↓ Skip to main content

Dynamic Mechanical Compression of Chondrocytes for Tissue Engineering: A Critical Review

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
93 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
170 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Dynamic Mechanical Compression of Chondrocytes for Tissue Engineering: A Critical Review
Published in
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, December 2017
DOI 10.3389/fbioe.2017.00076
Pubmed ID
Authors

Devon E. Anderson, Brian Johnstone

Abstract

Articular cartilage functions to transmit and translate loads. In a classical structure-function relationship, the tissue resides in a dynamic mechanical environment that drives the formation of a highly organized tissue architecture suited to its biomechanical role. The dynamic mechanical environment includes multiaxial compressive and shear strains as well as hydrostatic and osmotic pressures. As the mechanical environment is known to modulate cell fate and influence tissue development toward a defined architecture in situ, dynamic mechanical loading has been hypothesized to induce the structure-function relationship during attempts at in vitro regeneration of articular cartilage. Researchers have designed increasingly sophisticated bioreactors with dynamic mechanical regimes, but the response of chondrocytes to dynamic compression and shear loading remains poorly characterized due to wide variation in study design, system variables, and outcome measurements. We assessed the literature pertaining to the use of dynamic compressive bioreactors for in vitro generation of cartilaginous tissue from primary and expanded chondrocytes. We used specific search terms to identify relevant publications from the PubMed database and manually sorted the data. It was very challenging to find consensus between studies because of species, age, cell source, and culture differences, coupled with the many loading regimes and the types of analyses used. Early studies that evaluated the response of primary bovine chondrocytes within hydrogels, and that employed dynamic single-axis compression with physiologic loading parameters, reported consistently favorable responses at the tissue level, with upregulation of biochemical synthesis and biomechanical properties. However, they rarely assessed the cellular response with gene expression or mechanotransduction pathway analyses. Later studies that employed increasingly sophisticated biomaterial-based systems, cells derived from different species, and complex loading regimes, did not necessarily corroborate prior positive results. These studies report positive results with respect to very specific conditions for cellular responses to dynamic load but fail to consistently achieve significant positive changes in relevant tissue engineering parameters, particularly collagen content and stiffness. There is a need for standardized methods and analyses of dynamic mechanical loading systems to guide the field of tissue engineering toward building cartilaginous implants that meet the goal of regenerating articular cartilage.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 170 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 24%
Student > Master 33 19%
Student > Bachelor 22 13%
Researcher 21 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 3%
Other 12 7%
Unknown 37 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 47 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 33 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 7%
Chemical Engineering 5 3%
Other 17 10%
Unknown 44 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 December 2017.
All research outputs
#7,030,867
of 23,011,300 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#1,120
of 6,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#140,294
of 439,919 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#9
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,011,300 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,714 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 439,919 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.