly regulated to ensure normal development, remodelling, and physiology. Homeostasis is an active process that must be continuously maintained and not a passive state. Therefore, maintenance requires precise processing in a biological system, through matrix sensors and consequent effector mechanisms to achieve continuous equilibrium. This fact must be emphasised in designing implantable materials to promote reciprocal crosstalk between cell-sensing components and the surrounding microenvironment. Even robust materials will fatigue over time and require replacement. Materials must promote cell integration and, more importantly, scaffold turnover for complete integration and sustained maintenance over time. Even at steady state, tissues and organs have to maintain structural integrity and functionality dynamically., The potential of naturally-derived scaffolds arises from the present biochemical and biophysical cues, that preserve ECM homeostasis and mechanical properties mostly by influencing resident cells.

Adhesive properties of biomaterials enable them to interact with the cells in the tissue microenvironment. Cellular adhesion to biomaterial activates certain cellular signalling pathways and promotes cellular proliferation, differentiation, and migration. Bioactivity of the biomaterial can be assessed through microarray based biosensor methods. These microarray based methods give insight about cell adhesion kinetics, integrin profiling, and non-specific interactions. This platform enables to perform adhesion profiling of various ECM components with multiple cell types in parallel. Further, ECM–cell interaction analysis is exemplified by the fully high-throughput (HT) microfluidic platform described in Fig. 3. This assay enables the generation of novel multimaterial, multicross-linking 3D cell-laden gradients as screening libraries to establish cell–material interactions and assess the optimal material formulation based on cell responses.

In order to achieve a successful tissue regeneration and restoration, biomaterial scaffolds must mimic the mechanical and porous structural network of the ECM, hierarchical architecture and surface chemistry, which enable cell–cell, cell–ECM interactions, and cellular behaviours. Preservation of material secondary/tertiary structures is essential for scaffolds to perform their native biological activities. Characterisation techniques such as scanning electron microscopy, transmission electron microscopy, and atomic force microscopy have been used for morphological analyses of biomaterials.–

Identification of the molecular content of ECM-derived or decellularised materials plays an essential role in the assessment of tissue–material interactions and biocompatibility. The molecular composition of ECM-derived biomaterials depends on the tissue/organ source and processing techniques. For example, proteomics analyses suggest that compared with decellularized human lung, decellularized rat liver has different proteoglycan, ECM glycoprotein and secreted factors content. These distinct molecular compositions could make these biomaterials useful for different biological applications. Determination of the matrisome components, which support cell growth, differentiation, and original tissue architecture and microvascular network, is useful to produce biomaterial with improved bioactivity. Additionally, proteomics tools help the identification of structural and molecular loss during material processing.,– Preservation of vital ECM components such as collagen, laminin, fibronectin, and other ECM regulators affects the biological response of the tissue and success of the transplantation.–

Determination of phospholipid composition of ECM-derived biomaterials is crucial since they can act as a precursor of signalling molecules and involve in cellular processes and responses., Lysophospholipids (LPLs) involve in immune cell activation, tissue inflammation and fibrosis formation, and tissue regeneration., Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) based lipidomic and redox lipidomic tools can be utilised to identify tissue response and biological activity of the biomaterial. Effects of lipidome profile of ECM-derived biomaterials are unknown and needed to be further investigated. Transcriptomic analyses can be performed in order to understand cell–biomaterial interactions. Biomaterial composition, architecture and mechanical properties affect the biological responses in the tissue. Effect of biomaterial processing and design on biological processes can be identified on a single cell transcriptomic level.,

Applications of material design using bioactive properties of natural polymers

Thus far, we have presented a comprehensive review of natural molecules and polymers used in tissue engineering, given an overview of their intrinsic biological properties and discussed cross-linking and processing techniques to retain biological activity, validated by bioassays and final assessments. Further, we present several examples of devices and systems that have employed a similar workflow based on natural material properties, incorporating initial material characterisation and final assessment of natural properties to optimise device design, streamline processing and enhance product potency and efficacy. Cell carrier systems are the leading example of natural polymer systems utilisation to take advantage of intrinsic bioactivity and enhance the tissue–biomaterial interaction, thus improve the clinical response. Delivery of the cells restores damaged tissue structure, components, function. In contrast, the carrier system enhances cell survival, proliferation, and protects cells from damage through delivery. Both implantable and injectable biomaterials have been used as carrier systems., Maintaining the desirable cellular phenotype and differentiation, especially in stem cell delivery, is crucial for a satisfactory clinical output. Cell–matrix, cell–biomaterial, and biomaterial–tissue interaction after the transplantation mediates ECM remodelling. Natural macromolecules such as collagen, hyaluronan, and gelatin have been used as cell delivery matrices due to their ability to promote desired cell function and phenotypes with their native properties.,,

HA has been widely investigated for its anti-inflammatory properties and swelling capabilities when formulated as a hydrogel. The anti-inflammatory effect of high molecular weight hyaluronan (HMW HA) through its interaction with IL1-β receptors, nerve growth factor, brain derived neurotrophic factor, and interferon α2β (IFNα2β) signalling pathway., HMW HA microgels showed significant anti-inflammatory properties by downregulating the IFNα expression in an in vivo tail disc injury model. Hyaluronan can interact with the cells through binding with the CD44 receptor. This property of HA in cellular delivery has been utilised in our laboratory. Increased CD44 expression in Nucleus Pulposus (NP) cells showed that cross-linked HA hydrogels prevent further inflammation by binding CD44 receptors on NP cells, thus inhibiting the pro-inflammatory cytokine binding to this receptor. The survival and integration of retinal stem cell-derived rods in the retina have been mediated with the activation of survival pathways through HA biomaterial–CD44 receptor interaction between retinal stem cell-derived rod cells. The efficacy of CD44 targeting is reflected by the number of hyaluronic acid based systems reaching clinical trials.

High-throughput analysis of cell–biomaterials interaction reduces the optimisation time for biomaterial formulation, and allows for an excellent range of material combinations to be trialled. Figure 4 provides an overview of the outputs of a proof-of-concept system of high-throughput analysis that investigated the combination of various ECM-adhesive proteins (fibronectin, collagen I, and vitronectin) under static and flow conditions. Additionally, computational analysis, including hierarchal clustering and principal component analysis, can aid in optimal formulation discovery by correlating trends in cellular outputs due to the increased sample size being investigated.

One of the largest areas of growth in the biomaterial industry surround composite devices and tissue integration of orthopaedic devices. These devices are typically made from inert metal alloys to sustain the mechanical demands place on them while preventing a foreign body response. Research into material seeks to utilise natural biomaterials, and their native properties to curb foreign body response and improve biological response. Foreign body reaction towards biomaterials occurs upon introduction to bodily fluids and subsequent protein accumulation to the surface of the material. Integration of the implant with the host tissue is crucial to obtain the desired clinical output. Material coatings often include ECM components of the host tissue to maintain the tissue–device interaction. Cell attachment onto implant surface, proliferation, and differentiation of these cells improve the formation of new tissue around the device and thereby regeneration. Collagen type I has been used as a material coating for titanium implants tibial fracture in an in vivo sheep model due to its binding ability to integrin receptors, which enable adherence of osteoblasts and precursor cells., Coating of orthopaedic implants with adhesive molecule fibronectin has also enhanced bone-implant integration via α5β1 integrin-dependent adhesion and osteogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells. Fibronectin and fibronectin-derived oligopeptides have been shown to activate Erk signalling pathway, which involves in the chondrocyte, osteoblast and osteoclast differentiation. Tropoelastin, the precursor molecule of elastin, interacts with the cells in ECM via elastin-binding receptors such as elastin binding protein, integrin and GAGs. These interactions enable the tropoelastin molecule to mediate cell differentiation, chemotaxis, and proliferation. Coating of Ti/Zi metal alloys with tropoelastin has resulted in improved adherence of osteoblasts and osteointegration of the implant. ECM molecules contain integrin binding motifs, which can be utilised for cell adherence and promote cell–material interaction to induce distinct biological activities through cellular signalling pathways and ensure mechanical stability in the tissue.

Decellularised tissue products have become well established, exemplified by the success of decellularised tissues to create heart valves used in valve replacement surgeries. This technology has seen many successes as well as failures. Bovine and porcine bioprostheses have seen promising results in patients with medium-term follow-up. On the other hand, translation to cadaveric tissue decellularisation has not been fruitful, marred by variable ECM composition across donors and altered ECM structure and integrity in donors with cardiomyopathy. Other decellularised tissues used in airway reconstruction have also demonstrated mixed results. While the initial treatment did not require immunosuppression to mitigate host-response to the implant, five-year follow-up data revealed graft stenosis and necessitated intervention.

Targeted drug delivery through natural biological motifs

Targeted drug delivery is an area of intense research that aims to increase the specificity and efficacy of medication delivery while reducing off-target effects. While an extraordinary range of modalities are currently under investigation, far beyond the scope of this review, we aim to highlight the use of innate biological motifs and potential advantages in drug delivery. In the first section of this review, we highlight the importance of initial material and target tissue characterization to maximize biological activity. Such characterization is also crucial for targeted drug delivery, to incorporate optimal materials for target tissue uptake.

The intrinsic properties of polysaccharides and functional moieties make them ideal delivery vehicles for multiple therapies. Various forms of HA (nanosized, micellar, or simply HA coating of nanoparticles) have been used as drug delivery system due to its ability to penetrate tissues and tumour sites via enhanced permeability and retention effect, and also its receptor-mediated uptake by cells via CD44 receptor binding, which is highly expressed in many tumor cells., Besides, HA is highly negatively charged, giving it excellent swelling capacity, and thus allowing a controlled release of drug molecules. HA has been used in pre-clinical and clinical studies as a carrier for MSC delivery to regenerated the intervertebral disc, augmenting the therapeutic efficacy of MSC therapy due to its anti-inflammatory and anti-apoptotic properties., DS-functionalised nanoparticles are uptaken by melanoma cells via CD146 receptor. This induces caspase-3 cleavage and Poly [ADP-ribose] polymerase 1 pathways are upregulated, promoting tumour apoptosis. Chondroitin sulphate functionalised nanoparticles have been used to target macrophages expressing CD44 to reduce the inflammation in Ulcerative Colitis, where CS-coated nanoparticles had better biological outcome both in vitro and in vivo versus non-coated counterparts. Chitosan, on the other hand, is positively charged, an unconventional property for a polysaccharide, allowing its attachment to negatively charged surfaces through electrostatic interactions, such as mucosal membranes. Hence, it can play an essential role in oral, nasal, and ocular drug delivery.

Enzyme-responsive materials are being increasingly studied with increasing complexity. Many of these materials are designed to target tissues with increased enzymatic activity to enhance degradation at the target site. Specific MMP targeting has been used to increase material degradation and drug release in solid tumours with increased expression of MMP-2 and MMP-9., These systems can incorporate multiple targeting modalities including pH-responsive materials, coating shedding, and antigen incorporation to increase targeting even further.

More specific interactions are achievable using materials such as Elastin-b-collagen-like peptide nanovesicles, which target collagen-containing tissues. ELP-CLP nanovesicles show strong adherence on collagen surfaces through collagen triple helix interactions. Material surfaces can be modified with naturally occurring glycosylation motifs such as mannose disaccharides for subsequent recognition by C-type lectin receptors, predominantly expressed in hepatic non-parenchymal cells. Furthermore, the brain and lungs can be targeted by adding glucose, increasing the affinity to GLUT1 receptors at the blood-brain barrier and on macrophages. Integrins are promising candidates for targeted drug delivery using natural peptide motifs. Peptide-drug conjugation has been used to increase integrin αV targeting using an RGD sequence, enhancing doxorubicin delivery to cancer tissues. This system is limited by the susceptibility of this peptide sequence to hydrolysis of disulphide bonds, eliminating integrin affinity. However, this is a field of intense research with rapidly expanding integrin targets using small molecules and short peptide sequences.

Targeted delivery may be achieved through physical material properties, active receptor motifs, enzyme-responsive materials while efficacy can be increased through simple design considerations. A limitation of targeted delivery using intrinsic properties of materials depends on recognition receptor abundance. For example, while HA has been shown to target specific cancers through CD44 interactions with great success, CD44 is expressed in most cell types making this mechanism inherently non-targeted. While biologically active motifs may aid in the targeted delivery of therapeutics, this will heavily depend on the mode of delivery, potential hepatic metabolism, biodistribution, and target tissue. A combination of targeted delivery techniques from primary sequence manipulation to tertiary structure optimisation may be employed to maximise therapeutic efficacy in addition to other natural and synthetic targeting modalities.

Future directions/Conclusions

The development of next-generation biomaterials will require a higher understanding of all material properties, both physical and biological, to correctly address the aberrant mechanisms of ECM production, modification, and remodelling in vivo to restore a diseased tissue. Mammalian-derived polymers possess many biologically active motifs with favourable host-material responses, making them favourable over non-mammalian material sources. It is necessary to assess starting materials and target tissues to consider the biochemical and biomechanical properties, and how they affect/influence cell behaviour and tissue formation, both spatially and temporally to adequately begin to address ECM dysfunction using biomaterial-based therapies. Multiomic approaches to tissue characterisation are making it possible to achieve this level of insight, to develop biomaterial-based implants for complete integration to modulate cell activity and tissue regeneration. While the cross-linking, assembly and processing techniques suggested in this paper aim to retain the functional biological properties of starting materials, it is impossible to recommend one process over another given the fact that the final application plays a significant role in the necessary material processing. Instead, we highlight the need for further consideration of innate biological activity in material design. Further, assessment of retained bioactivity should be investigated through specific bioassays examining cell–material interaction and intracellular signalling. The selected applications presented here offer insight into a refined approach to material design, through extensive material characterisation and processing, informed by functional assays to assess biological activity.

References 363

  1. 1.

    Chen R, et al. Biomaterial-assisted scalable cell production for cell therapy. Biomaterials. 2020;230:119627.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2019.119627

  2. 2.

    Williams, D. in Definitions of Biomaterials for the Twenty-first Century 15–23 (Elseiver, 2019).

    Not in our library

  3. 3.

    Zeugolis DI, Pandit A. Biofunctional biomaterials—the next frontier. Bioconjug. Chem. 2015;26:1157.

    Not in our library10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.5b00342

  4. 4.

    Zeugolis DI, Pandit A. Scaffolds, cells, biologics: at the crossroads of musculoskeletal repair. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2015;84:v-vi.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.addr.2015.01.004

  5. 5.

    Ullah S, Chen X. Fabrication, applications and challenges of natural biomaterials in tissue engineering. Appl. Mater. Today. 2020;20:100656.

    Not in our library

  6. 6.
  7. 7.

    Bhattarai DP, Aguilar LE, Park CH, Kim CS. A review on properties of natural and synthetic based electrospun fibrous materials for bone tissue engineering. Membranes. 2018;8:62.

    Not in our library10.3390/membranes8030062

  8. 8.

    Sanjay MR, et al. Characterization and properties of natural fiber polymer composites: A comprehensive review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018;172:566-581.

    Not in our library

  9. 9.

    Thomas, S., Ninan, N., Mohan, S. & Francis, E. in Natural Polymers, Biopolymers, Biomaterials, and their Composites, Blends, and IPNs 4–16 (CRC Press, 2012).

    Not in our library

  10. 10.

    Li P, Wu G. Roles of dietary glycine, proline, and hydroxyproline in collagen synthesis and animal growth. Amino Acids. 2018;50:29-38.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00726-017-2490-6

  11. 11.

    Sorushanova A, et al. The collagen suprafamily: from biosynthesis to advanced biomaterial development. Adv. Mater. 2019;31:1-39.

    Not in our library10.1002/adma.201801651

  12. 12.

    Costa, F., Silva, R. & Boccaccini, A. R. in Peptides and Proteins as Biomaterials for Tissue Regeneration and Repair 175–204 (Elsevier Ltd., 2018).

    Not in our library

  13. 13.
  14. 14.

    Choi KY, et al. Hyaluronic acid-based activatable nanomaterials for stimuli-responsive imaging and therapeutics: beyond CD44-mediated drug delivery. Adv. Mater. 2019;31:1803549.

    Not in our library10.1002/adma.201803549

  15. 15.

    Tavianatou AG, et al. Hyaluronan: molecular size-dependent signaling and biological functions in inflammation and cancer. FEBS J. 2019;286:2883-2908.

    Not in our library10.1111/febs.14777

  16. 16.

    Zhu S, et al. Self-assembly of collagen-based biomaterials: preparation, characterizations and biomedical applications. J. Mater. Chem. B. 2018;6:2650-2676.

    Not in our library10.1039/c7tb02999c

  17. 17.

    Reznikov N, Bilton M, Lari L, Stevens MM, Kröger R. Fractal-like hierarchical organization of bone begins at the nanoscale. Science. 2018;360:eaao2189.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.aao2189

  18. 18.

    Guzmán-Ruiz R, et al. Adipose tissue depot-specific intracellular and extracellular cues contributing to insulin resistance in obese individuals. FASEB J. 2020;00:1-20.

    Not in our library10.1096/fj.201902703r

  19. 19.

    Paul CD, et al. Probing cellular response to topography in three dimensions. Biomaterials. 2019;197:101-118.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2019.01.009

  20. 20.

    Kazezian Z, Sakai D, Pandit A. Hyaluronic acid microgels modulate inflammation and key matrix molecules toward a regenerative signature in the injured annulus fibrosus. Adv. Biosyst. 2017;1:1700077.

    Not in our library10.1002/adbi.201700077

  21. 21.
  22. 22.
  23. 23.

    Ahsan SM, et al. Chitosan as biomaterial in drug delivery and tissue engineering. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2018;110:97-109.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.08.140

  24. 24.

    El Knidri H, Belaabed R, Addaou A, Laajeb A, Lahsini A. Extraction, chemical modification and characterization of chitin and chitosan. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2018;120:1181-1189.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.08.139

  25. 25.

    Varma AJ, Deshpande SV, Kennedy JF. Metal complexation by chitosan and its derivatives: a review. Carbohydr. Polym. 2004;55:77-93.

    Not in our library

  26. 26.

    Chen Z, Downing S, Tzanakakis ES. Four decades after the discovery of regenerating islet-derived (Reg) proteins: current understanding and challenges. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2019;7:235.

    Not in our library10.3389/fcell.2019.00235

  27. 27.
  28. 28.

    Nita-Lazar M, Banerjee A, Feng C, Vasta GR. Galectins regulate the inflammatory response in airway epithelial cells exposed to microbial neuraminidase by modulating the expression of SOCS1 and RIG1. Mol. Immunol. 2015;68:194-202.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.molimm.2015.08.005

  29. 29.

    Koller B, Müller-Wiefel AS, Rupec R, Korting HC, Ruzicka T. Chitin modulates innate immune responses of keratinocytes. PLoS ONE. 2011;6:e16594.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0016594

  30. 30.

    Schlosser A, et al. Characterization of FIBCD1 as an acetyl group-binding receptor that binds chitin. J. Immunol. 2009;183:3800-3809.

    Not in our library10.4049/jimmunol.0901526

  31. 31.

    Takagi H, Asano Y, Yamakawa N, Matsumoto I, Kimata K. Annexin 6 is a putative cell surface receptor for chondroitin sulfate chains. J. Cell Sci. 2002;115:3309-3318.

    Not in our library10.1242/jcs.115.16.3309

  32. 32.

    Davydova VN, et al. Cytokine-inducing and anti-inflammatory activity of chitosan and its low-molecular derivative. Appl. Biochem. Microbiol. 2016;52:476-482.

    Not in our library

  33. 33.

    Li Y, Liu H, Xu QS, Du YG, Xu J. Chitosan oligosaccharides block LPS-induced O-GlcNAcylation of NF-κB and endothelial inflammatory response. Carbohydr. Polym. 2014;99:568-578.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.carbpol.2013.08.082

  34. 34.

    Elieh Ali Komi D, Sharma L, Dela Cruz CS. Chitin and its effects on inflammatory and immune responses. Clin. Rev. Allergy Immunol. 2018;54:213-223.

    Not in our library10.1007/s12016-017-8600-0

  35. 35.

    Normand V, Lootens DL, Amici E, Plucknett KP, Aymard P. New insight into agarose gel mechanical properties. Biomacromolecules. 2000;1:730-738.

    Not in our library10.1021/bm005583j

  36. 36.

    Iwata H, et al. Agarose for a bioartificial pancreas. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 1992;26:967-977.

    Not in our library10.1002/jbm.820260711

  37. 37.

    Vogt LM, Boekschoten MV, de Groot PJ, Faas MM, de Vos P. Cellulose alters the expression of nuclear factor kappa B-related genes and Toll-like receptor-related genes in human peripheral blood mononuclear cells. J. Funct. Foods. 2015;18:520-531.

    Not in our library

  38. 38.

    Bissell MJ, Barcellos-Hoff MH. The influence of extracellular matrix on gene expression: is structure the message? J. Cell Sci. 1987;8:327-343.

    Not in our library10.1242/jcs.1987.supplement_8.18

  39. 39.

    El-Meliegy E, Abu-Elsaad NI, El-Kady AM, Ibrahim MA. Improvement of physico-chemical properties of dextran-chitosan composite scaffolds by addition of nano-hydroxyapatite. Sci. Rep. 2018;8:12180.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41598-018-30720-2

  40. 40.

    Obi S, et al. Dextran induces differentiation of circulating endothelial progenitor cells. Physiol. Rep. 2014;2:e00261.

    Not in our library10.1002/phy2.261

  41. 41.

    Andersson M, Johansson J, Rising A. Silk spinning in silkworms and spiders. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2016;17:1290.

    Not in our library10.3390/ijms17081290

  42. 42.

    Holland C, Terry AE, Porter D, Vollrath F. Comparing the rheology of native spider and silkworm spinning dope. Nat. Mater. 2006;5:870-874.

    Not in our library10.1038/nmat1762

  43. 43.

    Chon JW, et al. Silk fibroin hydrolysate inhibits osteoclastogenesis and induces apoptosis of osteoclasts derived from RAW 264.7 cells. Int. J. Mol. Med. 2012;30:1203-1210.

    Not in our library10.3892/ijmm.2012.1120

  44. 44.

    Martínez-Mora C, et al. Fibroin and sericin from Bombyx mori silk stimulate cell migration through upregulation and phosphorylation of c-Jun. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e42271.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0042271

  45. 45.

    Yamada H, Igarashi Y, Takasu Y, Saito H, Tsubouchi K. Identification of fibroin-derived peptides enhancing the proliferation of cultured human skin fibroblasts. Biomaterials. 2004;25:467-472.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0142-9612(03)00540-4

  46. 46.

    Cunniffe GM, O’Brien FJ. Collagen scaffolds for orthopedic regenerative medicine. JOM. 2011;63:66-73.

    Not in our library

  47. 47.

    Abou Neel EA, et al. Collagen—emerging collagen based therapies hit the patient. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2013;65:429-456.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.addr.2012.08.010

  48. 48.

    Friess W. Collagen—biomaterial for drug delivery. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 1998;45:113-136.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0939-6411(98)00017-4

  49. 49.
  50. 50.

    Barczyk M, Carracedo S, Gullberg D. Integrins. Cell Tissue Res. 2010;339:269-280.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00441-009-0834-6

  51. 51.

    Goldberga I, Li R, Duer MJ. Collagen structure-function relationships from solid-state NMR spectroscopy. Acc. Chem. Res. 2018;51:1621-1629.

    Not in our library10.1021/acs.accounts.8b00092

  52. 52.

    Verbrugge A. Differential expression of leukocyte-associated Ig-like receptor-1 during neutrophil differentiation and activation. J. Leukoc. Biol. 2006;79:828-836.

    Not in our library10.1189/jlb.0705370

  53. 53.

    Lebbink RJ, et al. Collagens are functional, high affinity ligands for the inhibitory immune receptor LAIR-1. J. Exp. Med. 2006;203:1419-1425.

    Not in our library10.1084/jem.20052554

  54. 54.

    Senis YA, et al. A comprehensive proteomics and genomics analysis reveals novel transmembrane proteins in human platelets and mouse megakaryocytes including G6b-B, a novel immunoreceptor tyrosine-based inhibitory motif protein. Mol. Cell. Proteom. 2007;6:548-564.

    Not in our library10.1074/mcp.d600007-mcp200

  55. 55.
  56. 56.

    Boraschi-Diaz I, Wang J, Mort JS, Komarova SV. Collagen type I as a ligand for receptor-mediated signaling. Front. Phys. 2017;5:12.

    Not in our library

  57. 57.

    Mori J, et al. G6b-B inhibits constitutive and agonist-induced signaling by glycoprotein VI and CLEC-2. J. Biol. Chem. 2008;283:35419-35427.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m806895200

  58. 58.

    Barrow AD, et al. OSCAR is a collagen receptor that costimulates osteoclastogenesis in DAP12-deficient humans and mice. J. Clin. Invest. 2011;121:3505-3516.

    Not in our library10.1172/jci45913

  59. 59.

    Nieswandt B, Watson SP. Platelet-collagen interaction: Is GPVI the central receptor? Blood. 2003;102:449-461.

    Not in our library10.1182/blood-2002-12-3882

  60. 60.

    Steffensen B, Wallon UM, Overall CM. Extracellular matrix binding properties of recombinant fibronectin type II-like modules of human 72-kDa gelatinase/type IV collagenase: high affinity binding to native type I collagen but not native type IV collagen. J. Biol. Chem. 1995;270:11555-11566.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.270.19.11555

  61. 61.

    Jürgensen HJ, et al. A novel functional role of collagen glycosylation: Interaction with the endocytic collagen receptor uPARAP/ENDO180. J. Biol. Chem. 2011;286:32736-32748.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m111.266692

  62. 62.

    YANG CL, et al. Collagen II from articular cartilage and annulus fibrosus: Structural land functional implication of tissue specific posttranslational modifications of collagen molecules. Eur. J. Biochem. 1993;213:1297-1302.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1432-1033.1993.tb17881.x

  63. 63.

    Acevedo-Jake AM, Ngo DH, Hartgerink JD. Control of collagen triple helix stability by phosphorylation. Biomacromolecules. 2017;18:1157-1161.

    Not in our library10.1021/acs.biomac.6b01814

  64. 64.

    Carafoli F, Hohenester E. Collagen recognition and transmembrane signalling by discoidin domain receptors. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 2013;1834:2187-2194.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.bbapap.2012.10.014

  65. 65.

    Iwai LK, Luczynski MT, Huang PH. Discoidin domain receptors: a proteomic portrait. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2014;71:3269-3279.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00018-014-1616-1

  66. 66.

    Sivakumar L, Agarwal G. The influence of discoidin domain receptor 2 on the persistence length of collagen type I fibers. Biomaterials. 2010;31:4802-4808.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.02.070

  67. 67.

    Nurminskaya, M. V. & Belkin, A. M. International Review of Cell and Molecular Biology. vol. 294 (Elsevier Inc., 2012).

    Not in our library10.1016/b978-0-12-394305-7.00001-x

  68. 68.

    Brown NH. Extracellular matrix in development: Insights from mechanisms conserved between invertebrates and vertebrates. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2011;3:a005082.

    Not in our library10.1101/cshperspect.a005082

  69. 69.

    Nakanishi Y, Sugiura F, Kishi JI, Hayakawa T. Collagenase inhibitor stimulates cleft formation during early morphogenesis of mouse salivary gland. Dev. Biol. 1986;113:201-206.

    Not in our library10.1016/0012-1606(86)90122-3

  70. 70.
  71. 71.

    Moxon SR, et al. Blended alginate/collagen hydrogels promote neurogenesis and neuronal maturation. Mater. Sci. Eng. C. 2019;104:109904.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.msec.2019.109904

  72. 72.

    Toole BP. Hyaluronan in morphogenesis. J. Intern. Med. 1997;242:35-40.

    Not in our library10.1046/j.1365-2796.1997.00171.x

  73. 73.

    Turley EA, Noble PW, Bourguignon LYW. Signaling properties of hyaluronan receptors. J. Biol. Chem. 2002;277:4589-4592.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.r100038200

  74. 74.

    Yang B, Yang BL, Savani RC, Turley EA. Identification of a common hyaluronan binding motif in the hyaluronan binding proteins RHAMM, CD44 and link protein. EMBO J. 1994;13:286-296.

    Not in our library10.1002/j.1460-2075.1994.tb06261.x

  75. 75.

    Hall CL, Turley EA. Hyaluronan: RHAMM mediated cell locomotion and signaling in tumorigenesis. J. Neurooncol. 1995;26:221-229.

    Not in our library10.1007/bf01052625

  76. 76.

    Bourguignon LYW. Matrix hyaluronan-activated CD44 signaling promotes keratinocyte activities and improves abnormal epidermal functions. Am. J. Pathol. 2014;184:1912-1919.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ajpath.2014.03.010

  77. 77.

    Bourguignon LYW, et al. Interaction between the adhesion receptor, CD44, and the oncogene product, p185(HER2), promotes human ovarian tumor cell activation. J. Biol. Chem. 1997;272:27913-27918.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.272.44.27913

  78. 78.

    Missinato MA, Tobita K, Romano N, Carroll JA, Tsang M. Extracellular component hyaluronic acid and its receptor Hmmr are required for epicardial EMT during heart regeneration. Cardiovasc. Res. 2015;107:487-498.

    Not in our library10.1093/cvr/cvv190

  79. 79.

    Fitzgerald KA, Bowie AG, Skeffington BS, O’Neill LAJ. Ras, protein kinase Cζ, and IκB kinases 1 and 2 are downstream effectors of CD44 during the activation of NF-κB by hyaluronic acid fragments in T-24 carcinoma cells. J. Immunol. 2000;164:2053-2063.

    Not in our library10.4049/jimmunol.164.4.2053

  80. 80.

    Termeer C, et al. Oligosaccharides of hyaluronan activate dendritic cells via Toll-like receptor 4. J. Exp. Med. 2002;195:99-111.

    Not in our library10.1084/jem.20001858

  81. 81.

    Taylor KR, et al. Hyaluronan fragments stimulate endothelial recognition of injury through TLR4. J. Biol. Chem. 2004;279:17079-17084.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m310859200

  82. 82.

    Louderbough JMV, Schroeder JA. Understanding the dual nature of CD44 in breast cancer progression. Mol. Cancer Res. 2011;9:1573-1586.

    Not in our library10.1158/1541-7786.mcr-11-0156

  83. 83.

    Lee P, Bax DV, Bilek MMM, Weiss AS. A novel cell adhesion region in tropoelastin mediates attachment to integrin αvβ5. J. Biol. Chem. 2014;289:1467-1477.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m113.518381

  84. 84.
  85. 85.

    Karnik SK, et al. A critical role for elastin signaling in vascular morphogenesis and disease. Development. 2003;130:411-423.

    Not in our library10.1242/dev.00223

  86. 86.

    Cattavarayane S, Palovuori R, Tanjore Ramanathan J, Manninen A. α6β1- and αV-integrins are required for long-term self-renewal of murine embryonic stem cells in the absence of LIF. BMC Cell Biol. 2015;16:3.

    Not in our library10.1186/s12860-015-0051-y

  87. 87.

    Tsai HL, et al. Different forms of tenascin-C with tenascin-r regulate neural differentiation in bone marrow-derived human mesenchymal stem cells. Tissue Eng. Part A. 2014;20:1908-1921.

    Not in our library10.1089/ten.tea.2013.0188

  88. 88.

    Aspberg, A. in Cartilage: Volume 1: Physiology and Development 1–22 (Springer, 2016).

    Not in our library

  89. 89.

    Watanabe H, Yamada Y, Kimata K. Roles of aggrecan, a large chondroitin sulfate proteoglycan, in cartilage structure and function. J. Biochem. 1998;124:687-693.

    Not in our library10.1093/oxfordjournals.jbchem.a022166

  90. 90.

    Jiong YW, La Pierre DP, Yee AJ, Yang BB. The interaction of versican with its binding partners. Cell Res. 2005;15:483-494.

    Not in our library10.1038/sj.cr.7290318

  91. 91.

    Kawashima H, et al. Oversulfated chondroitin/dermatan sulfates containing GlcAβ1/IdoAα1-3GalNAc(4,6-O-disulfate) interact with L- and P-selectin and chemokines. J. Biol. Chem. 2002;277:12921-12930.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m200396200

  92. 92.

    Wu Y, et al. Versican V1 isoform induces neuronal differentiation and promotes neurite outgrowth. Mol. Biol. Cell. 2004;15:2093-2104.

    Not in our library10.1091/mbc.e03-09-0667

  93. 93.

    Rivera CG, Bader JS, Popel AS. Angiogenesis-associated crosstalk between collagens, CXC chemokines, and thrombospondin domain-containing proteins. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2011;39:2213-2222.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10439-011-0325-2

  94. 94.

    Yang BL, Zhang Y, Cao L, Yang BB. cell adhesion and proliferation mediated through the G1 domain of versican. J. Cell. Biochem. 1999;72:210-220.

    Not in our library10.1002/(sici)1097-4644(19990201)72:2<210::aid-jcb5>3.0.co;2-e

  95. 95.

    Caldeira, J., Sousa, A., Sousa, D. M. & Barros, D. in Peptides and Proteins as Biomaterials for Tissue Regeneration and Repair 29–72 (Elsevier Inc., 2018).

    Not in our library

  96. 96.

    Cabello-Verrugio C, Brandan E. A novel modulatory mechanism of transforming growth factor-β signaling through decorin and LRP-1. J. Biol. Chem. 2007;282:18842-18850.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m700243200

  97. 97.

    Zhu JX, et al. Decorin evokes protracted internalization and degradation of the epidermal growth factor receptor via caveolar endocytosis. J. Biol. Chem. 2005;280:32468-32479.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m503833200

  98. 98.
  99. 99.

    Soo C, et al. Differential expression of fibromodulin, a transforming growth factor-β modulator, in fetal skin development and scarless repair. Am. J. Pathol. 2000;157:423-433.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0002-9440(10)64555-5

  100. 100.

    Kou I, Nakajima M, Ikegawa S. Binding characteristics of the osteoarthritis-associated protein asporin. J. Bone Miner. Metab. 2010;28:395-402.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00774-009-0145-8

  101. 101.

    Rucci N, et al. The glycosaminoglycan-binding domain of PRELP acts as a cell type-specific NF-κB inhibitor that impairs osteoclastogenesis. J. Cell Biol. 2009;187:669-683.

    Not in our library10.1083/jcb.200906014

  102. 102.

    Ohtake Y, et al. receptors mediate CSPG inhibition by convergent and divergent signaling pathways in neurons. Sci. Rep. 2016;6:37152.

    Not in our library10.1038/srep37152

  103. 103.

    Shen Y, et al. PTPσ Is a receptor for chondroitin sulfate proteoglycan, an inhibitor of neural regeneration. Science. 2009;326:592-596.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1178310

  104. 104.

    Dickendesher TL, et al. NgR1 and NgR3 are receptors for chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans. Nat. Neurosci. 2012;15:703-712.

    Not in our library10.1038/nn.3070

  105. 105.

    Krishnan MR, Wang C, Marion TN. Anti-DNA autoantibodies initiate experimental lupus nephritis by binding directly to the glomerular basement membrane in mice. Kidney Int. 2012;82:184-192.

    Not in our library10.1038/ki.2011.484

  106. 106.

    Kashihara N, Hirakawa S, Mino Y, Mino H, Ota Z. A study on cross-reactivity of anti-DNA antibody with glycosaminoglycans. Acta Med. Okayama. 1993;47:255-259.

    Not in our library10.18926/amo/31547

  107. 107.

    Caterson B, Melrose J. Keratan sulfate, a complex glycosaminoglycan with unique functional capability. Glycobiology. 2018;28:182-206.

    Not in our library10.1093/glycob/cwy003

  108. 108.

    Funderburgh JL, et al. Macrophage receptors for lumican: a corneal keratan sulfate proteoglycan. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 1997;38:1159-1167.

    Not in our library

  109. 109.

    Burg MA, Cole GJ. Claustrin, an antiadhesive neural keratan sulfate proteoglycan, is structurally related to MAP1B. J. Neurobiol. 1994;25:1-22.

    Not in our library10.1002/neu.480250102

  110. 110.

    Russo VC. Insulin-like growth factor binding protein-2 binds to cell surface proteoglycans in the rat brain olfactory bulb. Endocrinology. 1997;138:4858-4867.

    Not in our library10.1210/endo.138.11.5472

  111. 111.

    Weyers A, et al. Isolation of bovine corneal keratan sulfate and its growth factor and morphogen binding. FEBS J. 2013;280:2285-2293.

    Not in our library10.1111/febs.12165

  112. 112.

    Christianson HC, Belting M. Heparan sulfate proteoglycan as a cell-surface endocytosis receptor. Matrix Biol. 2014;35:51-55.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.matbio.2013.10.004

  113. 113.

    Zimmermann P, et al. Syndecan recyling is controlled by syntenin-PIP2 interaction and Arf6. Dev. Cell. 2005;9:377-388.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.devcel.2005.07.011

  114. 114.

    Bass MD, et al. Syndecan-4-dependent Rac1 regulation determines directional migration in response to the extracellular matrix. J. Cell Biol. 2007;177:527-538.

    Not in our library10.1083/jcb.200610076

  115. 115.

    Hendriks J, et al. Heparan sulfate proteoglycan binding promotes APRIL-induced tumor cell proliferation. Cell Death Differ. 2005;12:637-648.

    Not in our library10.1038/sj.cdd.4401647

  116. 116.

    Wilsie LC, Orlando RA. The low density lipoprotein receptor-related protein complexes with cell surface heparan sulfate proteoglycans to regulate proteoglycan-mediated lipoprotein catabolism. J. Biol. Chem. 2003;278:15758-15764.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m208786200

  117. 117.

    Cheng CW, Solorio LD, Alsberg E. Decellularized tissue and cell-derived extracellular matrices as scaffolds for orthopaedic tissue engineering. Biotechnol. Adv. 2014;32:462-484.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.12.012

  118. 118.

    Li Q, et al. Proteomic analysis of naturally-sourced biological scaffolds. Biomaterials. 2016;75:37-46.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.10.011

  119. 119.

    Peffers MJ, et al. Proteomic analysis reveals age-related changes in tendon matrix composition, with age- and injury-specific matrix fragmentation. J. Biol. Chem. 2014;289:25867-25878.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m114.566554

  120. 120.

    Merl-Pham J, et al. Quantitative proteomic profiling of extracellular matrix and site-specific collagen post-translational modifications in an in vitro model of lung fibrosis. Matrix Biol. 2019;1:100005.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.mbplus.2019.04.002

  121. 121.

    Mann M, Jensen ON. Proteomic analysis of post-translational modifications. Nat. Biotechnol. 2003;21:255-261.

    Not in our library10.1038/nbt0303-255

  122. 122.
  123. 123.

    Mayorca-Guiliani AE, et al. ISDoT: in situ decellularization of tissues for high-resolution imaging and proteomic analysis of native extracellular matrix. Nat. Med. 2017;23:890-898.

    Not in our library10.1038/nm.4352

  124. 124.
  125. 125.

    Kolovou G, Kolovou V, Mavrogeni S. Lipidomics in vascular health: current perspectives. Vasc. Health Risk Manage. 2015;11:333-342.

    Not in our library10.2147/vhrm.s54874

  126. 126.

    Yang K, Han X. Lipidomics: techniques, applications, and outcomes related to biomedical sciences. Trends Biochem. Sci. 2016;41:954-969.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.tibs.2016.08.010

  127. 127.

    Naudí A, et al. Lipidomics of human brain aging and Alzheimer’s disease pathology. Int. Rev. Neurobiol. 2015;122:133-189.

    Not in our library10.1016/bs.irn.2015.05.008

  128. 128.

    Contessotto P, et al. Distinct glycosylation in membrane proteins within neonatal versus adult myocardial tissue. Matrix Biol. 2020;85–86:173-188.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.matbio.2019.05.001

  129. 129.

    Collin EC, et al. Unique glycosignature for intervertebral disc and articular cartilage cells and tissues in immaturity and maturity. Sci. Rep. 2016;6:23062.

    Not in our library10.1038/srep23062

  130. 130.

    Furukawa Jichi, Fujitani N, Shinohara Y. Recent advances in cellular glycomic analyses. Biomolecules. 2013;3:198-225.

    Not in our library10.3390/biom3010198

  131. 131.

    Wada Y, et al. Comparison of the methods for profiling glycoprotein glycans—HUPO Human Disease Glycomics/Proteome Initiative multi-institutional study. Glycobiology. 2007;17:411-422.

    Not in our library10.1093/glycob/cwl086

  132. 132.
  133. 133.
  134. 134.

    Singh P, Carraher C, Schwarzbauer JE. Assembly of fibronectin extracellular matrix. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 2010;26:397-419.

    Not in our library10.1146/annurev-cellbio-100109-104020

  135. 135.

    Zeugolis DI, Paul RG, Attenburrow G. Factors influencing the properties of reconstituted collagen fibers prior to self-assembly: animal species and collagen extraction method. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A. 2008;86:892-904.

    Not in our library10.1002/jbm.a.31694

  136. 136.

    Delgado LM, Pandit A, Zeugolis DI. Influence of sterilisation methods on collagen-based devices stability and properties. Expert Rev. Med. Devices. 2014;11:305-314.

    Not in our library10.1586/17434440.2014.900436

  137. 137.

    Delgado LM, Bayon Y, Pandit A, Zeugolis DI. To cross-link or not to cross-link? Cross-linking associated foreign body response of collagen-based devices. Tissue Eng. Part B Rev. 2015;21:298-313.

    Not in our library10.1089/ten.teb.2014.0290

  138. 138.

    Heck T, Faccio G, Richter M, Thöny-Meyer L. Enzyme-catalyzed protein crosslinking. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2013;97:461-475.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00253-012-4569-z

  139. 139.

    Moreira Teixeira LS, Feijen J, van Blitterswijk CA, Dijkstra PJ, Karperien M. Enzyme-catalyzed crosslinkable hydrogels: emerging strategies for tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2012;33:1281-1290.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.10.067

  140. 140.

    D’Este M, Eglin D, Alini M. A systematic analysis of DMTMM vs EDC/NHS for ligation of amines to Hyaluronan in water. Carbohydr. Polym. 2014;108:239-246.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.carbpol.2014.02.070

  141. 141.

    Xu Y, et al. Development of porous chitosan/tripolyphosphate scaffolds with tunable uncross-linking primary amine content for bone tissue engineering. Mater. Sci. Eng. C. 2018;85:182-190.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.msec.2017.12.032

  142. 142.

    Wang Y, et al. Genipin crosslinking reduced the immunogenicity of xenogeneic decellularized porcine whole-liver matrices through regulation of immune cell proliferation and polarization. Sci. Rep. 2016;6:24779.

    Not in our library10.1038/srep24779

  143. 143.

    Sola RJ, Griebenow K. Effects of glycosylate on the stability of protein pharmaceuticals. J. Pharm. Sci. 2009;98:1223-1245.

    Not in our library10.1002/jps.21504

  144. 144.

    Schoenmakers DC, Rowan AE, Kouwer PHJ. Crosslinking of fibrous hydrogels. Nat. Commun. 2018;9:2172.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41467-018-04508-x

  145. 145.

    Jeon O, et al. Mechanical properties and degradation behaviors of hyaluronic acid hydrogels cross-linked at various cross-linking densities. Carbohydr. Polym. 2007;70:251-257.

    Not in our library

  146. 146.

    Rozbeský D, et al. Impact of chemical cross-linking on protein structure and function. Anal. Chem. 2018;90:1104-1113.

    Not in our library10.1021/acs.analchem.7b02863

  147. 147.

    Fessel G, Cadby J, Wunderli S, Van Weeren R, Snedeker JG. Dose- and time-dependent effects of genipin crosslinking on cell viability and tissue mechanics - Toward clinical application for tendon repair. Acta Biomater. 2014;10:1897-1906.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.actbio.2013.12.048

  148. 148.

    Ahearne M. Introduction to cell–hydrogel mechanosensing. Interface Focus. 2014;4:20130038.

    Not in our library10.1098/rsfs.2013.0038

  149. 149.

    West, D. C. in Cancer Metastasis, Molecular and Cellular Mechanisms and Clinical Intervention 55–71 (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000).

    Not in our library

  150. 150.

    Lim JYC, Lin Q, Xue K, Loh XJ. Recent advances in supramolecular hydrogels for biomedical applications. Mater. Today Adv. 2019;3:100021.

    Not in our library

  151. 151.
  152. 152.

    Hu W, Wang Z, Xiao Y, Zhang S, Wang J. Advances in crosslinking strategies of biomedical hydrogels. Biomater. Sci. 2019;7:843-855.

    Not in our library10.1039/c8bm01246f

  153. 153.

    Ostrowska-Czubenko J, Gierszewska-Druzyńska M. Effect of ionic crosslinking on the water state in hydrogel chitosan membranes. Carbohydr. Polym. 2009;77:590-598.

    Not in our library

  154. 154.

    Dutta, P. K. Chitin and Chitosan for Regenerative Medicine. Springer series on polymer and Composite Materials (Springer, 2015).

    Not in our library

  155. 155.

    Neufeld L, Bianco-Peled H. Pectin–chitosan physical hydrogels as potential drug delivery vehicles. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2017;101:852-861.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.03.167

  156. 156.

    Alinejad Y, Adoungotchodo A, Hui E, Zehtabi F, Lerouge S. An injectable chitosan/chondroitin sulfate hydrogel with tunable mechanical properties for cell therapy/tissue engineering. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2018;113:132-141.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.02.069

  157. 157.

    Cong Z, et al. A novel controlled drug delivery system based on alginate hydrogel/chitosan micelle composites. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2018;107:855-864.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.09.065

  158. 158.

    Brus J, et al. Structure and dynamics of alginate gels cross-linked by polyvalent ions probed via solid state NMR spectroscopy. Biomacromolecules. 2017;18:2478-2488.

    Not in our library10.1021/acs.biomac.7b00627

  159. 159.

    Lee KY, Mooney DJ. Alginate: properties and biomedical applications. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2012;37:106-126.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2011.06.003

  160. 160.

    Ghidoni I, et al. Alginate cell encapsulation: new advances in reproduction and cartilage regenerative medicine. Cytotechnology. 2008;58:49-56.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10616-008-9161-0

  161. 161.

    Geerligs M, Peters GWM, Ackermans PAJ, Oomens CWJ, Baaijens FPT. Linear viscoelastic behavior of subcutaneous adipose tissue. Biorheology. 2008;45:677-688.

    Not in our library

  162. 162.

    Engler AJ, Sen S, Sweeney HL, Discher DE. Matrix elasticity directs stem cell lineage specification. Cell. 2006;126:677-689.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2006.06.044

  163. 163.

    Urbanova M, et al. Interaction pathways and structure-chemical transformations of alginate gels in physiological environments. Biomacromolecules. 2019;20:4158-4170.

    Not in our library10.1021/acs.biomac.9b01052

  164. 164.
  165. 165.

    Ji W, et al. Antihypertensive effect and pharmacokinetics of low molecular mass potassium alginate. J. Sichuan Univ. 2009;40:694-696.

    Not in our library

  166. 166.

    Taylor M, Tomlins P, Sahota T. Thermoresponsive. Gels. 2017;3:4.

    Not in our library10.3390/gels3010004

  167. 167.

    Chatterjee S, Hui PCL, Kan C. Thermoresponsive hydrogels and their biomedical applications: special insight into their applications in textile based transdermal therapy. Polymers. 2018;10:480.

    Not in our library10.3390/polym10050480

  168. 168.

    Doberenz F, Zeng K, Willems C, Zhang K, Groth T. Thermoresponsive polymers and their biomedical application in tissue engineering: a review. J. Mater. Chem. B. 2020;8:607-628.

    Not in our library10.1039/c9tb02052g

  169. 169.

    Betre H, et al. Chondrocytic differentiation of human adipose-derived adult stem cells in elastin-like polypeptide. Biomaterials. 2006;27:91-99.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.05.071

  170. 170.

    Ryu JS, Raucher D. Elastin-like polypeptide for improved drug delivery for anticancer therapy: preclinical studies and future applications. Expert Opin. Drug Deliv. 2015;12:653-667.

    Not in our library10.1517/17425247.2015.974546

  171. 171.

    Zhang W, et al. Targeting prostate cancer cells with hybrid elastin-like polypeptide/liposome nanoparticles. Int. J. Nanomed. 2018;13:293-305.

    Not in our library10.2147/ijn.s152485

  172. 172.

    McCarthy B, Yuan Y, Koria P. Elastin-like-polypeptide based fusion proteins for osteogenic factor delivery in bone healing. Biotechnol. Prog. 2016;32:1029-1037.

    Not in our library10.1002/btpr.2269

  173. 173.

    Costa RR, Custõdio CA, Arias FJ, Rodríguez-Cabello JC, Mano JF. Layer-by-layer assembly of chitosan and recombinant biopolymers into biomimetic coatings with multiple stimuli-responsive properties. Small. 2011;7:2640-2649.

    Not in our library10.1002/smll.201100875

  174. 174.

    Wang X, Kluge JA, Leisk GG, Kaplan DL. Sonication-induced gelation of silk fibroin for cell encapsulation. Biomaterials. 2008;29:1054-1064.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.11.003

  175. 175.

    Norris EG, Dalecki D, Hocking DC. Acoustic modification of collagen hydrogels facilitates cellular remodeling. Mater. Today Bio. 2019;3:100018.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.mtbio.2019.100018

  176. 176.

    Song W, Mano JF. Interactions between cells or proteins and surfaces exhibiting extreme wettabilities. Soft Matter. 2013;9:2985.

    Not in our library

  177. 177.

    Wade RJ, Burdick JA. Advances in nanofibrous scaffolds for biomedical applications: from electrospinning to self-assembly. Nano Today. 2014;9:722-742.

    Not in our library

  178. 178.

    Douglas SM, et al. Self-assembly of DNA into nanoscale three-dimensional shapes. Nature. 2009;459:414-418.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature08016

  179. 179.

    Seroski, D. T. & Hudalla, G. A. in Biomedical Applications of Functionalized Nanomaterials: Concepts, Development and Clinical Translation 569–598 (Elsevier Inc., 2018).

    Not in our library

  180. 180.

    Antonietti M, Förster S. Vesicles and liposomes: a self-assembly principle beyond lipids. Adv. Mater. 2003;15:1323-1333.

    Not in our library

  181. 181.

    Kadler KE, Holmes DF, Trotter JA, Chapman JA. Collagen fibril formation. Biochem. J. 1996;316:1-11.

    Not in our library10.1042/bj3160001

  182. 182.

    Ohashi T, Erickson HP. Fibronectin aggregation and assembly: the unfolding of the second fibronectin type III domain. J. Biol. Chem. 2011;286:39188-39199.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m111.262337

  183. 183.

    Levental I, Veatch SL. The continuing mystery of lipid rafts. J. Mol. Biol. 2016;428:4749-4764.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jmb.2016.08.022

  184. 184.

    Varshney P, Yadav V, Saini N. Lipid rafts in immune signalling: current progress and future perspective. Immunology. 2016;149:13-24.

    Not in our library10.1111/imm.12617

  185. 185.

    Brown DA, London E. Functions of lipid rafts in biological membranes. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 1998;14:111-136.

    Not in our library10.1146/annurev.cellbio.14.1.111

  186. 186.

    Keller S, et al. Membrane-mimetic nanocarriers formed by a dipalmitoylated cell-penetrating peptide. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2005;44:5252-5255.

    Not in our library10.1002/anie.200500519

  187. 187.

    Cavalli S, Albericio F, Kros A. Amphiphilic peptides and their cross-disciplinary role as building blocks for nanoscience. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2010;39:241-263.

    Not in our library10.1039/b906701a

  188. 188.

    Zhang S. Fabrication of novel biomaterials through molecular self-assembly. Nat. Biotechnol. 2003;21:1171-1178.

    Not in our library10.1038/nbt874

  189. 189.

    Rousselle P, Montmasson M, Garnier C. Extracellular matrix contribution to skin wound re-epithelialization. Matrix Biol. 2019;75–76:12-26.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.matbio.2018.01.002

  190. 190.

    Wu EC, Zhang S, Hauser CAE. Self-assembling peptides as cell-interactive scaffolds. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2012;22:456-468.

    Not in our library

  191. 191.

    Pieper JS, Hafmans T, Veerkamp HJ, van Kuppevelt TH. Development of tailor-made collagen-glycosaminoglycan matrices: EDC/NHS crosslinking, and ultrastructural aspects. Biomaterials. 2000;21:581-593.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0142-9612(99)00222-7

  192. 192.

    Mohd Isa IL, et al. Implantation of hyaluronic acid hydrogel prevents the pain phenotype in a rat model of intervertebral disc injury. Sci. Adv. 2018;4:eaaq0597.

    Not in our library10.1126/sciadv.aaq0597

  193. 193.

    Ward J, Kelly J, Wang W, Zeugolis DI, Pandit A. Amine functionalization of collagen matrices with multifunctional polyethylene glycol systems. Biomacromolecules. 2010;11:3093-3101.

    Not in our library10.1021/bm100898p

  194. 194.

    Olde Damink LHH, et al. Cross-linking of dermal sheep collagen using a water-soluble carbodiimide. Biomaterials. 1996;17:765-773.

    Not in our library10.1016/0142-9612(96)81413-x

  195. 195.
  196. 196.

    Enea D, et al. Extruded collagen fibres for tissue engineering applications: Effect of crosslinking method on mechanical and biological properties. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 2011;22:1569-1578.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10856-011-4336-1

  197. 197.

    Stahl PJ, Yu SM. Encoding cell-instructive cues to PEG-based hydrogels via triple helical peptide assembly. Soft Matter. 2012;8:10409-10418.

    Not in our library10.1039/c2sm25903f

  198. 198.

    Reyes CD, Petrie TA, Burns KL, Schwartz Z, García AJ. Biomolecular surface coating to enhance orthopaedic tissue healing and integration. Biomaterials. 2007;28:3228-3235.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.04.003

  199. 199.

    Malcor JD, et al. The synthesis and coupling of photoreactive collagen-based peptides to restore integrin reactivity to an inert substrate, chemically-crosslinked collagen. Biomaterials. 2016;85:65-77.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.01.044

  200. 200.

    Malcor JD, et al. Coupling of a specific photoreactive triple-helical peptide to crosslinked collagen films restores binding and activation of DDR2 and VWF. Biomaterials. 2018;182:21-34.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.07.050

  201. 201.

    Schussler O, et al. Use of arginine-glycine-aspartic acid adhesion peptides coupled with a new collagen scaffold to engineer a myocardium-like tissue graft. Nat. Clin. Pract. Cardiovasc. Med. 2009;6:240-249.

    Not in our library10.1038/ncpcardio1451

  202. 202.

    Bartnikowski M, Wellard RM, Woodruff M, Klein T. Tailoring hydrogel viscoelasticity with physical and chemical crosslinking. Polymers. 2015;7:2650-2669.

    Not in our library

  203. 203.
  204. 204.

    Trivedi M, Laurence J, Siahaan T. The role of thiols and disulfides on protein stability. Curr. Protein Pept. Sci. 2009;10:614-625.

    Not in our library10.2174/138920309789630534

  205. 205.

    Chia HN, Vigen M, Kasko AM. Effect of substrate stiffness on pulmonary fibroblast activation by TGF-β. Acta Biomater. 2012;8:2602-2611.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.actbio.2012.03.027

  206. 206.

    Perez-Puyana V, Romero A, Guerrero A. Influence of collagen concentration and glutaraldehyde on collagen-based scaffold properties. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A. 2016;104:1462-1468.

    Not in our library10.1002/jbm.a.35671

  207. 207.

    Delgado L, et al. Collagen cross-linking increases scaffold stability while modulates pro-inflammatory macrophage response. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2016;21:298-313.

    Not in our library

  208. 208.

    Gough JE, Scotchford CA, Downes S. Cytotoxicity of glutaraldehyde crosslinked collagen/poly(vinyl alcohol) films is by the mechanism of apoptosis. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 2002;61:121-130.

    Not in our library10.1002/jbm.10145

  209. 209.

    Mesquida P, et al. Evaluation of surface charge shift of collagen fibrils exposed to glutaraldehyde. Sci. Rep. 2018;8:1-7.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41598-018-28293-1

  210. 210.

    Tomatsu I, Peng K, Kros A. Photoresponsive hydrogels for biomedical applications. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2011;63:1257-1266.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.addr.2011.06.009

  211. 211.

    Schneider M, Belsom A, Rappsilber J. Protein tertiary structure by crosslinking/mass spectrometry. Trends Biochem. Sci. 2018;43:157-169.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.tibs.2017.12.006

  212. 212.

    Ovadia EM, Colby DW, Kloxin AM. Designing well-defined photopolymerized synthetic matrices for three-dimensional culture and differentiation of induced pluripotent stem cells. Biomater. Sci. 2018;6:1358-1370.

    Not in our library10.1039/c8bm00099a

  213. 213.

    Luo Y, Shoichet MS. A photolabile hydrogel for guided three-dimensional cell growth and migration. Nat. Mater. 2004;3:249-253.

    Not in our library10.1038/nmat1092

  214. 214.

    Musoke-Zawedde P, Shoichet MS. Anisotropic three-dimensional peptide channels guide neurite outgrowth within a biodegradable hydrogel matrix. Biomed. Mater. 2006;1:162-169.

    Not in our library10.1088/1748-6041/1/3/011

  215. 215.

    Tsang KMC, et al. Facile one-step micropatterning using photodegradable gelatin hydrogels for improved cardiomyocyte organization and alignment. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2015;25:977-986.

    Not in our library10.1002/adfm.201403124

  216. 216.
  217. 217.

    Faulk, D. M., Johnson, S. A. & Badylak, S. F. Decellularized biological scaffolds for cardiac repair and regeneration. in Cardiac Regeneration and Repair: Biomaterials and Tissue Engineering 180–184 (Elsevier, 2014).

    Not in our library

  218. 218.

    Londono R, Badylak SF. Biologic scaffolds for regenerative medicine: mechanisms of in vivo remodeling. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2014;43:577-592.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10439-014-1103-8

  219. 219.

    Alexander C, Rietschel ET. Bacterial lipopolysaccharides and innate immunity. J. Endotoxin Res. 2001;7:167-202.

    Not in our library

  220. 220.

    Han SB, et al. Toll-like receptor-mediated activation of B cells and macrophages by polysaccharide isolated from cell culture of Acanthopanax senticosus. Int. Immunopharmacol. 2003;3:1301-1312.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1567-5769(03)00118-8

  221. 221.

    Dearth CL, et al. The effect of terminal sterilization on the material properties and in vivo remodeling of a porcine dermal biologic scaffold. Acta Biomater. 2016;33:78-87.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.actbio.2016.01.038

  222. 222.

    Goktas S, et al. Decellularization method influences early remodeling of an allogenic tissue scaffold. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A. 2014;102:8-16.

    Not in our library10.1002/jbm.a.34692

  223. 223.

    Cramer MC, Badylak SF. Extracellular matrix-based biomaterials and their influence upon cell behavior. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2019;48:2132-2153.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10439-019-02408-9

  224. 224.

    White LJ, et al. The impact of detergents on the tissue decellularization process: a ToF-SIMS study. Acta Biomater. 2017;50:207-219.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.actbio.2016.12.033

  225. 225.

    Keane, T. J., Saldin, L. T. & Badylak, S. F. in Characterisation and Design of Tissue Scaffolds 75–103 (Elsevier Ltd, 2016).

    Not in our library

  226. 226.

    Ngangan AV, McDevitt TC. Acellularization of embryoid bodies via physical disruption methods. Biomaterials. 2009;30:1143-1149.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.11.001

  227. 227.

    Yang H, Shu Z. The extraction of collagen protein from pigskin. J. Chem. Pharm. Res. 2014;6:683-687.

    Not in our library

  228. 228.

    Burugapalli K, et al. Scaffold with a natural mesh-like architecture: Isolation, structural, and in vitro characterization. Biomacromolecules. 2007;8:928-936.

    Not in our library10.1021/bm061088x

  229. 229.

    Elder BD, Eleswarapu SV, Athanasiou KA. Extraction techniques for the decellularization of tissue engineered articular cartilage constructs. Biomaterials. 2009;30:3749-3756.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.03.050

  230. 230.

    Hudson TW, Liu SY, Schmidt CE. Engineering an improved acellular nerve graft via optimized chemical processing. Tissue Eng. 2004;10:1346-1358.

    Not in our library10.1089/ten.2004.10.1641

  231. 231.

    Raugele S, Sirvydis V, Darinskas A, Zurauskas E. Decellularization efficiency of porcine heart valves using different detergents. Interact. Cardiovasc. Thorac. Surg. 2010;127:399-405.

    Not in our library

  232. 232.

    Zahmati AHA, Alipoor R, Shahmirzadi AR, Khori V, Abolhasani MM. Chemical decellularization methods and its effects on extracellular matrix. Intern. Med. Med. Investig. J. 2017;2:76-83.

    Not in our library

  233. 233.

    Kinoshita M, Kakehi K. Analysis of the interaction between hyaluronan and hyaluronan-binding proteins by capillary affinity electrophoresis: significance of hyaluronan molecular size on binding reaction. J. Chromatogr. B. 2005;816:289-295.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jchromb.2004.11.050

  234. 234.

    Lu P, Takai K, Weaver VM, Werb Z. Extracellular matrix degradation and remodeling in development and disease. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2011;3:a005058.

    Not in our library10.1101/cshperspect.a005058

  235. 235.

    Frantz C, Stewart KM, Weaver VM. The extracellular matrix at a glance. J. Cell Sci. 2010;123:4195-4200.

    Not in our library10.1242/jcs.023820

  236. 236.

    Humphrey JD, Dufresne ER, Schwartz MA. Mechanotransduction and extracellular matrix homeostasis. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2014;15:802-812.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrm3896

  237. 237.

    Hwang PY, Chen J, Jing L, Hoffman BD, Setton LA. The role of extracellular matrix elasticity and composition in regulating the nucleus pulposus cell phenotype in the intervertebral disc: a narrative review. J. Biomech. Eng. 2014;136:021010.

    Not in our library10.1115/1.4026360

  238. 238.

    Rahmany MB, Van Dyke M. Biomimetic approaches to modulate cellular adhesion in biomaterials: a review. Acta Biomater. 2013;9:5431-5437.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.actbio.2012.11.019

  239. 239.

    Lou J, Stowers R, Nam S, Xia Y, Chaudhuri O. Stress relaxing hyaluronic acid-collagen hydrogels promote cell spreading, fiber remodeling, and focal adhesion formation in 3D cell culture. Biomaterials. 2018;154:213-222.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2017.11.004

  240. 240.

    Gonzalez-Pujana A, et al. Extracellular matrix protein microarray-based biosensor with single cell resolution: integrin profiling and characterization of cell-biomaterial interactions. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2019;299:126954.

    Not in our library

  241. 241.

    Jiang L-B, et al. Shape-memory collagen scaffold for enhanced cartilage regeneration: native collagen versus denatured collagen. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 2018;26:1389-1399.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.joca.2018.06.004

  242. 242.

    Rammelt S, et al. Coating of titanium implants with collagen, RGD peptide and chondroitin sulfate. Biomaterials. 2006;27:5561-5571.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.06.034

  243. 243.

    Gu Y, et al. Application of marrow mesenchymal stem cell-derived extracellular matrix in peripheral nerve tissue engineering. J. Tissue Eng. Regen. Med. 2017;11:2250-2260.

    Not in our library10.1002/term.2123

  244. 244.

    Wang Z, et al. Cartilaginous extracellular matrix derived from decellularized chondrocyte sheets for the reconstruction of osteochondral defects in rabbits. Acta Biomater. 2018;81:129-145.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.actbio.2018.10.005

  245. 245.

    Wakuda Y, Nishimoto S, Suye SI, Fujita S. Native collagen hydrogel nanofibres with anisotropic structure using core-shell electrospinning. Sci. Rep. 2018;8:1-10.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41598-018-24700-9

  246. 246.

    Gilpin SE, et al. Perfusion decellularization of human and porcine lungs: Bringing the matrix to clinical scale. J. Hear. Lung Transpl. 2014;33:298-308.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.healun.2013.10.030

  247. 247.

    Welham NV, Chang Z, Smith LM, Frey BL. Proteomic analysis of a decellularized human vocal fold mucosa scaffold using 2D electrophoresis and high-resolution mass spectrometry. Biomaterials. 2013;34:669-676.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.09.050

  248. 248.

    Sadtler K, et al. Proteomic composition and immunomodulatory properties of urinary bladder matrix scaffolds in homeostasis and injury. Semin. Immunol. 2017;29:14-23.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.smim.2017.05.002

  249. 249.

    Ragelle H, et al. Comprehensive proteomic characterization of stem cell-derived extracellular matrices. Biomaterials. 2017;128:147-159.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2017.03.008

  250. 250.

    Han W, et al. Directed differential behaviors of multipotent adult stem cells from decellularized tissue/organ extracellular matrix bioinks. Biomaterials. 2019;224:119496.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2019.119496

  251. 251.

    Flynn LE. The use of decellularized adipose tissue to provide an inductive microenvironment for the adipogenic differentiation of human adipose-derived stem cells. Biomaterials. 2010;31:4715-4724.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.02.046

  252. 252.

    Goh S-K, et al. Perfusion-decellularized pancreas as a natural 3D scaffold for pancreatic tissue and whole organ engineering. Biomaterials. 2013;34:6760-6772.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.05.066

  253. 253.

    Cortiella J, et al. Influence of acellular natural lung matrix on murine embryonic stem cell differentiation and tissue formation. Tissue Eng. Part A. 2010;16:2565-2580.

    Not in our library10.1089/ten.tea.2009.0730

  254. 254.

    Mitchell DC, Niu S-L, Litman BJ. Enhancement of G protein-coupled signaling by DHA phospholipids. Lipids. 2003;38:437-443.

    Not in our library10.1007/s11745-003-1081-1

  255. 255.

    Greig FH, Kennedy S, Spickett CM. Physiological effects of oxidized phospholipids and their cellular signaling mechanisms in inflammation. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 2012;52:266-280.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2011.10.481

  256. 256.

    Huang M-C, Graeler M, Shankar G, Spencer J, Goetzl EJ. Lysophospholipid mediators of immunity and neoplasia. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 2002;1582:161-167.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1388-1981(02)00151-8

  257. 257.

    Gräler MH, Goetzl EJ. Lysophospholipids and their G protein-coupled receptors in inflammation and immunity. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 2002;1582:168-174.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1388-1981(02)00152-x

  258. 258.

    Hussey GS, et al. Lipidomics and RNA sequencing reveal a novel subpopulation of nanovesicle within extracellular matrix biomaterials. Sci. Adv. 2020;6:1-14.

    Not in our library10.1126/sciadv.aay4361

  259. 259.

    Tekin H, et al. Effects of 3D culturing conditions on the transcriptomic profile of stem-cell-derived neurons. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 2018;2:540-554.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41551-018-0219-9

  260. 260.

    Hsiang CY, Chen YS, Ho TY. Nuclear factor-κB bioluminescence imaging-guided transcriptomic analysis for the assessment of host-biomaterial interaction in vivo. Biomaterials. 2009;30:3042-3049.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.02.016

  261. 261.

    Malafaya PB, Silva GA, Reis RL. Natural-origin polymers as carriers and scaffolds for biomolecules and cell delivery in tissue engineering applications. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2007;59:207-233.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.addr.2007.03.012

  262. 262.

    Willerth SM, Sakiyama-Elbert SE. Combining stem cells and biomaterial scaffolds for constructing tissues and cell delivery. Stem J. 2019;1:1-25.

    Not in our library

  263. 263.

    Liang K, Bae KH, Kurisawa M. Recent advances in the design of injectable hydrogels for stem cell-based therapy. J. Mater. Chem. B. 2019;7:3775-3791.

    Not in our library

  264. 264.

    Chen F-M, Liu X. Advancing biomaterials of human origin for tissue engineering. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2016;53:86-168.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2015.02.004

  265. 265.

    Ballios BG, et al. A hyaluronan-based injectable hydrogel improves the survival and integration of stem cell progeny following transplantation. Stem Cell Rep. 2015;4:1031-1045.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.stemcr.2015.04.008

  266. 266.

    Ansari S, et al. Alginate/hyaluronic acid hydrogel delivery system characteristics regulate the differentiation of periodontal ligament stem cells toward chondrogenic lineage. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 2017;28:162.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10856-017-5974-8

  267. 267.

    Kazezian Z, Li Z, Alini M, Grad S, Pandit A. Injectable hyaluronic acid down-regulates interferon signaling molecules, IGFBP3 and IFIT3 in the bovine intervertebral disc. Acta Biomater. 2017;52:118-129.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.actbio.2016.12.029

  268. 268.

    Isa ILM, et al. Hyaluronic acid based hydrogels attenuate inflammatory receptors and neurotrophins in interleukin-1β induced inflammation model of nucleus pulposus cells. Biomacromolecules. 2015;16:1714-1725.

    Not in our library10.1021/acs.biomac.5b00168

  269. 269.

    Dicker KT, et al. Hyaluronan: a simple polysaccharide with diverse biological functions. Acta Biomater. 2014;10:1558-1570.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.actbio.2013.12.019

  270. 270.

    Mattheolabakis G, Milane L, Singh A, Amiji MM. Hyaluronic acid targeting of CD44 for cancer therapy: from receptor biology to nanomedicine. J. Drug Target. 2015;23:605-618.

    Not in our library10.3109/1061186x.2015.1052072

  271. 271.

    Lopes D, et al. Screening of perfused combinatorial 3D microenvironments for cell culture. Acta Biomater. 2019;96:222-236.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.actbio.2019.06.047

  272. 272.

    Meyers SR, Grinstaff MW. Biocompatible and bioactive surface modifications for prolonged in vivo efficacy. Chem. Rev. 2012;112:1615-1632.

    Not in our library10.1021/cr2000916

  273. 273.

    PeŠŠková V, Kubies D, Hulejova H, Himmlova L. The influence of implant surface properties on cell adhesion and proliferation. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 2007;18:465-473.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10856-007-2006-0

  274. 274.

    Costa DG, et al. The effect of collagen coating on titanium with nanotopography on in vitro osteogenesis. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A. 2017;105:2783-2788.

    Not in our library10.1002/jbm.a.36140

  275. 275.

    Agarwal R, et al. Simple coating with fibronectin fragment enhances stainless steel screw osseointegration in healthy and osteoporotic rats. Biomaterials. 2015;63:137-145.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.06.025

  276. 276.

    Cho Y-D, et al. Biomimetic approach to stimulate osteogenesis on titanium implant surfaces using fibronectin derived oligopeptide. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2016;22:4729-4735.

    Not in our library10.2174/1381612822666160203143053

  277. 277.

    Wise SG, et al. Tropoelastin: a versatile, bioactive assembly module. Acta Biomater. 2014;10:1532-1541.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.actbio.2013.08.003

  278. 278.

    Patel A, Fine B, Sandig M, Mequanint K. Elastin biosynthesis: the missing link in tissue-engineered blood vessels. Cardiovasc. Res. 2006;71:40-49.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cardiores.2006.02.021

  279. 279.

    Yeo GC, et al. Plasma-activated tropoelastin functionalization of zirconium for improved bone cell response. ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng. 2016;2:662-676.

    Not in our library10.1021/acsbiomaterials.6b00049

  280. 280.

    Glaser N, Jackson V, Franco-Cereceda A, Sartipy U. Survival after aortic valve replacement with bovine or porcine valve prostheses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2019;67:282-290.

    Not in our library10.1055/s-0038-1649513

  281. 281.

    Hinderer S, Layland SL, Schenke-Layland K. ECM and ECM-like materials—biomaterials for applications in regenerative medicine and cancer therapy. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2016;97:260-269.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.addr.2015.11.019

  282. 282.

    Gonfiotti A, et al. The first tissue-engineered airway transplantation: 5-year follow-up results. Lancet. 2014;383:238-244.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62033-4

  283. 283.
  284. 284.

    Kim K, Choi H, Choi ES, Park MH, Ryu JH. Hyaluronic acid-coated nanomedicine for targeted cancer therapy. Pharmaceutics. 2019;11:1-22.

    Not in our library10.3390/pharmaceutics11070301

  285. 285.
  286. 286.

    Takaishi S, et al. Identification of gastric cancer stem cells using the cell surface marker CD44. Stem Cells. 2009;27:1006-1020.

    Not in our library10.1002/stem.30

  287. 287.

    Kazezian Z, Joyce K, Pandit A. The role of hyaluronic acid in intervertebral disc regeneration. Appl. Sci. 2020;10:6257.

    Not in our library

  288. 288.

    Peeters M, et al. BMP-2 and BMP-2/7 heterodimers conjugated to a fibrin/hyaluronic acid hydrogel in a large animal model of mild intervertebral disc degeneration. Biores. Open Access. 2015;4:398-406.

    Not in our library10.1089/biores.2015.0025

  289. 289.
  290. 290.

    Li S, Zhang F, Yu Y, Zhang Q. A dermatan sulfate-functionalized biomimetic nanocarrier for melanoma targeted chemotherapy. Carbohydr. Polym. 2020;235:115983.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.carbpol.2020.115983

  291. 291.

    Zhang X, et al. Oral administration of chondroitin sulfate-functionalized nanoparticles for colonic macrophage-targeted drug delivery. Carbohydr. Polym. 2019;223:1-9.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.carbpol.2019.115126

  292. 292.
  293. 293.

    Lei Q, et al. Multifunctional mesoporous silica nanoparticles with thermal-responsive gatekeeper for NIR light-triggered chemo/photothermal-therapy. Small. 2016;12:4286-4298.

    Not in our library10.1002/smll.201601137

  294. 294.

    Van Rijt SH, et al. Protease-mediated release of chemotherapeutics from mesoporous silica nanoparticles to ex vivo human and mouse lung tumors. ACS Nano. 2015;9:2377-2389.

    Not in our library10.1021/nn5070343

  295. 295.

    Li H, et al. Dual MMP7-proximity-activated and folate receptor-targeted nanoparticles for siRNA delivery. Biomacromolecules. 2015;16:192-201.

    Not in our library10.1021/bm501394m

  296. 296.

    Luo T, et al. Thermoresponsive elastin-b-collagen-like peptide bioconjugate nanovesicles for targeted drug delivery to collagen-containing matrices. Biomacromolecules. 2017;18:2539-2551.

    Not in our library10.1021/acs.biomac.7b00686

  297. 297.

    Chaubey P, Mishra B. Mannose-conjugated chitosan nanoparticles loaded with rifampicin for the treatment of visceral leishmaniasis. Carbohydr. Polym. 2014;101:1101-1108.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.carbpol.2013.10.044

  298. 298.

    Chen F, Huang G, Huang H. Sugar ligand-mediated drug delivery. Future Med. Chem. 2020;12:161-171.

    Not in our library10.4155/fmc-2019-0114

  299. 299.

    Arosio D, Casagrande C. Advancement in integrin facilitated drug delivery. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2016;97:111-143.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.addr.2015.12.001

  300. 300.

    Cox TR, Erler JT. Remodeling and homeostasis of the extracellular matrix: Implications for fibrotic diseases and cancer. Dis. Model. Mech. 2011;4:165-178.

    Not in our library10.1242/dmm.004077

  301. 301.

    Yakovlev S, Medved L. Interaction of fibrin(ogen) with the endothelial cell receptor VE-cadherin: localization of the fibrin-binding site within the third extracellular VE-cadherin domain. Biochemistry. 2009;48:5171-5179.

    Not in our library10.1021/bi900487d

  302. 302.

    Wallez Y, Vilgrain I, Huber P. Angiogenesis: the VE-cadherin switch. Trends Cardiovasc. Med. 2006;16:55-59.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.tcm.2005.11.008

  303. 303.

    Horton MA. The αvβ3 integrin ‘vitronectin receptor’. Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 1997;29:721-725.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1357-2725(96)00155-0

  304. 304.

    Sa S, Wong L, McCloskey KE. Combinatorial fibronectin and laminin signaling promote highly efficient cardiac differentiation of human embryonic stem cells. Biores. Open Access. 2014;3:150-161.

    Not in our library10.1089/biores.2014.0018

  305. 305.

    Spivak-Kroizman T, et al. Heparin-induced oligomerization of FGF molecules is responsible for FGF receptor dimerization, activation, and cell proliferation. Cell. 1994;79:1015-1024.

    Not in our library10.1016/0092-8674(94)90032-9

  306. 306.

    Cabello-Verrugio C, et al. The internal region leucine-rich repeat 6 of decorin interacts with low density lipoprotein receptor-related protein-1, modulates transforming growth factor (TGF)-β-dependent signaling, and inhibits TGF-β-dependent fibrotic response in skeletal muscles. J. Biol. Chem. 2012;287:6773-6787.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m111.312488

  307. 307.

    McBeath R, Pirone DM, Nelson CM, Bhadriraju K, Chen CS. Cell shape, cytoskeletal tension, and RhoA regulate stem cell lineage commitment. Dev. Cell. 2004;6:483-495.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1534-5807(04)00075-9

  308. 308.

    Ishida Y, Nagata K. Hsp47 as a collagen-specific molecular chaperone. Methods Enzymol. 2011;499:167-182.

    Not in our library10.1016/b978-0-12-386471-0.00009-2

  309. 309.

    An B, et al. Definition of the native and denatured type II collagen binding site for fibronectin using a recombinant collagen system. J. Biol. Chem. 2014;289:4941-4951.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m113.530808

  310. 310.

    Trowbridge J, Gallo R. Dermatan sulfate: new functions from an old glycosaminoglycan. Glycobiology. 2002;12:117R-125R.

    Not in our library10.1093/glycob/cwf066

  311. 311.

    Van Putten JPM, Strijbis K. Transmembrane mucins: signaling receptors at the intersection of inflammation and cancer. J. Innate Immun. 2017;9:281-299.

    Not in our library10.1159/000453594

  312. 312.

    Veverka V, et al. Characterization of the structural features and interactions of sclerostin. Molecular insight into a key regulator of Wnt-mediated bone formation. J. Biol. Chem. 2009;284:10890-10900.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m807994200

  313. 313.

    Kalamajski S, Bihan D, Bonna A, Rubin K, Farndale RW. Fibromodulin interacts with collagen cross-linking sites and activates lysyl oxidase. J. Biol. Chem. 2016;291:7951-7960.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m115.693408

  314. 314.

    Wight TN, Kang I, Merrilees MJ. Versican and the control of inflammation. Matrix Biol. 2014;35:152-161.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.matbio.2014.01.015

  315. 315.

    Yurchenco PD. Basement membranes: cell scaffoldings and signaling platforms. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2011;3:1-27.

    Not in our library10.1101/cshperspect.a004911

  316. 316.

    Nishiuchi R, et al. Ligand-binding specificities of laminin-binding integrins: a comprehensive survey of laminin-integrin interactions using recombinant α3β1, α6β1, α7β1 and α6β4 integrins. Matrix Biol. 2006;25:189-197.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.matbio.2005.12.001

  317. 317.

    Ramovs V, te Molder L, Sonnenberg A. The opposing roles of laminin-binding integrins in cancer. Matrix Biol. 2017;57–58:213-243.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.matbio.2016.08.007

  318. 318.

    Xiong Y, Zhou Y, Jarrett HW. Dystrophin glycoprotein complex-associated Gβγ subunits activate phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase/Akt signaling in skeletal muscle in a laminin-dependent manner. J. Cell. Physiol. 2009;219:402-414.

    Not in our library10.1002/jcp.21684

  319. 319.

    Montanaro F, Lindenbaum M, Carbonetto S. α-dystroglycan is a laminin receptor involved in extracellular matrix assembly on myotubes and muscle cell viability. J. Cell Biol. 1999;145:1325-1340.

    Not in our library10.1083/jcb.145.6.1325

  320. 320.

    Kalamajski S, Oldberg A. The role of small leucine-rich proteoglycans in collagen fibrillogenesis. Matrix Biol. 2010;29:248-253.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.matbio.2010.01.001

  321. 321.

    Jiang D, et al. Regulation of lung injury and repair by Toll-like receptors and hyaluronan. Nat. Med. 2005;11:1173-1179.

    Not in our library10.1038/nm1315

  322. 322.

    Yang C, et al. The high and low molecular weight forms of hyaluronan have distinct effects on CD44 clustering. J. Biol. Chem. 2012;287:43094-43107.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m112.349209

  323. 323.

    Bix G, Iozzo RV. Novel interactions of perlecan: unraveling perlecan’s role in angiogenesis. Microsc. Res. Tech. 2008;71:339-348.

    Not in our library10.1002/jemt.20562

  324. 324.

    Hopf M, Göhring W, Kohfeldt E, Yamada Y, Timpl R. Recombinant domain IV of perlecan binds to nidogens, laminin-nidogen complex, fibronectin, fibulin-2 and heparin. Eur. J. Biochem. 1999;259:917-926.

    Not in our library10.1046/j.1432-1327.1999.00127.x

  325. 325.

    Brown JC, Sasaki T, Gohring W, Yamada Y, Timpl R. The C-terminal domain V of perlecan promotes pl integrin-mediated cell adhesion, binds heparin, nidogen. Eur. J. Biochem. 1997;250:39-46.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1432-1033.1997.t01-1-00039.x

  326. 326.

    Vischer P, Feitsma K, Schön P, Völker W. Perlecan is responsible for thrombospondin 1 binding on the cell surface of cultured porcine endothelial cells. Eur. J. Cell Biol. 1997;73:332-343.

    Not in our library

  327. 327.

    Matsumoto K, et al. Distinct interaction of versican/PG-M with hyaluronan and link protein. J. Biol. Chem. 2003;278:41205-41212.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m305060200

  328. 328.

    Wight TN. Provisional matrix: a role for versican and hyaluronan. Matrix Biol. 2017;60–61:38-56.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.matbio.2016.12.001

  329. 329.

    Didangelos A, et al. Proteomics characterization of extracellular space components in the human aorta. Mol. Cell. Proteom. 2010;9:2048-2062.

    Not in our library10.1074/mcp.m110.001693

  330. 330.

    Wang Y, et al. Quantitative proteomics analysis of cartilage response to mechanical injury and cytokine treatment. Matrix Biol. 2017;63:11-22.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.matbio.2016.12.004

  331. 331.

    Raghunathan R, Sethi MK, Klein JA, Zaia J. Proteomics, glycomics, and glycoproteomics of matrisome molecules. Mol. Cell. Proteom. 2019;18:2138-2148.

    Not in our library10.1074/mcp.r119.001543

  332. 332.

    Mulagapati S, Koppolu V, Raju TS. Decoding of O-linked glycosylation by mass spectrometry. Biochemistry. 2017;56:1218-1226.

    Not in our library10.1021/acs.biochem.6b01244

  333. 333.

    Klein JA, Meng L, Zaia J. Deep sequencing of complex proteoglycans: a novel strategy for high coverage and sitespecific identification of glycosaminoglycanlinked peptides. Mol. Cell. Proteom. 2018;17:1578-1590.

    Not in our library10.1074/mcp.ra118.000766

  334. 334.

    Liu Y, et al. Elevation of sulfatides in ovarian cancer: an integrated transcriptomic and lipidomic analysis including tissue-imaging mass spectrometry. Mol. Cancer. 2010;12:186.

    Not in our library10.1186/1476-4598-9-186

  335. 335.

    Jónasdóttir HS, et al. Targeted lipidomics reveals activation of resolution pathways in knee osteoarthritis in humans. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 2017;25:1150-1160.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.joca.2017.01.018

  336. 336.

    Yamauchi, M., Sricholpech, M., Terajima, M., Tomer, K. B. & Perdivara, I. in Post-Translational Modification of Proteins vol. 1934 127–144 (Humana Press Inc., 2019).

    Not in our library10.1007/978-1-4939-9055-9_9

  337. 337.

    Digenis GA, Gold TB, Shah VP. Cross‐linking of gelatin capsules and its relevance to their in vitro‐in vivo performance. J. Pharm. Sci. 1994;83:915-921.

    Not in our library10.1002/jps.2600830702

  338. 338.

    Tan H, Chu CR, Payne KA, Marra KG. Injectable in situ forming biodegradable chitosan-hyaluronic acid based hydrogels for cartilage tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2009;30:2499-2506.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.12.080

  339. 339.

    Ding C, et al. Insight into the rheological behaviors of a polyanionic collagen fabricated with poly(γ-glutamic acid)-NHS ester. Biotechnol. Appl. Biochem. 2019;66:564-573.

    Not in our library10.1002/bab.1755

  340. 340.

    Su J. Thiol-mediated chemoselective strategies for in situ formation of hydrogels. Gels. 2018;4:72.

    Not in our library10.3390/gels4030072

  341. 341.

    Gyarmati B, Némethy Á, Szilágyi A. Reversible disulphide formation in polymer networks: a versatile functional group from synthesis to applications. Eur. Polym. J. 2013;49:1268-1286.

    Not in our library

  342. 342.

    Guaresti O, Basasoro S, González K, Eceiza A, Gabilondo N. In situ cross–linked chitosan hydrogels via Michael addition reaction based on water–soluble thiol–maleimide precursors. Eur. Polym. J. 2019;119:376-384.

    Not in our library

  343. 343.

    Shtenberg Y, Goldfeder M, Schroeder A, Bianco-Peled H. Alginate modified with maleimide-terminated PEG as drug carriers with enhanced mucoadhesion. Carbohydr. Polym. 2017;175:337-346.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.carbpol.2017.07.076

  344. 344.

    Sani ES, et al. Sutureless repair of corneal injuries using naturally derived bioadhesive hydrogels. Sci. Adv. 2019;5:eaav1281.

    Not in our library10.1126/sciadv.aav1281

  345. 345.

    Ma X, et al. In situ photocrosslinked hyaluronic acid and poly (γ-glutamic acid) hydrogels as injectable drug carriers for load-bearing tissue application. J. Biomater. Sci. Polym. Ed. 2018;29:2252-2266.

    Not in our library10.1080/09205063.2018.1535820

  346. 346.

    Syedain ZH, Bjork J, Sando L, Tranquillo RT. Controlled compaction with ruthenium-catalyzed photochemical cross-linking of fibrin-based engineered connective tissue. Biomaterials. 2009;30:6695-6701.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.08.039

  347. 347.

    Hu X, et al. Biomaterials from ultrasonication-induced silk fibroin-hyaluronic acid hydrogels. Biomacromolecules. 2010;11:3178-3188.

    Not in our library10.1021/bm1010504

  348. 348.

    Guan Y, Bian J, Peng F, Zhang XM, Sun RC. High strength of hemicelluloses based hydrogels by freeze/thaw technique. Carbohydr. Polym. 2014;101:272-280.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.carbpol.2013.08.085

  349. 349.

    Jiang X, et al. Preparation and characterization of poly(vinyl alcohol)/sodium alginate hydrogel with high toughness and electric conductivity. Carbohydr. Polym. 2018;186:377-383.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.carbpol.2018.01.061

  350. 350.

    Zhang H, Zhang F, Wu J. Physically crosslinked hydrogels from polysaccharides prepared by freeze-thaw technique. React. Funct. Polym. 2013;73:923-928.

    Not in our library

  351. 351.
  352. 352.

    Liu G, et al. Cyclodextrin-based host-guest supramolecular hydrogel and its application in biomedical fields. Polym. Chem. 2018;9:3436-3449.

    Not in our library

  353. 353.

    De Vries SAH, Van Doeselaar M, Kaper HJ, Sharma PK, Ito K. Notochordal cell matrix as a bioactive lubricant for the osteoarthritic joint. Sci. Rep. 2018;8:1-11.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41598-018-27130-9

  354. 354.

    Hodde J, Record R, Tullius R, Badylak S. Fibronectin peptides mediate HMEC adhesion to porcine-derived extracellular matrix. Biomaterials. 2002;23:1841-1848.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0142-9612(01)00310-6

  355. 355.

    Yang L, et al. Hydrophilic cell-derived extracellular matrix as a niche to promote adhesion and differentiation of neural progenitor cells. RSC Adv. 2017;7:45587-45594.

    Not in our library

  356. 356.

    Wang D, et al. Tendon-derived extracellular matrix induces mesenchymal stem cell tenogenesis via an integrin/transforming growth factor-β crosstalk-mediated mechanism. FASEB J. 2020;34:8172-8186.

    Not in our library10.1096/fj.201902377rr

  357. 357.

    Park S, Kim WH, Choi SY, Kim YJ. Removal of alpha-gal epitopes from porcine aortic valve and pericardium using recombinant human alpha galactosidase A. J. Korean Med. Sci. 2009;24:1126-1131.

    Not in our library10.3346/jkms.2009.24.6.1126

  358. 358.

    Lumpkins SB, Pierre N, McFetridge PS. A mechanical evaluation of three decellularization methods in the design of a xenogeneic scaffold for tissue engineering the temporomandibular joint disc. Acta Biomater. 2008;4:808-816.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.actbio.2008.01.016

  359. 359.

    Aguiari P, et al. In vitro comparative assessment of decellularized bovine pericardial patches and commercial bioprosthetic heart valves. Biomed. Mater. 2017;12:015021.

    Not in our library10.1088/1748-605x/aa5644

  360. 360.

    Flaim CJ, Chien S, Bhatia SN. An extracellular matrix microarray for probing cellular differentiation. Nat. Methods. 2005;2:119-125.

    Not in our library10.1038/nmeth736

  361. 361.

    Grauss RW, et al. Histological evaluation of decellularised porcine aortic valves: matrix changes due to different decellularisation methods. Eur. J. Cardio-Thorac. Surg. 2005;27:566-571.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ejcts.2004.12.052

  362. 362.

    Casali DM, Handleton RM, Shazly T, Matthews MA. A novel supercritical CO2-based decellularization method for maintaining scaffold hydration and mechanical properties. J. Supercrit. Fluids. 2018;131:72-81.

    Not in our library

  363. 363.

    Guimarães C, et al. High-throughput fabrication of cell-laden 3D biomaterial gradients. Mater. Horiz. 2020;7:2414-2421.

    Not in our library

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.