Modularity in developmental biology and artificial organs: a missing concept in tissue engineering.

Tissue engineering is reviving itself, adopting the concept of biomimetics of in vivo tissue development. A basic concept of developmental biology is the modularity of the tissue architecture according to which intermediates in tissue development constitute semiautonomous entities. Both engineering and nature have chosen the modular architecture to optimize the product or organism development and evolution. Bioartificial tissues do not have a modular architecture. On the contrary, artificial organs of modular architecture have been already developed in the field of artificial organs. Therefore the conceptual support of tissue engineering by the field of artificial organs becomes critical in its new endeavor of recapitulating in vitro the in vivo tissue development.

The complementarity of the technical tools of tissue engineering and the concepts of artificial organs for the design of functional bioartificial tissues.

Although tissue engineering uses powerful biological tools, it still has a weak conceptual foundation, which is restricted at the cell level. The design criteria at the cell level are not directly related with the tissue functions, and consequently, such functions cannot be implemented in bioartificial tissues with the currently used methods. On the contrary, the field of artificial organs focuses on the function of the artificial organs that are treated in the design as integral entities, instead of the optimization of the artificial organ components. The field of artificial organs has already developed and tested methodologies that are based on system concepts and mathematical-computational methods that connect the component properties with the desired global organ function. Such methodologies are needed in tissue engineering for the design of bioartificial tissues with tissue functions. Under the framework of biomedical engineering, artificial organs and tissue engineering do not present competitive approaches, but are rather complementary and should therefore design a common future for the benefit of patients.