The central nervous system shows a limited regenerative capacity, and injuries or diseases, such as those in the spinal, brain and retina, are a great problem since current therapies seem to be unable to achieve good results in terms of significant functional recovery. Different promising therapies have been suggested, the aim being to restore at least some of the lost functions. The current review deals with the use of hydrogels in developing advanced devices for central nervous system therapeutic strategies. Several approaches, involving cell-based therapy, delivery of bioactive molecules and nanoparticle-based drug delivery, will be first reviewed. Finally, some examples of injectable hydrogels for the delivery of bioactive molecules in central nervous system will be reported, and the key features as well as the basic principles in designing multifunctional devices will be described.
TamRYFuehrmannTMitrousisN. Regenerative therapies for central nervous system diseases: a biomaterials approach. Neuropsychopharmacology2014; 39: 169–188.
2.
DavieCA. A review of Parkinson’s disease. Br Med Bull2008; 86: 109–127.
3.
CitronM. Alzheimer’s disease: strategies for disease modification. Nat Rev Drug Discov2010; 9: 387–398.
BrunsTJHauserWA. The epidemiology of traumatic brain injury: a review. Epilepsia2003; 44: 2–10.
6.
LoEHDalkaraTMoskowitzMA. Mechanisms, challenges and opportunities in stroke. Nat Rev Neurosci2003; 4: 399–415.
7.
SekhonLHSFehlingsMG. Epidemiology, demographics, and pathophysiology of acute spinal cord injury. Spine2001; 26: S2–S12.
8.
ShintaniKShechtmanDLGurwoodAS. Review and update: current treatment trends for patients with retinitis pigmentosa. Optometry2009; 80: 384–401.
9.
De JongPT. Age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med2006; 355: 1474–1485.
10.
FitchMTSilverJ. CNS injury, glial scars, and inflammation: inhibitory extracellular matrices and regeneration failure. Exp Neurol2008; 209: 294–301.
11.
PakulskaMMBalliosBGShoichetMS. Injectable hydrogels for central nervous system therapy. Biomed Mater2012; 7: 024101.
12.
ShoichetMSTateCCBaumannMD. Strategies for regeneration and repair in the injured central nervous system. In: ReichertWM (ed.) Indwelling neural implants: strategies for contending with the in vivo environment. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2008, pp.221–244.
13.
BlissTMAndresRHSteinbergGK. Optimizing the success of cell transplantation therapy for stroke. Neurobiol Dis2010; 37: 275–283.
14.
HuhnS. Cellular Therapy for CNS disorders: a translational perspective. World Stem Cell Rep, Genetics Policy Institute2009; pp 50–55.
15.
KuhnGBrustleOMartensU. Stem cells: established facts, open issues, and future directions. Cell Tissue Res2008; 331: 1–3.
16.
ThomsonJAItskovitz-EldorJShapiroSS. Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts. Science1998; 282: 1145–1147.
17.
ZhangSC. Embryonic stem cells for neural replacement therapy: prospects and challenges. J Hematother Stem Cell Res2003; 12: 625–634.
18.
GuillaumeDJZhangSC. Human embryonic stem cells: a potential source of transplantable neural progenitor cells. Neurosurg Focus2008; 24: E3.
19.
AmabileGMeissnerA. Induced pluripotent stem cells: current progress and potential for regenerative medicine. Trends Mol Med2009; 15: 59–68.
20.
LedererCWSantamaN. Neural stem cells: mechanisms of fate specification and nuclear reprogramming in regenerative medicine. Biotechnol J2008; 3: 1521–1538.
21.
UchidaNBuckDWHeDP. Direct isolation of human central nervous system stem cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA2000; 97: 14720–14725.
22.
TamakiSEckertKHeDP. Engraftment of sorted/expanded human central nervous system stem cells from fetal brain. J Neurosci Res2002; 69: 976–986.
BjorklundA. The use of neural stem cells for gene therapy in the central nervous system. J Gene Med Title1999; 1: 223–226.
27.
CapowskiEESchneiderBLEbertAD. Lentiviral vector-mediated genetic modification of human neural progenitor cells for ex vivo gene therapy. J Neurosci Methods2007; 163: 338–349.
28.
ZietlowRLaneELDunnettSB. Human stem cells for CNS repair. Cell Tissue Res2008; 331: 301–322.
29.
AlbaniDGloriaAGiordanoC. Hydrogel-based nanocomposites and mesenchymal stem cells: a promising synergistic strategy for neurodegenerative disorders therapy. Scientific World J2013; 2013: 270260 (9 pp.).
30.
GoyaRLKuanWBarkerRA. The future of cell therapies in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease. Expert Opin Biol Ther2007; 7: 1487–1498.
31.
PayneNSiatskasCBarnardA. The prospect of stem cells as multi-faceted purveyors of immune modulation, repair and regeneration in multiple sclerosis. Curr Stem Cell Res Ther2011; 6: 50–62.
LeeJKSchuchmanEHJinHK. Soluble CCL5 derived from bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells and activated by amyloid β ameliorates Alzheimer’s disease in mice by recruiting bone marrow-induced microglia immune responses. Stem Cells2012; 30: 1544–1555.
34.
KimJYKimDHKimJH. Soluble intracellular adhesion molecule-1 secreted by human umbilical cord blood-derived mesenchymal stem cell reduces amyloid-β plaques. Cell Death Differ2012; 19(4): 680–691.
35.
WhoneALKempKSunM. Human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells protect catecholaminergic and serotonergic neuronal perikarya and transporter function from oxidative stress by the secretion of glial-derived neurotrophic factor. Brain Res2012; 1431: 86–96.
36.
FortunJHillCEBungeMB. Combinatorial strategies with Schwann cell transplantation to improve repair of the injured spinal cord. Neurosci Lett2009; 456: 124–132.
37.
WhiteREJakemanLB. Don’t fence me in: harnessing the beneficial roles of astrocytes for spinal cord repair. Restor Neurol Neurosci2008; 26: 197–214.
38.
WrightLSLiJCaldwellMA. Gene expression in human neural stem cells: effects of leukemia inhibitory factor. J Neurochem2003; 86: 179–195.
39.
WechslerLR. Clinical trials of stroke therapy which cells, which patients?Stroke2009; 40: S149–S151.
40.
BangOYLeeJSLeePH. Autologous mesenchymal stem cell transplantation in stroke patients. Ann Neurol2005; 57: 874–882.
41.
KondziolkaDSteinbergGKWechslerL. Neurotransplantation for patients with subcortical motor stroke: a phase 2 randomized trial. J Neurosurg2005; 103: 38–45.
42.
KolbBMorsheadCGonzalezC. Growth factor-stimulated generation of new cortical tissue and functional recovery after stroke damage to the motor cortex of rats. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab2007; 27: 983–997.
43.
VictorioSCSHavtonLAOliveiraALR. Absence of IFNγ expression induces neuronal degeneration in the spinal cord of adult mice. J Neuroinflammation2010; 7: 77–90.
44.
ZhangLQMaZWSmithGM. GDNF-enhanced axonal regeneration and myelination following spinal cord injury is mediated by primary effects on neurons. Glia2009; 57: 1178–1191.
45.
PardridgeWM. Drug transport across the blood-brain barrier. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab2012; 32: 1959–1972.
46.
LeeHMcKeonRJBellamkondaRV. Sustained delivery of thermostabilized chABC enhances axonal sprouting and functional recovery after spinal cord injury. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA2010; 107: 3340–3345.
47.
PardridgeWM. Drug delivery to the brain. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab1997; 17: 713–31.
48.
JablonskaBGierdalskaMKublikA. Effects of implantation of Alzet 1007D osmotic minipumps upon 2-deoxyglucose uptake in the cerebral cortex of mice. Acta Neurobiol Exp (Wars)1993; 53: 577–580.
49.
FollettKABoortz-MarxRLDrakeJM. Prevention and management of intrathecal drug delivery and spinal cord stimulation system infections. Anesthesiology2004; 100: 1582–1594.
50.
PennRDYorkMMPaiceJA. Catheter systems for intrathecal drug delivery. J Neurosurg1995; 83: 215–217.
51.
JainRK. Tumor physiology and antibody delivery. Front Radiat Ther Oncol1990; 24: 32–46; discussion 64–68.
52.
PataneMACohenAESheppardJD. Ocular iontophoresis for drug delivery. Retina Today, March2011, pp.64–66.
53.
PatelMMGoyalBRBhadadaSV. Getting into the brain: approaches to enhance brain drug delivery. CNS Drugs2009; 23: 35–58.
54.
KumariAYadavSKYadavSC. Biodegradable polymeric nanoparticles based drug delivery systems. Colloids Surf B2010; 75: 1–18.
55.
Pinto ReisCNeufeldRJRibeiroAJ. Nanoencapsulation I. Methods for preparation of drug-loaded polymeric nanoparticles. Nanomedicine2006; 2: 8–21.
56.
PanyamJLabhasetwarV. Biodegradable nanoparticles for drug and gene delivery to cells and tissue. Adv Drug Deliv Rev2003; 55: 329–347.
57.
RieuxADFievezVGarinotM. Nanoparticles as potential oral delivery systems of proteins and vaccines: a mechanistic approach. J Control Release2006; 116: 1–27.
58.
KreuterJ. Colloidal drug delivery systems. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1994.
59.
AlonsoMJ. Nanomedicines for overcoming biological barriers. Biomed Pharmacother2004; 58: 168–172.
60.
PatelTZhouJPiepmeierJM. Polymeric nanoparticles for drug delivery to the central nervous system. Adv Drug Deliv Rev2012; 64: 701–705.
61.
LiuMLiHLuoG. Pharmacokinetics and biodistribution of surface modification polymeric nanoparticles. Arch Pharm Res2008; 31: 547–554.
62.
RaoKSReddyMKHorningJL. TAT-conjugated nanoparticles for the CNS delivery of anti-HIV drugs. Biomaterials2008; 29: 4429–4438.
63.
KulkarniSAFengSS. Effects of surface modification on delivery efficiency of biodegradable nanoparticles across the blood-brain barrier. Nanomedicine2011; 6: 377–394.
64.
GeldenhuysWMbimbaTBuiT. Brain-targeted delivery of paclitaxel using glutathione-coated nanoparticles for brain cancers. J Drug Target2011; 19: 837–845.
65.
NagpalKSinghSKMishraDN. Chitosan nanoparticles: a promising system in novel drug delivery. Chem Pharm Bull2010; 58: 1423–1430.
66.
FungLKShinMTylerB. Chemotherapeutic drugs released from polymers: distribution of 1,3-bis(2-chloroethyl)-1-nitrosourea in the rat brain. Pharm Res1996; 13: 671–682.
67.
WangXChiNTangX. Preparation of estradiol chitosan nanoparticles for improving nasal absorption and brain targeting. Eur J Pharm Biopharm2008; 70: 735–740.
68.
SongjiangZLixiangW. Amyloid-beta associated with chitosan nano-carrier has favorable immunogenicity and permeates the BBB. AAPS PharmSciTech2009; 10: 900–905.
69.
TrapaniADe GiglioECafagnaD. Characterization and evaluation of chitosan nanoparticles for dopamine brain delivery. Int J Pharm2011; 419: 296–307.
70.
KaratasHAktasYGursoy-OzdemirY. A nanomedicine transports a peptide caspase-3 inhibitor across the blood–brain barrier and provides neuroprotection. J Neurosci2009; 29: 13761–13769.
71.
AktasYYemisciMAndrieuxK. Development and brain delivery of chitosan-PEG nanoparticles functionalized with the monoclonal antibody OX26. Bioconjug Chem2005; 16: 1503–1511.
72.
KumarPWuHMcBrideJL. Transvascular delivery of small interfering RNA to the central nervous system. Nature2007; 448: 39–43.
73.
Hwang doWSonSJangJ. A brain-targeted rabies virus glycoprotein-disulfide linked PEI nanocarrier for delivery of neurogenic microRNA. Biomaterials2011; 32: 4968–4975.
74.
OppenhiemRC. Paclitaxel loaded gelatin nanoparticles for intravesical bladder cancer therapy. Int J Pharm1981; 8: 217.
75.
ZambauxMFBonneauxFGrefR. Preparation and characterization of protein C-loaded PLA nanoparticles. J Control Release1999; 60: 179–188.
76.
LiJKWangNWuXS. Gelatin nanoencapsulation of protein/peptide drugs using an emulsifier-free emulsion method. J Microencapsul1998; 15: 163–172.
77.
TianXHWeiFWangTX. In vitro and in vivo studies on gelatin-siloxane nanoparticles conjugated with SynB peptide to increase drug delivery to the brain. Int J Nanomedicine2012; 7: 1031–1041.
78.
GomesMJdas NevesJSarmentoB. Nanoparticle-based drug delivery to improve the efficacy of antiretroviral therapy in the central nervous system. Int J Nanomedicine2014; 9: 1757–1769.
79.
KaurAJainSTiwaryAK. Mannan-coated gelatin nanoparticles for sustained and targeted delivery of didanosine: in vitro and in vivo evaluation. Acta Pharm2008; 58: 61–74.
80.
JoachimEKimIDJinY. Gelatin nanoparticles enhance the neuroprotective effects of intranasally administered osteopontin in rat ischemic stroke model. Drug Deliv Transl Res2014; 4: 395–399.
81.
SykovéEJendelováP. Migration, fate and in vivo imaging of adult stem cells in the CNS. Cell Death Differ2007; 14: 1336–1342.
82.
ZengGWangGGuanF. Human amniotic membrane-derived mesenchymal stem cells labeled with superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles: the effect on neuron-like differentiation in vitro. Mol Cell Biochem2011; 357: 331–341.
83.
JaeKLManKLHyeJJ. Efficient intracytoplasmic labeling of human umbilical cord blood mesenchymal stromal cells with ferumoxides. Cell Transplant2007; 16: 849–857.
84.
BremHLangerR. Polymer-based drug delivery to the brain. Sci Med1996; 3: 52–61.
OriveGAnituaEPedrazJL. Biomaterials for promoting brain protection, repair and regeneration. Nat Rev Neurosci2009; 10: 682–6692.
87.
QuertainmontRCantinieauxDBotmanO. Mesenchymal stem cell graft improves recovery after spinal cord injury in adult rats through neurotrophic and pro-angiogenic actions. PLoS ONE2012; 7: e39500.
88.
HoareTRKohaneDS. Hydrogels in drug delivery: progress and challenges. Polymer2008; 49: 1993–2007.
89.
GiordanoCAlbaniDGloriaA. Multidisciplinary perspectives for Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases: hydrogels for protein delivery and cell-based drug delivery as therapeutic strategies. Int J Artif Organs2009; 32: 12: 836–850.
90.
GiordanoCAlbaniDGloriaA. Nanocomposites for neurodegenerative diseases: hydrogel-nanoparticle combinations for a challenging drug delivery. Int J Artif Organs2011; 34: 1115–1127.
91.
MunarinFPetriniPBozziniS. New perspectives in cell delivery systems for tissue regeneration: natural-derived injectable hydrogels. J Appl Biomater Funct Mater2012; 10: 67–81.
92.
TartivelLBehlMSchroeterM. Hydrogel networks based on ABA triblock copolymers. J Appl Biomater Funct Mater2012; 10: 243–248.
93.
Van TommeSRStormGHenninkWE. In situ gelling hydrogels for pharmaceutical and biomedical applications. Int J Pharm2008; 355: 1–18.
94.
SawhneyASPathakCPHubbellJA. Bioerodible hydrogels based on photopolymerized poly(ethylene glycol)-co-poly(α-hydroxy acid) diacrylate macromers. Macromolecules1993; 26: 581–587.
95.
JainAKimYTMcKeonRJ. In situ gelling hydrogels for conformal repair of spinal cord defects, and local delivery of BDNF after spinal cord injury. Biomaterials2006; 27: 497–504.
96.
AymardPMartinDRPlucknettK. Influence of thermal history on the structural and mechanical properties of agarose gels. Biopolymers2001; 59: 131–144.
97.
KimYTCaldwellJMBellamkondaRV. Nanoparticle-mediated local delivery of methylprednisolone after spinal cord injury. Biomaterials2009; 30: 2582–2590.
98.
KwonBKMannCSohnHM. Hypothermia for spinal cord injury. Spine J2008; 8: 859–874.
99.
MartinBCMinnerEJWisemanSL. Agarose and methylcellulose hydrogel blends for nerve regeneration applications. J Neural Eng2008; 5: 221–231.
100.
LindvallOKokaiaZMartinez-SerranoA. Stem cell therapy for human neurodegenerative disorders—how to make it work. Nature Med2004; 10: S42–S50.
101.
GhoreishianMRezaeiMBeniBH. Facial nerve repair with Gore-Tex tube and adipose-derived stem cells: an animal study in dogs. J Oral Maxillofac Surg2013; 71: 577–587.
102.
GuHYueZLeongWS. Control of in vitro neural differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells in 3D macroporous, cellulosic hydrogels. Regen Med2010; 5: 245–253.
103.
MonteiroOACJrAiroldiC. Some studies of crosslinking chitosan–glutaraldehyde interaction in a homogeneous system. Int J Biol Macromol1999; 26: 119–128.
104.
CalvoPRemunan-LopezCVila-JatoJL. Novel hydrophilic chitosan-polyethylene oxide nanoparticles as protein carriers. J Appl Polym Sci1997; 63: 125–132.
105.
KimSNishimotoSKBumgardnerJD. A chitosan/beta-glycerophosphate thermo-sensitive gel for the delivery of ellagic acid for the treatment of brain cancer. Biomaterials2010; 31: 4157–4166.
106.
Sakiyama-ElbertSEHubbellJA. Development of fibrin derivatives for controlled release of heparin-binding growth factors. J Control Release2000; 65: 389–402.
107.
OjuJSoo HyunRJi HyungC. Control of basic fibroblast growth factor release from fibrin gel with heparin and concentrations of fibrinogen and thrombin. J Control Release2005; 105: 249–259.
108.
Sakiyama-ElbertSEHubbellJA. Controlled release of nerve growth factor from a heparin-containing fibrin-based cell ingrowth matrix. J Control Release2000; 69: 149–158.
109.
JohnsonPJParkerSRSakiyama-ElbertSE. Fibrin-based tissue engineering scaffolds enhance neural fiber sprouting and delay the accumulation of reactive astrocytes at the lesion in a subacute model of spinal cord injury. J Biomed Mater Res A2010; 92: 152–163.
110.
KingVAlovskayaAWeiD. The use of injectable forms of fibrin and fibronectin to support axonal ingrowth after spinal cord injury. Biomaterials2010; 31: 4447–4456.
111.
JohnsonPJParkerSRSakiyama-ElbertSE. Controlled release of neurotrophin-3 from fibrin-based tissue engineering scaffolds enhances neural fiber sprouting following subacute spinal cord injury. Biotechnol Bioeng2009; 104: 1207–1214.
112.
Di LulloGASweeneySMKorkkoJ. Mapping the ligand-binding sites and disease-associated mutations on the most abundant protein in the human, type I collagen. J Biol Chem2002; 277: 4223–4231.
113.
BaiFSPengHEtlingerJD. Partial functional recovery after complete spinal cord transection by combined chondroitinase and clenbuterol treatment. Pflugers Arch2010; 460: 657–666.
114.
JoostenEAJBärPRGispenWH. Collagen implants and cortico-spinal axonal growth after mid-thoracic spinal cord lesion in the adult rat. J Neurosci Res1995; 41: 481–490.
115.
MacayaDNgKKSpectorM. Injectable Collagen–Genipin gel for the treatment of spinal cord injury: in vitro studies. Adv Funct Mater2011; 21: 4788–4797.
116.
YangZQiaoHLiX. Effects of the CNTF-collagen gel-controlled delivery system on rat neural stem/progenitor cells behavior. Sci China Life Sci2010; 53: 504–510.
117.
WangJLeeILLimWS. Evaluation of collagen and methylated collagen as gene carriers. Int J Pharm2004; 279: 115–126.
118.
WangLChungJEChanP. Injectable biodegradable hydrogels with tunable mechanical properties for the stimulation of neurogenesic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells in 3D culture. Biomaterials2010; 31: 1148–1157.
119.
Tysseling-MattiaceVMSahniVNieceKL. Self-assembling nanofibers inhibit glial scar formation and promote axon elongation after spinal cord injury. J Neurosci2008; 28: 3814–3823.
120.
CigogniniDSattaAColleoniB. Evaluation of early and late effects into the acute spinal cord injury of an injectable functionalized self-assembling scaffold. PLoS ONE2011; 6: e19782.
121.
TysselingVMSahniVPashuckET. Self-assembling peptide amphiphile promotes plasticity of serotonergic fibers following spinal cord injury. J Neurosci Res2010; 88: 3161–70.
KangCEPoonPCTatorCH. A new paradigm for local and sustained release of therapeutic molecules to the injured spinal cord for neuroprotection and tissue repair. Tissue Eng Part A2009; 15: 595–604.
126.
GuptaDTatorCHShoichetMS. Fast-gelling injectable blend of hyaluronan and methylcellulose for intrathecal, localized delivery to the injured spinal cord. Biomaterials2006; 27: 2370–2379.
127.
CookeMJWangYMorsheadCM. Controlled epi-cortical delivery of epidermal growth factor for the stimulation of endogenous neural stem cell proliferation in stroke-injured brain. Biomaterials2011; 32: 5688–5697.
128.
KangCETatorCHShoichetMS. Poly(ethylene glycol) modification enhances penetration of fibroblast growth factor 2 to injured spinal cord tissue from an intrathecal delivery system. J Control Release2010; 144: 25–31.
129.
BaumannMDKangCEStanwickJC. An injectable drug delivery platform for sustained combination therapy. J Control Release2009; 138: 205–213.
130.
WangYFLapitskyYKangCE. Accelerated release of a sparingly soluble drug from an injectable hyaluronan-methylcellulose hydrogel. J Control Release2009; 140: 218–223.
131.
ParkJLimEBackS. Nerve regeneration following spinal cord injury using matrix metalloproteinase-sensitive, hyaluronic acid-based biomimetic hydrogel scaffold containing brain-derived neurotrophic factor. J Biomed Mater Res A2010; 93: 1091–1099.
132.
TateMCShearDAHoffmanSW. Biocompatibility of methylcellulose-based constructs designed for intracerebral gelation following experimental traumatic brain injury. Biomaterials2001; 22: 1113–1123.
133.
StrappePMHamptonDWCachon-GonzalezB. Delivery of a lentiviral vector in a Pluronic F127 gel to cells of the central nervous system. Eur J Pharm Biopharm2005; 61: 126–133.
134.
GeroskiDHEdelhauserHF. Transscleral drug delivery for posterior segment disease. Adv Drug Deliv Rev2001; 52: 37–48.
135.
GilESHudsonSM. Stimuli-responsive polymers and their bioconjugates. Prog Polym Sci2004; 29: 1173–1222.
136.
ZhangJPeppasNA. Synthesis and characterization of pH- and temperature-sensitive poly(methacrylic acid)/poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) interpenetrating polymeric networks. Macromolecules2000; 33: 102–107.
137.
RzaevZMODincerSPiskinE. Functional copolymers of N-isopropylacrylamide for bioengineering applications. Prog Polym Sci2007; 32: 534–595.
138.
VernengoJFussellGWSmithNG. Evaluation of novel injectable hydrogels for nucleus pulposus replacement. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater2008; 84: 64–69.
139.
ConovaLKubinskiPJinY. Injectable multifunctional scaffold for spinal cord repair. In: 36th annual northeast bioengineering conference, New York, 26–28 March 2010, pp.1–2. New York: IEEE.
140.
ComolliNNeuhuberBFischerI. In vitro analysis of PNIPAAm-PEG, a novel, injectable scaffold for spinal cord repair. Acta Biomater2009; 5: 1046–1055.
141.
PiantinoJBurdickJAGoldbergD. An injectable, biodegradable hydrogel for trophic factor delivery enhances axonal rewiring and improves performance after spinal cord injury. Exp Neurol2006; 201: 359–367.
142.
LampeKJKernDSMahoneyMJ. The administration of BDNF and GDNF to the brain via PLGA microparticles patterned within a degradable PEG-based hydrogel: protein distribution and the glial response. J Biomed Mater Res A2011; 96: 595–607.
143.
MooneyRHaegerSLawalR. Control of neural cell composition in poly(ethylene glycol) hydrogel culture with soluble factors. Tissue Eng Part A2011; 17: 2805–2815.
144.
ZhouZYuPGellerHM. The role of hydrogels with tethered acetylcholine functionality on the adhesion and viability of hippocampal neurons and glial cells. Biomaterials2012; 33: 2473–2481.
145.
KubinovaSHorákDHejčlA. Highly superporous cholesterol-modified poly(2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate) scaffolds for spinal cord injury repair. J Biomed Mater Res A2011; 99: 618–629.
146.
PeraleGGiordanoCBiancoF. Hydrogel for cell housing in the brain and in the spinal cord. Int J Artif Organs2011; 34: 295–303.
Silva-CorreiaJGloriaAOliveiraMB. Rheological and mechanical properties of acellular and cell-laden methacrylated gellan gum hydrogels. J Biomed Mater Res A2013; 101: 3438–3446.
149.
RussoTD’AmoraUGloriaA. Systematic analysis of injectable materials and 3D rapid prototyped magnetic scaffolds: from CNS applications to soft and hard tissue repair/regeneration. Procedia Eng2013; 59: 233–239.
150.
GloriaABorzacchielloACausaF. Rheological characterization of hyaluronic acid derivatives as injectable materials toward nucleus pulposus regeneration. J Biomater Appl2012; 26: 745–759.
151.
NicolaisLGloriaAAmbrosioL. The mechanics of biocomposites. In: AmbrosioL (ed.) Biomedical composites. London: CRC Press, 2010, pp.411–440.
152.
FischerH. Polymer nanocomposites: from fundamental research to specific applications. Mater Sci Eng C2003; 23: 763–772.
153.
BorzacchielloAGloriaAMayolL. Natural/synthetic porous scaffold designs and properties for fibro-cartilaginous tissue engineering. J Bioact Compat Polym2011; 26: 437–451.
154.
KoudehiMFFooladiAAMansooriK. Preparation and evaluation of novel nano-bioglass/gelatin conduit for peripheral nerve regeneration. J Mater Sci Mater Med2014; 25: 363–373.
155.
RidesVAllenCRGSimsGD. Rheological characterisation of a highly filled curing system using a disposable extrusion rheometer. Polymer Test2010; 29: 164–169.
AteshianGAWardenWHKimJJ. Finite deformation biphasic material properties of bovine articular cartilage from confined compression experiments. J Biomech1997; 30: 1157–1164.
158.
WilliamsonAKChenACSahRL. Compressive properties and function-composition relationships of developing bovine articular cartilage. J Orthop Res2001; 19: 1113–1121.
159.
HolmesMHMowVC. The nonlinear characteristics of soft gels and hydrated connective tissues in ultrafiltration. J Biomech1990; 23: 1145–1156.
160.
TunesiMBatelliSRodilossiS. Development and analysis of semi-interpenetrating polymer networks for brain injection in neurodegenerative disorders. Int J Artif Organs2013; 36: 762–774.
