This project centers on critically structuring some of the conceptual categories that comprise and have the promise to, in fact, define modern advances in what nanotechnology can do to the corporeal subject. By orienting regenerative medicine and tissue and stem-cell engineering as a locus of creative energy and imaginative study and locating certain imaging mechanisms, nanoparticles, and nanodevices as vessels integral to the functioning of that biomedical engineering ideal, the particulars of research that would yield the most scholarly and clinical advantages and generates the most space for further analysis, formulation, and design (in a sort of cycle representative of the scientific method in society) can be illustrated. Surveying and synthesizing cutting edge literature reminds us of what we can accomplish while still pressuring and guiding us towards what should be done next.
Nanotechnology, a rapidly expanding field of research and critical study, labors to design innovative nanomaterials that push outwards from our understandings and lived realities of the natural world. And when applied to living systems in particular, these nanobiotechnological advances lead us to a radical world of new possibilities, opened up in fascinating part with the development of increasingly potent nanoparticles and devices and the formulation of foundational biological imaging methodologies, allowing for imaginative applications to stem cell and tissue engineering and regenerative medicine that drastically address the health and well-being of our collective biologies.
“Nanoengineering is an interdisciplinary science that builds biochemical and biomechanical structures smaller than bacterium, which function like microscopic factories. This is possible by utilizing basic biochemical processes at the atomic or molecular level. In simple terms, molecules interact through natural processes, and nanoengineering takes advantage of those processes by direct manipulation (“NETS – What Are Nanoengineering and Nanotechnology?”).”
Reasonably, functionings at the nanometer scale can be considered to range from a few to several hundred nanometers, one billionth of a meter (or three to five atoms in width) (“NETS – What Are Nanoengineering and Nanotechnology?”). Most microfabricated substrates are designed with specific biochemical and mechanical characteristics in mind, providing for engineering discretion over material assembly (Ernest, Shetty 2013). Synthesized complexes in the form of developed materials and devices can then rather seamlessly consolidate fields of medical knowledge by establishing specific relations with various levels and compartments of the human body.
Bioluminescent tags, genetically derived, transmit key structural and general biological information in its production of molecular-scale images (Close 2010). The functionings, especially the topological underpinnings for certain modes of functioning, of the many scales and compartments of the living body can be made apparent through the creation of these images, the core utility of molecular imaging as a discipline.
Corollary to molecular-scaled vessels conducive to imaging techniques, SPECT/CT hybrid systems can also, at the molecular level, provide explanatory impressions of how and why relevant biological components function as they do (Ernest, Shetty 2013). Central to this process is the dissemination of information related to the anatomical structure of sought-after components (in a manner considered more lucid compared to relatively traditional imaging methods and machines). The images arising as products, as outputs of these processes are particularly useful for endeavors that require multiple coordinating functional axes, like the localizable addressing of tumors, which necessitates timeliness, clear identification, value judgements of the most ideal type of treatment, precise transportation of key vessels, and retrospective evaluation (Ernest, Shetty 2013). To describe an example, light-producing transgenic animal models (in other words, containing genetic material from external sources) can be structured, largely being applied to maintain account of impairment and repair in chronic neurological conditions (like Parkinson’s disease) (Close 2010).
For the glimpsing of modes of functioning of heart muscles, ultrasound contrast-generating agents made up of miniscule microbubbles can “flicker” light at relevant areas of the body (Qin 2009). The ephemeral tendencies of microbubble imaging distinguish this method, as they make this sort of imaging to an extent predisposed towards adaptability and hyperresponsivity in attempting to capture biological functionings. More refined lighting, both incident (falling on the structure being observed) and reflective (reflecting off this structure), is an important tool (Qin 2009). Sonolysis™ is one such process that utilizes gaseous microbubbles (Qin 2009). These microbubbles, when involved with veins in a situation of misdirected blood flow, have the ability to disestablish blood clot formation (vascular thrombosis) (Qin 2009). Ultrasound mechanisms “mechanically” dissolute these bubbles in order to manufacture neatly calibrated sound waves that would then break up blood clots. Locationally specific ultrasound over the region of blood clotting therefore informs a locationally specific and adequately particularized analysis of the clotting.
Among the various upsides of nanoscaled Sonolysis are its noninvasive nature and accuracy in addressing vascular thrombosis (Ernest, Shetty 2013). As a reference point, drug therapy as related to dealing with blood clotting is often slower and more prone to problematic bleeding (Ernest, Shetty 2013). Further vessels of modernized imaging include NeutroSpec™, which simplifies blood cell labelling, and the interpretation of gamma imaging (which maps gamma radiation), like Positron Emission Tomography (PET) imaging demonstrated to be especially pertinent to nanoscaled biomedicine (Ambesh, Angeli 2015).
Functionalizing nanoparticles in a series of biological apparatuses can generate entire conceptual frameworks of nanotechnology and bioengineering. Fabricated, nanoscaled biomaterials and devices have the potential to manifest themselves in programmable structures, differentiable to a range of biochemical properties (Gu 2013). Manufacturing nanoparticles for regenerative medicine is in many derivations centered on the development of container and transport systems (of, say, growth factor proteins) (Gu 2013). Hollow spheres at a microscopic level, usually for proteins or polymerized structures, and dendrimers and liposomes, so associated with molecular movement, are examples of nanoparticles prominent in such mechanisms and systems (Nune 2009).
The synthesis of nanoparticles can operate through mechanical molecular-level assembly (including modes of self-assembly) and photochemical orienting (like the application of UV radiation to instigate covalent bonding and generate developmentally useful arrays of biomaterial) (Thaxton 2009). The versatility of carrying mechanisms and properties afforded by the biodegradability of nanoparticles holds massive practicality for the purposes of controlled drug delivery and cancer therapy (Nune 2009).
Possibilities yielded by the interplaying processions of nanoparticles and living body biology are radically pioneering when it comes to imaging. Magnetic nanoparticles can improve and increase the contrast (important for the effectiveness of any visualization) of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), a notably powerful instrument for representing anatomical structures, and when communicating with extracorporeal magnetic devices can specify local points of interest (Nune 2009). Quantum dots are semiconducting nanoparticles that can function as “fluorescent probes,” absorbing and then emitting light in different wavelengths, to contribute to productive and serviceable cellular labelling (Nune 2009). Carbon nanoparticles, shaped as cylindrical nanotubes, provide for the mechanical strength and flexibility so applicable in fabricating more complex nanostructures, expanding the available field of biological imaging instruments in the process (Nune 2009). And gold nanoparticles, due to their valuable optical capabilities, are thereby conducive to optical (lighting-based) biological imaging (Nune 2009).
Gold nanoparticles, by assisting, through antibodies, in the (applicable to nucleic acid and protein concentrations) “bio-barcoding” detection and evaluation of certain ligand levels in cerebrospinal fluid, can additionally contribute to the diagnosis of particular pathways of neuron destruction associated with Alzheimer’s disease (Thaxton 2009, Ambesh, Angeli 2015). Also, by gauging quantities of neurotransmitters, gold nanoparticles have the potential to approximate the genesis of Parkinson’s disease and to configure mechanisms of detection of ALS by aggregating with proteins linked with ALS, among a host of immunological capabilities (Nowacek 2009). Neurological damages (like inflammation) and degenerations (such as Parkinson’s disease or ALS) can be inhibited by nanoparticles functionalized as molecules within certain systems of neuron interaction, like Polyethylenimene and Bromocriptine (Ambesh, Angeli 2015).
SPION Applications, Limits, and Adaptive Solutions
Following the course of scholarly trends, a plethora of clinical fields have adopted superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (SPIONs) as a near-ideal method of MRI cellular labelling and tracking (Liong 2008).
Contrast is absolutely crucial for anatomical imaging, and tissue density, especially proton density in MRI, is a key input for effective, differentiable imaging. Magnetized targeting, in large part because of the simplified visualizing processes of SPIO nanoparticles, can be applied to cancer therapeutics (Liong 2008). Likewise, magnetic properties can drastically slim the volume of tumors, brain tumors in particular with Carmustine-integrated nanoparticles being able to inhibit passages of DNA transcription known to lead to brain cancer (Mahmoudi, Hadjipanayis 2014). Magnetic-activated cell sorting, again, predicated on the utilization of magnetic nanoparticles, provides for the rapid retrieval of stem cells from the body (Liong 2008). The nanoscaled formulation of SPIO nanoparticles can also homeostatically manage volumes of transported drugs (Liong 2008).
SPIO-labeled cells have a significantly shorter transverse T2 relaxation time, the time it takes, in a negative exponential function, for protons to “dephase” and decay, and have 63% of transverse magnetization decay, losing the synchronization in spin which creates magnetic polarization (Reich 2010). This contributes to the generation of dark regions on T2 weighted MR images, increasing contrast and thereby helping in locating transplanted cells (Reich 2010).
And yet, SPIO-labeled cells are represented similarly to other hypointense (“black hole”) regions, like hemorrhages, which have been linked to the development of disability in Multiple Sclerosis (Pan 2011). As a result, attention has been paid to alternative mapping and tracking techniques using “positive” contrast formation (as opposed to the formulation of dark regions for imaging contrast), like the utilization of Gadolinium-based complexes to establish hyperintense (appearing lighter in color) regions (Pan 2011). In this case, the shorter T1 relaxation time (the time it takes for protons to reestablish their orientation and spin, replenishing 63% of longitudinal magnetization) of water protons is the factor that points to the wisdom of using Gadolinium.
Gadolinium-based complexes when used as a means to enhance pictorial contrast are, unfortunately, related with Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis (NSF); without authorization from the self-preserving mechanisms of the body as a whole, the potential for harm is hardly minimized (Pan 2011). For the amplification and simplification of MRI contrast, applying manganese as a promoter of T1 relaxation offers another alternative. Manganese is advantageously positioned for directly labeling cells in vitro, and can also be compounded with proteins for the purpose of increasing relaxivity (Pan 2011).
Relaxivity quantifies the degree of variability in the rates of relaxation of water protons in the vicinity of contrast-increasing agents, so contrast agents with high r1 values, related to longitudinal relaxation (1/T1=R1) decrease their own concentration (T1 is lower, implying lower rates of proton spin recovery) and increase responsivity (Reich 2010). The proportion of Manganese atoms per particle that can interact with water protons is directly proportional to rates of longitudinal relaxation (Pan 2011). This relation has allowed Manganese Oxide (MnO) nanoparticles to act as powerfully precise T1 weighted MR anatomical structure contrast agents.
Holding back its success as such an agent, a vehicle for enhancing contrast, the majority of reported manganese oxide nanoparticles produce weak, unhelpful levels of contrast, with a longevity of signal inadequate for the long-term aspects of imaging processes ((Pan 2011).
It is precisely at this point where nanoparticle coating materials become so valuable. Privileged by recent research as a potential coating substance, Silica is in comparison to alternatives more resilient and reconcilable to living tissue (Guerrero-Martinez 2010). Mesoporous (containing nanometer-scaled pores) silica is especially adept at forming stable bonds in solution and in generating efficacy in labelling and tracking (Guerrero-Martinez 2010). Nanoparticles with relatively sparse central material alignments, composed of Manganese Oxide with mesoporous silica coating, because of an advantaged surface area-to-volume ratio precluding a porous relationship with water molecules, become vivid T1 MR contrast enhancing agents (Santoso, Yang 2016). Coating these nanoparticles with polymers in general is often a path towards preserving purity and solubility in SPIONs and providing for aided MRI mapping (Santoso, Yang 2016). This an exemplary example of a biomaterial formulation resulting directly from the recently surmised biomechanical and biochemical properties of its constituent parts.
Easy, at least relatively, fabrication contributes to SPIO’s productivity as a tool for studying a number of types of cells (Carter 2015). SPIO nanoparticles contain the capacity both to bind outside the cell, on the cell membrane, or to find space in the cell’s cytoplasmic geography (Liberman 2014). When bound externally on the surface, these nanoparticles embed themselves within cell-surface mechanisms and systems, but can also find themselves excluded from membrane fields of influence of cellular movement and migration (Liberman 2014). Instead, Iron Oxide nanoparticles, when operating from within the cytoplasm, are actually able to alter surface structures and their derivative processes, contributing to improved uptake efficiency (Carter 2015). More advantages of SPIONs include their reactivity and responsivity, comparing them favorably with gadolinium-based agents as continuously updating mechanisms of MRI, and their proficiency in facilitating in vivo cellular imaging, utilizing the geometries of either endocytosis or pinocytosis to track stem cells (Carter 2015).
A problematic is however found in dextran-coating, a type of polymer coating which can seriously damage the nanoparticles’ ability to mark and track relevant stem cells (Guerrero-Martinez 2010). Furthermore, the dissolution of iron oxide nanoparticles could potentially increase the number of disconnected (“free”) reactive hydroxides and iron ions, correlated with a variety of harmful outcomes, namely cellular apoptosis and disturbed metabolism (Carter 2015). A protective solution can be found in gold coating, preempting the dissolving effects of cytoplasmic endosomes. This protection lies in the coupling surface chemistry, adding convenience to the sum of adjacent biomaterial processes (Guerrero-Martinez 2010). Even MRI contrast is here made more apparent and analytically useful (recognition is made possible as far as after corporeal implantation) (Penet 2010). After all, MRI optical and nuclear (based on observing radiation though the shape configurations of applied radioactive material) imaging methodologies that center the role of nanoparticles contribute to accuracy in interpreting cellular-scaled processes and systems of operation (Mccall 2015).
Products of Nanomaterial Genealogies
Innovations in the creation of nanoscaled electronics have produced and modernized a multiplicity of biological nanodevices, including bioreactors, biosensors, and biocapsules (Ernest, Shetty 2013). Allowing for a control in environment, through pH, temperature, and pressure, for example, bioreactors promote regeneration in a coordinated setting outside the body (Fang 2006). BioMEMS (biological electromechanical systems) can, in addition, be applied in order to expand and industrialize these ideal situations (Jivani 2016). And given the influence and sensitivity of these conditions, it is important to have fabricated biosensors in order to quantify and discern stabilities and fluctuations. Correlatively, nanoscaled biosensors enact these processes of measurement and recognition for systems served more fruitfully with sensory operating at particularized, nanotechnological levels (Vashist, Roth 2012). Varieties of these nanosensors include quantum dots (semiconducting nanoparticles), carbon nanotubes, sensors managing pH levels, and sensors, through feedback loops, maintaining drug concentrations necessary for drug delivery (Vashist, Roth 2012, Hasan 2015, and Gong, Peng 2013). Biocapsules envelop biomaterials for programmable containment and delivery, and can additionally be manufactured in order to carry additional nanodevices within themselves for the recognition of the biomolecules held by the capsule, providing precise and up-to-date, spatially and temporally, information that can be applied diagnostically (Vashist, Roth 2012).
Determining, discretionary inputs on the transportation of biomaterials are important for mechanisms of regeneration. Vehicles of biomaterial delivery, at nanotechnological scales, provide for a level of versatility in movement and, therefore, biomedical accessibility in spite of complicating, narrow anatomical geographies (Sakamoto 2010). These “nanocarriers” can be synthesized through polymers like polylactic acid (Hasan 2015).
And depending on the qualities of biological molecules being transported, the relevant properties of the carrier are specified accordingly. Fabricating these nanocarriers is a process inflected with the properties of composite polymerized parts, which can also conform and adapt to trends in exogenous stimuli (like environmental temperature) (Hasan 2015). Ionically charged, water soluble polymers are an example of contributors to drug carriers productive precisely because of their propensity to ionize in response to, in this scenario, environmental pH, with the electric charges being useful in manufacturing the structure and derivative functionings of nanoscaled carriers (like the conditions of drug release) (Wang, Stylios 2015). Formative bone matrix cells behave in a manner more conducive to bone regeneration when interacting with mineral hydroxyapatite crystalline nanoparticles as carriers (which have also been found to be more than able vectors for genetic material) (Wang, Stylios 2015). Furthermore, nanocarriers are fundamentally multifaceted in their functional outcomes, placing them in a privileged position to address cancer possessing multiple points of resistance to hostile drugs (multi-drug resistant cancer). This corollary benefit of dampening drug resistance can operate by repositioning and excluding the aftershocks of drug efflux (cellular-scaled, actively-facilitated drug exodus from the cell), which underpins multi-drug resistant cancer (for instance, the presence of efflux pump inhibitors in some experiments has decreased the chemical development of drug resistance) (Lin, Miller 2016).
Manufactured scaffolding is able to mirror the intricacies of shape of damaged tissue formations (Lu 2013). When taking a biodegradable form, the infringement of the host cell by this scaffolding is promoted (Lu 2013). Nanofiber configuration, whether naturally-occurring or synthetic, eases mechanisms of tissue growth (Pelipenko 2015). Due to their relatively large surface area, these nanofibers can take on the functionings of the extracellular matrix, mechanically and chemically facilitating nutrient flows and managing waste between the applied scaffolding on the cell and its surroundings (Pelipenko 2015). Mapping the shape derivations of a variety of cells using three-dimensioned bioscaffolding produced more accurate and clinically beneficial simulations than two-dimensioned products of cultured cell growth (which is still involved in three-dimensioned scaffold formation) (Lu 2013). Nanoscaled biomaterials, complete with key biochemical and/or physical characteristics and tendencies, like properties important for controlled, input-driven drug release (Wang, Stylios 2015), electrically-formulated models of coupled scaffolds (Ernest, Shetty 2013), and biological decomposition for more efficient scaffold manufacture (Lu 2013), demonstrate the capacious originality of the nanoengineering space that they occupy, and as such necessitate much more investigation than they are receiving currently.
A starting point for any project of regenerative medicine is the enveloping microenvironment, constituted by extracellular matrix (ECM), and a variety of proteins and soluble, ECM-bound factors (Chaudhury 2014). Substances that take up several hundreds of nanometers like collagens and glycoproteins function primarily in order to provide structural support to the composing cells (Nguyen-Ngoc 2012). The nanometer dimensioned pores, fibers and ridges of the basement membrane that separate the epithelium tissue surfacing from larger tissue forms are also integral to the microenvironment system (Nguyen-Ngoc 2012). This environment transmits information through its divergent topologies that in effect direct cell growth and differentiation and cell movement. The process of interpreting the biophysical intersections and interfaces of cells with their encompassing environment is conducive to capability and efficacy in the labor of biological regeneration (Chaudhury 2014).
As demonstrated with the most current progressions of the field, nanotechnology can be a formative influence on the development of regenerative medicines. Nanoscaled materials such as nanoparticles, electronic nanodevices, nanocarriers, and nanofibers can all play a determinative role (Navarro 2007). For the controllable and particularized delivery of drugs, nucleic acids, and proteins to targeted localities, nanoparticles can perform an effective service (Chaudhury 2014). Nanodevices are specifically helpful in their capacity for sensing technology, and nanofibers can be fashioned to structure tissue scaffolds and to shape the surfaces of potentially embedded biomaterials (Navarro 2007).
A system to replace or heal compartments of the body subject to disease or disorder by in vitro and in vivo modalities is, fundamentally, the core of regenerative medicine (Chaudhury 2014). By substituting in fresh, functioning human cells, these sets of regenerative techniques replenish the structure and, thus, the operation of misplaced, mistimed (in terms of growth cycles), or misshaped cells. Scaffolding biomaterials are traditionally required to induce cell division and growth (Chaudhury 2014). Engulfing bioenvironments containing a multitude of nanoscaled materials transmit specific biological signals, determinative in the response and ultimate activity of the given cell (Nguyen-Ngoc 2012). This approach, when applied to living cells, allows for the development of needed cellular behavior and therefore the regeneration of damaged or deformed cells (Chaudhury 2014). These dynamics can not only be built upon to further improve the condition of medicinal mechanisms but also to deepen analytical understandings of fundamental biological processes.
In vivo regeneration is a key battleground for research in regenerative medicine, but in vitro regeneration can nonetheless be acted on to provide multilayered tissue-scaled functionality. Both in vivo and in vitro regeneration methodologies are characterized by a pervious scaffold used to load relevant stem cells (Chaudhury 2014). Porous structures with this shape and function may be artificially synthesized or form naturally (Chaudhury 2014). With variation according to the specificities of the cells needed to be targeted and remedied, the functionalization of scaffolding and structure is accomplished via a series of biological factors. Likewise, the envelopment of growth factors, drugs, proteins, and genetic material in nanoparticles for continuous release and excretion in a discretionary mechanism will increase the efficiency and likelihood of a successful, completed regenerative process (Navarro 2007).
In vitro tissue and cell regeneration takes place, with specified provisions, in bioreactors (Chaudhury 2014). Especially for macro-scaled, industrial-purposed endeavors, these bioreactor apparatuses are efficient and optimizing. Integration and continuity with a wide range of biological microelectromechanical systems allow for the discretionary optimization techniques that prepare the functional requirements of tissue regeneration (Jivani 2016). In addition, in order to provide for the observation, recognition, and classification of certain cellular activities and happenings, many biosensors and “laboratory-on-a-chips” (which operate laboratory-style functions at millimeter scales, often work with miniscule samples of fluid, and are considered a subset of microelectromechanical systems, MEMS) are integrated inside the bioreactor architecture (Jivani 2016).
Embryonic and adult stem cells alike are some of the most therapeutically productive vehicles for regeneration (Gimble 2007). These cells can in various settings and with various inputs address a range of genetic and degenerative disorders as diverse as osteoporosis, diabetes, heart failures and cancer (Gimble 2007). Potentially unlimited technologies for growth and generation and the ability to provide shape and function in such a wide spectrum of cell and tissue types mean that stem cells are the exemplary vessels for the analysis and utilization of regenerative medicine (Chaudhury 2014). Authentically revolutionizing the field, stem cells demonstrate a clear pathway for innovative and effective research and clinical development.
A fundamental directive of medicinal regeneration is to magnify and position stem cells into certain orientations by utilizing nanotechnology to manufacture desired scaffold formations (McMurray 2011). Altered surface shapes at the nanobiological level allow for this process of orienting a full spectrum of stem cells, from embryonic stem cells to mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), and hematopoietic stem cells (McMurray 2011). For example, rat MSCs with Titanium Dioxide nanotubal covering helped demonstrate that a spacing of 15–30 nm is the most ideal length range for integrin (proteins that connect cells and extracellular matrices) accumulation and the activation of cell growth and migration (Park 2007). This also meant that nanotubes of more than 50 nm in length cell growth and migration was substantially handicapped, with apoptosis (controlled, programmed cell death) ushering itself in at a length of 100 nm; given that the structural differences with human cells should be kept in mind, this is still indicative of a trend (Park 2007).
The stem cells originating from patients involved with in vitro cell and tissue regeneration are collected from the relevant channel of harvest (for example, bone marrow) before being positioned and embedded on the three-dimensional biomaterial scaffolds of the manufactured bioreactor apparatus (McMurray 2011). Constructed combinations within tissue complexes are thereby formulated and reintroduced inside the patient’s body. Then, it becomes apparent that stem cells with multifaceted and efficient pathways of proliferation and development are in turn efficient in regenerative tissue redress and healing (McMurray 2011). In this guiding equation for parts of regenerative medicine, the participation of integrated, synchronized biomaterials, for example with the role of platelet-rich plasma in “jumpstarting” bone tissue remedy, can bolster ideal functioning across the biological system at hand (Chaudhury 2014). Both the harvesting/collecting and proliferation of stem cells demand a significant degree of productivity in technical systems of treatment in order to ensure maximum timeliness and satisfaction in the rehabilitory mechanics of regenerative medicine (Chaudhury 2014).
The development of molecular imaging techniques and programmable stem cell development and expansion are intently correlative with the trajectory of modern stem cell nanoengineering (Wu 2009). Productive stem-cell marking and identification, differentiation and development, and transportation, together with modes of gene delivery and cytolysis (the disfigurement of cells through vessels alien to the cell body), can be conclusively linked to the undertakings of communication and transduction between stem cells and nanoscaled biomaterials and/or devices (Wu 2009). As a reflection of increasing scholarly recognition of this drastically innovative space of biological interaction, modernized biomedical tools have been designed with these nanobiotechnological analyses of stem cell morphology and physiology in mind (Kshitiz 2013). These sets of techniques and modalities are especially helpful when contributing to experimental design, standardized for a diverse array of potential enveloping microenvironments (Kshitiz 2013). Studying stem cell technologies through the lens of nanoscaled biomaterials and biological devices and machines articulates and conceptualizes a series of affairs that allows for molecular production, differentiation, and transmission related to regenerative processes and newly formulated therapeutical outputs for tissues and organs (Navarro 2007).
There are, however, some stymieing barriers precluding effective in vitro regeneration processes, like the separation and seclusion of stem cells from the given patient, the extracorporeal growth of stem cells through such in vitro systems, inefficiencies and inadequacies in culturing stem cells through synthesized biological devices (including bioreactors), and the blemishing effects of time passage when placing these constructed materials inside the patient (Chaudhury 2014). In response, then, regenerative modalities can also be facilitated by informed biomaterials transmitting and transducing relevant signals. These signals loaded with information related to the situation of disordered or maladied sections of tissue are received and interpreted by stem cells (McMurray 2011). In conjunction with the transductive process, regenerative mechanisms are then induced and emboldened (McMurray 2011).
Complex biomaterial systems and series of processes interact in tissue regeneration, complicating or enhancing idealized methodologies through variables like age, contused location depth, and accumulated abrasions (Krafts 2010). Activating regenerative processes has already been shown to be crucial for operative optimization, and is reliant on the exchange (in essence, the communication) of biochemical and biomechanical knowledge. Central to this phenomenon are growth factors produced by involved cells (Krafts 2010). Summed together, diagnostic designs utilizing cell infusions, often in association with biomaterials, can be considered a definition of regenerative medicine (Chaudhury 2014). As of the present day, when no other widespread procedures are available or possible, clinical regeneration is then used; the most promising successes and developments have been emanating from orthopedic and vascular surgery (Chaudhury 2014). Nonetheless, the most room for expansion for both high conceptual and clinical, surgical regeneration can be gleaned from analyzing and working through nanoscaled subdivisions of regenerative medicine.
Nanotechnology, as applied to biological systems, is demonstrating the staggering possibilities of interaction between nanostructures and biomaterials, driving the creativity of engineering design and the ingenuity of the rigorous procedure of critical analysis and invention. Nanomaterials are at the forefront of a broad range of novel biomedical techniques, from magnetized particles utilized in molecular imaging to fabricated nanoscaled architectures contributing to tissue implantation and the neurological development, like of spinal motor neurons, emanating from hPSCs, Human Pluripotent Stem Cells, embryonic stem cells mediated by epigenomics, which analyzes modifications to genetic material (Liu 2011).
The multidisciplinary applications of nanotechnologies for discovering new molecules and constructively formatting them afterwards are transformative in their capacity to radically address and improve human health and well-being. As a result of these interconnected networks of nanomedicine, there may very well be a future in which nanotechnologies are, in a process streamlined from three dimensional mapping and imaging to diagnosis, from culturation to insertion, are standardized to maintain the ideal functionings of cellular processes, growing from nanoscale scaffolds tissues and organs complete with the genetic material required for integration into larger biological systems, precluding even the most stringent, conservative immunological regulations. Patients and professionals could be alerted immediately of any abnormal deviations or inconsistencies, even to the level of protein and nucleic acid concentrations involved in cell growth and tumor formation and, therefore, the level of early stage cancer (when integrated to computational methods, then, this grasp of and control over previously rogue cell proliferation is, in an operational sense, a massive opportunity for nanoparticles, functionalized for imaging, predicting molecular behaviors relevant to quantitative bioinformatics, and delivering drugs composite to cancer therapy) (Phan 2009). Uncompromisingly spanning developments and analytical methodologies from mathematics to chemistry to materials engineering, trends in nanoengineering are rapidly coalescing into an inspiring medical revolution that can measurably improve the quality of human life (and can, circularly, reproduce its advances by increasing the compatibility of the living body with synthesized devices and technological systems).
Institutions and industries would do well to invest resources to this intersection of nanostructures and living systems; engineering the nanomaterials that apply to regenerative medicine, stem-cell and tissue engineering is an endeavor with limitless room to grow. Much more research is needed in order to elucidate the specific causalities of intersystemic relations within nanobiotechnology (for example, dealing with the consequences of contaminated manufacture of biological machines, bounded implant lifetimes, and limits to the human-ready visualization of both anatomy and technology), a necessary step before more major theoretical or ideological advancements or practical applications can be produced at a large, self-referential, and self-containing scale. We can only examine and improve ourselves more, at more levels and sections and subsections, with more and more syntheses and configurations of material, more thoroughly and more thoughtfully. The present situation demands action and urgency, but, thrillingly, with no extremities or ends in sight.
 “NETS – What Are Nanoengineering and Nanotechnology?” What Are Nanoengineering and Nanotechnology?, UC San Diego Nanoengineering and Technology Society, http://nets.ucsd.edu/whatare.html
 Ernest, Herbert, and Shetty, Rahul. “Impact of Nanotechnology on Biomedical Sciences: Review of Current Concepts on Convergence of Nanotechnology With Biology.” AZoNano.com, AZoNano.com, 11 June 2013, http://www.azonano.com/article.aspx?articleid=1242#_application_of_nanotechnology_1
 Close, Dan M et al. “Autonomous Bioluminescent Expression of the Bacterial Luciferase Gene Cassette ( Lux ) in a Mammalian Cell Line.” PLOS ONE, PLOS ONE, 27 Aug. 2010, http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2fjournal.pone.0012441
 Qin, Shengping et al. “Ultrasound Contrast Microbubbles in Imaging and Therapy: Physical Principles and Engineering.” Physics in Medicine and Biology, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 21 Mar. 2009, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc2818980/
 Ambesh, Paurush, and Daniel Gregory Angeli. “Nanotechnology in Neurology: Genesis, Current Status, and Future Prospects.” Annals of Indian Academy of Neurology, Medknow Publications &Amp; Media Pvt Ltd, 2015, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc4683873/
 Gu, Wenyi et al. “Nanotechnology in the Targeted Drug Delivery for Bone Diseases and Bone Regeneration.” International Journal of Nanomedicine, Dove Medical Press, 25 June 2013, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc3699134/
 Nune, Satish K et al. “Nanoparticles for Biomedical Imaging.” Expert Opinion on Drug Delivery, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Nov. 2009, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc3097035/
 Thaxton, Shad et al. “Nanoparticle-Based Bio-Barcode Assay Redefines ‘Undetectable’ PSA and Biochemical Recurrence after Radical Prostatectomy.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 1 Sept. 2009, http://www.pnas.org/content/106/44/18437.full
 Nowacek, Ari et al. “Neurodegenerative Disorders and Nanoformulated Drug Development.” Nanomedicine (London, England), U.S. National Library of Medicine, July 2009, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc2727651/
 Liong, Monty et al. “Multifunctional Inorganic Nanoparticles for Imaging, Targeting, and Drug Delivery.” ACS Nano, U.S. National Library of Medicine, May 2008, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc2751731/
 Mahmoudi, Keon, and Costas G. Hadjipanayis. “The Application of Magnetic Nanoparticles for the Treatment of Brain Tumors.” Frontiers in Chemistry, Frontiers Media S.A., 3 Dec. 2014, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc4253533/
 Reich, Hans. “Relaxation in NMR Spectroscopy.” 8.1 Relaxation in NMR Spectroscopy, 2010, http://www.chem.wisc.edu/areas/reich/nmr/notes-8-tech-1-relax.pdf
 Pan, Dipanjan et al. “Manganese-Based MRI Contrast Agents: Past, Present and Future.” Tetrahedron, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 4 Nov. 2011, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc3203535/
 Guerrero-Martinez, Andres et al. “Recent Progress on Silica Coating of Nanoparticles and Related Nanomaterials.” ResearchGate, Mar. 2010, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/jorge_perez-juste/publication/44568518_recent_progress_on_silica_coating_of_nanoparticles_and_related_nanomaterials/links/004635249362e02413000000.pdf
 Santoso, Michelle R., and Phillip C. Yang. “Magnetic Nanoparticles for Targeting and Imaging of Stem Cells in Myocardial Infarction.” Stem Cells International, Hindawi Publishing Corporation, 3 Apr. 2016, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc4834159/
 Carter, Nicklaus. “Physical Properties of Iron Oxide Nanoparticles.” DigitalCommons@UMaine, University of Maine, 2015, http://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1205&context=honors
 Liberman, Alexander et al. “Synthesis and Surface Functionalization of Silica Nanoparticles for Nanomedicine.” Surface Science Reports, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2014, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc4212223/
 Penet, Marie-France et al. “Applications of Molecular MRI and Optical Imaging in Cancer.” Future Medicinal Chemistry, U.S. National Library of Medicine, June 2010, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc2902367/
 Mccall, Becky et al. “ECR 2015 Book of Abstracts – E – Authors’ Index.” Insights into Imaging, vol. 6, no. S1, 7 Mar. 2015, pp. 459–507. https://www.myesr.org/html/img/pool/ecrtoday2015_saturday_march_7.pdf
 Fang, Nicholas et al. “3D Microfabricated Bioreactor with Capillaries.” ResearchGate, Jan. 2006, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268200994_3d_microfabricated_bioreactors
 Jivani, Rishad R. et al. “Biomedical Microelectromechanical Systems (BioMEMS): Revolution in Drug Delivery and Analytical Techniques.” Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal : SPJ, Elsevier, Jan. 2016, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc4719786/
 Vashist, Sandeep, and Gunter Roth. “ Nanotechnology-Based Biosensors and Diagnostics: Technology Push versus Industrial/Healthcare Requirements.” Synfacts, vol. 10, no. 01, 5 Sept. 2012, pp. 0047–0047. https://www.imtek.de/data/lehrstuehle/app/dokumente/publikationen/publpdf2012/vashist-nanotechnology-based-biosensors-and-diagnostics.pdf
 Hasan, Saba. “A Review on Nanoparticles: Their Synthesis and Types.” ResearchGate, Feb. 2015, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273203342_a_review_on_nanoparticles_their_synthesis_and_types
 Gong, Hua, and Rui Peng. “Carbon Nanotubes for Biomedical Imaging: The Recent Advances.” ScienceDirect, Dec. 2013, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/s0169409x13002366
 Sakamoto, Jason H. et al. “Enabling Individualized Therapy through Nanotechnology.” Pharmacological Research : the Official Journal of the Italian Pharmacological Society, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 5 Jan. 2010, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc2886806/
 Wang, Taoyu, and George Stylios. “Investigating a New Drug Delivery Nano Composite Membrane System Based on PVA/PCL and PVA/HA(PEG) for the Controlled Release of Biopharmaceuticals for Bone Infections.” ScienceDirect, Dec. 2015, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/s002013831530053x
 Lin, Gan, and Peng Miller. “Inorganic Nanocarriers Overcoming Multidrug Resistance for Cancer Theranostics.” Wiley Online Library, 30 May 2016, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/advs.201600134/full
 Lu, Tingli et al. “Techniques for Fabrication and Construction of Three-Dimensional Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering.” International Journal of Nanomedicine, Dove Medical Press, 18 Jan. 2013, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc3551462/
 Pelipenko, J. et al. “Critical Attributes of Nanofibers: Preparation, Drug Loading, and Tissue Regeneration.” ScienceDirect, 18 Feb. 2015, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/s0378517315001520
 Chaudhury, Koel et al. “Regenerative Nanomedicine: Current Perspectives and Future Directions.” International Journal of Nanomedicine, Dove Medical Press, 1 Sept. 2014, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc4159316/
 Nguyen-Ngoc, Kim-Vy et al. “ECM Microenvironment Regulates Collective Migration and Local Dissemination in Normal and Malignant Mammary Epithelium.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, National Academy of Sciences, 23 Aug. 2012, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc3465416/
 Navarro, Melba et al. “Nanotechnology in Regenerative Medicine.” Methods in Molecular Biology, 26 November 2007, http://upcommons.upc.edu/bitstream/handle/2117/9395/trends08.pdf
 Gimble, Jeffrey et al. “Adipose-Derived Stem Cells for Regenerative Medicine.” Circulation Research, American Heart Association, 11 May 2007, http://circres.ahajournals.org/content/100/9/1249.full
 McMurray, Rebecca Jane. “Nanoscale Surfaces for the Long-Term Maintenance of Mesenchymal Stem Cell Phenotype and Multipotency.” Glasgow Theses Service, September 2011, http://theses.gla.ac.uk/3042/1/2011mcmurrayphd.pdf
 Park, J. et al. “Nanosize and Vitality: TiO2 Nanotube Diameter Directs Cell Fate.” National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 16 May 2007, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17503870
 Wu, Joseph et al. “Molecular Imaging of Stem Cells.” StemBook, Harvard Stem Cell Institute, 30 June 2009, http://www.stembook.org/node/603.html
 Kshitiz et al. “Control of Stem Cell Fate and Function by Engineering Physical Microenvironments.” Integrative Biology : Quantitative Biosciences from Nano to Macro, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 1 Sept. 2013, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc3476065/
 Krafts, Kristine P. “Tissue Repair: The Hidden Drama.” Organogenesis, Landes Bioscience, 2010, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc3055648/
 Liu, Ying et al. “OLIG Gene Targeting in Human Pluripotent Stem Cells for Motor Neuron and Oligodendrocyte Differentiation.” ResearchGate, May 2011, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/peng_jiang7/publication/51084455_olig_gene_targeting_in_human_pluripotent_stem_cells_for_motor_neuron_and_oligodendrocyte_differentiation/links/0c96053540874eacbf000000.pdf
 Phan, John H. et al. “Convergence of Biomarkers, Bioinformatics and Nanotechnology for Individualized Cancer Treatment.” Trends in Biotechnology, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 4 May 2009, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc3779321/