Abstract
Context:
Recent advances in induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing, nanotechnologies, and artificial intelligence have revolutionized regenerative medicine (RM) as a transformative field for tackling difficult medical problems. These breakthroughs promise specific treatments, proper restoration of tissue function, and substantial improvements in the quality of life for patients whose ailments cannot yet be cured.Evidence Acquisition:
This manuscript draws on cutting-edge research on the development and application of RM technologies. It synthesizes data on stem cells, gene therapy, tissue engineering, the in vitro organoid industry, AI, and nanotechnology that illustrate therapeutic potential. It also aims to identify ethical, regulatory, and practical hurdles for translating RM from research to clinical practice.Results:
Breakthroughs such as those in iPSC-derived organoids, CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing, 3D bioprinting, and nanostructured materials exhibit significant promise in preclinical and clinical settings. Platforms such as organ-on-chip and AI tools further enhance drug discovery and treatment monitoring, while biomaterials and scaffold-based approaches enhance tissue repair and regeneration. Nevertheless, despite these advances, challenges persist regarding scale-up, safety, and ethical considerations.Conclusions:
Innovations in RM represent a paradigm shift from purely symptomatic treatments to restorative therapies. Successful integration of RM into clinical practice will require multidisciplinary collaborative work, imposition of rigorous safety protocols, and enabling regulatory frameworks. Addressing these challenges would enable RM to realize its true potential as a foundation for 21st-century healthcare.Keywords
Gene Therapy Wound Healing Stem Cells Organoids 3D Bioprinting CRISPR
1. Context
Regenerative medicine (RM), which emerged in the early 20th century, has transformed from foundational studies on regeneration and development into the forefront of modern cellular therapies (1). Initially rooted in ancient methods of promoting tissue healing, the field now employs sophisticated techniques aimed at restoring natural tissue function in diseased or damaged areas (2). By leveraging advancements in stem cell technology and tissue engineering, RM offers groundbreaking solutions for acute injuries, chronic diseases, and congenital abnormalities (3). The field's evolution is marked by significant milestones, including breakthroughs in transplantation research during the 20th century, and a more recent focus on translational medicine, which seeks to bridge laboratory discoveries with clinical applications (1). Its progress has been shaped by a convergence of commercial, technical, and socioeconomic factors, with recent innovations indicating that RM is approaching a critical phase in its development (4). Emerging cellular therapies and tissue-engineering approaches are poised to replace conventional treatments for joint and bone conditions (2).
Regenerative medicine's potential lies in its ability to revolutionize therapeutic strategies through innovative technologies and pioneering research (5). Central to this progress is ongoing work in stem cell technologies, which underpin diverse methods for tissue and organ regeneration (6). Recent advancements in bioengineering—including mechanobiology, biomaterials, intracellular delivery systems, and computational modeling—have further accelerated progress in the field. Notably, nanotechnology, such as using magnetic nanoparticles that mimic biological structures, has become a powerful tool for enhancing regenerative capabilities. Together, these innovations are breaking new ground, addressing translational challenges, and paving the way for personalized and precise treatments (7-9).
The breadth of RM has expanded significantly with the advent of novel platforms, including tissue engineering, gene editing, and cell sheet technology (Figure 1) (10, 11). These advancements promise to redefine healthcare by offering personalized treatment options beyond symptom management, aiming instead to provide lasting solutions (12). Healthcare systems are expected to experience profound benefits, including improved patient outcomes, enhanced quality of life, and potential cost savings from reduced reliance on chronic care (13). Additionally, new imaging techniques now enable real-time monitoring of responses to regenerative therapies in live subjects, overcoming the limitations of post-mortem evaluations and traditional monitoring methods. This capability facilitates more effective evaluation of treatment outcomes and allows for timely adjustments to therapeutic strategies (14, 15).
Three approaches to regenerative medicine (16).
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/727f0/727f0dbbf272af589c75a9112c67a0caf29ed478" alt="Three approaches to regenerative medicine (16). Three approaches to regenerative medicine (16)."
2. Breakthroughs and Key Developments in Regenerative Medicine
2.1. Stem Cells and Organoids
Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) are increasingly proving transformative for disease modeling, drug screening, and RM (Figure 2). By utilizing human pluripotent stem cells (hPSCs), researchers can generate organoids—3D miniaturized versions of organs that mimic the structure, function, and developmental processes of their full-sized counterparts (10). Notable advancements have been achieved in generating organoids for the human brain, heart, liver, and kidneys (17). Additionally, organs such as the liver, pancreas, and thyroid can now be rapidly and efficiently derived from the anterior definitive endoderm stage through marker-based cell line selection (18-20). These advancements have mitigated the challenges associated with whole-organ culture, paving the way for more effective personalized medicine and drug screening.
Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), -derived organoids and their potential use in regenerative medicine (21).
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/251f4/251f46280df7f75529397d653ee7014f1f8d5b33" alt="Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), -derived organoids and their potential use in regenerative medicine (21). Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), -derived organoids and their potential use in regenerative medicine (21)."
In parallel, researchers have identified molecularly defined factors that enable the immortalization of tissue-resident stem cells, significantly enhancing their utility. For instance, human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) derived from peripheral blood and human dermal fibroblasts can be immortalized through the overexpression of specific phenotypes (22).
The integration of organoids into microfluidic (MF) devices has further revolutionized the field. These "organs-on-a-chip" systems replicate the in vivo environment of specific organs, fulfilling critical engineering requirements for modeling physical, chemical, and biological interactions (23). Since an organ comprises multiple interacting components, MF devices allow researchers to emulate these interactions, standardizing and improving the systems' accuracy (24). Such technologies promise to advance drug discovery, providing physiological data that could ultimately reduce the reliance on animal experiments.
In the context of patient-specific RM, the field continues to make strides in improving the safety and efficiency of iPSCs. These cells have already shown promising results in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease (PD), Alzheimer’s disease (AD), and cardiovascular conditions (25). Meanwhile, mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), derived from sources such as bone marrow, adipose tissue, and neuronal tissue, offer another promising avenue. Importantly, MSCs are less likely to trigger immune rejection, further underscoring their therapeutic potential (26).
Mesenchymal stem cells have shown potential in suppressing T-cell proliferation and modulating immune responses, thereby playing a critical role in reducing organ rejection and alleviating symptoms of autoimmune diseases (27, 28). Furthermore, exosomes—small vesicles containing proteins, lipids, mRNA, and microRNA—derived from MSCs exhibit regenerative properties that address some limitations of traditional cellular therapies, such as immune rejection and tumorigenesis (29, 30). Exosomes also offer scalable, stable, and safe therapeutic effects, particularly in tissue repair.
The rapid growth in clinical trials for stem cell therapies highlights their expanding applications, particularly in cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases (31, 32). For example, iPSCs are being extensively studied for neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson’s disease, where they demonstrate promising effects on neuronal repair and inflammation reduction (33). Hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) remain the most extensively studied stem cells in clinical trials, focusing on leukemia and inherited blood disorders (34). However, ensuring the standardization of effective and reproducible protocols and prioritizing patient safety remains paramount in RM research.
2.2. Advances in Gene Therapy
Regenerative medicine is leveraging cutting-edge tools such as CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology and synthetic mRNA to optimize the effectiveness of cell and gene therapies (35). Among these, CRISPR-Cas9 stands out as a revolutionary technology, enabling precise removal of disease-causing mutations in stem cells. These modified cells can then be transplanted back into patients to restore healthy function (36). The application of gene editing to HSCs has demonstrated significant potential for treating blood disorders and is steadily advancing toward clinical trials (37). Efforts to refine CRISPR-Cas9 have successfully reduced off-target effects, enhancing its safety and feasibility for clinical use (38).
In addition to gene editing, synthetic mRNA therapy has emerged as a powerful tool for influencing cellular behavior, resulting in enhanced tissue regeneration. This approach has shown promising outcomes in repairing heart and spinal cord tissues (39). Looking ahead, the integration of gene-edited stem cells into RM models is expected to revolutionize treatment strategies, expanding the potential for regenerative cell therapy to address chronic diseases such as muscular dystrophy and cystic fibrosis (40).
2.3. 3D Bioprinting and Scaffold Technology
The development of three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting technology, in conjunction with scaffold-based regeneration platforms, has significantly advanced the field of RM (Figure 3) (41). Using bio-inks infused with live cells, 3D bioprinting enables the precise construction of microscale structures that mimic the architecture of target tissues, making them suitable for both research and transplantation purposes (42, 43).
3D bioprinting integrates conventional 3D printing, imaging, and cell-gel to fabricate functional tissue for regenerative medicine (RM), pharmaceutical preclinical drug screening, and animal-free meat (44).
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5b03f/5b03fe3c93e379652b0a6deb778a738951a435a3" alt="3D bioprinting integrates conventional 3D printing, imaging, and cell-gel to fabricate functional tissue for regenerative medicine (RM), pharmaceutical preclinical drug screening, and animal-free meat (44). 3D bioprinting integrates conventional 3D printing, imaging, and cell-gel to fabricate functional tissue for regenerative medicine (RM), pharmaceutical preclinical drug screening, and animal-free meat (44)."
In the short to medium term, evaluating the biological functions of regenerated tissues will be essential. Achieving rapid vascularization and tissue remodeling is a key focus, likely facilitated by the intricate hierarchical patterns and spatial complexity of artificial tissues. These advancements are further enhanced by the integration of cutting-edge scaffold materials (45, 46). Decellularized extracellular matrix (dECM)-based scaffolds have emerged as promising tools for creating mechanically robust and biocompatible tissue patches, particularly in cardiac and orthopedic applications (47, 48).
The incorporation of scaffolding materials also accelerates the use of biodegradable platforms for in-situ growth factor delivery, promoting cell survival, differentiation, and tissue regeneration (49, 50).
2.4. Neurodegeneration and the Role of Soft Robotics
Regenerative medicine presents significant opportunities for addressing neurodegenerative diseases by enhancing the body's inherent self-repair mechanisms (51). Various strategies, including stem cell therapy, gene therapy, and nanomedicine, have been developed to combat conditions such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (52). These interventions primarily leverage neural stem cells, which possess the intrinsic capacity for self-renewal and the ability to differentiate into diverse glial and neuronal cell types (53).
When integrated with biomaterials and tissue engineering, these approaches can regenerate damaged nerves and help preserve healthy neurons and glia (54). Advances in biomaterials, such as electrically conductive hydrogels, have provided critical tools for neuro-regeneration. These hydrogels act as "molecular glue," creating essential connections for nerve repair and facilitating the transmission of electrical impulses between neurons and nerves (55, 56).
Soft robotics, an emerging and transformative field, also holds promise for treating severe nerve injuries by enabling the development of brain-controlled prosthetics and advanced spinal cord implants (57). By utilizing compliant and adaptable materials, soft robotics provides innovative solutions for medical applications, including prosthetics, drug delivery, and minimally invasive surgical tools (58, 59). In RM, the combination of soft robotics with stem cell technologies enhances tissue regeneration, offering a flexible platform to support complex therapeutic functions (59). The integration of living cells into soft robotic systems enables dynamic responses to external stimuli, such as sensing and actuation, unlocking new possibilities for healthcare applications (59, 60).
Additionally, bioelectric circuits are emerging as a powerful technology to accelerate cellular repair processes, offering potential solutions for treating metabolic and neurological disorders (61). The fusion of bioelectric circuits with regenerative scaffolds represents a significant step forward in repairing nerve tissue and advancing the broader field of tissue regeneration.
3. Organs-on-a-Chip and Micro-Physiological Systems
Organ-on-a-chip technology represents a groundbreaking advancement in micro-engineered biomimetic systems, designed to replicate the structural and functional characteristics of human tissues and organs (62). These platforms typically comprise microfluidic channels, cell culture chambers, and stimuli sources, all integrated into oxygen-permeable, transparent materials (63). By mimicking human organ physiology and function, organs-on-a-chip (OOAC) devices provide controlled environments for studying disease mechanisms, testing drugs, and investigating organ interactions (64). Innovations such as liver-on-a-chip, heart-on-a-chip, and multi-organ "body-on-a-chip" systems are transforming drug safety and efficacy assessments, significantly reducing the reliance on animal models (65). These chips allow researchers to recreate disease environments, enabling the testing of new drugs in conditions closely resembling those inside the human body. This approach not only accelerates the translation of laboratory research into clinical applications but also enhances the precision and relevance of experimental outcomes (66).
4. Artificial Intelligence and Nanotechnology in Regenerative Medicine
Artificial intelligence (AI) has introduced transformative advancements to RM, automating iPSC research and enhancing the applicability of technologies for disease modeling and drug discovery. Machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) methods, particularly convolutional neural networks (CNN) and support vector machines (SVM), have been developed to automate the identification and classification of iPSC-derived cells (67, 68). Artificial intelligence systems consistently outperform humans, avoiding judgment subjectivity and reducing errors, which is crucial for the clinical-scale production of human cells (69). AI also leverages big data analytics to identify patterns such as heterogeneity and drug response in iPSC lines derived from diverse genetic backgrounds. This capability allows AI to integrate data and predict potential drugs' qualitative and quantitative effects (70).
Artificial intelligence-guided solutions like DeepNEU and PhenoTox have revolutionized high-throughput, label-free drug screening. These tools enable rapid analysis of drug efficacy and toxicity in iPSC-derived tissues. For example, PhenoTox uses deep learning methods to detect early cellular changes indicative of toxicity—changes that might take a pathologist an average of 15 months to identify. By identifying toxic effects earlier than the human eye can detect them, PhenoTox helps mitigate side effects and enhances the system’s ability to learn and predict induced toxicity (71). During crises like the COVID-19 pandemic, the integration of AI and iPSCs proved invaluable. Artificial intelligence was employed to study the virus's effects on lung cells, uncovering cellular vulnerabilities to COVID-19 infection. This synergistic approach between AI and iPSC technology has demonstrated immense potential to accelerate drug development and regenerative therapies, paving the way for groundbreaking innovations in RM (72).
Nanotechnology plays a pivotal role in RM by advancing the design of nanoparticles for improved drug delivery and stem cell biodynamics. Nanostructured surfaces with biomimetic properties are engineered to integrate seamlessly with host tissues and support cell growth (73). In aesthetic medicine, personalized RM techniques are employed for facial and neck rejuvenation, leveraging nanotechnology for precise interventions (74). Nanocarriers are utilized to transport cell growth factors and protective agents directly to target cells, facilitating tissue repair and anti-aging at the nanoscale (75). Light-triggered nanostructures offer additional therapeutic capabilities, delivering reagents to tissues to rejuvenate cells and prevent damage. The integration of nanotechnology with RM applications—such as plastic surgery, beauty injections, autologous fat transfer, and platelet-rich plasma (PRP)—has enabled personalized and effective treatments for both medical and aesthetic needs (76, 77).
In the realm of tissue engineering, nanotechnology has driven advancements in bioinks for 3D bioprinting. These bioinks require enhanced bioinspired rheological and mechanical properties to replicate soft tissues like kidneys, hearts, and other organs. Hybrid bioinks infused with nanomaterials offer promising solutions to these challenges and are gaining significant attention from researchers. Both natural and synthetic nanomaterials, including carbon nanotubes, graphene oxides, titanium oxides, nanosilicates, nanoclay, and nanocellulose, are being incorporated into 3D bioprinting processes. These materials improve bioprintability, biocompatibility, and biodegradability, addressing critical requirements for successful tissue engineering (Figure 4) (78).
Nanomaterials-based hybrid Bioink Platforms in advancing 3D bioprinting technologies for regenerative medicine (RM) (78)
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/13b57/13b57b8445b39b38263fedb2702c15314969242a" alt="Nanomaterials-based hybrid Bioink Platforms in advancing 3D bioprinting technologies for regenerative medicine (RM) (78) Nanomaterials-based hybrid Bioink Platforms in advancing 3D bioprinting technologies for regenerative medicine (RM) (78)"
5. Conductive Hydrogels and Nanorobotics
The integration of nanorobots with conductive hydrogels represents a groundbreaking advancement in RM, introducing innovative approaches for tissue repair and regeneration (79). Conductive hydrogels are designed to modulate local electric microenvironments across neural tissues, bridging gaps and enhancing cellular communication during nerve repair. These hydrogels can transduce bioelectric signals, effectively mimicking endogenous electrical channels that conduct natural electricity (80, 81). These bioelectric signals are critical for nerve function, playing a key role in transmitting regenerative cues and restoring damaged nerve pathways (82).
Nanorobots, or nanoscale robots, add another dimension to this field. They are anticipated to enable cellular and micro-level operations, including the precise manipulation of nanostructured materials, targeted drug delivery, and tissue treatment without adverse side effects (83, 84). These capabilities open up new possibilities for precise and effective regenerative therapies.
In addition to hydrogels and nanorobots, robotic systems combining these technologies are paving the way for biomechanical artificial organs and prostheses. These devices are designed to replicate natural movements and physiological functions, representing a transformative innovation in RM (60, 85).
6. Ultrasound-Based Extracellular Matrix Bioengineering
Recent advancements in technology have highlighted the pivotal role of acoustic fields, particularly ultrasound (US), in advancing the manufacturing of extracellular matrix (ECM)-based biomaterials (86). Ultrasound techniques enable the spatial organization and molecular cross-linking of ECM materials through thermal and mechanical effects, facilitating the creation of both macro- and nano-scale architectures for scaffold design in tissue engineering (87, 88). By selectively influencing ECM proteins, such as collagen, US can produce highly organized and biomimetic structures that support essential cellular behaviors for tissue repair and regeneration. These engineered scaffolds exhibit enhanced mechanical robustness and superior biological compatibility, critical for successful integration with host tissues (89, 90).
Furthermore, US-driven manipulation of ECM structures can guide cellular orientation and morphology during scaffold polymerization. By altering collagen fiber density and ECM architecture, US enables the fabrication of biomimetic tissues that closely resemble the native cellular environment. This capability makes US an invaluable tool for engineering vascularized tissues and organoids, significantly enhancing their therapeutic potential (91, 92).
7. The Future of Healing: Next-Generation Regenerative Solutions
Regenerative medicine is revolutionizing the future of healing by introducing innovative methods and strategies for tissue repair and reconstruction (93). Duscher (2015) highlighted the vast potential of stem cells in wound healing, positioning them as an optimal choice for clinical applications (94). Similarly, Anitua (2010, 2013) championed the use of endogenous regenerative technologies, leveraging a patient’s own proteins and growth factors to enhance tissue and bone generation (95). A prominent example is PRP, which has demonstrated remarkable results in clinical settings (96). Julier (2017) expanded the scope of regenerative medicine by emphasizing the regulation of immune responses as a promising strategy to create a pro-regenerative environment within injured tissues (97).
These advancements have been successfully translated into clinical practice, as evidenced by the adoption of synthetic bone graft substitutes (98) and licensed artificial skin technologies like ReCell, which have proven effective beyond laboratory trials in real-world scenarios (99). Technological progress in skin RM has led to treatments that not only heal wounds but also improve their functionality (100). The introduction of bioactive dressings, such as hydrogels, alginates, and hydrofibers, has been transformative. These dressings maintain optimal moisture levels for chronic wound management while simultaneously promoting cellular activity (101). Moreover, incorporating growth factors and anti-inflammatory agents into these materials has expanded their utility, advancing from temporary solutions to more comprehensive therapeutic approaches (102).
Autologous fibroblast and keratinocyte-based engineered skin substitutes have further enhanced epidermal regeneration by acting as signaling conduits (103). Collectively, these advancements represent a milestone in personalized medicine, heralding a new era in 21st-century medical innovation (104).
8. Challenges and Policy Implications
The clinical translation of RM faces significant challenges, including the identification of optimal cell sources, the development of suitable biomaterials, and the establishment of reliable methods for cell expansion and three-dimensional culture (105). Cell sheet engineering, a scaffold-free approach that has shown positive clinical outcomes, still encounters obstacles in achieving industrial scalability and widespread adoption (106). Mesenchymal stem cells are particularly promising for clinical applications due to their self-renewal capacity, multilineage differentiation potential, and immunomodulatory properties (107). However, translating basic research into effective therapies demands multidisciplinary collaboration and rigorous attention to safety concerns associated with cell- and tissue-based products (108). Issues such as rapid cell migration from target sites, tumorigenicity risks, and high costs continue to limit the broader application of these technologies (109).
Long-term safety and efficacy remain critical areas for investigation, necessitating well-structured clinical trials (110). Additionally, replicating the complex biological environments of human organs in engineered tissues is an ongoing challenge (111). Expanding research to include larger sample sizes and conducting comprehensive long-term evaluations will be essential for overcoming these barriers and advancing regenerative technologies into routine clinical practice (112).
Regenerative medicine presents complex policy challenges that require innovative approaches to stakeholder engagement and regulation. These "wicked policy issues" involve a diverse array of stakeholders with competing interests, highlighting the need for effective public education and engagement strategies (113). The field also grapples with ethical, legal, and social implications, necessitating comprehensive efforts in capacity building, policy development, industry collaboration, research ethics, communication, and community engagement (114). The development of new regulatory regimes for advanced therapies poses the risk of stifling innovation if they simply extend existing frameworks without accommodating the unique aspects of RM (115).
To address these concerns, a "responsible research and innovation" (RRI) approach has been proposed. This approach integrates insights from science and technology studies to facilitate the responsible acceleration of RM. It seeks to balance the urgency for rapid access to cell therapies with the imperative for readiness, safety, and value creation in the field (116). Furthermore, establishing uniform standards is essential to protect patients from the risks associated with unproven stem cell interventions while supporting the advancement of promising RM products (117).
9. Case Studies: Mayo Clinic's Model
9.1. Mayo Clinic's Integration of Regenerative Medicine
The Mayo Clinic serves as a leading example of the successful integration of RM into clinical practice. Their model includes:
9.2. Discovery-Translation-Application Framework
The Mayo Clinic has developed a structured approach that spans from initial research through to clinical application, ensuring that new therapies are rigorously tested and validated before being offered to patients (118).
9.3. Patient-Centered Care
Emphasizing a patient-centered model, the clinic integrates regenerative therapies within existing medical specialties, facilitating access and continuity of care (118, 119).
9.4. Clinical Trials as Catalysts
Ongoing clinical trials play a critical role in assessing new regenerative treatments, providing valuable data on their effectiveness, and guiding future applications (119).
10. Conclusions
Regenerative medicine represents a promising and diverse interdisciplinary platform with the potential to shift the focus of healthcare from symptom-based treatment to achieving true restoration of health. With advancements in stem cell technology, gene editing, and bioengineering, the prospects for personalized treatments and the reconstruction of tissues and organs have reached unprecedented heights. Innovations such as 3D bioprinting, organoids, and cutting-edge scaffolding techniques are already turning some long-held aspirations into reality, addressing conditions once deemed untreatable.
However, significant challenges remain on the path to widespread clinical translation. Key barriers include ensuring patient safety, navigating ethical and regulatory complexities, and addressing logistical concerns, all of which are critical for achieving public acceptance of these transformative technologies. To fully realize the revolutionary potential of regenerative medicine, closer collaboration between researchers, clinicians, and policymakers is essential. This interdisciplinary synergy will be instrumental in overcoming the existing hurdles and paving the way for a new era of medical therapies. By doing so, RM can profoundly reshape the future of healthcare, offering innovative solutions for both physical and mental health restoration.
References
-
1.
Maienschein J. Regenerative medicine's historical roots in regeneration, transplantation, and translation. Dev Biol. 2011;358(2):278-84. [PubMed ID: 20561516]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2010.06.014.
-
2.
Vaish A, Murrell W, Vaishya R. History of regenerative medicine in the field of orthopedics. J Arthroscopic Surgery Sports Med. 2020;1:154-8. https://doi.org/10.25259/jassm_12_2020.
-
3.
Sampogna G, Guraya SY, Forgione A. Regenerative medicine: Historical roots and potential strategies in modern medicine. J Microsc Ultrastruct. 2015;3(3):101-7. [PubMed ID: 30023189]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC6014277]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmau.2015.05.002.
-
4.
Kemp P. History of regenerative medicine: looking backwards to move forwards. Regen Med. 2006;1(5):653-69. [PubMed ID: 17465733]. https://doi.org/10.2217/17460751.1.5.653.
-
5.
Mironov V, Visconti RP, Markwald RR. What is regenerative medicine? Emergence of applied stem cell and developmental biology. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2004;4(6):773-81. [PubMed ID: 15174961]. https://doi.org/10.1517/14712598.4.6.773.
-
6.
Park DH, Eve DJ. Regenerative medicine: advances in new methods and technologies. Med Sci Monit. 2009;15(11):RA233-51. [PubMed ID: 19865067].
-
7.
Engel E, Michiardi A, Navarro M, Lacroix D, Planell JA. Nanotechnology in regenerative medicine: the materials side. Trends Biotechnol. 2008;26(1):39-47. [PubMed ID: 18036685]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2007.10.005.
-
8.
Gao Y, Lim J, Teoh SH, Xu C. Emerging translational research on magnetic nanoparticles for regenerative medicine. Chem Soc Rev. 2015;44(17):6306-29. [PubMed ID: 26505058]. https://doi.org/10.1039/c4cs00322e.
-
9.
Mata A, Azevedo HS, Botto L, Gavara N, Su L. New Bioengineering Breakthroughs and Enabling Tools in Regenerative Medicine. Curr Stem Cell Rep. 2017;3(2):83-97. [PubMed ID: 28596936]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC5445180]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40778-017-0081-9.
-
10.
Mahla RS. Stem Cells Applications in Regenerative Medicine and Disease Therapeutics. Int J Cell Biol. 2016;2016:6940283. [PubMed ID: 27516776]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC4969512]. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/6940283.
-
11.
Dzobo K, Thomford NE, Senthebane DA, Shipanga H, Rowe A, Dandara C, et al. Advances in Regenerative Medicine and Tissue Engineering: Innovation and Transformation of Medicine. Stem Cells Int. 2018;2018:2495848. [PubMed ID: 30154861]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC6091336]. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/2495848.
-
12.
Minvielle E, Fourcade A, Ricketts T, Waelli M. Current developments in delivering customized care: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):575. [PubMed ID: 34120603]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC8201906]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06576-0.
-
13.
Braithwaite J, Vincent C, Garcia-Elorrio E, Imanaka Y, Nicklin W, Sodzi-Tettey S, et al. Transformational improvement in quality care and health systems: the next decade. BMC Med. 2020;18(1):340. [PubMed ID: 33115453]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC7594452]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01739-y.
-
14.
Rong J, Liu Y. Advances in medical imaging techniques. BMC Methods. 2024;1(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s44330-024-00010-7.
-
15.
Fitzgerald RC, Antoniou AC, Fruk L, Rosenfeld N. The future of early cancer detection. Nat Med. 2022;28(4):666-77. [PubMed ID: 35440720]. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-01746-x.
-
16.
Armstrong JPK, Keane TJ, Roques AC, Patrick PS, Mooney CM, Kuan WL, et al. A blueprint for translational regenerative medicine. Sci Transl Med. 2020;12(572). [PubMed ID: 33268507]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC7610850]. https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.aaz2253.
-
17.
Tang XY, Wu S, Wang D, Chu C, Hong Y, Tao M, et al. Human organoids in basic research and clinical applications. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2022;7(1):168. [PubMed ID: 35610212]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC9127490]. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41392-022-01024-9.
-
18.
Mahaddalkar PU, Scheibner K, Pfluger S, Sterr M, Beckenbauer J; Ansarullah, et al. Generation of pancreatic beta cells from CD177(+) anterior definitive endoderm. Nat Biotechnol. 2020;38(9):1061-72. [PubMed ID: 32341565]. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-020-0492-5.
-
19.
Morrison GM, Oikonomopoulou I, Migueles RP, Soneji S, Livigni A, Enver T, et al. Anterior definitive endoderm from ESCs reveals a role for FGF signaling. Cell Stem Cell. 2008;3(4):402-15. [PubMed ID: 18940732]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2008.07.021.
-
20.
Posabella A, Alber AB, Undeutsch HJ, Droeser RA, Hollenberg AN, Ikonomou L, et al. Derivation of Thyroid Follicular Cells From Pluripotent Stem Cells: Insights From Development and Implications for Regenerative Medicine. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2021;12:666565. [PubMed ID: 33959101]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC8095374]. https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2021.666565.
-
21.
Turhan AG, Hwang JW, Chaker D, Tasteyre A, Latsis T, Griscelli F, et al. iPSC-Derived Organoids as Therapeutic Models in Regenerative Medicine and Oncology. Front Med (Lausanne). 2021;8:728543. [PubMed ID: 34722569]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC8548367]. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.728543.
-
22.
Inada H, Udono M, Matsuda-Ito K, Horisawa K, Ohkawa Y, Miura S, et al. Direct reprogramming of human umbilical vein- and peripheral blood-derived endothelial cells into hepatic progenitor cells. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):5292. [PubMed ID: 33087715]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC7578104]. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19041-z.
-
23.
Ingber DE. Human organs-on-chips for disease modelling, drug development and personalized medicine. Nat Rev Genet. 2022;23(8):467-91. [PubMed ID: 35338360]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC8951665]. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-022-00466-9.
-
24.
Sung JH, Wang Y, Shuler ML. Strategies for using mathematical modeling approaches to design and interpret multi-organ microphysiological systems (MPS). APL Bioeng. 2019;3(2):21501. [PubMed ID: 31263796]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC6586554]. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5097675.
-
25.
Musunuru K, Sheikh F, Gupta RM, Houser SR, Maher KO, Milan DJ, et al. Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells for Cardiovascular Disease Modeling and Precision Medicine: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation: Genom Precision Med. 2018;11(1). https://doi.org/10.1161/hcg.0000000000000043.
-
26.
Berebichez-Fridman R, Montero-Olvera PR. Sources and Clinical Applications of Mesenchymal Stem Cells: State-of-the-art review. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J. 2018;18(3):e264-77. [PubMed ID: 30607265]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC6307657]. https://doi.org/10.18295/squmj.2018.18.03.002.
-
27.
Cagliani J, Grande D, Molmenti EP, Miller EJ, Rilo HLR. Immunomodulation by Mesenchymal Stromal Cells and Their Clinical Applications. J Stem Cell Regen Biol. 2017;3(2). [PubMed ID: 29104965]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC5667922]. https://doi.org/10.15436/2471-0598.17.022.
-
28.
Sargent A, Miller RH. MSC Therapeutics in Chronic Inflammation. Curr Stem Cell Rep. 2016;2(2):168-73. [PubMed ID: 28133600]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC5267490]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40778-016-0044-6.
-
29.
Lotfy A, AboQuella NM, Wang H. Mesenchymal stromal/stem cell (MSC)-derived exosomes in clinical trials. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2023;14(1):66. [PubMed ID: 37024925]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC10079493]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13287-023-03287-7.
-
30.
Hassanzadeh A, Rahman HS, Markov A, Endjun JJ, Zekiy AO, Chartrand MS, et al. Mesenchymal stem/stromal cell-derived exosomes in regenerative medicine and cancer; overview of development, challenges, and opportunities. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2021;12(1):297. [PubMed ID: 34020704]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC8138094]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13287-021-02378-7.
-
31.
Yang Z, Li Y, Wang Z. Recent Advances in the Application of Mesenchymal Stem Cell-Derived Exosomes for Cardiovascular and Neurodegenerative Disease Therapies. Pharmaceutics. 2022;14(3). [PubMed ID: 35335993]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC8949563]. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics14030618.
-
32.
Hassanzadeh A, Shomali N, Kamrani A, Nasiri H, Ahmadian Heris J, Pashaiasl M, et al. Detailed role of mesenchymal stem cell (MSC)-derived exosome therapy in cardiac diseases. EXCLI J. 2024;23:401-20. [PubMed ID: 38741729]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC11089093]. https://doi.org/10.17179/excli2023-6538.
-
33.
Jarbaek Nielsen JJ, Lillethorup TP, Glud AN, Hedemann Sorensen JC, Orlowski D. The application of iPSCs in Parkinson's disease. Acta Neurobiol Exp (Wars). 2020;80(3):273-85. [PubMed ID: 32990285].
-
34.
Mosaad YM. Hematopoietic stem cells: an overview. Transfus Apher Sci. 2014;51(3):68-82. [PubMed ID: 25457002]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.transci.2014.10.016.
-
35.
Han AR, Shin HR, Kwon J, Lee SB, Lee SE, Kim EY, et al. Highly efficient genome editing via CRISPR-Cas9 ribonucleoprotein (RNP) delivery in mesenchymal stem cells. BMB Rep. 2024;57(1):60-5. [PubMed ID: 38053293]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC10828435]. https://doi.org/10.5483/BMBRep.2023-0113.
-
36.
Hsu MN, Chang YH, Truong VA, Lai PL, Nguyen TKN, Hu YC. CRISPR technologies for stem cell engineering and regenerative medicine. Biotechnol Adv. 2019;37(8):107447. [PubMed ID: 31513841]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2019.107447.
-
37.
Bak RO, Dever DP, Porteus MH. CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing in human hematopoietic stem cells. Nat Protoc. 2018;13(2):358-76. [PubMed ID: 29370156]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC5826598]. https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2017.143.
-
38.
Guo C, Ma X, Gao F, Guo Y. Off-target effects in CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2023;11:1143157. [PubMed ID: 36970624]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC10034092]. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2023.1143157.
-
39.
Chanda PK, Sukhovershin R, Cooke JP. mRNA-Enhanced Cell Therapy and Cardiovascular Regeneration. Cells. 2021;10(1). [PubMed ID: 33477787]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC7832270]. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells10010187.
-
40.
Becker HJ, Ishida R, Wilkinson AC, Kimura T, Lee MSJ, Coban C, et al. Controlling genetic heterogeneity in gene-edited hematopoietic stem cells by single-cell expansion. Cell Stem Cell. 2023;30(7):987-1000 e8. [PubMed ID: 37385251]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC10338855]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2023.06.002.
-
41.
Moroni L, Burdick JA, Highley C, Lee SJ, Morimoto Y, Takeuchi S, et al. Biofabrication strategies for 3D in vitro models and regenerative medicine. Nat Rev Mater. 2018;3(5):21-37. [PubMed ID: 31223488]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC6586020]. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-018-0006-y.
-
42.
Vazquez-Aristizabal P, Perumal G, Garcia-Astrain C, Liz-Marzan LM, Izeta A. Trends in Tissue Bioprinting, Cell-Laden Bioink Formulation, and Cell Tracking. ACS Omega. 2022;7(19):16236-43. [PubMed ID: 35601337]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC9118380]. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.2c01398.
-
43.
Gungor-Ozkerim PS, Inci I, Zhang YS, Khademhosseini A, Dokmeci MR. Bioinks for 3D bioprinting: an overview. Biomater Sci. 2018;6(5):915-46. [PubMed ID: 29492503]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC6439477]. https://doi.org/10.1039/c7bm00765e.
-
44.
Ramadan Q, Zourob M. 3D Bioprinting at the Frontier of Regenerative Medicine, Pharmaceutical, and Food Industries. Front Med Technol. 2020;2:607648. [PubMed ID: 35047890]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC8757855]. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmedt.2020.607648.
-
45.
Dalton PD, Woodfield TBF, Mironov V, Groll J. Advances in Hybrid Fabrication toward Hierarchical Tissue Constructs. Adv Sci (Weinh). 2020;7(11):1902953. [PubMed ID: 32537395]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC7284200]. https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.201902953.
-
46.
Ratri MC, Brilian AI, Setiawati A, Nguyen HT, Soum V, Shin K. Recent Advances in Regenerative Tissue Fabrication: Tools, Materials, and Microenvironment in Hierarchical Aspects. Advanced NanoBiomed Research. 2021;1(5). https://doi.org/10.1002/anbr.202170053.
-
47.
Isaeva EV, Beketov EE, Arguchinskaya NV, Ivanov Scapital A C, Shegay PV, Kaprin capital A C. Decellularized Extracellular Matrix for Tissue Engineering (Review). Sovrem Tekhnologii Med. 2022;14(3):57-68. [PubMed ID: 37064810]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC10090917]. https://doi.org/10.17691/stm2022.14.3.07.
-
48.
Rothrauff BB, Tuan RS. Decellularized bone extracellular matrix in skeletal tissue engineering. Biochem Soc Trans. 2020;48(3):755-64. [PubMed ID: 32369551]. https://doi.org/10.1042/BST20190079.
-
49.
Kim Y, Vijayavenkataraman S, Cidonio G. Biomaterials and scaffolds for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. BMC Methods. 2024;1(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s44330-024-00002-7.
-
50.
Wang Z, Wang Z, Lu WW, Zhen W, Yang D, Peng S. Novel biomaterial strategies for controlled growth factor delivery for biomedical applications. NPG Asia Materials. 2017;9(10):e435. https://doi.org/10.1038/am.2017.171.
-
51.
Velikic G, Maric DM, Maric DL, Supic G, Puletic M, Dulic O, et al. Harnessing the Stem Cell Niche in Regenerative Medicine: Innovative Avenue to Combat Neurodegenerative Diseases. Int J Mol Sci. 2024;25(2). [PubMed ID: 38256066]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC10816024]. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms25020993.
-
52.
Ashraf SS, Hosseinpour Sarmadi V, Larijani G, Naderi Garahgheshlagh S, Ramezani S, Moghadamifar S, et al. Regenerative medicine improve neurodegenerative diseases. Cell Tissue Bank. 2023;24(3):639-50. [PubMed ID: 36527565]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10561-022-10062-0.
-
53.
Storch A, Schwarz J. Neural stem cells and neurodegeneration. Curr Opin Investig Drugs. 2002;3(5):774-81. [PubMed ID: 12090552].
-
54.
Esmaeili A, Eteghadi A, Landi FS, Yavari SF, Taghipour N. Recent approaches in regenerative medicine in the fight against neurodegenerative disease. Brain Res. 2024;1825:148688. [PubMed ID: 38042394]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2023.148688.
-
55.
Tan Z, Xiao L, Ma J, Shi K, Liu J, Feng F, et al. Integrating hydrogels manipulate ECM deposition after spinal cord injury for specific neural reconnections via neuronal relays. Sci Adv. 2024;10(27):eado9120. [PubMed ID: 38959311]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC11221524]. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.ado9120.
-
56.
Li W, Yang X, Lai P, Shang L. Bio-inspired adhesive hydrogel for biomedicine-principles and design strategies. Smart Med. 2022;1(1). e20220024. [PubMed ID: 39188733]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC11235927]. https://doi.org/10.1002/SMMD.20220024.
-
57.
Cappello L, Meyer JT, Galloway KC, Peisner JD, Granberry R, Wagner DA, et al. Assisting hand function after spinal cord injury with a fabric-based soft robotic glove. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2018;15(1):59. [PubMed ID: 29954401]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC6022347]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-018-0391-x.
-
58.
Singh T. Recent Developments of Soft Robotics in Medical Applications. J Student Res. 2023;12(1). https://doi.org/10.47611/jsrhs.v12i1.4092.
-
59.
Patino T, Mestre R, Sanchez S. Miniaturized soft bio-hybrid robotics: a step forward into healthcare applications. Lab Chip. 2016;16(19):3626-30. [PubMed ID: 27550016]. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6lc90088g.
-
60.
Kim S, Laschi C, Trimmer B. Soft robotics: a bioinspired evolution in robotics. Trends Biotechnol. 2013;31(5):287-94. [PubMed ID: 23582470]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2013.03.002.
-
61.
McLaughlin KA, Levin M. Bioelectric signaling in regeneration: Mechanisms of ionic controls of growth and form. Dev Biol. 2018;433(2):177-89. [PubMed ID: 29291972]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC5753428]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2017.08.032.
-
62.
Singh D, Mathur A, Arora S, Roy S, Mahindroo N. Journey of organ on a chip technology and its role in future healthcare scenario. Applied Surface Science Advances. 2022;9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsadv.2022.100246.
-
63.
Ko J, Park D, Lee S, Gumuscu B, Jeon NL. Engineering Organ-on-a-Chip to Accelerate Translational Research. Micromachines (Basel). 2022;13(8). [PubMed ID: 36014122]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC9412404]. https://doi.org/10.3390/mi13081200.
-
64.
Low LA, Tagle DA. Organs-on-chips: Progress, challenges, and future directions. Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2017;242(16):1573-8. [PubMed ID: 28343437]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC5661765]. https://doi.org/10.1177/1535370217700523.
-
65.
Zhang B, Korolj A, Lai BFL, Radisic M. Advances in organ-on-a-chip engineering. Nature Reviews Materials. 2018;3(8):257-78. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-018-0034-7.
-
66.
Atala A. Advances in tissue and organ replacement. Curr Stem Cell Res Ther. 2008;3(1):21-31. [PubMed ID: 18220920]. https://doi.org/10.2174/157488808783489435.
-
67.
Mukherjee S, Yadav G, Kumar R. Recent trends in stem cell-based therapies and applications of artificial intelligence in regenerative medicine. World J Stem Cells. 2021;13(6):521-41. [PubMed ID: 34249226]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC8246250]. https://doi.org/10.4252/wjsc.v13.i6.521.
-
68.
Pandit S, Jamal T, Ali A, Parthasarathi R. Multiscale computational and machine learning models for designing stem cell-based regenerative medicine therapies. Computational Biology for Stem Cell Research. Netherlands, USA: Elsevier; 2024. p. 433-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-443-13222-3.00027-7.
-
69.
Beheshtizadeh N, Gharibshahian M, Pazhouhnia Z, Rostami M, Zangi AR, Maleki R, et al. Commercialization and regulation of regenerative medicine products: Promises, advances and challenges. Biomed Pharmacother. 2022;153:113431. [PubMed ID: 36076549]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2022.113431.
-
70.
Sanchez de la Nava AM, Arenal A, Fernandez-Aviles F, Atienza F. Artificial Intelligence-Driven Algorithm for Drug Effect Prediction on Atrial Fibrillation: An in silico Population of Models Approach. Front Physiol. 2021;12:768468. [PubMed ID: 34938202]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC8685526]. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2021.768468.
-
71.
Esmail S, Danter WR. DeepNEU: Artificially Induced Stem Cell (aiPSC) and Differentiated Skeletal Muscle Cell (aiSkMC) Simulations of Infantile Onset POMPE Disease (IOPD) for Potential Biomarker Identification and Drug Discovery. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2019;7:325. [PubMed ID: 31867331]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC6909925]. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcell.2019.00325.
-
72.
Wang H, Li X, You X, Zhao G. Harnessing the power of artificial intelligence for human living organoid research. Bioact Mater. 2024;42:140-64. [PubMed ID: 39280585]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC11402070]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioactmat.2024.08.027.
-
73.
Khalilov R. A comprehensive review of advanced nano-biomaterials in regenerative medicine and drug delivery. Advances Biol Earth Sci. 2023;8(1).
-
74.
Crowley JS, Liu A, Dobke M. Regenerative and stem cell-based techniques for facial rejuvenation. Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2021;246(16):1829-37. [PubMed ID: 34102897]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC8381699]. https://doi.org/10.1177/15353702211020701.
-
75.
Trovato F, Ceccarelli S, Michelini S, Vespasiani G, Guida S, Galadari HI, et al. Advancements in Regenerative Medicine for Aesthetic Dermatology: A Comprehensive Review and Future Trends. Cosmetics. 2024;11(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/cosmetics11020049.
-
76.
Graça MF, Moreira AF, Correia IJ. Application of near-infrared light responsive biomaterials for improving the wound healing process: A review. J Drug Delivery Sci Technol. 2024;93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jddst.2024.105409.
-
77.
La Padula S, Ponzo M, Lombardi M, Iazzetta V, Errico C, Polverino G, et al. Nanofat in Plastic Reconstructive, Regenerative, and Aesthetic Surgery: A Review of Advancements in Face-Focused Applications. J Clin Med. 2023;12(13). [PubMed ID: 37445386]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC10342690]. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12134351.
-
78.
Chandra DK, Reis RL, Kundu SC, Kumar A, Mahapatra C. Nanomaterials-Based Hybrid Bioink Platforms in Advancing 3D Bioprinting Technologies for Regenerative Medicine. ACS Biomater Sci Eng. 2024;10(7):4145-74. [PubMed ID: 38822783]. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsbiomaterials.4c00166.
-
79.
Nie M, Zhao Q, Du X. Recent advances in small-scale hydrogel-based robots for adaptive biomedical applications. Nano Res. 2023;17(2):649-62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12274-023-6184-y.
-
80.
Zhang X, Chen X, Ye Z, Liu W, Liu X, Wang X. Conductive hydrogels for bioelectronics: molecular structures, design principles, and operation mechanisms. J Materials Chemistry C. 2023;11(32):10785-808. https://doi.org/10.1039/d3tc01821k.
-
81.
Saberi A, Jabbari F, Zarrintaj P, Saeb MR, Mozafari M. Electrically Conductive Materials: Opportunities and Challenges in Tissue Engineering. Biomolecules. 2019;9(9). [PubMed ID: 31487913]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC6770812]. https://doi.org/10.3390/biom9090448.
-
82.
Du J, Zhen G, Chen H, Zhang S, Qing L, Yang X, et al. Optimal electrical stimulation boosts stem cell therapy in nerve regeneration. Biomaterials. 2018;181:347-59. [PubMed ID: 30098570]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC6201278]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.07.015.
-
83.
Bijli MK, Verma P, Singh AP. A systematic review on the potency of swarm intelligent nanorobots in the medical field. Swarm Evolutionary Computation. 2024;86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.swevo.2024.101524.
-
84.
Tertis M, Cernat A, Mirel S, Cristea C. Nanodevices for Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Applications. Analytical Letters. 2020;54(1-2):98-123. https://doi.org/10.1080/00032719.2020.1728292.
-
85.
Coyle S, Majidi C, LeDuc P, Hsia K. Bio-inspired soft robotics: Material selection, actuation, and design. Extreme Mechanics Letters. 2018;22:51-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eml.2018.05.003.
-
86.
Dalecki D, Hocking DC. Advancing Ultrasound Technologies for Tissue Engineering. Handbook of Ultrasonics and Sonochemistry. Singapore: Springer Singapore; 2016. p. 1101-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-278-4_28.
-
87.
Blatchley MR, Anseth KS. Middle-out methods for spatiotemporal tissue engineering of organoids. Nat Rev Bioeng. 2023;1(5):329-45. [PubMed ID: 37168734]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC10010248]. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44222-023-00039-3.
-
88.
Melde K, Athanassiadis AG, Missirlis D, Shi M, Seneca S, Fischer P. Ultrasound-assisted tissue engineering. Nature Rev Bioengineering. 2024;2(6):486-500. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44222-024-00166-5.
-
89.
Loh QL, Choong C. Three-dimensional scaffolds for tissue engineering applications: role of porosity and pore size. Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 2013;19(6):485-502. [PubMed ID: 23672709]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC3826579]. https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.TEB.2012.0437.
-
90.
Ye Q, Zhang Y, Dai K, Chen X, Read HM, Zeng L, et al. Three dimensional printed bioglass/gelatin/alginate composite scaffolds with promoted mechanical strength, biomineralization, cell responses and osteogenesis. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2020;31(9):77. [PubMed ID: 32816067]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-020-06413-6.
-
91.
Cox TR, Erler JT. Remodeling and homeostasis of the extracellular matrix: implications for fibrotic diseases and cancer. Dis Model Mech. 2011;4(2):165-78. [PubMed ID: 21324931]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC3046088]. https://doi.org/10.1242/dmm.004077.
-
92.
Sun B. The mechanics of fibrillar collagen extracellular matrix. Cell Rep Phys Sci. 2021;2(8). [PubMed ID: 34485951]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC8415638]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrp.2021.100515.
-
93.
Forbes SJ, Rosenthal N. Preparing the ground for tissue regeneration: from mechanism to therapy. Nat Med. 2014;20(8):857-69. [PubMed ID: 25100531]. https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.3653.
-
94.
Duscher D, Barrera J, Wong VW, Maan ZN, Whittam AJ, Januszyk M, et al. Stem Cells in Wound Healing: The Future of Regenerative Medicine? A Mini-Review. Gerontology. 2016;62(2):216-25. [PubMed ID: 26045256]. https://doi.org/10.1159/000381877.
-
95.
Anitua E, Sanchez M, Orive G. Potential of endogenous regenerative technology for in situ regenerative medicine. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2010;62(7-8):741-52. [PubMed ID: 20102730]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2010.01.001.
-
96.
Kale P, Shrivastava S, Pundkar A, Balusani P. Harnessing Healing Power: A Comprehensive Review on Platelet-Rich Plasma in Compound Fracture Care. Cureus. 2024. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.52722.
-
97.
Julier Z, Park AJ, Briquez PS, Martino MM. Promoting tissue regeneration by modulating the immune system. Acta Biomater. 2017;53:13-28. [PubMed ID: 28119112]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2017.01.056.
-
98.
Sohn HS, Oh JK. Review of bone graft and bone substitutes with an emphasis on fracture surgeries. Biomater Res. 2019;23:9. [PubMed ID: 30915231]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC6417250]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40824-019-0157-y.
-
99.
Pleguezuelos-Beltran P, Galvez-Martin P, Nieto-Garcia D, Marchal JA, Lopez-Ruiz E. Advances in spray products for skin regeneration. Bioact Mater. 2022;16:187-203. [PubMed ID: 35386328]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC8965724]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioactmat.2022.02.023.
-
100.
Mahajan N, Soker S, Murphy SV. Regenerative Medicine Approaches for Skin Wound Healing: from Allografts to Engineered Skin Substitutes. Current Transplantation Rep. 2024;11(4):207-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40472-024-00453-5.
-
101.
Schoukens G. Bioactive dressings to promote wound healing. Advanced Textiles for Wound Care. Sawston, England: Woodhead; 2019. p. 135-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-102192-7.00005-9.
-
102.
Koehler J, Brandl FP, Goepferich AM. Hydrogel wound dressings for bioactive treatment of acute and chronic wounds. Europ Polymer J. 2018;100:1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2017.12.046.
-
103.
Sierra-Sanchez A, Kim KH, Blasco-Morente G, Arias-Santiago S. Cellular human tissue-engineered skin substitutes investigated for deep and difficult to heal injuries. NPJ Regen Med. 2021;6(1):35. [PubMed ID: 34140525]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC8211795]. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41536-021-00144-0.
-
104.
Sharma Y, Ghatak S, Sen CK, Mohanty S. Emerging technologies in regenerative medicine: The future of wound care and therapy. J Mol Med (Berl). 2024;102(12):1425-50. [PubMed ID: 39358606]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00109-024-02493-x.
-
105.
Polak JM, Mantalaris S. Stem cells bioprocessing: an important milestone to move regenerative medicine research into the clinical arena. Pediatr Res. 2008;63(5):461-6. [PubMed ID: 18427288]. https://doi.org/10.1203/pdr.0b013e31816a8c1c.
-
106.
Owaki T, Shimizu T, Yamato M, Okano T. Cell sheet engineering for regenerative medicine: current challenges and strategies. Biotechnol J. 2014;9(7):904-14. [PubMed ID: 24964041]. https://doi.org/10.1002/biot.201300432.
-
107.
Hosseini S, Taghiyar L, Safari F, Baghaban Eslaminejad M. Regenerative Medicine Applications of Mesenchymal Stem Cells. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2018;1089:115-41. [PubMed ID: 29767289]. https://doi.org/10.1007/5584_2018_213.
-
108.
Chen FM, Zhao YM, Jin Y, Shi S. Prospects for translational regenerative medicine. Biotechnol Adv. 2012;30(3):658-72. [PubMed ID: 22138411]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2011.11.005.
-
109.
Wang Z. Assessing Tumorigenicity in Stem Cell-Derived Therapeutic Products: A Critical Step in Safeguarding Regenerative Medicine. Bioengineering (Basel). 2023;10(7). [PubMed ID: 37508884]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC10376867]. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering10070857.
-
110.
Marks P, Gottlieb S. Balancing Safety and Innovation for Cell-Based Regenerative Medicine. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(10):954-9. [PubMed ID: 29514023]. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsr1715626.
-
111.
Liu S, Yu JM, Gan YC, Qiu XZ, Gao ZC, Wang H, et al. Biomimetic natural biomaterials for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine: new biosynthesis methods, recent advances, and emerging applications. Mil Med Res. 2023;10(1):16. [PubMed ID: 36978167]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC10047482]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40779-023-00448-w.
-
112.
Staller KM. Big enough? Sampling in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Social Work. 2021;20(4):897-904. https://doi.org/10.1177/14733250211024516.
-
113.
Zarzeczny A, McNutt K. Wicked policy issues in regenerative medicine and the need to explore new avenues for public engagement. Regen Med. 2017;12(7):749-52. [PubMed ID: 29111875]. https://doi.org/10.2217/rme-2017-0108.
-
114.
Illes J, Sipp D, Kleiderman E, Benjaminy S, Isasi R, Lomax G, et al. A blueprint for the next generation of ELSI research, training, and outreach in regenerative medicine. NPJ Regen Med. 2017;2:21. [PubMed ID: 29302357]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC5677945]. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41536-017-0026-z.
-
115.
Sethe SC. The implications of "advanced therapies" regulation. Rejuvenation Res. 2010;13(2-3):327-8. [PubMed ID: 20462386]. https://doi.org/10.1089/rej.2009.0966.
-
116.
Webster A. Regenerative medicine and responsible research and innovation: proposals for a responsible acceleration to the clinic. Regen Med. 2017;12(7):853-64. [PubMed ID: 29094647]. https://doi.org/10.2217/rme-2017-0028.
-
117.
Lomax GP, Torres A, Millan MT. Regulated, reliable, and reputable: Protect patients with uniform standards for stem cell treatments. Stem Cells Transl Med. 2020;9(5):547-53. [PubMed ID: 32040254]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC7180289]. https://doi.org/10.1002/sctm.19-0377.
-
118.
Terzic A, Pfenning MA, Gores GJ, Harper CJ. Regenerative Medicine Build-Out. Stem Cells Transl Med. 2015;4(12):1373-9. [PubMed ID: 26537392]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC4675513]. https://doi.org/10.5966/sctm.2015-0275.
-
119.
Bhutambare V, Kamble C, Khilari S, Bhalekar D, Gawari P, Kanase A. Innovative Strategies in Regenerative Medicine: Bridging Science and Clinical Practice. Int J Advanced Res Science, Communication Technol. 2024:186-95. https://doi.org/10.48175/IJARSCT-22230.