Abstract:Regardless of the type of institution that we call home (academe, institute, foundation, company, or federal agency), most of us are confronted with challenges in conducting our own work and/or in supervising the work of others, challenges that can include: conceiving research programs and projects; planning and evaluating the results of experiments; establishing and maintaining collaborations, including those necessary for clinical investigation; managing budgets and acquiring funding; preparing papers for publication and presentation; and teaching and mentoring students, postdoctoral fellows, and young investigators. We may find ourselves exhausted in performing just a few of these tasks for a group of 10 or 20 people, or even for fewer staff. But imagine that you had all of these and attendant responsibilities for 170 people, more than half of which had doctoral degrees. Moreover, imagine that an entire nation's future economic well-being, as well as its advances in healthcare, could potentially be impacted by the enterprise that you direct. This is all a lot to imagine, but the above, in effect, are answers to the question, 'What does Jackie Ying do?' She is the founding Executive Director of the Institute of Bioengineering and Nanotechnology (IBN) of A*STAR (Agency for Science, Technology and Research) in Singapore [1], which has just celebrated its tenth anniversary. What kind of person has the knowledge and skill set to construct such an institute from the ground up, and then to inspire and motivate its personnel to remain at the leading edge of developments in biomedical materials and other fields? (And don't you wonder how you would have done it, if you were given the charge?) This is the third of a series of interviews with leaders in the biomedical materials field [2–4]. Jackie Ying was born in Taipei, Taiwan, and spent her primary and secondary school years in Singapore, and then in New York, where she attended high school and The Cooper Union in the Department of Chemical Engineering. After graduating summa cum laude with a B.E. degree in 1987, she attended Princeton University in Chemical Engineering, obtaining her M.A. in 1988 and Ph.D. in 1991. After a year as a NSF-NATO Post-doctoral and Alexander von Humboldt Research Fellow at the Institute for New Materials, Saarbrűcken, Germany, in 1992 she joined the faculty of the Department of Chemical Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). In 2001, at age 35, she was promoted to the rank of full professor at MIT. Then, in 2003, Professor Ying was drawn back to Singapore to become the founding Executive Director of the newly established Institute, the building for which was just undergoing construction on the Biopolis campus. Professor Ying has authored over 320 journal articles and has over 140 patents issued or pending. In addition to serving on the boards of numerous journals, she is the Editor-in-Chief of the journal Nano Today, which has an Impact Factor of 17.7. Among her many awards are the following. 2013 Materials Research Society Fellow for her distinguished contributions to the synthesis of advanced nanostructured materials with unique functionalities for catalytic and biomaterial applications and for her distinguished service to the materials community 2012 International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Jubilee Medal 2008 Named as one of the 'One Hundred Engineers of the Modern Era' by American Institute of Chemical Engineers (Centennial Celebration) 2005 Elected Member of the German National Academy of Sciences, Leopoldina 1996 Camille Dreyfus Teacher-Scholar Award 1995 David and Lucile Packard Fellowship for Science and Engineering Also of note is that Professor Ying was recently selected as one of the inaugural inductees to the Singapore Women's Hall of Fame, launched by the Singapore Council of Women's Organizations to recognize and honor outstanding women of Singapore. Professor Ying's curriculum vitae and biographical summary can be found online [5, 6]. The research areas being investigated within IBN include nanomedicine, cell and tissue engineering, biodevices and diagnostics, and green chemistry and energy. While it is to be expected that Professor Ying cannot be involved in every project underway at the Institute, she is remarkably conversant with most of the investigations. And while the senior staff (viz., the 12 Group and Team Leaders) operate independently, the oversight rests with Professor Ying. And as importantly, she provides the motivation and inspiration. Ten years after its inception, a governmental assessment could well conclude that IBN contributed significantly to the growth and visibility of Singapore's R&D sector—a contribution driven by 953 articles in leading scientific journals and over 502 active patents/patent applications (83 of which have been licensed by companies and spin-offs). This is the kind of energetic and cutting-edge research activity that acts as an attractor for companies, which understandably hope that their own research efforts, if located nearby, will be stimulated with IBN's ideas and resources. Counted among Professor Ying's many own biomaterials research successes are scaffolds for bone regeneration based on nanoparticle forms of the calcium phosphate mineral, hydroxyapatite [7, 8], and, more recently, polyelectrolyte complex fibers, which display promise for many applications [9–11]. A key feature of the porous collagen–nanoapatite scaffold was the method for producing hydroxyapatite using nanostructure processing techniques to enable control of stoichiometry, crystalline phase, crystallite size, and particle morphology [7]. In vitro studies displayed the positive features of the cellular response to the material, and a rat fracture healing model demonstrated the favorable osseous response in vivo. In recent work a series of papers explored polyelectrolyte complex fibers drawn from water soluble chitin and sodium alginate, in some cases with the addition of collagen. One unexpected finding was that when two newly formed fibers produced from two interfaces of a three-droplet polyelectrolyte solution assembly were brought together, the fibers zipped down to the air–liquid interface, due to the surface tension of the two wet fibers [9]. Another important finding was that cells as well as proteins and DNA could be incorporated into the fibers during their formation. Subsequent work demonstrated the utility of the technology for an array of applications including the formation of follicular dermal papilla structures through the encapsulation of epithelial and mesenchymal cells in the fibers [11], and the formation of pre-vascularized tissue constructs by incorporating endothelial cells in the polyelectrolyte hydrogel fibers [10]. It seems clear, then, that in this limited space we can only begin to get a sampling of Professor Ying's thoughts on a few matters. MS: Your father was a faculty member in Chinese Literature at Nanyang University (currently Nanyang Technological University) in Singapore. Did you ever consider following a similar path? Did your father or other members of your immediate or extended family encourage you toward scientific investigation? JY: My late father has a great deal of influence on me. Through him, I developed a love for Chinese literature since young. He also spent a lot of time teaching me Mathematics and English, as well as sports such as swimming and badminton. Although I ended up studying engineering and doing research in materials chemistry, he certainly was the one who inspired me to pursue a PhD and an academic career. He had a great deal of energy and had many interests. He was always curious, and loved asking me about all the nanotechnology developments he read about. MS: Working together with IBN's Director, Noreena AbuBakar, you created the Youth Research Program (YRP) at IBN to reach out to young people of secondary school age and their educators to introduce them to the possibilities of careers in scientific research. Remarkably, since its inception in 2003, the YRP has reached out to over 72 300 students and teachers from 290 schools/institutions through open houses, seminars, workshops and research attachments. When attending secondary school in Singapore or later in New York, were you exposed to similar programs that nurtured your interest in a career in science and engineering? JY: I did not have the opportunity to pursue research in secondary school in Singapore or in high school in New York. However, from my freshman year at The Cooper Union, I worked on a research project in chemistry all the way through to senior year. I was very fortunate to have excellent teachers in high school and excellent professors in university, who really sparked my interest in science. Both Noreena and I felt strongly that exposing young students to research would really help to trigger and sustain their interest in science. Hence, IBN has a very active and broad outreach to young students and their teachers, and all our staff members have actively mentored students from secondary schools, junior colleges, polytechnics and universities. We are delighted that 146 YRP students have taken up scholarships for further studies in science, engineering and medicine, and 48 of our former YRP students have joined us as research staff. MS: What did you expect the principal challenge to be when you first considered the formidable prospect of creating an institute that was to grow to 170 people? JY: The challenges were to create a research niche at the interface of bioengineering and nanotechnology, and to recruit talented people from all over the world. We are fortunate to have strong funding support from the government, which gave us a lot of freedom in our research pursuits. Starting from scratch, however, required a tremendous amount of effort to build up research groups, infrastructure, institute culture and reputation, collaborations, technology licensing and spin-offs. At the same time, it has also been a very rewarding experience. MS: In addition to directing the daunting task of finding materials solutions to medical problems, you continue to be as active in research directed to non-medical applications of materials. Do you find these endeavors to support one another, where insights acquired in one generate ideas for the other? JY: I enjoy working on a variety of different problems. In particular, my group has been developing new platform technologies for creating different classes of nanostructured materials. We found that by establishing a large toolbox in nanomaterials, we are able to tackle many different problems in drug delivery, tissue engineering, biosensors, diagnostics, as well as chemicals and pharmaceuticals synthesis, energy and environmental applications. I am fortunate to be working with talented chemists, biologists, materials scientists, chemical and mechanical engineers, pharmacists and medical doctors. We are always learning new things from one another, and having fun developing different research interests. MS: What is one of the biggest challenges that you currently face in directing IBN, as it just passes its tenth anniversary? JY: The challenge is to do cutting-edge research that would have a great impact on society. These problems may not be easy to identify, and tackling them requires long-term investment of effort and resources. We are creating multidisciplinary teams of scientists, engineers and medical doctors to work on such challenges with novel approaches. Nurturing and developing staff who can conduct really innovative and creative research are key to our Institute's success. We are also strengthening our partnership with companies and clinicians so that our research efforts can be smoothly translated toward technology commercialization. We aim to have more spin-off companies, contributing toward creating an entrepreneurial hub in Singapore. MS: Are there any notable differences in the challenges in developing and commercializing medical devices in the East and West? JY: In Singapore, medical devices need to go through similar clinical trial and approval processes as in the West. However, the market in Singapore is small. Hence, it would be critical for us to work with industrial and clinical partners effectively to facilitate the commercialization of our medical devices in Asia and the West. MS: What do you see as the advances in the past 5–10 years that will most contribute to successes in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine that may be on the horizon? JY: There have been a lot of developments in creating nanostructured materials and multiscale technologies, as well as in fabricating sophisticated scaffolds for tissue engineering applications. New synthetic substrates have also been developed for the expansion and controlled differentiation of stem cells. These would certainly contribute toward successes in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine, which represent long-term research directions that have many challenges. MS: What factors have guided you in selecting the project areas being addressed by the Institute? JY: In identifying project areas that we would like to work on, we would conduct an extensive background literature and patent search and consult with our adjunct clinician scientists and clinical collaborators to determine whether the problems to be tackled would be of major clinical and industrial impact. Such problems are complex in nature and require a multidisciplinary approach. We would assemble a team of people with the appropriate background, and they will utilize technology platforms that have been developed by IBN, as well as create new technologies in establishing an innovative approach to tackle the problem. MS: What biomaterials/devices demonstrate the unique properties imbued by nanotechnology? JY: Biomaterials that are interesting may have hierarchical structures, which include nanopores, nanoparticles or nanocrystals dispersed in a micro- or macrostructured matrix. These nanoscale features will impart unique properties and multiple functionalities to the entire composite structure. Devices, such as those used in diagnostics and drug screening, may have nanoscale features and/or include nanostructured materials. This allows the devices to be miniaturized, and provides for the possibility of more rapid sample processing, greater sensitivity in detection and/or a significant reduction in the amount of biological samples and reagents required. MS: Finally, can you tell us what you think about the future of biomaterials-based therapeutic approaches to the treatment of injury and disease. JY: The future of biomaterials-based therapeutics lies in their functionalization and biocompatibility. We need multifunctional materials, for example, that can provide for cell encapsulation in tissue scaffolds, as well as the introduction of biological signals and growth factors. This calls for research at the interface between cell/protein delivery and tissue engineering. It would also be important to create materials with unique composition and surface chemistry, and controlled mechano- and physico-chemical properties to allow them to be easily introduced into the body with minimal invasiveness. Biocompatibility and toxicity of novel materials should be examined early on, so that they may go through the clinical trial and approval process smoothly. In vitro toxicology is an emerging research area that may offer insights into toxicological profiling of new materials without issues of interspecies variability and as an alternative to animal testing. This is an exciting interdisciplinary area that brings together biomaterials, cell biology, bioassays, nanobioreactors/devices and toxicology. MS: Thanks very much, Jackie, for sharing your thoughts with us. References [1] www.ibn.a-star.edu.sg/index.php [2] Lee I S and Spector M 2013 'What led you to do that?' and other questions for the leaders of our field: the BMM interview Biomed. Mater. 8 040201 [3] Yannas I V 2013 An interview with I V Yannas. Tracing one of the deepest roots of biomaterials in tissue engineering/regenerative medicine. Interview by Myron Spector Biomed. Mater. 8 040401 [4] Shoichet M S 2013 An interview with Molly S Shoichet. Developing biomaterials and mobilizing resources for assaults on some of the most devastating medical problems Biomed. Mater. 8 060401 [5] Ying J Web Page www.ibn.a-star.edu.sg/research_areas_7.php?id=1 [6] Ying J Biographical Summary www.ibn.a-star.edu.sg/pdf/JackieYing_Bio.pdf [7] Ahn E S, Gleason N J, Nakahira A and Ying J Y 2001 nanostructure processing of hydroxyapatite-based bioceramics Nano Lett. 1 149 [8] Pek Y S, Gao S, Arshad M S, Leck K J and Ying J Y 2008 Porous collagen-apatite nanocomposite foams as bone regeneration scaffolds Biomaterials 29 4300–5 [9] Wan A C, Leong M F, Toh J K, Zheng Y and Ying J Y 2012 Multicomponent fibers by multi-interfacial polyelectrolyte complexation Adv. Healthcare Mater. 1 101–5 [10] Leong M F et al 2013 Patterned prevascularised tissue constructs by assembly of polyelectrolyte hydrogel fibres Nature Commun. 4 2353 [11] Lim T C et al 2013 Follicular dermal papilla structures by organization of epithelial and mesenchymal cells in interfacial polyelectrolyte complex fibers Biomaterials 34 7064–72

Abstract:In the mid-1970s there were few prospects that injured tissues (except for bone and perhaps one or two others) might be guided down a regenerative pathway instead of following a default healing program resulting in scar. Biomaterials were generally of the permanent type, with no mention of absorbable scaffolds. It would be 20 years before tissue engineering and regenerative medicine would be discussed. There were no predicates, then, to inform the development of a biomaterial scaffold or matrix to facilitate a regenerative response in a tissue which would have otherwise healed by scar formation. It is all the more remarkable, then, that this was the time that work was beginning which would eventually lead to the development of a collagen device, the dermal regeneration template, that remains today a gold standard in the clinic for treating an array of skin injuries. And all the more notable is the fact that attendant to the development of the device were: the introduction of a method that would prove itself of value time and again for fabricating porous scaffolds; and the formulation of a concept (which has since become principle) underlying the regenerative process in many tissues. In reading the series of journal articles from the early 1980s describing the myriad laboratory tests and animal studies associated with the optimization of the design of the dermal regeneration template, one is struck by the logical and systematic approach and the thoroughness and rigor of the studies. The collective works are likely the first of their type to so thoroughly document the development of a biomaterial, and remain today a standard that is rarely met. Aren't there some questions that you might have for the scientist-engineer responsible for what is one of the first developments of a clinically proven biomaterial scaffold from scratch? There were certainly many questions that I had, and this despite the fact I have taught and worked with him for 25 years, and consider myself his friend. Ioannis Vassilios Yannas was born in Athens, Greece where he completed his high school education at Athens College. He received his AB degree in Chemistry at Harvard College, followed by the SM (1959) in Chemical Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). At Princeton University he received ScM and PhD degrees in Physical Chemistry. He then joined the faculty of MIT. Professor Yannas is a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences and the recipient of many prestigious awards including the Society for Biomaterials Founders Award (1982) and the Society's Clemson Award for Applied Science and Engineering (1992). He is an author of numerous journal articles, and the sole author of the valuable text, Tissue and Organ Regeneration in Adults [1]. His complete curriculum vitae (as of January 2010) can be found online [2]. Additional backstory of how he became involved in collaboration with John Burke, MD, in the study of dermis can also be found online [3]. Myron Spector (MS): After receiving your Master's degree in Chemical Engineering from MIT, you went to work for the company, W R Grace & Co., in Cambridge, MA for almost four years. What led you to decide to enter the PhD program at Princeton in Physical Chemistry? Ioannis Vassilios Yannas (IVY): In the early 1960s I had been working in an industrial laboratory on the synthesis and characterization of synthetic polymers. The field of synthetic polymers was reaching a mature level of development. There was a plethora of theories and experimental procedures available with which to study synthetic polymers. For many years I have had a keen interest in medicine. It occurred to me that the macromolecules of the tissues had not been studied at all using the methods of synthetic polymers. When I went to graduate school with an NIH Predoctoral Fellowship I started working with gelatin, the amorphous form of collagen, looking at it as a polymer in the solid state rather than as a biochemical substance. MS: Tell us more about your doctoral studies of gelatin. IVY: My first interest had been collagen due to its indispensable mechanical function in tissues. However, in order to study collagen as a polymer in the solid state I would have had to make collagen flow as a liquid in order to fashion appropriate specimens for mechanical measurements. This was not possible because collagen became unstable when heated above its melting point to become liquid like. I settled instead to a study of gelatin. In my thesis, gelatin proved to be the first protein to have its glass transition temperature determined (196 °C) and its viscoelastic behavior described. These measurements showed that polymers derived from tissues, such as proteins, could be studied by the methodology developed for synthetic polymers. Remember, in the 1960s people were distinguishing sharply between 'living' and nonliving polymers and such transfer of methodology from nonliving to the living had not been considered. MS: How did your work with collagen develop? IVY: After being appointed at the MIT faculty I started studying collagen as a polymer in the solid state, using all kinds of physicochemical methods. Two examples were optical rotation and an infrared spectroscopic method, both leading to determination of the ratio collagen/gelatin in the solid state. This ratio is a marker of denaturation of a collagenous product following exposure to unfavorable temperatures, e.g., during manufacturing of an industrial product. Since the degradation rate of collagen in the mammalian body increased sharply following denaturation to gelatin, this method was useful in controlling the degradation rate of a collagen product intended as an implant. Eventually several of these physicochemical methods became the basis for quality control for industrial products based on collagen, such as IntegraTM. MS: What led to your interest in studying skin? IVY: During a visit to the Shriners Hospital in Boston with the head surgeon, Dr James Burke, I was struck by the misery of the pediatric patients who had sustained massive burns. I became engrossed in the wound healing processes of skin and started working on synthesis of membranes that would speed up the process of wound closure. After a large number of failures with synthetic polymers, we hit upon a membrane based on collagen that actually slowed down, rather than speed up, wound contraction (leading to wound closure) in guinea pigs. This unexpected result was not received with cheers by my medical colleagues; but it had to be understood because it was our first successful effort to control wound contraction (albeit along the wrong direction!). While looking carefully at histological slides of wounds that had closed abnormally slowly I noticed that these wounds did not have a scar, unlike all the other wounds we had studied. This happened in 1976. Eventually, this experience was recognized as the first observation of regeneration of the dermis in an adult mammal. MS: What was the thinking that led to adding glycosaminoglycan to modify the properties of the collagen? IVY: Collagen and glycosaminoglycans (GAGs) were two macromolecules (elastin was a third polymer) known to make up the mass of most connective tissues. Our materials in the 1970s were planned as analogues of the extracellular matrix, which we modeled as fiber reinforced composite materials that were commonly studied by many materials scientists at that time. Our studies showed that GAGs, covalently linked to collagen, decreased the degradation rate of the biopolymers. This finding suggested that we could use the carbohydrate polymers to modulate degradation rate of implants. Although we were experimenting with crosslinking processes at that time as a means for controlling the degradation rate of implants, we thought that the binding of collagen with GAGs could be independently used to control degradation rate, thereby adding important design flexibility to collagen-based implants. MS: Another critical aspect of the performance of the collagen device was the introduction of porosity. What informed your implementation of freeze drying to produce a porous scaffold? IVY: MIT colleagues in the, then, Department of Nutrition and Food Science, who were employing freeze drying in their work, brought our attention to that method. We then did a comparative study of freeze drying and other procedures, and found that freeze drying was the best for our purpose. MS: Tell us more about the thinking that underlies the development of the collagen–GAG biomaterial as a dermal regeneration template. IVY: The accidental discovery that a wound dressing that slowed down the rate of wound contraction was inducing dermis regeneration was central to our eventual development of the dermal regeneration template. Later studies showed that this template only induced regeneration if the pore size was controlled within the range 40–140 μm, the degradation half-life was 2–3 weeks and the surface chemistry possessed a very large density of ligands for integrins α1β1 and α2β1. These integrins are utilized by contractile fibroblasts for attachment to the extracellular matrix during wound contraction. These critical properties defined a scaffold capable of slowing down wound contraction by adhering on its extensive surface the contractile fibroblasts (myofibroblasts) of the healing wound. Cell adhesion on the scaffold surface inhibited greatly the normal ability of cells to adhere to each other during wound contraction, thereby canceling contraction. Cells adhered on the scaffold surface over a period of time, 2–3 weeks, during which the scaffold still persisted in an insoluble state. Scaffolds that were degraded before that period were totally inactive. This was the first demonstration of the mechanism by which an insoluble surface can possess remarkable biological activity. MS: What led to your investigation of peripheral nerve using the same principles that you applied to skin? IVY: A surgeon friend suggested to me in 1984 that we work together on problems related to the central nervous system, such as wound healing following a stroke affecting the brain. Since I was totally ignorant of the nervous system I suggested that we start working with peripheral nerves, considered by many to be easier to study than the brain and the spinal cord. Eventually, it turned out that peripheral nerves heal much as skin does except that the geometry is cylindrical rather than being planar. Wound contraction closes wounds in nerves as well as in skin and the same scaffolds that inhibit wound contraction and induce regeneration of skin turned out to do the same thing with nerves as well. This finding was tremendously satisfying to me. It suggested that the methodology of organ regeneration could potentially be applied to several organs. MS: What hope do you hold for biomaterial-based approaches to the treatment of other profound problems such as stroke and myocardial infarct? IVY: Each of these problems is a formidable exercise in science and engineering and must be approached with great respect for its complexity as well as with an appreciation of what has already been accomplished with skin and peripheral nerves. MS: You have been teaching biomaterials in the MIT graduate curricula for three decades. How has the course content and method for teaching the material changed in that time? IVY: The curriculum has changed as the instructors' experiences in the field have changed. The emphasis is now not totally on permanent prostheses, such as the enormously useful hip implant. It has shifted markedly towards the applications of regenerative medicine to the huge medical problem of the organ with massively defective function. MS: Finally, can you tell us what you think about the future of the field? IVY: Advances will emerge when it is understood that regeneration of organs in adults is a viable clinical treatment, inviting research on the mechanism and practice of regenerative medicine as applied to several organs. Several investigators have started using scaffolds related to our own in efforts to replace organ transplantation. These scaffolds, known as decellularized matrices, are obtained from unrelated donors. Their use is a strong indication that a collagen-based implant is the type of scaffold that can have an impact in regenerative medicine. Such an impact will not, I believe, be optimized until the structural features of the decellularized matrices are adjusted with respect to pore size, degradation rate and surface chemistry, along the direction shown by our quantitative studies with regeneration of skin and nerves. MS: Thanks so much, Yanni, for giving us these insights into seminal developments in biomaterials. References [1] Yannas I V 2001 Tissue and Organ Regeneration in Adults (New York: Springer) [2] http://meche.mit.edu/documents/yannas_CV.pdf [3] http://mecheconnects.mit.edu/?p=1634

An interview with Jackie Yi-Ru Ying: the compleat multi-tasker

An interview with I V Yannas. Tracing one of the deepest roots of biomaterials in tissue engineering/regenerative medicine

Scaffold technologies for controlling cell behavior in tissue engineering

The Potential Biohazards of Nanosized Wear Particles at Bone–prosthesis Interface

Next generation nanocomposite biomaterials for ligament repair and regeneration

Advanced Biomaterials Research in China

Regenerative Medicine Entering a New Era

Injectable hybrid hydrogel for stem cell delivery and skin wound healing, from PEG-based multifunctional hyperbranched polymers

Osteogenic Application of Injectable Gelatin-Hyaluronan Matrices: in Vitro Study with Bone Marrow Mesenchymal Stem Cells

The Past, Present and Future of Biomaterials

Bioengineering nanotechnology: towards the clinic

Three-Dimensional Biomaterials with Spatiotemporal Control for Regenerative Tissue Engineering

From 3D to 4D Bio-Printing - Design and Fabrication of a Biomimetic Scaffold with Oriented Porous Structure and Multi-Branch Network for Myocardial Tissue Engineering

The Physiological Inorganic Polymers Biosilica and Polyphosphate As Key Drivers for Biomedical Materials in Regenerative Nanomedicine

Injectable Janus Base Nanomatrix (JBNm) in Maintaining Long-Term Homeostasis of Regenerated Cartilage for Tissue Chip Applications

Interpenetrating polymer network hydrogels as bioactive scaffolds for tissue engineering

An insight into the biomaterials used in craniofacial tissue engineering inclusive of regenerative dentistry

Engineered nanofibrillar collagen with tunable biophysical properties for myogenic, endothelial, and osteogenic cell guidance

Biomanufacturing of biomimetic three-dimensional nanofibrous multicellular constructs for tissue regeneration

Recent Progress in Biomedical Scaffold Fabricated via Electrospinning: Design, Fabrication and Tissue Engineering Application