Cited by 215Tissue Engineering and Regenerative MedicineElectrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical ApplicationsBone Tissue Engineering Materials

Examination of the foreign body response to biomaterials by nonlinear intravital microscopy

Open access
Dondossola, Eleonora, Holzapfel, Boris M., Alexander, Stephanie, Filippini, Stefano, Hutmacher, Dietmar W., Friedl, Peter·2016·Nature Biomedical Engineering

Abstract

Implanted biomaterials often fail because they elicit a foreign body response (FBR) and concomitant fibrotic encapsulation. To design clinically relevant interference approaches, it is crucial to first examine the FBR mechanisms. Here, we report the development and validation of infrared-excited nonlinear microscopy to resolve the three-dimensional (3D) organization and fate of 3D-electrospun scaffolds implanted deep into the skin of mice, and the following step-wise FBR process. We observed that immigrating myeloid cells (predominantly macrophages of the M1 type) engaged and became immobilized along the scaffold/tissue interface, before forming multinucleated giant cells. Both macrophages and giant cells locally produced vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), which initiated and maintained an immature neovessel network, followed by formation of a dense collagen capsule 2-4 weeks post-implantation. Elimination of the macrophage/giant-cell compartment by clodronate and/or neutralization of VEGF by VEGF Trap significantly diminished giant-cell accumulation, neovascularization and fibrosis. Our findings identify macrophages and giant cells as incendiaries of the fibrotic encapsulation of engrafted biomaterials via VEGF release and neovascularization, and therefore as targets for therapy.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41551-016-0007

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Local scavenging of VEGF around implants can inhibit extension of new blood vessels necessary to support fibrotic capsule and decrease fibrotic encapsulation.

    “Local scavenging of VEGF around implants, a stimulator of endothelial growth released by anoxic tissue, can inhibit the extension of new blood vessels necessary to support the fibrotic capsule and decrease fibrotic encapsulation (Dondossola et al., 2017).”

    From Foreign Body Reaction to Implanted Biomaterials and Its Impact in Nerve Neuroprosthetics (2021) · cites this paper as Dondossola et al., 2017

    In “Therapeutic targeting of macrophages and neoangiogenesis” (page not provided), VEGF Trap prevented vessel formation and reduced collagen deposition around the implanted scaffold. The Methods describe administering VEGF Trap to scaffold-bearing mice, not locally scavenging it at the implant. The Discussion identifies implant-associated myeloid cells as a local VEGF source, but does not attribute its release to anoxic tissue. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dondossola, E., Holzapfel, B. M., Alexander, S., Filippini, S., Hutmacher, D. W., & Friedl, P.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
  • Queensland University of Technology (AU)
Corresponding author
  • Dondossola, Eleonora
  • Friedl, Peter
Venue
Nature Biomedical Engineering
Published
2016-12-19
Volume
1
Issue
1
ISSN
2157-846X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2562554519
Cited by
215
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 10
FWCI
22.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Biomedical Engineering (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Prostate Cancer Foundation (CA016672)
  • Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (P30CA016672, RP140482, CA016672)
  • National Breast Cancer Foundation (IN‐15–047)
  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (P30 CA016672, 918.11.626)
  • National Institutes of Health (CA- 016672)
  • University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center ((CA016672), P30-CA-016672)
  • Medical Research Council
  • Australian Research Council
  • National Health and Medical Research Council
  • National Cancer Institute (CA 016672, P30CA016672)
  • FP7 Ideas: European Research Council (617430)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Biomaterials › Electrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Bone Tissue Engineering Materials
Keywords
foreign body reaction, biomaterial implantation, electrospun scaffolds, macrophages, M1 macrophages, multinucleated giant cells, vascular endothelial growth factor, neovascularization, fibrotic encapsulation, collagen capsule, clodronate, VEGF trap, intravital microscopy, 3D imaging

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review