Next Article in Journal
Establishment of a 3D Multicellular HCC Tumor Spheroid Model to Unravel Nrf2’s Influence on the Tumor Immune Microenvironment
Next Article in Special Issue
Transcriptomic Analysis of Tendon Healing Using an Extracellular Matrix-Coated, Polyurethane Scaffold
Previous Article in Journal
Uncovering Hidden Prognostic Patterns in Colorectal Cancer Histology Using Unsupervised Learning: A Computational Pathology Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Beyond Decellularization: Remnant Mitochondrial DNA Can Act as Hidden Damage-Associated Molecular Pattern
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Bioengineering
Volume 13
Issue 3
10.3390/bioengineering13030335
bioengineering-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

The Extracellular Matrix in Liver Regeneration: Biological and Therapeutic Insights

by
Haodong Ma
1,2,3,†,
Wenyue Wu
2,3,4,†,
Wen Zhang
2,3,4,
Hong Li
1,2,3,
Ziyan Pan
1,2,3,
Caihong Wang
2,3,4,
Ruoyu Gao
1,2,3,
Qiushuang Ji
1,2,3,
Zhi Chen
1,2,3,
Hong You
2,3,4,5,* and
Wei Chen
1,2,3,5,*
1
Beijing Clinical Research Institute, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100050, China
2
State Key Lab of Digestive Health, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100050, China
3
National Clinical Research Center of Digestive Diseases, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100050, China
4
Liver Research Center, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100050, China
5
Chinese Institutes for Medical Research (CIMR), Beijing 100069, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Bioengineering 2026, 13(3), 335; https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering13030335
Submission received: 31 January 2026 / Revised: 8 March 2026 / Accepted: 11 March 2026 / Published: 13 March 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Extracellular Matrix Biomaterial for Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, 2nd Edition)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

The liver possesses a remarkable regenerative capacity following injury, a process fundamentally orchestrated by the dynamic extracellular matrix (ECM). Far beyond a passive scaffold, the liver matrisome functions as an integrative mechano-biochemical circuit. It comprises a core structural network together with regulatory non-core components that collectively establish a dynamic niche. This niche stores and releases mitogenic cues, transmits mechanical forces, and coordinates multicellular crosstalk. Through receptors like integrins and mechanosensitive channels, ECM-derived signals converge on key pathways, including Hippo-YAP/TAZ and Wnt/β-catenin, to drive hepatocyte proliferation and tissue restructuring. The balance between matrix stabilization and remodeling dictates the outcome, guiding physiological regeneration versus fibrotic progression. Consequently, the ECM emerges as a central therapeutic target and a blueprint for engineering strategies aimed at restoring liver function. Strategies to recalibrate its composition, mechanics, and remodeling, from pharmacological inhibitors to bioengineered decellularized ECM scaffolds, hold significant potential for steering liver repair and combating chronic liver disease.

1. Introduction

The liver plays essential roles in systemic metabolism, detoxification and immune homeostasis. In response to acute injury or partial tissue loss, it displays a remarkable capacity for regeneration [1]. Central to this process is the proliferative expansion of hepatocytes, the primary parenchymal cells responsible for restoring liver mass and function [2]. Following partial hepatectomy or acute toxic insult, quiescent hepatocytes rapidly re-enter the cell cycle to replace lost tissue. Concurrently, non-parenchymal cells (NPCs), including sinusoidal endothelial cells (SECs), Kupffer cells (KCs), hepatic stellate cells (HSCs), and biliary epithelial cells (BECs), initiate coordinated angiogenic, inflammatory, and matrix remodeling programs that collectively support hepatocyte proliferation and tissue reorganization [3,4,5]. This highly orchestrated response is governed by temporally regulated cytokine and growth factor networks, together with tightly regulated paracrine communication among liver cell populations [6].
Among the diverse regulatory cues governing liver repair, the extracellular matrix (ECM) plays an indispensable role [5]. Rather than serving as a passive scaffold, the liver ECM represents a dynamic structural and biochemical environment that actively shapes hepatocyte behavior during regeneration [7,8]. Following liver injury, ECM remodeling critically influences the balance between tissue restoration and pathological repair by regulating cell proliferation, migration, and tissue organization [7,9,10]. Appropriate ECM remodeling facilitates hepatocyte regeneration and architectural recovery, whereas excessive or disordered matrix accumulation disrupts these processes and promotes fibrotic progression [9,11]. Thus, the ECM serves not only as a structural framework but also as a central regulator of liver regeneration, ultimately determining whether injury leads to effective repair or chronic fibrosis.
Importantly, the regulatory influence of the ECM arises from its intrinsic plasticity. Changes in matrix composition, physical properties, and remodeling dynamics not only reflect tissue injury but also actively encode instructive signals that can be sensed and integrated by resident liver cells, and are amenable to reprogramming. This tunable nature positions the ECM at the intersection of mechanism and intervention: understanding how ECM-derived biochemical and mechanical cues are generated, perceived, and coordinated provides a conceptual basis for rationally modulating regenerative outcomes. In this review, we synthesize current evidence by examining the ECM through a hierarchical and mechanistic lens. We first discuss how distinct ECM components establish the molecular foundation of the regenerative microenvironment; we then address how ECM mechanics are sensed through mechanotransduction pathways and translated into intracellular signaling programs; finally, we integrate these insights at the tissue level to illustrate how multicellular crosstalk converges on the ECM. This convergence enables the ECM to function as a dynamic decision-making platform that coordinates liver regeneration and fibrotic trajectories.

2. Dynamic Roles of the Core and Non-Core Liver Matrisomal Components in Balancing Liver Regeneration and Fibrosis

The liver ECM orchestrates regeneration through a hierarchical partnership between its core and non-core matrisome components. At the molecular level, the core matrisome establishes the fundamental structural and biochemical framework of the hepatic microenvironment, while the non-core matrisome refines this framework through enzymatic remodeling, matricellular protein activity, and the spatiotemporal regulation of signaling molecules. Together, these components encode context-dependent biochemical and physical information that shapes cellular responses to injury. The balance between matrix stability and plasticity established at this compositional level critically influences whether liver repair proceeds toward adaptive regeneration or maladaptive fibrotic remodeling (Figure 1).

2.1. Core Matrisome

The liver core matrisome, which consists of collagens, glycoproteins, and proteoglycans, forms the fundamental structural and biochemical foundation for liver regeneration [8,12,13]. During the early regenerative phase, activated HSCs and periportal hepatocytes rapidly synthesize fibrillar collagens, such as types I and III, to assemble a provisional scaffold that preserves parenchymal architecture and transmits mechanosensory cues through integrin focal adhesion and cytoskeletal signaling pathways [13,14,15]. This transient collagenous framework not only provides tensile support but also acts as a reservoir for growth factors including hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) and epidermal growth factor (EGF), enabling spatially controlled release that promotes synchronized hepatocyte proliferation [16,17,18]. Concurrently, ECM glycoproteins, most prominently fibronectin, laminins and tenascin C, coordinate cell adhesion, migration, and survival [19,20]. Fibronectin engages integrin α5β1 to activate cytoprotective signaling, whereas laminins and elastin help restore lobular polarity and mechanical elasticity, forming fibrillar conduits that guide the movement of hepatocytes and progenitor cells [21]. Proteoglycans such as decorin (DCN), perlecan and versican (VCAN) further refine the regenerative niche by temporally sequestering and releasing mitogenic factors and buffering profibrotic mediators, including transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β) [22,23].
Collectively, these core ECM components form a dynamic matrix that integrates biochemical gradients with mechanical cues to sustain tissue plasticity and functional recovery [18,24]. The balance between structural stability and matrix remodeling is a defining feature of successful regeneration, distinguishing physiological repair from maladaptive fibrotic responses [25]. The central role of the core matrisome in controlling this transition highlights that it functions not as a passive scaffold but as an active regulator of liver regeneration, guiding the restoration of liver structure and function.

2.2. Non-Core Matrisome

Beyond the core matrisome, the non-core matrisome encompasses a broad spectrum of ECM regulators, ECM-affiliated proteins and matrix-bound secreted factors that collectively fine-tune the regenerative niche [26]. Matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) and their tissue inhibitors (TIMPs) form a tightly regulated proteolytic system that controls the rate of ECM turnover, releasing sequestered mitogens while preventing excessive degradation and structural collapse [27,28]. Complementing this process, lysyl oxidase family enzymes (LOX and LOXL isoforms) catalyze collagen cross-linking to enhance mechanical stability while preserving the pliability required for cell migration and tissue reorganization [29,30,31]. ECM-affiliated proteins such as galectin-3 (GAL3), annexin A2 (ANXA2), and secreted protein acidic and rich in cysteine (SPARC) function as molecular modulators of cell–matrix adhesion, immune-cell recruitment and angiogenic remodeling, thereby linking biochemical cues to tissue morphogenesis [32,33,34]. Simultaneously, the ECM serves as a dynamic reservoir for secreted growth factors such as HGF, TGF-β, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), with their bioavailability regulated by proteolytic activity and mechanical inputs [26,35]. The spatially and temporally controlled release of these ligands provides the precision necessary for synchronized hepatocyte proliferation and vascular repair [36].
Collectively, these non-core matrisome components transform the ECM into an information-rich signaling interface that integrates proteolytic remodeling, mechanical feedback, and paracrine crosstalk [37]. Through these mechanisms, they critically influence the balance between adaptive regeneration and pathological scar formation. However, the regulatory capacity of these components is not solely determined by their presence or abundance. The same molecular constituents can exert distinct effects depending on their organization, cross-linking, and mechanical context, thereby raising the question of how liver cells sense and interpret the physical state of the ECM during regeneration. Addressing this question requires consideration of ECM mechanics and mechanotransduction.

3. Liver ECM Orchestrates Regeneration Through a Mechano-Biochemical Circuit

The ECM that emerges after liver injury is not a passive scaffold, but an instructive niche that translates compositional changes into mechanical signals guiding tissue regeneration [24,38,39]. At this level, ECM mechanics function as a critical interface through which biochemical information encoded in matrix composition is sensed and interpreted by resident liver cells. Activation of LOX family enzymes (LOX and LOXL1–4) promotes covalent cross-linking of type I and type III collagens, strengthening the newly formed matrix and modulating its mechanical properties [40,41]. This stabilization preserves the cohesion of the regenerating parenchyma while avoiding excessive stiffening that would favor fibrotic progression [42,43]. In parallel, MMPs such as MMP-2 and MMP-9, along with related proteases, remodel the ECM by cleaving overly stabilized fibrils and releasing matrix-bound morphogens, including HGF, VEGF, and epidermal growth factor (EGF) [12,42]. The dynamic balance between LOX-mediated stabilization and MMP-driven remodeling defines an optimal microenvironment that harmonizes stiffness, porosity, and ligand availability to support hepatocyte adhesion, polarization, and coordinated proliferation [41,44].
Hepatocytes and NPCs sense these physical cues through specialized mechanosensors. Integrins (e.g., α5β1, αvβ3) clustered in focal adhesions recruit focal adhesion kinase (FAK) and Proto-oncogene tyrosine-protein kinase Src, activating the RAS-RAF-MEK-ERK and PI3K-AKT-mTOR cascades to promote anabolic growth and survival [40,45]. Concurrently, integrin engagement stimulates RhoA–ROCK–mediated actomyosin contractility, amplifying FAK signaling in a positive feedback loop that refines focal adhesion maturation and strength [46]. Mechanical shear stress and tensile strain are also sensed by mechanosensitive ion channels such as Piezo1 and TRPV4; subsequent Ca2+ influx activates calcineurin-NFAT and CaMKII/PKC-MAPK pathways, reinforcing proliferation-associated transcription and promoting Yes-associated protein/transcriptional coactivator with PDZ-binding motif (YAP/TAZ) dephosphorylation [47,48]. Central to this network is the Hippo-YAP/TAZ axis: increased cytoskeletal tension or matrix rigidity suppresses MST1/2-LATS1/2 kinase activity, enabling YAP and TAZ to translocate into the nucleus; there, they partner with TEA domain transcription factor family (TEAD) transcription factors to drive the expression of pro-proliferative genes such as Cyclin D1, connective tissue growth factor (CTGF), cysteine-rich angiogenic inducer 61 (Cyr61), and amphiregulin (AREG) [46,49]. This mechanical circuitry further converges with canonical Wnt/β-catenin signaling, disrupting the destruction complex (Axin/GSK3β) and stabilizing β-catenin, which then cooperates with T-cell factor (TCF), and is further potentiated by YAP/TAZ activation, to promote transcriptional synergy that drives hepatocytes through the G1/S transition and restores liver mass [40,44].
Mechanical homeostasis is equally crucial during the resolution phase. Persistent LOX activity or excessive cross-linking locks the ECM into a rigid, fibrotic state, restricting hepatocyte migration and sustaining HSC activation [43]. Conversely, broad MMP inhibition compromises matrix clearance and growth factor release [12]. Disruption of integrin-FAK signaling or enforced Hippo pathway activation impairs YAP/TAZ-dependent transcription and delays tissue recovery [34]. Restoring optimal matrix compliance, achieved through balanced LOX/MMP activity and tuned actomyosin tension, reactivates FAK-ERK/AKT, YAP/TAZ-TEAD, and β-catenin-TCF programs in a coordinated manner [34,43]. Together, these findings support a unified framework in which the liver ECM functions as an integrated mechano-biochemical circuit, synchronizing matrix stiffness, calcium flux, and transcriptional crosstalk to orchestrate regeneration [50]. The liver exemplifies, perhaps more clearly than any other organ, that successful repair depends not only on biochemistry but also on biomechanics [51,52].
Taken together, the liver’s regenerative capability is fundamentally guided by a mechano-biochemical network centered on the dynamic ECM (Figure 2). This system establishes a tunable mechanical microenvironment through balanced LOX- and MMP-mediated remodeling, creating an optimal physical niche for hepatocyte proliferation. Mechanical cues are transduced via integrin-mediated pathways and mechanosensitive ion channels, converging on key transcriptional regulators including YAP/TAZ, β-catenin, and ERK-dependent signaling to coordinate proliferative and morphogenetic programs. This regulatory network enables transient physical stimuli to elicit sustained pro-regenerative responses, yet the same mechanisms can promote fibrosis and pathogenesis under conditions of sustained mechanical imbalance. Future therapeutic strategies aimed at restoring regenerative capacity will need to target this intricate mechanochemical code that bridges physical cues with biological outcomes in liver repair. Importantly, these mechanotransduction pathways operate within a multicellular context. Hepatocytes, stromal cells, endothelial cells, and immune populations simultaneously sense, modify, and respond to ECM mechanics, necessitating coordinated signal integration at the tissue level. Understanding how ECM-derived mechanical information is integrated across distinct cell types is therefore essential for explaining how regenerative programs are initiated, amplified, and ultimately terminated during liver repair.

4. Liver ECM Coordinates Liver Regeneration Through Multicellular Crosstalk

Following acute liver injury or partial hepatectomy, the liver ECM rapidly transitions from a source of cell-specific mechanical cues into a shared tissue-level signaling hub. This reprogrammed microenvironment integrates biochemical, mechanical, and immunological cues to direct multicellular regeneration [51,52]. Its transient remodeling is sustained through intricate crosstalk among hepatocytes, NPCs, and BECs, each contributing distinct ECM-modifying and -sensing capabilities [53,54] (Figure 3).
Liver SECs act as early orchestrators of the regenerative niche. Through the release of angiocrine factors, including Wnt2, HGF, and VEGF, they stimulate hepatocyte proliferation and remodel the surrounding matrix through pathways involving urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA) and MMPs [55,56,57,58]. These secreted factors are sequestered within the ECM by heparan sulfate proteoglycans and are subsequently released in response to local mechanical and proteolytic signals, creating spatially resolved mitogenic gradients that align with sinusoidal flow [59,60].
Concurrently, HSCs sense alterations in ECM stiffness and composition through integrin-FAK and YAP/TAZ-mediated mechanotransduction [61,62]. This prompts their transition into a transiently activated, pro-regenerative phenotype. In this state, HSCs deposit fibronectin, laminin, and matricellular proteins such as SPARC and osteopontin (OPN), which provide both adhesive ligands and mechanical elasticity to facilitate hepatocyte spreading, ductular cell migration, and vascular stabilization [63,64,65,66]. These HSC-derived matrices also act as molecular scaffolds that coordinate growth-factor presentation and regulate endothelial permeability, thereby linking mechanical feedback to metabolic and transcriptional reprogramming in regenerating hepatocytes [67,68].
BECs, traditionally regarded as passive ductal components, are now recognized as pivotal contributors to ECM remodeling and regenerative patterning. Upon injury, BECs upregulate the secretion of matricrine mediators such as AREG, OPN, and CTGF, which bind ECM glycosaminoglycans and enhance hepatocyte proliferation at the ductal-parenchymal interface [69,70,71,72]. Simultaneously, BECs release MMPs and TIMPs, enabling finely tuned ECM turnover that facilitates ductular-reaction expansion and the migration of progenitor-like cells into periportal zones [73,74,75]. Crosstalk between BECs and KCs further amplifies this process: KC-derived Wnt ligands sustain BECs-to-hepatocytes differentiation, whereas BEC-derived cytokines such as IL-6 and OPN recruit KCs and shape their activation state toward a reparative phenotype [6,76,77].
KCs and infiltrating monocyte-derived macrophages serve as temporal regulators of ECM homeostasis. During the early inflammatory phase, these macrophages release tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), MMP-9, and MMP-12 to degrade necrotic ECM and release matrix-bound mitogens such as HGF and VEGF [78,79,80]. As regeneration proceeds, macrophages shift to an IL-10–dominant, M2-like state, promoting ECM reassembly through induction of collagen cross-linking enzymes (LOX family) and secretion of anti-fibrotic mediators [81,82,83]. This biphasic pattern of ECM degradation and reconstitution ensures that hepatocytes and BECs are exposed to temporally ordered mechanical and biochemical cues—initially permissive for proliferation, subsequently restrictive to facilitate termination and remodeling [84,85,86].
Ultimately, these intercellular interactions transform the ECM into a self-regulating mechano-biochemical network. Through integrin signaling, cytoskeletal tension, and mechanosensitive transcriptional programs such as YAP/TAZ and β-catenin, hepatocytes and NPCs continuously interpret and reshape their matrix context. The resulting regenerative circuit integrates endothelial angiocrine signaling, HSC mechanotransduction, macrophage-driven remodeling, and cholangiocyte plasticity to restore liver architecture and function with remarkable precision. Viewed in this light, liver regeneration exemplifies a paradigm in which ECM dynamics function as both the language and the logic of multicellular coordination, translating injury-induced physical and molecular perturbations into an ordered program of tissue reconstruction. Importantly, the adaptive nature of this ECM-centered network suggests that regenerative outcomes are not fixed but potentially tunable, providing a conceptual foundation for strategies aimed at modulating the matrix microenvironment to favor repair over fibrosis.

5. ECM as a Therapeutic Target and Engineering Blueprint Orchestrating Liver Regeneration

In light of the molecular, mechanical, and cellular processes described above, the ECM has increasingly been considered a relevant entry point for therapeutic modulation in liver regeneration [87,88]. Accordingly, a range of intervention strategies has been explored to influence liver repair by adjusting ECM composition, cross-linking, or mechanical properties following injury or resection [89]. These ECM-directed approaches include molecular modulation of matrix remodeling and mechanotransduction pathways, as well as bioengineering platforms designed to recapitulate or modify selected features of the native liver ECM (Table 1).
Pharmacologic targeting of fibrogenic signaling constitutes a major class of ECM-directed therapies. Within this framework, selected interventions targeting the TGF-β axis exert direct pro-regenerative effects in addition to antifibrotic activity. As a master regulator of HSC activation and SMAD2/3-driven matrix deposition, TGF-β signaling is antagonized by recombinant decorin, which sequesters extracellular ligands, and by LY2157299, a selective TGF-β receptor I inhibitor, both of which are associated with enhanced hepatocyte proliferation and accelerated liver mass recovery following partial hepatectomy or toxic injury [90,91,92]. Other modulators of this pathway, including SB525334, phosphocreatine, 3-HBI, and astaxanthin, primarily attenuate fibrogenic and oxidative injury, thereby relieving microenvironmental constraints that permit, rather than directly induce, endogenous regeneration [93,94,95,96]. Therapeutic targeting of ECM biomechanics further modulates regenerative competence. Collagen cross-linking mediated by LOX and LOXL enzymes drives matrix stiffening and limits tissue compliance, thereby constraining hepatocyte renewal [29]. Selective inhibition of LOXL2 using AB0023 or GS341 directly couples matrix softening with hepatocyte proliferation, whereas broader LOX inhibition predominantly suppresses pathological remodeling and injury, exerting indirect pro-regenerative effects [31,97,98,99]. Dual LOXL2/LOXL3 inhibition with PXS-5153A similarly improves matrix compliance, establishing a biomechanical milieu permissive for regeneration [100]. Dynamic regulation of ECM turnover constitutes an additional axis of regenerative control. Augmentation of matrix degradation through MMP-13 gene delivery or MMP-9 suppression promotes hepatocyte cell-cycle re-entry and liver regeneration, in part by releasing matrix-sequestered mitogenic cues and restoring ECM plasticity [101,102,103]. Finally, canonical regenerative signaling pathways are tightly interwoven with ECM remodeling. Normalization of aberrant Wnt activity using DKK1 or sFRP5 restores hepatocyte proliferative capacity, while disruption of β-catenin-CBP-dependent transcription with ICG-001 robustly enhances hepatocyte proliferation across experimental systems [104,105,106]. PRI-724 demonstrates early clinical activity in HCV-associated fibrosis, consistent with enhanced regenerative competence despite limited direct proliferation readouts [107,108]. Recombinant BMP-7 represents a bona fide pro-regenerative cue following partial hepatectomy, acting through stromal reprogramming and coordinated ECM remodeling to support hepatocyte renewal [109].
Table 1. Summary of ECM-targeted strategies for liver regeneration.
Table 1. Summary of ECM-targeted strategies for liver regeneration.
CategoryTargetInterventionModelsEffectReferences
Molecular targeting of ECM dynamicsTGF-βRecombinant decorin (binds to TGF-β)PHx or CCl4 mouse models++[90]
LY2157299PHx or CCl4 mouse models+[91,92]
LOXl2AB0023TAA or DDC mouse models+++[31]
GS341CCl4 mouse models++[98]
MMP-13
MMP-9		MMP13-encoding plasmids (pBGI-MMP13)TAA mouse models++[101]
MMP-9 antisense oligonucleotidesPHx rat models++[103]
Wnt3a/4/5a
Wnt5a		DKK1BDL mouse models, primary mouse HSCs++[104]
sFRP5CCl4 mouse models+[105]
Wnt pathwayICG-001CCl4 mouse models, LX-2 cells, primary human fibroblasts++[106]
WntPRI-724Human HCV+[108]
BMP-7Recombinant human BMP-7 (rhBMP-7)PHx mouse models+[109]
ECM-based tissue engineering strategiesdECMInjectable hydrogelRat models of liver ischemia/reperfusion injury++[110]
L-ECM hydrogelTAA rat models++[110]
dECM-Cryogel implantable scaffoldLiver failure rat models+[111]
Self-assembling dECM hydrogel adhesiveRabbit models of hemorrhage liver injury++[112]
dECM-based bioengineered lobulesMouse models of acute liver failure++[113]
THBS1-dECMPHx mouse models, primary mouse hepatocytes+++[114]
L-ECM hydrogelRat primary hepatocytes++[115]
The observed effect was categorized into three levels based on the percentage of response: + (0–25%), ++ (26–50%), +++ (51–75%). Outcomes reflect relative improvement in liver regeneration parameters (e.g., hepatocyte proliferation, liver mass recovery, or fibrosis resolution) as reported in the original studies.
In parallel, bioengineering strategies increasingly seek to reconstruct the instructive roles of liver ECM. Among these, decellularized ECM (dECM) hydrogels and scaffolds are the most established platforms, retaining organ-specific biochemical complexity and supporting hepatocyte adhesion, vascularization, and ductal morphogenesis in preclinical models [26,110,111]. Advanced dECM configurations, such as cryogelated scaffolds and nanoparticle-functionalized ECM hydrogels, restore liver architecture while modulating local immune responses [112]. Injectable immunoregulatory hydrogels promote hepatoprotective macrophage phenotypes in ischemia–reperfusion models, whereas THBS1-enriched dECM bioinks enhance liver organoid maturation by recapitulating developmental cues [113,116]. Other formulations, including self-assembling dECM adhesives, bioengineered lobular constructs, and hydrogels optimized for hepatocyte transplantation or culture, further expand the regenerative toolkit [114,115,117,118]. As dECM platforms evolve in biological specificity and design flexibility, they are increasingly viewed not as passive scaffolds, but as programmable matrices capable of directing liver repair.
Collectively, these ECM-centered molecular and engineering innovations converge on a common principle: effective liver regeneration depends on the restoration of a compliant, growth-factor-responsive, and dynamically remodeled ECM. By simultaneously recalibrating biochemical signaling and mechanical feedback, ECM-targeted therapeutics and biomimetic scaffolds hold transformative potential for clinical translation, offering regenerative platforms that not only repair but actively reprogram the injured liver toward physiological homeostasis.

6. Discussion

Despite extensive evidence supporting a regulatory role for the ECM in liver regeneration, the functional consequences of ECM remodeling are highly context dependent and, in some cases, appear contradictory [111]. Transient increases in matrix stiffness during early regenerative phases are associated with enhanced hepatocyte proliferation and tissue reorganization, whereas sustained or excessive stiffening consistently correlates with fibrotic progression and impaired repair [44,112]. A similar duality characterizes ECM-regulated mechanotransduction pathways, including YAP/TAZ and β-catenin signaling, which can support regenerative responses when activated in a temporally controlled manner but contribute to ductular reactions, fibrosis, or tumorigenic risk when persistently engaged [48,62,113]. Matrix remodeling enzymes further illustrate this balance: LOX-mediated cross-linking is required to preserve tissue integrity during regeneration, yet excessive cross-linking promotes mechanical locking, while MMP-driven proteolysis facilitates remodeling and growth factor release but may disrupt tissue architecture if unrestrained [30,44,81,103]. Collectively, these observations indicate that ECM-mediated regulation of liver regeneration operates within dynamic thresholds rather than uniform pro- or anti-regenerative programs.
Many apparent inconsistencies in the literature can be attributed to methodological and experimental constraints that limit cross-study interpretation. Liver injury models differ substantially in inflammatory burden, spatial patterns of ECM remodeling, and regenerative kinetics, complicating direct comparison of ECM-associated effects across experimental systems [24,116,117]. Moreover, ECM properties are frequently assessed using bulk measurements that obscure spatial heterogeneity within the regenerating liver, despite mounting evidence that localized differences in stiffness, composition, and remodeling dynamics exert cell-type–specific effects [111,114,115]. In vitro platforms similarly struggle to recapitulate the reciprocal and evolving interactions between cells and matrix observed in vivo, as static substrates with fixed stiffness fail to capture the dynamic mechanical landscape characteristic of regeneration [118]. In addition, most ECM-targeted interventions lack cellular specificity, making it difficult to disentangle direct effects on hepatocytes from indirect contributions of stromal, endothelial, or immune populations. Together, these limitations constrain the causal interpretation of ECM–cell interactions and underscore the need for higher-resolution and context-aware experimental approaches.
In light of these considerations, focusing on individual ECM components or signaling pathways in isolation may be insufficient to explain regenerative outcomes. An emerging alternative is to conceptualize the ECM in terms of dynamic states defined by coordinated changes in composition, mechanics, and remodeling activity. Within this framework, permissive ECM states support hepatocyte proliferation, angiogenesis, and tissue reorganization, whereas maladaptive states favor mechanical confinement, chronic inflammation, and fibrotic progression. Advancing this perspective will require integrative strategies that combine spatially resolved transcriptomic and proteomic analyses with quantitative measurements of matrix mechanics, alongside programmable biomaterials capable of systematically interrogating defined ECM conditions [119]. By shifting emphasis from single molecular targets to ECM states, this framework offers a coherent means to reconcile divergent findings across models and experimental contexts.
Despite the mechanistic insights summarized above, several key knowledge gaps remain. The temporal boundaries that distinguish permissive from maladaptive ECM states are poorly defined, particularly across different injury etiologies and phases of regeneration. How distinct liver cell populations differentially sense, remodel, and respond to evolving ECM states in vivo also remains incompletely understood, owing in part to limitations in cell-type–specific and spatially resolved analyses. In addition, current approaches for measuring ECM mechanics and composition often lack the resolution required to capture local heterogeneity and dynamic remodeling, constraining causal inference. Finally, the long-term consequences of experimentally manipulating ECM properties—including tissue stability, reversibility, and potential oncogenic risk—have not been systematically evaluated. Addressing these gaps will require coordinated application of spatial omics, quantitative biomechanics, and dynamic in vitro and in vivo models capable of capturing ECM–cell reciprocity over regenerative time courses.

7. Conclusions

In conclusion, liver regeneration highlights the remarkable capacity of adult tissues to restore structure and function through the coordinated remodeling of the ECM. As discussed in this review, ECM composition, mechanics, and multicellular interactions jointly shape regenerative trajectories in a context- and time-dependent manner, with distinct matrix states supporting either effective repair or fibrotic progression. A central challenge moving forward is to move beyond reductionist descriptions of individual ECM components and instead define how biochemical cues, mechanical properties, and intercellular signaling are integrated within the matrix microenvironment. Advances in spatial omics, quantitative biomechanics, and engineered model systems are expected to enable more precise characterization of these ECM states. Translationally, while ECM-directed molecular interventions and biomaterial-based strategies show promise in modulating regenerative microenvironments, substantial work remains to establish their stability, specificity, and long-term safety. By framing the ECM as a tunable but tightly constrained regulatory system, future efforts in regenerative hepatology may better align mechanistic insight with rational therapeutic design.

Author Contributions

H.M. drafted the manuscript with contributions from W.W.; W.C. and H.Y. contributed to the study conception and design and provided critical revisions to the manuscript; all authors reviewed, edited, and approved the final version for submission. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (82170613 [to WC], 82430023 [to HY], 82470646 [to WC], 82130018 [to HY]), and Young Talent Funds of Chinese Institutes for Medical Research (CX23YQB08 [to WC]).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Acknowledgments

We thank all colleagues whose work has contributed to advances in this field.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
ANXA2Annexin A2
AREGAmphiregulin
BDLBile duct ligation
BECsBiliary epithelial cells
BMP-7Bone morphogenetic protein 7
BAPNβ-aminopropionitrile
CTGFConnective tissue growth factor
CYR61Cysteine-rich angiogenic inducer 61
dECMDecellularized extracellular matrix
DCNDecorin
DDC3,5-diethoxycarbonyl-1,4-dihydrocollidine model
ECMExtracellular matrix
EGFEpidermal growth factor
EVExtracellular vesicle
FAKFocal adhesion kinase
GAL3Galectin-3
GSK3βGlycogen synthase kinase 3 beta
HAHyaluronic acid
HCVHepatitis C virus
HGFHepatocyte growth factor
HSCHepatic stellate cell
KCKupffer cell
LOX/LOXLLysyl oxidase/lysyl oxidase-like enzymes
LSECLiver sinusoidal endothelial cell
MMPsMatrix metalloproteinases
NASHNon-alcoholic steatohepatitis
NFATNuclear factor of activated T cells
OPNOsteopontin
PDGFPlatelet-derived growth factor
PHxPartial hepatectomy
RAFRapidly accelerated fibrosarcoma kinase
RASRat sarcoma family GTPase
SPARCSecreted protein acidic and rich in cysteine
SPP1Secreted phosphoprotein 1
TAAThioacetamide
TCFT-cell factor
TEADTEA domain transcription factor family
TIMPsTissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases
TRPV4Transient receptor potential vanilloid 4
VCANVersican
VEGFVascular endothelial growth factor

References

  1. Liu, Q.; Wang, S.; Fu, J.; Chen, Y.; Xu, J.; Wei, W.; Song, H.; Zhao, X.; Wang, H. Liver Regeneration after Injury: Mechanisms, Cellular Interactions and Therapeutic Innovations. Clin. Transl. Med. 2024, 14, e1812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Michalopoulos, G.K.; Bhushan, B. Liver Regeneration: Biological and Pathological Mechanisms and Implications. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2021, 18, 40–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Mak, K.M.; Shin, D.W. Hepatic Sinusoids versus Central Veins: Structures, Markers, Angiocrines, and Roles in Liver Regeneration and Homeostasis. Anat. Rec. 2021, 304, 1661–1691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Hammerich, L.; Tacke, F. Hepatic Inflammatory Responses in Liver Fibrosis. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2023, 20, 633–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Geng, Y.; Schwabe, R.F. Hepatic Stellate Cell Heterogeneity: Functional Aspects and Therapeutic Implications. Hepatology 2025, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Shu, W.; Yang, M.; Yang, J.; Lin, S.; Wei, X.; Xu, X. Cellular Crosstalk during Liver Regeneration: Unity in Diversity. Cell Commun. Signal. 2022, 20, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Matsuda, M.; Seki, E. The Liver Fibrosis Niche: Novel Insights into the Interplay between Fibrosis-Composing Mesenchymal Cells, Immune Cells, Endothelial Cells, and Extracellular Matrix. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2020, 143, 111556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ortiz, C.; Schierwagen, R.; Schaefer, L.; Klein, S.; Trepat, X.; Trebicka, J. Extracellular Matrix Remodeling in Chronic Liver Disease. Curr. Tissue Microenviron. Rep. 2021, 2, 41–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Berumen, J.; Baglieri, J.; Kisseleva, T.; Mekeel, K. Liver Fibrosis: Pathophysiology and Clinical Implications. WIREs Mech. Dis. 2021, 13, e1499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Zhou, X.; Xing, Z.; Dong, R.; Zhang, X.; Liang, X.; Lu, Z.; Yang, G. Cell Function Experiments and Bioinformatics Analysis Jointly Revealed the Antineoplastic Effect of Lumican on Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Phenomics 2025, 5, 252–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Chen, W.; Sun, Y.; Chen, S.; Ge, X.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, N.; Wu, X.; Song, Z.; Han, H.; Desert, R.; et al. Matrisome Gene-Based Subclassification of Patients with Liver Fibrosis Identifies Clinical and Molecular Heterogeneities. Hepatology 2023, 78, 1118–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ma, X.; Huang, T.; Chen, X.; Li, Q.; Liao, M.; Fu, L.; Huang, J.; Yuan, K.; Wang, Z.; Zeng, Y. Molecular Mechanisms in Liver Repair and Regeneration: From Physiology to Therapeutics. Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 2025, 10, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Zhao, Y.-Q.; Deng, X.-W.; Xu, G.-Q.; Lin, J.; Lu, H.-Z.; Chen, J. Mechanical Homeostasis Imbalance in Hepatic Stellate Cells Activation and Hepatic Fibrosis. Front. Mol. Biosci. 2023, 10, 1183808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Ishikawa, J.; Takeo, M.; Iwadate, A.; Koya, J.; Kihira, M.; Oshima, M.; Suzuki, Y.; Taniguchi, K.; Kobayashi, A.; Tsuji, T. Mechanical Homeostasis of Liver Sinusoid Is Involved in the Initiation and Termination of Liver Regeneration. Commun. Biol. 2021, 4, 409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Zheng, X.; Liu, W.; Xiang, J.; Liu, P.; Ke, M.; Wang, B.; Wu, R.; Lv, Y. Collagen I Promotes Hepatocellular Carcinoma Cell Proliferation by Regulating Integrin Β1/FAK Signaling Pathway in Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver. Oncotarget 2017, 8, 95586–95595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Hayes, A.J.; Farrugia, B.L.; Biose, I.J.; Bix, G.J.; Melrose, J. Perlecan, a Multi-Functional, Cell-Instructive, Matrix-Stabilizing Proteoglycan with Roles in Tissue Development Has Relevance to Connective Tissue Repair and Regeneration. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2022, 10, 856261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hynes, R.O. The Extracellular Matrix: Not Just Pretty Fibrils. Science 2009, 326, 1216–1219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Adamek, B.; Zalewska-Ziob, M.; Strzelczyk, J.K.; Kasperczyk, J.; Wołkowska-Pokrywa, K.; Spausta, G.; Hudziec, E.; Wiczkowski, A.; Świętochowska, E.; Kukla, M.; et al. Hepatocyte Growth Factor and Epidermal Growth Factor Activity during Later Stages of Rat Liver Regeneration upon Interferon α-2b Influence. Clin. Exp. Hepatol. 2017, 3, 9–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Midwood, K.S.; Orend, G. The Role of Tenascin-C in Tissue Injury and Tumorigenesis. J. Cell. Commun. Signal. 2009, 3, 287–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Nirwane, A.; Yao, Y. Laminins and Their Receptors in the CNS. Biol. Rev. 2019, 94, 283–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gonzalez-Molina, J.; Zhang, X.; Borghesan, M.; Mendonça da Silva, J.; Awan, M.; Fuller, B.; Gavara, N.; Selden, C. Extracellular Fluid Viscosity Enhances Liver Cancer Cell Mechanosensing and Migration. Biomaterials 2018, 177, 113–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Hardingham, T.E.; Fosang, A.J. Proteoglycans: Many Forms and Many Functions. FASEB J. 1992, 6, 861–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Schaefer, L.; Iozzo, R.V. Biological Functions of the Small Leucine-Rich Proteoglycans: From Genetics to Signal Transduction. J. Biol. Chem. 2008, 283, 21305–21309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Humphrey, J.D.; Dufresne, E.R.; Schwartz, M.A. Mechanotransduction and Extracellular Matrix Homeostasis. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2014, 15, 802–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Karsdal, M.A.; Nielsen, M.J.; Sand, J.M.; Henriksen, K.; Genovese, F.; Bay-Jensen, A.-C.; Smith, V.; Adamkewicz, J.I.; Christiansen, C.; Leeming, D.J. Extracellular Matrix Remodeling: The Common Denominator in Connective Tissue Diseases. Possibilities for Evaluation and Current Understanding of the Matrix as More than a Passive Architecture, but a Key Player in Tissue Failure. Assay Drug Dev. Technol. 2013, 11, 70–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zhang, W.; Zhang, N.; Wu, W.; Li, H.; You, H.; Chen, W. Atlas of Mildly and Highly Insoluble Matrisome Driving Liver Fibrosis. Front. Pharmacol. 2024, 15, 1435359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Naim, A.; Pan, Q.; Baig, M.S. Matrix Metalloproteinases (MMPs) in Liver Diseases. J. Clin. Exp. Hepatol. 2017, 7, 367–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Chen, K.; Xu, M.; Lu, F.; He, Y. Development of Matrix Metalloproteinases-Mediated Extracellular Matrix Remodeling in Regenerative Medicine: A Mini Review. Tissue Eng. Regen. Med. 2023, 20, 661–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Chen, W.; Yang, A.; Jia, J.; Popov, Y.V.; Schuppan, D.; You, H. Lysyl Oxidase (LOX) Family Members: Rationale and Their Potential as Therapeutic Targets for Liver Fibrosis. Hepatology 2020, 72, 729–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Zhang, N.; Yang, A.; Zhang, W.; Li, H.; Xu, A.; Yan, X.; Han, Q.; Wang, B.; You, H.; Chen, W. Crosstalk of Lysyl Oxidase-like 1 and Lysyl Oxidase Prolongs Their Half-Lives and Regulates Liver Fibrosis through Notch Signal. Hepatol. Commun. 2024, 8, e0391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ikenaga, N.; Peng, Z.-W.; Vaid, K.A.; Liu, S.B.; Yoshida, S.; Sverdlov, D.Y.; Mikels-Vigdal, A.; Smith, V.; Schuppan, D.; Popov, Y.V. Selective Targeting of Lysyl Oxidase-like 2 (LOXL2) Suppresses Hepatic Fibrosis Progression and Accelerates Its Reversal. Gut 2017, 66, 1697–1708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Hsieh, W.-C.; Mackinnon, A.C.; Lu, W.-Y.; Jung, J.; Boulter, L.; Henderson, N.C.; Simpson, K.J.; Schotanus, B.; Wojtacha, D.; Bird, T.G.; et al. Galectin-3 Regulates Hepatic Progenitor Cell Expansion during Liver Injury. Gut 2015, 64, 312–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Feng, M.; He, Y.; Wang, H. Role of the Annexin a Protein Family in Liver Diseases: Insights and Therapeutic Opportunities. Front. Pharmacol. 2025, 16, 1569927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Wu, H.; Zhou, M.; Jin, Q.; Wang, X.; Xu, Y.; Li, M.; Chen, S.; Tang, Q.; Wang, Q.; Hu, B.; et al. The Upregulation of Annexin A2 by TLR4 Pathway Facilitates Lipid Accumulation and Liver Injury via Blocking AMPK/mTOR-Mediated Autophagy Flux during the Development of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease. Hepatol. Int. 2024, 18, 1144–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Akhtam, R.; Nuraliyevna, S.N.; Kadham, M.J.; Mirzakhamitovna, K.S.; Tursunaliyevna, R.M.; Shakhnoz, K.; Shakhzod, T.; Otabek, B.; Baxtiyorovich, M.I.; Shakhboskhanovna, A.F.; et al. Biomarkers in Liver Regeneration. Clin. Chim. Acta 2025, 576, 120413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wen, Y.; Ju, C. New Insights into Liver Injury and Regeneration from Single-Cell Transcriptomics. eGastroenterology 2025, 3, e100202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zhang, C.; Sun, C.; Zhao, Y.; Ye, B.; Yu, G. Signaling Pathways of Liver Regeneration: Biological Mechanisms and Implications. iScience 2024, 27, 108683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Sharip, A.; Kunz, J. Mechanosignaling via Integrins: Pivotal Players in Liver Fibrosis Progression and Therapy. Cells 2025, 14, 266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Katoh, K. Integrin and Its Associated Proteins as a Mediator for Mechano-Signal Transduction. Biomolecules 2025, 15, 166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Di, X.; Gao, X.; Peng, L.; Ai, J.; Jin, X.; Qi, S.; Li, H.; Wang, K.; Luo, D. Cellular Mechanotransduction in Health and Diseases: From Molecular Mechanism to Therapeutic Targets. Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 2023, 8, 282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Vallet, S.D.; Ricard-Blum, S. Lysyl Oxidases: From Enzyme Activity to Extracellular Matrix Cross-Links. Essays Biochem. 2019, 63, 349–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Karnawat, K.; Parthasarathy, R.; Sakhrie, M.; Karthik, H.; Krishna, K.V.; Balachander, G.M. Building in Vitro Models for Mechanistic Understanding of Liver Regeneration in Chronic Liver Diseases. J. Mater. Chem. B 2024, 12, 7669–7691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Chen, T.; Oh, S.; Gregory, S.; Shen, X.; Diehl, A.M. Single-Cell Omics Analysis Reveals Functional Diversification of Hepatocytes during Liver Regeneration. JCI Insight 2020, 5, e141024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Guo, T.; Wantono, C.; Tan, Y.; Deng, F.; Duan, T.; Liu, D. Regulators, Functions, and Mechanotransduction Pathways of Matrix Stiffness in Hepatic Disease. Front. Physiol. 2023, 14, 1098129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Shah, H.; Guddati, M.N. Towards Linking Histological Changes to Liver Viscoelasticity: A Hybrid Analytical-Computational Micromechanics Approach. Phys. Med. Biol. 2025, 70, 045005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ye, B.; Yue, M.; Chen, H.; Sun, C.; Shao, Y.; Jin, Q.; Zhang, C.; Yu, G. YAP/TAZ as Master Regulators in Liver Regeneration and Disease: Insights into Mechanisms and Therapeutic Targets. Mol. Biol. Rep. 2025, 52, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sichler, A.; Hüser, N.; Janssen, K.-P. Boosting Liver Regeneration: Kinase Inhibitor as a New Tool to Prevent Liver Failure. Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 2024, 9, 168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Liu, S.; Xu, X.; Fang, Z.; Ning, Y.; Deng, B.; Pan, X.; He, Y.; Yang, Z.; Huang, K.; Li, J. Piezo1 Impairs Hepatocellular Tumor Growth via Deregulation of the MAPK-Mediated YAP Signaling Pathway. Cell Calcium 2021, 95, 102367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ji, C.; McCulloch, C.A. TRPV4 Integrates Matrix Mechanosensing with Ca2+ Signaling to Regulate Extracellular Matrix Remodeling. FEBS J. 2021, 288, 5867–5887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Yang, C.; Tibbitt, M.W.; Basta, L.; Anseth, K.S. Mechanical Memory and Dosing Influence Stem Cell Fate. Nat. Mater. 2014, 13, 645–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Chen, G.; Xia, B.; Fu, Q.; Huang, X.; Wang, F.; Chen, Z.; Lv, Y. Matrix Mechanics as Regulatory Factors and Therapeutic Targets in Hepatic Fibrosis. Int. J. Biol. Sci. 2019, 15, 2509–2521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Campana, L.; Esser, H.; Huch, M.; Forbes, S. Liver Regeneration and Inflammation: From Fundamental Science to Clinical Applications. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2021, 22, 608–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Michalopoulos, G.K. Hepatostat: Liver Regeneration and Normal Liver Tissue Maintenance. Hepatology 2017, 65, 1384–1392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Zhang, L.; Theise, N.; Chua, M.; Reid, L.M. The Stem Cell Niche of Human Livers: Symmetry between Development and Regeneration. Hepatology 2008, 48, 1598–1607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Tirnitz-Parker, J.E.E.; Forbes, S.J.; Olynyk, J.K.; Ramm, G.A. Cellular Plasticity in Liver Regeneration: Spotlight on Cholangiocytes. Hepatology 2019, 69, 2286–2289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Ding, B.-S.; Nolan, D.J.; Butler, J.M.; James, D.; Babazadeh, A.O.; Rosenwaks, Z.; Mittal, V.; Kobayashi, H.; Shido, K.; Lyden, D.; et al. Inductive Angiocrine Signals from Sinusoidal Endothelium Are Required for Liver Regeneration. Nature 2010, 468, 310–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Wang, W.-L.; Zheng, X.-L.; Li, Q.-S.; Liu, W.-Y.; Hu, L.-S.; Sha, H.-C.; Guo, K.; Lv, Y.; Wang, B. The Effect of Aging on VEGF/VEGFR2 Signal Pathway Genes Expression in Rat Liver Sinusoidal Endothelial Cell. Mol. Cell. Biochem. 2021, 476, 269–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Cenciarini, M.; Uccelli, A.; Mangili, F.; Grunewald, M.; Bersini, S. Microvascular Health as a Key Determinant of Organismal Aging. Adv. Sci. 2025, 12, e08659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Nakamura, T.; Sakai, K.; Nakamura, T.; Matsumoto, K. Hepatocyte Growth Factor Twenty Years on: Much More than a Growth Factor. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2011, 26, 188–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Duarte, S.; Baber, J.; Fujii, T.; Coito, A.J. Matrix Metalloproteinases in Liver Injury, Repair and Fibrosis. Matrix. Biol. 2015, 44–46, 147–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Reynaert, H.; Chavez, M.; Geerts, A. Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor and Liver Regeneration. J. Hepatol. 2001, 34, 759–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Dupont, S.; Morsut, L.; Aragona, M.; Enzo, E.; Giulitti, S.; Cordenonsi, M.; Zanconato, F.; Le Digabel, J.; Forcato, M.; Bicciato, S.; et al. Role of YAP/TAZ in Mechanotransduction. Nature 2011, 474, 179–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Yan, Q.; Sage, E.H. SPARC, a Matricellular Glycoprotein with Important Biological Functions. J. Histochem. Cytochem. 1999, 47, 1495–1506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Neubauer, K.; Saile, B.; Ramadori, G. Liver Fibrosis and Altered Matrix Synthesis. Can. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2001, 15, 187–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Schwabe, R.F.; Brenner, D.A. Hepatic Stellate Cells: Balancing Homeostasis, Hepatoprotection and Fibrogenesis in Health and Disease. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2025, 22, 481–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Stamati, K.; Priestley, J.V.; Mudera, V.; Cheema, U. Laminin Promotes Vascular Network Formation in 3D in Vitro Collagen Scaffolds by Regulating VEGF Uptake. Exp. Cell Res. 2014, 327, 68–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Liu, R.; Scimeca, M.; Sun, Q.; Melino, G.; Mauriello, A.; Shao, C.; TOR Centre; Shi, Y.; Piacentini, M.; Tisone, G.; et al. Harnessing Metabolism of Hepatic Macrophages to Aid Liver Regeneration. Cell Death Dis. 2023, 14, 574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Vining, K.H.; Mooney, D.J. Mechanical Forces Direct Stem Cell Behaviour in Development and Regeneration. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2017, 18, 728–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Kukan, M.; Haddad, P.S. Role of Hepatocytes and Bile Duct Cells in Preservation-Reperfusion Injury of Liver Grafts. Liver Transplant. 2001, 7, 381–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Gadd, V.L.; Aleksieva, N.; Forbes, S.J. Epithelial Plasticity during Liver Injury and Regeneration. Cell Stem Cell 2020, 27, 557–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Michalopoulos, G.K.; Khan, Z. Liver Regeneration, Growth Factors, and Amphiregulin. Gastroenterology 2005, 128, 503–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Wang, X.; Lopategi, A.; Ge, X.; Lu, Y.; Kitamura, N.; Urtasun, R.; Leung, T.-M.; Fiel, M.I.; Nieto, N. Osteopontin Induces Ductular Reaction Contributing to Liver Fibrosis. Gut 2014, 63, 1805–1818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Rodrigo-Torres, D.; Affò, S.; Coll, M.; Morales-Ibanez, O.; Millán, C.; Blaya, D.; Alvarez-Guaita, A.; Rentero, C.; Lozano, J.J.; Maestro, M.A.; et al. The Biliary Epithelium Gives Rise to Liver Progenitor Cells. Hepatology 2014, 60, 1367–1377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Williams, M.J.; Clouston, A.D.; Forbes, S.J. Links between Hepatic Fibrosis, Ductular Reaction, and Progenitor Cell Expansion. Gastroenterology 2014, 146, 349–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Elchaninov, A.; Vishnyakova, P.; Glinkina, V.; Fatkhudinov, T.; Sukhikh, G. Liver Regeneration as a Model for Studying Cellular Plasticity in Mammals: The Roles of Hepatocytes and Cholangiocytes. Cells 2025, 14, 1129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Luo, Z.; Peng, W.; Xu, Y.; Xie, Y.; Liu, Y.; Lu, H.; Cao, Y.; Hu, J. Exosomal OTULIN from M2 Macrophages Promotes the Recovery of Spinal Cord Injuries via Stimulating Wnt/β-Catenin Pathway-Mediated Vascular Regeneration. Acta Biomater. 2021, 136, 519–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Chen, L.-P.; Cai, M.; Zhang, Q.-H.; Li, Z.-L.; Qian, Y.-Y.; Bai, H.-W.; Wei, X.; Shi, B.-Y.; Dong, J.-H. Activation of Interleukin-6/STAT3 in Rat Cholangiocyte Proliferation Induced by Lipopolysaccharide. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2009, 54, 547–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Li, W.; Chang, N.; Li, L. Heterogeneity and Function of Kupffer Cells in Liver Injury. Front. Immunol. 2022, 13, 940867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Sun, Y.-Y.; Li, X.-F.; Meng, X.-M.; Huang, C.; Zhang, L.; Li, J. Macrophage Phenotype in Liver Injury and Repair. Scand. J. Immunol. 2017, 85, 166–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Korchilava, B.; Khachidze, T.; Megrelishvili, N.; Svanadze, L.; Kakabadze, M.; Tsomaia, K.; Jintcharadze, M.; Kordzaia, D. Liver Regeneration after Partial Hepatectomy: Triggers and Mechanisms. World J. Hepatol. 2025, 17, 107378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Xiao, Q.; Ge, G. Lysyl Oxidase, Extracellular Matrix Remodeling and Cancer Metastasis. Cancer Microenviron. 2012, 5, 261–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Louis, H.; Le Moine, O.; Goldman, M.; Devière, J. Modulation of Liver Injury by Interleukin-10. Acta Gastro-Enterol. Belg. 2003, 66, 7–14. [Google Scholar]
  83. Wynn, T.A.; Vannella, K.M. Macrophages in Tissue Repair, Regeneration, and Fibrosis. Immunity 2016, 44, 450–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Naba, A. Mechanisms of Assembly and Remodelling of the Extracellular Matrix. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2024, 25, 865–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Daley, W.P.; Peters, S.B.; Larsen, M. Extracellular Matrix Dynamics in Development and Regenerative Medicine. J. Cell Sci. 2008, 121, 255–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Michalopoulos, G.K. Liver Regeneration: Molecular Mechanisms of Growth Control. FASEB J. 1990, 4, 176–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Vogel, V. Unraveling the Mechanobiology of Extracellular Matrix. Annu. Rev. Physiol. 2018, 80, 353–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Martinez-Hernandez, A.; Amenta, P.S. The Extracellular Matrix in Hepatic Regeneration. FASEB J. 1995, 9, 1401–1410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Arteel, G.E. Hepatic Extracellular Matrix and Its Role in the Regulation of Liver Phenotype. Semin. Liver Dis. 2024, 44, 343–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Ma, R.; Chen, J.; Li, Z.; Tang, J.; Wang, Y.; Cai, X. Decorin Accelerates the Liver Regeneration after Partial Hepatectomy in Fibrotic Mice. Chin. Med. J. 2014, 127, 2679–2685. [Google Scholar]
  91. Masuda, A.; Nakamura, T.; Abe, M.; Iwamoto, H.; Sakaue, T.; Tanaka, T.; Suzuki, H.; Koga, H.; Torimura, T. Promotion of Liver Regeneration and Anti-fibrotic Effects of the TGF-β Receptor Kinase Inhibitor Galunisertib in CCl4-treated Mice. Int. J. Mol. Med. 2020, 46, 427–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Zhang, B.; Meng, F.; Liu, Y.; Yuan, Y.; Wang, J.; Wu, D.; Cui, Y.; Zhang, S.; Guo, H.; Liang, S.; et al. Inhibition of TGFβ1 Accelerates Regeneration of Fibrotic Rat Liver Elicited by a Novel Two-Staged Hepatectomy. Theranostics 2021, 11, 4743–4758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Wang, F.H.; Qaed, E.; Aldahmash, W.; Mahyoub, M.A.; Al-Mutairi, D.S.; Tang, Z.; Almoiliqy, M. Phosphocreatine Alleviates Liver Fibrosis in Diabetic Mice by Targeting TGF-β/Smad and α-SMA Pathways. Tissue Cell 2025, 96, 103013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Shen, M.; Zheng, Y.; Tu, J.; Zhao, F. Mechanism of Astaxanthin-Mediated TGF-β/SMAD Signaling Pathway in the Activation of LX-2 Cells and Anti-Hepatic Fibrosis. J. Radiat. Res. Appl. Sci. 2025, 18, 101713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Khongpiroon, C.; Buakaew, W.; Brindley, P.J.; Potikanond, S.; Daowtak, K.; Thongsri, Y.; Potup, P.; Usuwanthim, K. Effect of 3-HBI on Liver Fibrosis via the TGF-β/SMAD2/3 Pathway on the Human Hepatic Stellate Cell Model. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2025, 26, 6022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Ding, C.; Liu, B.; Yu, T.; Wang, Z.; Peng, J.; Gu, Y.; Li, Z. SIRT7 Protects against Liver Fibrosis by Suppressing Stellate Cell Activation via TGF-β/SMAD2/3 Pathway. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2024, 180, 117477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Klepfish, M.; Gross, T.; Vugman, M.; Afratis, N.A.; Havusha-Laufer, S.; Brazowski, E.; Solomonov, I.; Varol, C.; Sagi, I. LOXL2 Inhibition Paves the Way for Macrophage-Mediated Collagen Degradation in Liver Fibrosis. Front. Immunol. 2020, 11, 480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Chaudhari, N.; Findlay, A.D.; Stevenson, A.W.; Clemons, T.D.; Yao, Y.; Joshi, A.; Sayyar, S.; Wallace, G.; Rea, S.; Toshniwal, P.; et al. Topical Application of an Irreversible Small Molecule Inhibitor of Lysyl Oxidases Ameliorates Skin Scarring and Fibrosis. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 5555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Liu, S.B.; Ikenaga, N.; Peng, Z.; Sverdlov, D.Y.; Greenstein, A.; Smith, V.; Schuppan, D.; Popov, Y. Lysyl Oxidase Activity Contributes to Collagen Stabilization during Liver Fibrosis Progression and Limits Spontaneous Fibrosis Reversal in Mice. FASEB J. 2016, 30, 1599–1609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Schilter, H.; Findlay, A.D.; Perryman, L.; Yow, T.T.; Moses, J.; Zahoor, A.; Turner, C.I.; Deodhar, M.; Foot, J.S.; Zhou, W.; et al. The Lysyl Oxidase like 2/3 Enzymatic Inhibitor, PXS-5153A, Reduces Crosslinks and Ameliorates Fibrosis. J. Cell Mol. Med. 2019, 23, 1759–1770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Yokoo, T.; Kamimura, K.; Nozawa, R.; Sugita, M.; Shibata, O.; Kobayashi, Y.; Abe, H.; Miura, H.; Ohtsuka, M.; Terai, S. Therapeutic Effect of Hydrodynamics-Based Delivery of Matrix Metalloproteinase-13 Gene on Thioacetamide-Induced Liver Fibrosis in Rats. Adv. Cell Gene Ther. 2023, 2023, 8842424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Endo, H.; Niioka, M.; Sugioka, Y.; Itoh, J.; Kameyama, K.; Okazaki, I.; Ala-Aho, R.; Kähäri, V.-M.; Watanabe, T. Matrix Metalloproteinase-13 Promotes Recovery from Experimental Liver Cirrhosis in Rats. Pathobiology 2011, 78, 239–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Wang, X.; Maretti-Mira, A.C.; Wang, L.; DeLeve, L.D. Liver-Selective MMP-9 Inhibition in the Rat Eliminates Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury and Accelerates Liver Regeneration. Hepatology 2019, 69, 314–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Cheng, J.H.; She, H.; Han, Y.-P.; Wang, J.; Xiong, S.; Asahina, K.; Tsukamoto, H. Wnt Antagonism Inhibits Hepatic Stellate Cell Activation and Liver Fibrosis. Am. J. Physiol.-Gastrointest. Liver Physiol. 2008, 294, G39–G49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Chatani, N.; Kamada, Y.; Kizu, T.; Ogura, S.; Furuta, K.; Egawa, M.; Hamano, M.; Ezaki, H.; Kiso, S.; Shimono, A.; et al. Secreted Frizzled-Related Protein 5 (Sfrp5) Decreases Hepatic Stellate Cell Activation and Liver Fibrosis. Liver Int. 2015, 35, 2017–2026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Akcora, B.Ö.; Storm, G.; Bansal, R. Inhibition of Canonical WNT Signaling Pathway by β-Catenin/CBP Inhibitor ICG-001 Ameliorates Liver Fibrosis in Vivo through Suppression of Stromal CXCL12. Biochim. Biophys. Acta (BBA)-Mol. Basis Dis. 2018, 1864, 804–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Duspara, K.; Bojanic, K.; Pejic, J.I.; Kuna, L.; Kolaric, T.O.; Nincevic, V.; Smolic, R.; Vcev, A.; Glasnovic, M.; Curcic, I.B.; et al. Targeting the Wnt Signaling Pathway in Liver Fibrosis for Drug Options: An Update. J. Clin. Transl. Hepatol. 2021, 9, 960–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Kimura, K.; Ikoma, A.; Shibakawa, M.; Shimoda, S.; Harada, K.; Saio, M.; Imamura, J.; Osawa, Y.; Kimura, M.; Nishikawa, K.; et al. Safety, Tolerability, and Preliminary Efficacy of the Anti-Fibrotic Small Molecule PRI-724, a CBP/β-Catenin Inhibitor, in Patients with Hepatitis C Virus-Related Cirrhosis: A Single-Center, Open-Label, Dose Escalation Phase 1 Trial. EBioMedicine 2017, 23, 79–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Sugimoto, H.; Yang, C.; LeBleu, V.S.; Soubasakos, M.A.; Giraldo, M.; Zeisberg, M.; Kalluri, R. BMP-7 Functions as a Novel Hormone to Facilitate Liver Regeneration. FASEB J. 2007, 21, 256–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Zhang, Y.; Li, L.; Dong, L.; Cheng, Y.; Huang, X.; Xue, B.; Jiang, C.; Cao, Y.; Yang, J. Hydrogel-Based Strategies for Liver Tissue Engineering. Chem. Bio Eng. 2024, 1, 887–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Chen, W.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, N.; Chen, S.; Huang, T.; You, H. Pipeline for Precise Insoluble Matrisome Coverage in Tissue Extracellular Matrices. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2023, 11, 1135936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Baiocchini, A.; Montaldo, C.; Conigliaro, A.; Grimaldi, A.; Correani, V.; Mura, F.; Ciccosanti, F.; Rotiroti, N.; Brenna, A.; Montalbano, M.; et al. Extracellular Matrix Molecular Remodeling in Human Liver Fibrosis Evolution. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0151736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Wei, Y.; Hui, V.L.Z.; Chen, Y.; Han, R.; Han, X.; Guo, Y. YAP/TAZ: Molecular Pathway and Disease Therapy. MedComm 2023, 4, e340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Kostallari, E.; Wei, B.; Sicard, D.; Li, J.; Cooper, S.A.; Gao, J.; Dehankar, M.; Li, Y.; Cao, S.; Yin, M.; et al. Stiffness Is Associated with Hepatic Stellate Cell Heterogeneity during Liver Fibrosis. Am. J. Physiol.-Gastrointest. Liver Physiol. 2022, 322, G234–G246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Gao, C.; Chen, G.; Jia, H.; Zhu, H.; Cai, Y.; Yang, D.; Zhao, K. Beyond Hepatic Stellate Cell Heterogeneity: Resolving Fibrosis, Restoring Regeneration (Review). Int. J. Mol. Med. 2026, 57, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Huang, W.; Han, N.; Du, L.; Wang, M.; Chen, L.; Tang, H. A Narrative Review of Liver Regeneration-from Models to Molecular Basis. Ann. Transl. Med. 2021, 9, 1705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Gan, C.; Yuan, Y.; Shen, H.; Gao, J.; Kong, X.; Che, Z.; Guo, Y.; Wang, H.; Dong, E.; Xiao, J. Liver Diseases: Epidemiology, Causes, Trends and Predictions. Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 2025, 10, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Zhang, Y.; Wang, Z.; Sun, Q.; Li, Q.; Li, S.; Li, X. Dynamic Hydrogels with Viscoelasticity and Tunable Stiffness for the Regulation of Cell Behavior and Fate. Materials 2023, 16, 5161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Zhao, T.; Huang, Y.; Zhu, J.; Qin, Y.; Wu, H.; Yu, J.; Zhai, Q.; Li, S.; Qin, X.; Wang, D.; et al. Extracellular Matrix Signaling Cues: Biological Functions, Diseases, and Therapeutic Targets. MedComm 2025, 6, e70281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Bioengineering 13 00335 g001
Figure 1. The liver matrisome as an integrative regulator of liver regeneration.
Figure 1. The liver matrisome as an integrative regulator of liver regeneration.
Bioengineering 13 00335 g001
Bioengineering 13 00335 g002
Figure 2. Mechanical signaling networks in liver regeneration.
Figure 2. Mechanical signaling networks in liver regeneration.
Bioengineering 13 00335 g002
Bioengineering 13 00335 g003
Figure 3. Multicellular crosstalk mediated by the liver ECM during regeneration.
Figure 3. Multicellular crosstalk mediated by the liver ECM during regeneration.
Bioengineering 13 00335 g003
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ma, H.; Wu, W.; Zhang, W.; Li, H.; Pan, Z.; Wang, C.; Gao, R.; Ji, Q.; Chen, Z.; You, H.; et al. The Extracellular Matrix in Liver Regeneration: Biological and Therapeutic Insights. Bioengineering 2026, 13, 335. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering13030335

AMA Style

Ma H, Wu W, Zhang W, Li H, Pan Z, Wang C, Gao R, Ji Q, Chen Z, You H, et al. The Extracellular Matrix in Liver Regeneration: Biological and Therapeutic Insights. Bioengineering. 2026; 13(3):335. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering13030335

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ma, Haodong, Wenyue Wu, Wen Zhang, Hong Li, Ziyan Pan, Caihong Wang, Ruoyu Gao, Qiushuang Ji, Zhi Chen, Hong You, and et al. 2026. "The Extracellular Matrix in Liver Regeneration: Biological and Therapeutic Insights" Bioengineering 13, no. 3: 335. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering13030335

APA Style

Ma, H., Wu, W., Zhang, W., Li, H., Pan, Z., Wang, C., Gao, R., Ji, Q., Chen, Z., You, H., & Chen, W. (2026). The Extracellular Matrix in Liver Regeneration: Biological and Therapeutic Insights. Bioengineering, 13(3), 335. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering13030335

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop