International Journal of Molecular Medicine is an international journal devoted to molecular mechanisms of human disease.
International Journal of Oncology is an international journal devoted to oncology research and cancer treatment.
Covers molecular medicine topics such as pharmacology, pathology, genetics, neuroscience, infectious diseases, molecular cardiology, and molecular surgery.
Oncology Reports is an international journal devoted to fundamental and applied research in Oncology.
Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine is an international journal devoted to laboratory and clinical medicine.
Oncology Letters is an international journal devoted to Experimental and Clinical Oncology.
Explores a wide range of biological and medical fields, including pharmacology, genetics, microbiology, neuroscience, and molecular cardiology.
International journal addressing all aspects of oncology research, from tumorigenesis and oncogenes to chemotherapy and metastasis.
Multidisciplinary open-access journal spanning biochemistry, genetics, neuroscience, environmental health, and synthetic biology.
Open-access journal combining biochemistry, pharmacology, immunology, and genetics to advance health through functional nutrition.
Publishes open-access research on using epigenetics to advance understanding and treatment of human disease.
An International Open Access Journal Devoted to General Medicine.
Orthopedic rehabilitation has long relied on mechanical interventions, such as physical therapy, exercise and load-bearing activities, to promote tissue repair and functional recovery (1,2). However, the biological mechanisms underlying these therapies have only recently been elucidated through advances in understanding mechanotransduction, the process by which cells convert mechanical stimuli into biochemical signals (3,4). This intricate interplay between physical forces and cellular responses plays a pivotal role in tissue regeneration, particularly in the bone, cartilage, tendons and ligaments (5,6). As regenerative medicine continues to evolve, understanding mechanotransduction offers new opportunities to enhance healing, optimize rehabilitation protocols and develop novel bioengineered therapies (7,8).
Mechanotransduction is a fundamental biological phenomenon that enables cells to sense and respond to mechanical cues such as tension, compression and shear stress (9,10). In orthopedic tissues, specialized cells including osteocytes, chondrocytes, tenocytes and mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) possess mechanosensitive receptors (such as integrins, ion channels and primary cilia) that detect extracellular mechanical forces (11,12). These signals trigger intracellular cascades, such as the activation of Yes-associated protein (YAP)/transcriptional coactivator with PDZ-binding motif (TAZ), Wnt/β-catenin and mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathways, ultimately influencing gene expression, extracellular matrix (ECM) remodeling and tissue adaptation (13-15). The ECM itself acts as a dynamic scaffold that transmits and amplifies mechanical signals, further modulating cellular behavior (16,17).
Distraction histogenesis is the biological process that regenerates bone and soft tissue (18). In bone regeneration, mechanical loading stimulates the osteogenic differentiation of MSCs and osteoblasts while inhibiting osteoclast activity, thereby promoting bone formation and preventing resorption (19,20). Low-magnitude high-frequency vibration and controlled cyclic loading have shown promise in accelerating fracture healing and mitigating osteoporosis-related bone loss (21,22). Similarly, in cartilage repair, chondrocytes respond to dynamic compression by upregulating anabolic factors (such as aggrecan and collagen type II) while suppressing catabolic enzymes [such as matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs)] (23,24). However, excessive or aberrant loading can induce degenerative changes, highlighting the need for precise mechanotherapeutic strategies (25). Tendon and ligament healing, often hindered by poor vascularity and slow ECM turnover, also depends on mechanotransduction (26,27). Controlled mechanical stimulation enhances collagen alignment and tensile strength, whereas immobilization leads to tissue atrophy and fibrosis (28). Emerging evidence suggests that tendon stem/progenitor cells exhibit load-dependent differentiation, offering potential targets for regenerative interventions (29). The integration of mechanotransduction principles into regenerative medicine has led to innovative approaches in orthopedic rehabilitation (7,25).
Biomechanically optimized scaffolds, embedded with growth factors and designed to mimic native tissue mechanics, enhance stem cell recruitment and differentiation (30,31). Additionally, dynamic bioreactor systems apply physiologically relevant mechanical stimuli to engineered tissues, improving their functional maturation before implantation (32). Clinically, mechanotherapy, the therapeutic application of mechanical forces, has gained traction. Techniques such as extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) and pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMFs) harness mechanotransduction to stimulate tissue repair, while personalized rehabilitation protocols leverage patient-specific loading regimens to maximize recovery (3,33). The optimal magnitude, frequency and duration of mechanical stimuli vary across tissues and individuals, necessitating further research into precision mechanotherapies. Additionally, the crosstalk between mechanical and biochemical signaling pathways must be deciphered to develop synergistic treatment strategies. Future advancements in biofabrication, smart biomaterials and artificial intelligence (AI)-driven biomechanical modeling hold promise for tailoring regenerative therapies to individual patient needs (34).
The present review comprehensively examines the fundamental mechanisms of mechanotransduction, detailing how specialized sensors convert physical forces into biochemical signals that direct cellular behavior. The present review explores the critical role of the ECM as a dynamic mediator of mechanical signaling and investigates tissue-specific responses in bone, cartilage, tendon and ligament regeneration. The discussion extends to the notable impact of mechanical loading on stem cell differentiation and the development of innovative biomechanical strategies in regenerative medicine, including advanced biomaterials and bioreactor systems. Clinically, the present review focuses on translating these principles into effective mechanotherapy protocols and personalized rehabilitation approaches. Finally, the prevailing challenges in defining optimal loading parameters are addressed and future directions are explored, emphasizing the potential of emerging technologies such as smart biomaterials and AI-driven modeling to create precise, biologically-driven interventions. By synthesizing these elements, the present review aims to highlight the transformative potential of integrating mechanobiology with regenerative medicine to advance orthopedic rehabilitation outcomes.
The conversion of mechanical forces into biochemical signals, a process fundamental to tissue repair, is initiated by specialized cellular structures known as mechanosensors. These sensors detect physical cues including compression, tension and fluid shear stress within the musculoskeletal environment (35). Principal among these are integrins, transmembrane receptors that form focal adhesion complexes, creating a critical link between the ECM and the intracellular cytoskeleton. These complexes act as primary force transduction hubs, sensing deformation and matrix stiffness. Additionally, stretch-activated ion channels (such as Piezo1) embedded in the cell membrane respond to mechanical perturbation by rapidly altering ion flux, particularly Ca2+, to initiate immediate electrochemical signaling (36). On the surface of cells such as osteocytes and chondrocytes, primary cilia project as non-motile antennae, exquisitely tuned to sense subtle changes in fluid flow and pressure. Force detection by these sensors triggers a sophisticated cascade of intracellular signaling pathways. The mechanical signal is first propagated through the dynamic cytoskeleton, a network that distributes tension from the membrane to the nucleus (37). This mechanical energy is then converted into chemical signals through the activation of key mediators.
Mechanotransduction is the sophisticated process through which cells perceive external mechanical forces and convert them into intracellular biochemical responses (4,9). This fundamental mechanism is initiated by mechanosensors, which are specialized cellular structures that detect mechanical perturbations. Key sensors include integrins, which tether the intracellular cytoskeleton to the ECM, forming focal adhesion complexes that act as primary force transduction hubs (38,39). Additionally, stretch-activated ion channels (such as Piezo1) rapidly alter ion flux upon membrane deformation, while primary cilia on chondrocytes and osteocytes function as cellular antennae, sensing fluid shear stress and compression (40). Force detection triggers a cascade of intracellular signaling pathways. The mechanical signal is propagated via the cytoskeleton, a dynamic network that distributes tension throughout the cell (37). This leads to the activation of key mediators such as the Hippo pathway effectors YAP and TAZ, which translocate to the nucleus to regulate genes responsible for proliferation and matrix synthesis (41,42). Fig. 1 depicts the key signaling cascades (such as the Wnt/β-catenin and MAPK pathways) activated by mechanosensitive ion channels, which further modulate cell fate decisions, including differentiation and apoptosis (43,44). Crucially, mechanotransduction is bidirectional. Cells not only respond to forces but also actively exert contractile forces on their surroundings through actomyosin activity, a concept known as mechanoreciprocity (45,46). This continuous dialogue between cells and their biomechanical environment is essential for maintaining tissue homeostasis and is a critical target for guiding regenerative outcomes in orthopedic tissues (47). Key cellular mechanosensors and signaling pathways are shown in Table I (48-56).
The ECM is far more than a passive structural scaffold; it is a dynamic and active mediator essential for cellular mechanical sensing. The composition, architecture and physical properties of the ECM fundamentally govern how mechanical forces are transmitted, attenuated or amplified before reaching cellular mechanosensors (57). The stiffness of the ECM, or elastic modulus, provides a critical physical cue that directly influences cell fate. For instance, MSCs can sense this rigidity through integrin-mediated adhesions, a process known as durotaxis, which directs them toward osteogenic differentiation on stiffer, bone-mimetic substrates or adipogenesis on softer substrates (58). Beyond static properties, the viscoelasticity of the ECM, its ability to exhibit both elastic solid and viscous fluid behaviors, allows it to absorb and distribute energy from dynamic loading (59). This time-dependent response protects cells from sudden, damaging impacts while facilitating the transfer of beneficial, rhythmic strains. Furthermore, the molecular organization of the ECM is pivotal. The specific arrangement of fibrillar collagens, proteoglycans and glycoproteins creates a unique architectural landscape that filters mechanical signals (60). This organized network ensures that forces such as tension or compression are not merely felt as blunt pressure but are translated into specific, spatially guided biochemical instructions.
Crucially, the matrix acts as a biochemical reservoir that works in concert with mechanical inputs. Embedded growth factors and bioactive peptides are often sequestered within the ECM and can be released or activated in response to mechanical deformation (61). The mechanosensitive signaling triggers the production of growth factors including TGF-β1, platelet-derived growth factor-BB and VEGF, which are released into the circulation and transported to the injury site to promote bone lengthening and regeneration (62). This process, termed mechano-chemo transduction, creates a synergistic effect where physical forces directly modulate the local biochemical microenvironment. For example, mechanical strain can liberate TGF-β from its latent binding proteins in the matrix, thereby simultaneously providing a mechanical and a chemical stimulus for tissue repair (63). Therefore, the ECM is an indispensable partner in mechanotransduction; it functions as a sophisticated signal processor that contextualizes external mechanical loads, ensuring that the subsequent intracellular signaling cascades and transcriptional responses are appropriate for maintaining tissue homeostasis or initiating regeneration (60). This central role makes the rational design of ECM-mimetic biomaterials a paramount strategy in regenerative orthopedics.
The regenerative processes in bone and cartilage are guided by mechanotransduction, although the specific cellular responses differ due to the distinct physiological demands of each tissue (64-66). In bone regeneration, mechanical loading is a potent anabolic stimulus (67). Osteocytes, embedded within the mineralized matrix, act as the primary mechanosensors, detecting interstitial fluid flow shear stress generated during loading (68,69). This detection inhibits sclerostin expression, thereby unleashing the Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway. This cascade promotes osteoblastic bone formation and suppresses osteoclastic resorption, making targeted mechanical stimulation a critical therapeutic strategy for enhancing fracture healing and combating osteoporosis (53,70,71). By contrast, cartilage regeneration presents a more complex mechanobiological challenge due to its avascular nature and low cellularity (72). Chondrocytes within the proteoglycan-rich ECM respond optimally to dynamic compression and hydrostatic pressure, which upregulate anabolic genes for type II collagen and aggrecan (73,74). However, the response is dependent on the nature, magnitude and frequency of the load. While physiological, dynamic loading promotes matrix synthesis and the chondrogenesis of MSCs, aberrant loading such as high-impact shear or prolonged static compression induces a catabolic state characterized by the release of inflammatory cytokines and matrix-degrading enzymes such as MMP-13, accelerating degeneration (74). This nuanced understanding is directly applied in rehabilitative medicine. For bone, low-magnitude high-frequency vibration and controlled weight-bearing protocols are used to stimulate healing (75). For cartilage, motion therapies and continuous passive motion devices are designed to provide beneficial dynamic compression while avoiding detrimental shear forces, thereby creating a pro-regenerative mechanical microenvironment (76).
Mechanical loading is a fundamental regulator of bone mass and architecture, with osteogenic responses following a well-established principle whereby bone forms in areas of high stress and resorbs in areas of disuse (77,78). This adaptive process, governed by mechanotransduction, is crucial for fracture healing and preventing osteoporosis (79). Osteocytes, comprising >90% of bone cells and entombed within lacunae, act as the orchestrators of this response; they detect minute deformations of the bone matrix, which cause interstitial fluid to flow within the canalicular network, generating shear stress across their extensive dendritic processes (69,80). This mechanical stimulation triggers a rapid biochemical response. Osteocytes downregulate the secretion of sclerostin, a key inhibitor of the Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway (81,82). The subsequent activation of Wnt signaling in pre-osteoblasts and lining cells promotes their proliferation, differentiation and ultimately, bone formation (83). Concurrently, mechanical signals suppress osteocyte-supported receptor activator of nuclear factor κ-B ligand expression, thereby inhibiting osteoclastogenesis and bone resorption (84). Mechanical stimulation directs MSCs toward becoming bone-forming osteoblasts. This occurs by activating osteogenic transcription factors [such as β-catenin and Runt-related transcription factor 2 (RUNX2)] and suppressing regulators of other cell fates (such as fat or cartilage). As the cells mature from precursors into functional osteoblasts, they sequentially express specific marker genes (such as alkaline phosphatase, collagen type I α1 chain and osteocalcin). The final outcome for an osteoblast is either programmed cell death or embedding into bone as a lining cell. This mechanically driven process is essential for bone growth and healing in rehabilitation (85-87) (Fig. 2). The net result is a powerful anabolic shift favoring net bone deposition. Therapeutic strategies in rehabilitation leverage this knowledge. Controlled, dynamic loading regimens such as those achieved through specific weight-bearing exercises or low-magnitude, high-frequency vibration are designed to exceed the minimal effective strain threshold needed to initiate this anabolic cascade. This targeted 'mechanotherapy' provides a non-pharmacological means to accelerate fracture callus maturation, enhance bone density around implants and counteract the bone loss associated with immobilization, making it a cornerstone of modern orthopedic rehabilitation (88,89).
Chondrocyte mechanobiology is a critical determinant of success or failure in cartilage repair, presenting a unique therapeutic paradox (90,91). Residing within an avascular, aneural ECM, chondrocytes are sensitive to their mechanical environment (92). The application of physiological dynamic compression and hydrostatic pressure, mimicking joint loading during movement, promotes an anabolic response (67). This stimulates the synthesis of essential matrix components such as aggrecan and type II collagen, crucial for restoring the load-bearing functionality of the tissue (93,94). Such mechanical cues are vital for guiding the chondrogenic differentiation of implanted MSCs in tissue engineering strategies (95,96). However, the beneficial effects are critically dependent on load characteristics. Deviations into abnormal loading patterns, such as high-magnitude impact, shear stress or prolonged static compression, trigger a starkly different, catabolic fate. These detrimental forces activate inflammatory pathways (such as the NF-κB pathway) and upregulate matrix-degrading enzymes (MMPs and ADAMTS), leading to the breakdown of the very matrix regenerative therapies aim to build (97,98). This dichotomy underscores the importance of precise rehabilitative loading. Protocols employing motion therapy and continuous passive motion are designed to deliver pro-anabolic stimuli while meticulously avoiding the destructive shear and inflammatory stress that hinder repair and accelerate post-traumatic osteoarthritis.
Tendon and ligament healing are a mechanosensitive process where the precise application of load is paramount for restoring functional strength and preventing dysfunctional scar tissue (99-101). These densely collagenous, hypovascular tissues rely on mechanotransduction to guide repair (102). Tenocytes and ligament fibroblasts possess an array of mechanosensors, including integrins and stretch-activated ion channels, which detect changes in tension and strain during movement (103). Early, controlled mechanical loading stimulates the production and organized alignment of collagen fibrils, enhancing the tensile properties of the repair and promoting a more regenerative rather than purely scar-forming outcome (104,105). Conversely, the absence of load (immobilization) leads to tissue atrophy, matrix disorganization and adhesion formation (104). As shown in Fig. 3, physical force is converted into a biochemical signal by bone cells through mechanotransduction, and surface sensors stimulate the intracellular cascade that activates transcription factors to upregulate osteogenic gene expression. However, excessive or premature loading can be equally detrimental, provoking reinjury, inflammation and metaplasia (106). The therapeutic window is narrow. Therefore, rehabilitation protocols are designed to leverage mechanotransduction carefully. Techniques such as early controlled motion and progressive loading regimens apply precise biomechanical cues to activate pro-reparative signaling pathways in tenocytes and resident stem cells. This promotes collagen synthesis and maturation while steering the healing process away from the weak, fibrotic scar tissue that characterizes poor functional recovery, making mechanotherapy a cornerstone of effective tendon and ligament rehabilitation (107,108).
Mechanical loading is a potent regulator of stem cell fate, serving as a critical determinant in their commitment to specific lineages essential for musculoskeletal repair (30). The differentiation of MSCs is not solely governed by biochemical cues; the physical forces present in their microenvironment provide instructive signals that can override soluble factors (109). For instance, substrate stiffness is a primary mechanical cue. MSCs cultured on substrates mimicking the stiffness of bone tissue tend to undergo osteogenesis, upregulating RUNX2 and osteocalcin expression (110). By contrast, softer substrates that resemble brain or fat tissue promote neurogenesis or adipogenesis, respectively (111). This phenomenon, known as durotaxis, highlights how cells sense and migrate along stiffness gradients, a principle vital for designing biomaterials in tissue engineering (112,113). Beyond static stiffness, dynamic mechanical forces such as cyclic tensile strain, compression and fluid shear stress directly activate mechanosensitive pathways that dictate lineage specification (114,115). Applied cyclic strain promotes tenogenic and osteogenic differentiation by activating pathways such as focal adhesion kinase/MAPK and RhoA/Rho-associated coiled-coil-containing protein kinase, which influence cytoskeletal tension and nuclear translocation of transcription factors (116). Fluid shear stress, crucial in vascular and bone environments, enhances osteogenesis by stimulating prostaglandin release and activating Wnt/β-catenin signaling (117,118). Even low-intensity vibrations have been shown to promote osteogenic differentiation while suppressing adipogenesis, illustrating the finely tuned nature of mechanical input (119). Mechanical forces are transmitted from the cell cytoskeleton (F-actin) to the nucleus through the linker of nucleoskeleton and cytoskeleton complex, causing the nucleus to deform (120). This strain increases the permeability of nuclear pores, allowing for faster import of critical transcription factors (120). As a result, mechanosensitive regulators such as YAP/TAZ and β-catenin accumulate in the nucleus (121). There, they initiate osteogenic genetic programs. At the same time, phosphorylated RUNX2 binds to DNA, prompting chromatin to remodel into an open state. This open conformation further activates the transcription of genes that are essential for bone formation (Fig. 4). The implications for regenerative medicine are profound. In bioreactors for tissue engineering, mechanical conditioning such as cyclic stretching of tendon grafts or fluid flow perfusion in bone scaffolds is used to pre-condition stem cell-seeded constructs, promoting differentiation and matrix maturation before implantation (122). In clinical rehabilitation, understanding how specific exercise-induced loading regimens influence endogenous stem cell pools can lead to targeted therapies that harness mechanical cues to guide tissue repair, offering a non-invasive strategy to enhance regenerative outcomes in orthopedic healing (123,124).
The integration of mechanobiology principles into regenerative medicine has given rise to innovative biomechanical strategies designed to orchestrate tissue repair by harnessing the power of mechanical forces (125,126). These approaches move beyond passive structural support, aiming to actively direct cellular behavior through precisely controlled physical cues. A central strategy involves the development of smart biomaterial scaffolds. These are not inert structures but are engineered with specific mechanical properties such as tunable stiffness, viscoelasticity and microtopography that mimic the native ECM of the target tissue (127,128). For instance, a scaffold designed for bone regeneration is designed to be rigid to promote osteogenesis, while a cartilage scaffold requires a compliant, hydrogel-based environment to support chondrogenesis (129). Furthermore, these scaffolds can be functionalized with tethered bioactive molecules that are mechanically activated upon cell adhesion or scaffold stretching, creating a dynamic feedback loop with resident cells (130,131). Beyond static design, dynamic bioreactor systems are a cornerstone of in vitro tissue engineering. These devices apply biomimetic mechanical stimuli including cyclic compression, tensile strain and fluid shear stress to cell-seeded constructs during cultivation (132,133). This process of mechanical preconditioning promotes stem cell differentiation, enhances ECM synthesis and organization and yields a more functional and robust tissue graft prior to implantation (134). For example, tensile bioreactors are used to generate aligned collagen fibers in engineered ligaments, significantly improving their ultimate tensile strength (135,136). Translating these principles to the clinic, advanced mechanotherapy is revolutionizing rehabilitation. Techniques such as ESWT and low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) deliver targeted mechanical energy to injury sites, activating pro-regenerative mechanotransduction pathways, enhancing angiogenesis and stimulating stem cell recruitment (137,138). These biomechanical strategies, which work in concert with biological cues, represent a paradigm shift from merely replacing damaged tissue to actively instructing the innate healing mechanisms of the body, thereby significantly improving functional outcomes in orthopedic rehabilitation (139,140).
Physical therapies represent the deliberate clinical application of mechanotransduction principles, utilizing controlled mechanical stimuli to directly influence cellular behavior and guide tissue repair (25,141). Therapeutic exercise is not merely about strengthening muscles; it is a precise modality that delivers targeted biomechanical cues to injured bones, cartilage, tendons and ligaments (25,142). Each movement, whether it is weight-bearing, resistance training or dynamic motion, generates specific forces that are detected by cellular mechanosensors, such as integrins and ion channels (1). This initiates intracellular signaling cascades that promote anabolic processes, including collagen synthesis, matrix organization and stem cell differentiation (143,144). The efficacy of these interventions hinges on the careful calibration of mechanical dosing. Rehabilitation protocols are designed to apply loads within a therapeutic window that stimulate repair without exacerbating damage. For instance, eccentric loading of tendons promotes aligned collagen fibril formation, while controlled motion following cartilage procedures delivers essential dynamic compression that enhances chondrocyte activity and nutrient diffusion (23,145). By harnessing the body's innate responsiveness to physical forces, exercise-based therapies provide a powerful, non-invasive strategy to optimize the regenerative microenvironment, making them a cornerstone of modern orthopedic rehabilitation.
The principles of mechanotransduction are directly applied in orthopedic rehabilitation to enhance healing and functional recovery (7,25). Clinicians utilize controlled mechanical loading through tailored exercise regimens to stimulate cellular repair processes across various tissues. Following fracture fixation, progressive weight-bearing is prescribed to generate osteogenic fluid shear stress, promoting callus formation and bone remodeling (146,147). This approach harnesses the mechanosensitivity of osteocytes to guide structural adaptation. In soft tissue injuries, specific loading protocols are fundamental (141,148). For tendinopathies, eccentric strengthening exercises apply controlled tensile strains that upregulate collagen production in tenocytes, improving tendon fibril alignment and tensile strength (149). Similarly, postoperative rehabilitation after cartilage repair procedures incorporates continuous passive motion and carefully graded active exercises (150,151). These interventions deliver essential dynamic compression and hydrostatic pressure to chondrocytes, supporting matrix synthesis while preventing the formation of adhesions and fibrous tissue (23,152). These clinical strategies exemplify mechanotherapy, where externally applied forces are translated into biochemical signals that drive anabolic cellular activity. By modulating the intensity, frequency and type of mechanical stimulus, rehabilitation specialists can optimize the tissue microenvironment to support regeneration, reduce recovery time and improve long-term functional outcomes for patients with musculoskeletal injuries (Table II) (153-158).
Mechanotherapy is a targeted therapeutic approach that applies controlled mechanical forces to directly influence the biological process of fracture repair (159,160). Following a fracture, the carefully timed introduction of specific mechanical stimuli is crucial for guiding callus formation, mineralization and eventual remodeling. This strategy harnesses the innate mechanosensitivity of bone cells, particularly osteocytes, which act as primary sensors of changes in their mechanical environment. Clinical applications begin with an initial period of relative stabilization to allow early callus formation, followed by the progressive introduction of load (161). Controlled weight-bearing and resistance exercises are prescribed to generate intermittent hydrostatic pressure and fluid shear stress within the porous network of the bone (162,163). These mechanical cues are detected by osteocytes, triggering intracellular signaling cascades that downregulate sclerostin expression. The subsequent activation of the Wnt/β-catenin pathway promotes osteoblast differentiation and activity, accelerating bone formation while simultaneously inhibiting osteoclastic bone resorption (53,164). Advanced modalities such as LIPUS and PEMFs provide non-invasive mechanical and electrical stimulation to the fracture site (165). These techniques enhance cellular proliferation, angiogenesis and matrix synthesis, particularly in cases of delayed union or non-union. By precisely modulating the mechanical microenvironment, mechanotherapy offers a powerful, non-pharmacological method to optimize the innate healing capacity of the body, reduce recovery time and improve structural outcomes in fracture management.
Mechanically assisted tissue engineering represents a paradigm shift in regenerative medicine, moving beyond passive scaffolds to dynamic systems that actively instruct cellular behavior through applied physical forces. This approach recognizes that mechanical cues are as critical as biochemical signals in directing stem cell differentiation and fostering the development of functional, load-bearing tissues. In vitro, this is achieved through the use of bioreactors that deliver biomimetic mechanical conditioning such as cyclic strain for tendons, fluid shear for bone and dynamic compression for cartilage to cell-seeded constructs (166). This preconditioning promotes ECM synthesis, improves structural organization and enhances the mechanical properties of the engineered tissue before implantation. The principles extend to smart scaffold design, where materials are engineered with specific mechanical properties such as tailored stiffness, elasticity and degradability that mimic the native tissue environment and provide ongoing mechanical cues in vivo (167). These scaffolds can be designed to respond to body movements, thereby continuously stimulating integrated cells post-implantation. By harnessing mechanotransduction to guide cellular activity at every stage, mechanically assisted tissue engineering creates more robust and biologically integrated grafts, significantly improving their functional outcomes and success rates in orthopedic repair and rehabilitation (125,168).
The future of orthopedic rehabilitation lies in personalizing interventions based on individual mechanobiological profiles. Personalized mechanotransduction-based therapies move beyond one-size-fits-all protocols by accounting for patient-specific factors such as age, genetics, tissue viability and biomechanics (169). Advanced imaging and diagnostic technologies enable clinicians to assess the unique mechanical microenvironment and cellular responsiveness of the patient, creating a foundation for tailored rehabilitation strategies. For instance, real-time feedback systems and wearable sensors can monitor load distribution and movement patterns during therapeutic exercises. This data, combined with genetic profiling that identifies variations in mechanosensitive pathways, allows for the optimization of mechanical dosing prescribing specific intensities, frequencies and types of loading that are most likely to stimulate anabolic responses in that individual (67). In tissue engineering, this approach translates to 3D-bioprinted scaffolds customized to match the anatomical and mechanical requirements of the patient, potentially seeded with autologous cells primed ex vivo using patient-specific mechanical conditioning (170). By aligning therapeutic mechanical inputs with the cellular responsiveness of the individual, these precision interventions maximize regenerative potential, minimize the risk of re-injury and significantly improve functional recovery, heralding a new era of truly personalized orthopedic medicine.
Despite significant advances, translating mechanotransduction research into clinical practice faces notable challenges. A primary hurdle is defining the optimal mechanical dosage, such as the precise intensity, frequency and duration of loading, required to stimulate anabolic repair without provoking catabolic damage or inflammation (171). This therapeutic window varies significantly between tissues, individuals and even stages of healing. Furthermore, the complex, interdependent nature of mechanosignaling pathways makes it difficult to isolate specific therapeutic targets (65). Future progress hinges on developing more sophisticated smart biomaterials that can dynamically respond to in vivo mechanical cues and deliver bioactive factors in a feedback-controlled manner (172).
The ultimate objective is to create a closed-loop system where AI-driven algorithms analyze this multifaceted data to prescribe and dynamically adjust mechanical dosing in real-time (173). This will ensure that the stimulus remains within the patient-specific therapeutic window throughout the healing process, which evolves from the inflammatory phase to remodeling. Furthermore, this principle extends to ex vivo tissue engineering, where bioreactors can apply patient-specific mechanical conditioning to stem cell-seeded constructs, pre-adapting them to the mechanical demands they will encounter upon implantation (174). By moving beyond a one-size-fits-all model, these optimized, data-driven protocols will maximize regenerative potential, minimize the risk of re-injury and significantly accelerate functional recovery, heralding a new era of precision orthopedics.
The present review established mechanotransduction as the pivotal mechanism linking mechanical forces to cellular regeneration in orthopedic rehabilitation. The sophisticated interplay between cellular sensors, signaling pathways and the ECM enables physical stimuli to direct tissue repair and adaptation. The translation of these principles into mechanotherapy and biomechanically-informed biomaterials represents a notable advancement beyond traditional rehabilitation. Looking forward, the field must overcome the challenge of defining optimal, personalized mechanical dosing. The future lies in integrating real-time biomechanical monitoring with patient-specific profiling to create dynamic, adaptive treatment protocols. The convergence of smart biomaterials, AI-driven modeling and a deeper systems-level understanding of mechanobiological networks will enable truly predictive and personalized regenerative interventions. This evolution towards precision mechanotherapy promises to revolutionize musculoskeletal care by optimally harnessing the innate healing mechanisms of the body. This will ultimately enable clinicians to precisely harness the innate mechanoresponsive capacity, offering more effective, non-invasive strategies to restore function and revolutionize patient outcomes in musculoskeletal medicine.
Not applicable.
BW and XZ conceived the review, designed the manuscript writing structure and drafted the manuscript. HL, LL and TL edited and revised the manuscript. YL, QF, YC and BD participated in the literature search and analysis of literature content to be included in the review. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript. Data authentication is not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Not applicable.
No funding was received.
|
Kacprzak B and Stańczak M: Knee Joint Response to MechanicalLoading: Bounding Mechanotransduction with Rehabilitation. 2024, Available from: https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202409.0995/v1. | |
|
Sueki D and Brechter J: Orthopedic Rehabilitation Clinical Advisor. 1st edtion. Elsevier Health Sciences; Amsterdam: 2009 | |
|
d'Agostino M, Craig K, Tibalt E and Respizzi S: Shock wave as biological therapeutic tool: From mechanical stimulation to recovery and healing, through mechanotransduction. Int J Surg. 24:147–153. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Wang N: Review of cellular mechanotransduction. J Phys D Appl Phys. 50:2330022017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Yang Y, Wu Y, Zhou K, Wu D, Yao X, Heng BC, Zhou J, Liu H and Ouyang H: Interplay of forces and the immune response for functional tendon regeneration. Front Cell Dev Biol. 9:6576212021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Huang X, Das R, Patel A and Duc Nguyen T: Physical stimulations for bone and cartilage regeneration. Regen Eng Transl Med. 4:216–237. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Glatt V, Evans CH and Stoddart MJ: Regenerative rehabilitation: The role of mechanotransduction in orthopaedic regenerative medicine. J Orthop Res. 37:1263–1269. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Gulrandhe P, Acharya S, Phansopkar P and Naqvi W: Exploring the dynamic concept of mechanobiology in regenerative rehabilitation: A narrative review. J Clin Diagn Res. 18:KE01–KE04. 2024. | |
|
Martino F, Perestrelo AR, Vinarský V, Pagliari S and Forte G: Cellular mechanotransduction: From tension to function. Front Physiol. 9:8242018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
White CR and Frangos JA: The shear stress of it all: The cell membrane and mechanochemical transduction. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 362:1459–1467. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Raman N, Imran SAM, Ahmad Amin Noordin KB, Zaman WSWK and Nordin F: Mechanotransduction in mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) differentiation: A review. Int J Mol Sci. 23:45802022. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Xu BY, Jin Y, Ma XH, Wang CY, Guo Y and Zhou D: The potential role of mechanically sensitive ion channels in the physiology, injury, and repair of articular cartilage. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 28:23094990209502622020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Piersma B, Bank RA and Boersema M: Signaling in fibrosis: TGF-β, WNT, and YAP/TAZ converge. Front Med (Lausanne). 2:592015. | |
|
Heng BC, Zhang X, Aubel D, Bai Y, Li X, Wei Y, Fussenegger M and Deng X: An overview of signaling pathways regulating YAP/TAZ activity. Cell Mol Life Sci. 78:497–512. 2021. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Jiang L, Li J, Zhang C, Shang Y and Lin J: YAP-mediated crosstalk between the Wnt and Hippo signaling pathways (review). Mol Med Rep. 22:4101–4106. 2020.PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Xie W, Wei X, Kang H, Jiang H, Chu Z, Lin Y, Hou Y and Wei Q: Static and dynamic: Evolving biomaterial mechanical properties to control cellular mechanotransduction. Adv Sci (Weinh). 10:22045942023. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Wang T, Nanda SS, Papaefthymiou GC and Yi DK: Mechanophysical cues in extracellular matrix regulation of cell behavior. Chembiochem. 21:1254–1264. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Li G: Novel applications of distraction histogenesis. Orthop Proc. 107-B(Suppl 9): S852025. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Sun Y, Wan B, Wang R, Zhang B, Luo P, Wang D, Nie JJ, Chen D and Wu X: Mechanical stimulation on mesenchymal stem cells and surrounding microenvironments in bone regeneration: Regulations and applications. Front Cell Dev Biol. 10:8083032022. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Ma Q, Miri Z, Haugen HJ, Moghanian A and Loca D: Significance of mechanical loading in bone fracture healing, bone regeneration, and vascularization. J Tissue Eng. 14:204173142311725732023. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Pagnotti GM, Styner M, Uzer G, Patel VS, Wright LE, Ness KK, Guise TA, Rubin J and Rubin CT: Combating osteoporosis and obesity with exercise: Leveraging cell mechanosensitivity. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 15:339–355. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Yu Y, Feng T, Qiu H, Gu Y, Chen Q, Zuo C and Ma H: Simultaneous photoacoustic and ultrasound imaging: A review. Ultrasonics. 139:1072772024. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Anderson DE and Johnstone B: Dynamic mechanical compression of chondrocytes for tissue engineering: A critical review. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 5:762017. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Li Y, Frank EH, Wang Y, Chubinskaya S, Huang HH and Grodzinsky AJ: Moderate dynamic compression inhibits pro-catabolic response of cartilage to mechanical injury, tumor necrosis factor-α and interleukin-6, but accentuates degradation above a strain threshold. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 21:1933–1941. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Thompson WR, Scott A, Loghmani MT, Ward SR and Warden SJ: Understanding mechanobiology: Physical therapists as a force in mechanotherapy and musculoskeletal regenerative rehabilitation. Phys Ther. 96:560–569. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : | |
|
Chatterjee M, Muljadi PM and Andarawis-Puri N: The role of the tendon ECM in mechanotransduction: Disruption and repair following overuse. Connect Tissue Res. 63:28–42. 2022. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Kjaer M: Role of extracellular matrix in adaptation of tendon and skeletal muscle to mechanical loading. Physiol Rev. 84:649–698. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Kong W, Lyu C, Liao H and Du Y: Collagen crosslinking: Effect on structure, mechanics and fibrosis progression. Biomed Mater. 16:0620052021. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Ren C, Liu F, Zhang S, Xu H and Yang P: The role of collagen matrix in the development and progression of heterotopic ossification in tendon and its biological mechanisms. FASEB J. 39:e708732025. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Vining KH and Mooney DJ: Mechanical forces direct stem cell behaviour in development and regeneration. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 18:728–742. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Liao S, Chan CK and Ramakrishna S: Stem cells and biomimetic materials strategies for tissue engineering. Mater Sci Eng C. 28:1189–1202. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Castro N, Ribeiro S, Fernandes M, Ribeiro C, Cardoso V, Correia V, Minguez R and Lanceros-Mendez S: Physically active bioreactors for tissue engineering applications. Adv Biosyst. 4:e20001252020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Rosso F, Bonasia DE, Marmotti A, Cottino U and Rossi R: Mechanical stimulation (pulsed electromagnetic fields 'PEMF' and extracorporeal shock wave therapy 'ESWT') and tendon regeneration: A possible alternative. Front Aging Neurosci. 7:2112015. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Nosrati H and Nosrati M: Artificial intelligence in regenerative medicine: Applications and implications. Biomimetics (Basel). 8:4422023. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Xiao R, Liu J and Xu XS: Mechanosensitive GPCRs and ion channels in shear stress sensing. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 84:1022162023. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Poole K: The diverse physiological functions of mechanically activated ion channels in mammals. Annu Rev Physiol. 84:307–329. 2022. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Janmey PA: The cytoskeleton and cell signaling: Component localization and mechanical coupling. Physiol Rev. 78:763–781. 1998. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Schwartz MA: Integrins and extracellular matrix in mechanotransduction. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2:a0050662010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Kechagia JZ, Ivaska J and Roca-Cusachs P: Integrins as biomechanical sensors of the microenvironment. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 20:457–473. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Verbruggen SW, Sittichokechaiwut A and Reilly GC: Osteocytes and primary cilia. Curr Osteoporos Rep. 21:719–730. 2023. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Varelas X: The Hippo pathway effectors TAZ and YAP in development, homeostasis and disease. Development. 141:1614–1626. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Kwon H, Kim J and Jho Eh: Role of the Hippo pathway and mechanisms for controlling cellular localization of YAP/TAZ. FEBS J. 289:5798–5818. 2022. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Garcin CL and Habib SJ: A comparative perspective on Wnt/β-catenin signalling in cell fate determination. Asymmetric Cell Division in Development, Differentiation and Cancer, Results and Problems in Cell Differentiation. Springer International Publishing; Cham: pp. 323–350. 2017, View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Shah N, Morsi Y and Manasseh R: From mechanical stimulation to biological pathways in the regulation of stem cell fate. Cell Biochem Funct. 32:309–325. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Van Helvert S, Storm C and Friedl P: Mechanoreciprocity in cell migration. Nat Cell Biol. 20:8–20. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Murrell M, Oakes PW, Lenz M and Gardel ML: Forcing cells into shape: The mechanics of actomyosin contractility. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 16:486–498. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Butler DL, Goldstein SA, Guldberg RE, Guo XE, Kamm R, Laurencin CT, McIntire LV, Mow VC, Nerem RM, Sah RL, et al: The impact of biomechanics in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 15:477–484. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Ramage L: Integrins and extracellular matrix in mechanotransduction. Cell Health Cytoskelet. 4:1–9. 2012. | |
|
Kanchanawong P and Calderwood DA: Organization, dynamics and mechanoregulation of integrin-mediated cell-ECM adhesions. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 24:142–161. 2023. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Li J, Huang S and Chen H: Advances in imaging techniques for mammalian/human ciliated cell's cilia: Insights into structure, function, and dynamics. Biology (Basel). 14:5212025.PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Abou Alaiwi WA, Lo ST and Nauli SM: Primary cilia: Highly sophisticated biological sensors. Sensors (Basel). 9:7003–7020. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Piccolo S, Dupont S and Cordenonsi M: The biology of YAP/TAZ: Hippo signaling and beyond. Physiol Rev. 94:1287–1312. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Hu L, Chen W, Qian A and Li YP: Wnt/β-catenin signaling components and mechanisms in bone formation, homeostasis, and disease. Bone Res. 12:392024. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Duan P and Bonewald L: The role of the wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway in formation and maintenance of bone and teeth. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 77:23–29. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Etienne-Manneville S: Actin and microtubules in cell motility: Which one is in control? Traffic. 5:470–477. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Hohmann T and Dehghani F: The cytoskeleton-a complex inter-acting meshwork. Cells. 8:3622019. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Mierke CT: Extracellular matrix cues regulate mechanosensing and mechanotransduction of cancer cells. Cells. 13:962024. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Vincent LG, Choi YS, Alonso-Latorre B, del Álamo JC and Engler AJ: Mesenchymal stem cell durotaxis depends on substrate stiffness gradient strength. Biotechnol J. 8:472–484. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Chaudhuri O, Cooper-White J, Janmey PA, Mooney DJ and Shenoy VB: Effects of extracellular matrix viscoelasticity on cellular behaviour. Nature. 584:535–546. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Berdiaki A, Neagu M, Tzanakakis P, Spyridaki I, Pérez S and Nikitovic D: Extracellular matrix components and mechanosensing pathways in health and disease. Biomolecules. 14:11862024. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Teixeira SPB, Domingues RMA, Shevchuk M, Gomes ME, Peppas NA and Reis RL: Biomaterials for sequestration of growth factors and modulation of cell behavior. Adv Funct Mater. 30:19090112020. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Cipitria A and Salmeron-Sanchez M: Mechanotransduction and growth factor signalling to engineer cellular microenvironments. Adv Healthc Mater. 6:17000522017. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Hinz B: The extracellular matrix and transforming growth factor-β1: Tale of a strained relationship. Matrix Biol. 47:54–65. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Selig M, Lauer JC, Hart ML and Rolauffs B: Mechanotransduction and stiffness-sensing: Mechanisms and opportunities to control multiple molecular aspects of cell phenotype as a design cornerstone of cell-instructive biomaterials for articular cartilage repair. Int J Mol Sci. 21:53992020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Hodgkinson T, Kelly DC, Curtin CM and O'Brien FJ: Mechanosignalling in cartilage: An emerging target for the treatment of osteoarthritis. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 18:67–84. 2022. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Zhao Z, Li Y, Wang M, Zhao S, Zhao Z and Fang J: Mechanotransduction pathways in the regulation of cartilage chondrocyte homoeostasis. J Cell Mol Med. 24:5408–5419. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Ozcivici E, Luu YK, Adler B, Qin YX, Rubin J, Judex S and Rubin CT: Mechanical signals as anabolic agents in bone. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 6:50–59. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Klein-Nulend J and Bakker AD: Osteocytes: Mechanosensors of bone and orchestrators of mechanical adaptation. Clin Rev Bone Miner Metab. 5:195–209. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Ganesh T, Laughrey LE, Niroobakhsh M and Lara-Castillo N: Multiscale finite element modeling of mechanical strains and fluid flow in osteocyte lacunocanalicular system. Bone. 137:1153282020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Wu Z, Li W, Jiang K, Lin Z, Qian C, Wu M, Xia Y, Li N, Zhang H, Xiao H, et al: Regulation of bone homeostasis: Signaling pathways and therapeutic targets. MedComm (2020). 5:e6572024. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Gao Y, Chen N, Fu Z and Zhang Q: Progress of Wnt signaling pathway in osteoporosis. Biomolecules. 13:4832023. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Nguyen MT, Gronthos S, Zhao Y, Chandrakanthan V, Truong VK and Vasilev K: Overcoming challenges in cartilage regeneration: The role of chondrogenic inducers. Bioeng Transl Med. e700792025. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Guilak F and Hung CT: Physical regulation of cartilage metabolism. Basic Orthopaedic Biomechanics & Mechano-Biology. Mow VC and Huiskes R: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Philadelphia, PA: pp. 2592005 | |
|
Iseki T, Rothrauff BB, Kihara S, Sasaki H, Yoshiya S, Fu FH, Tuan RS and Gottardi R: Dynamic compressive loading improves cartilage repair in an in vitro model of microfracture: Comparison of 2 mechanical loading regimens on simulated microfracture based on fibrin gel scaffolds encapsulating connective tissue progenitor cells. Am J Sports Med. 47:2188–2199. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Shi HF, Cheung WH, Qin L, Leung AHC and Leung KS: Low-magnitude high-frequency vibration treatment augments fracture healing in ovariectomy-induced osteoporotic bone. Bone. 46:1299–1305. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Frank C, Akeson WH, Woo SL, Amiel D and Coutts RD: Physiology and therapeutic value of passive joint motion. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 113–125. 1984. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Mellon SJ and Tanner K: Bone and its adaptation to mechanical loading: A review. Int Mater Rev. 57:235–255. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Pivonka P, Park A and Forwood MR: Functional adaptation of bone: The mechanostat and beyond. Multiscale Mechanobiology of Bone Remodeling and Adaptation. CISM International Centre for Mechanical Sciences; Pivonka P: 578. Springer, Heidelberg: pp. 1–60. 2017 | |
|
Augat P, Simon U, Liedert A and Claes L: Mechanics and mechano-biology of fracture healing in normal and osteoporotic bone. Osteoporos Int. 16(Suppl 2): S36–S43. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Yu W, Ou R, Hou Q, Li C, Yang X, Ma Y, Wu X and Chen W: Multiscale interstitial fluid computation modeling of cortical bone to characterize the hydromechanical stimulation of lacunar-canalicular network. Bone. 193:1173862025. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Marini F, Giusti F, Palmini G and Brandi ML: Role of Wnt signaling and sclerostin in bone and as therapeutic targets in skeletal disorders. Osteoporos Int. 34:213–238. 2023. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Burgers TA and Williams BO: Regulation of Wnt/β-catenin signaling within and from osteocytes. Bone. 54:244–249. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Arya PN, Saranya I and Selvamurugan N: Crosstalk between Wnt and bone morphogenetic protein signaling during osteogenic differentiation. World J Stem Cells. 16:102–113. 2024. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Honma M, Ikebuchi Y, Kariya Y and Suzuki H: Regulatory mechanisms of RANKL presentation to osteoclast precursors. Curr Osteoporos Rep. 12:115–120. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Sun Y, Yuan Y, Wu W, Lei L and Zhang L: The effects of locomotion on bone marrow mesenchymal stem cell fate: Insight into mechanical regulation and bone formation. Cell Biosci. 11:882021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Chan WCW, Tan Z, To MKT and Chan D: Regulation and role of transcription factors in osteogenesis. Int J Mol Sci. 22:54452021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
James AW: Review of signaling pathways governing MSC osteogenic and adipogenic differentiation. Scientifica (Cairo). 2013:6847362013. | |
|
Ozdemir F, Zateri C and Murat S: Evaluation of the efficacy of therapeutic ultrasound on bone mineral density in postmenopausal period. Rheumatol Int. 28:361–365. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Popa M, Cursaru A, Cretu B, Iordache S, Iacobescu GL, Spiridonica R, Serban B and Cirstoiu C: Enhancing osteoporosis management: A thorough examination of surgical techniques and their effects on patient outcomes. Cureus. 16:e596812024.PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Muthu S, Korpershoek JV, Novais EJ, Tawy GF, Hollander AP and Martin I: Failure of cartilage regeneration: Emerging hypotheses and related therapeutic strategies. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 19:403–416. 2023. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Oliveira S, Hinckel BB, Silva FS, Carvalho Ó and Leal A: A guide to articular cartilage functioning: A comprehensive review, current challenges and mechanobiological solutions. Prog Biomed Eng (Bristol). 7:2025. | |
|
Statham P, Jones E, Jennings LM and Fermor HL: Reproducing the biomechanical environment of the chondrocyte for cartilage tissue engineering. Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 28:405–420. 2022. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Kjær M, Langberg H, Heinemeier K, Bayer ML, Hansen M, Holm L, Doessing S, Kongsgaard M, Krogsgaard MR and Magnusson SP: From mechanical loading to collagen synthesis, structural changes and function in human tendon. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 19:500–510. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Responte DJ, Natoli RM and Athanasiou KA: Collagens of articular cartilage: Structure, function, and importance in tissue engineering. Crit Rev Biomed Eng. 35:363–411. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Fahy N, Alini M and Stoddart MJ: Mechanical stimulation of mesenchymal stem cells: Implications for cartilage tissue engineering. J Orthop Res. 36:52–63. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Kelly DJ and Jacobs CR: The role of mechanical signals in regulating chondrogenesis and osteogenesis of mesenchymal stem cells. Birth Defects Res C Embryo Today. 90:75–85. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Fang T, Zhou X, Jin M, Nie J and Li X: Molecular mechanisms of mechanical load-induced osteoarthritis. Int Orthop. 45:1125–1136. 2021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Li T, Peng J, Li Q, Shu Y, Zhu P and Hao L: The mechanism and role of ADAMTS protein family in osteoarthritis. Biomolecules. 12:9592022. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Jiang F, Zhao H, Zhang P, Bi Y, Zhang H, Sun S, Yao Y, Zhu X, Yang F, Liu Y, et al: Challenges in tendon-bone healing: emphasizing inflammatory modulation mechanisms and treatment. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 15:14858762024. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Killian ML, Cavinatto L, Galatz LM and Thomopoulos S: The role of mechanobiology in tendon healing. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 21:228–237. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Woo SLY, Nguyen TD, Papas N and Liang R: Tissue mechanics of ligaments and tendons. Biomechanics in ergonomics. 2nd edition. CRC Press; pp. 127–148. 2007 | |
|
Fu S, Panayi A, Fan J, Mayer HF, Daya M, Khouri RK, Gurtner GC, Ogawa R and Orgill DP: Mechanotransduction in wound healing: from the cellular and molecular level to the clinic. Adv Skin Wound Care. 34:67–74. 2021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Li Y, Wu T and Liu S: Identification and distinction of tenocytes and tendon-derived stem cells. Front Cell Dev Biol. 9:6295152021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Montgomery J: Building a better scar: Re-engineering extracellular matrix structure in dermal scars. Virginia Polytechnic Institute; 2020 | |
|
Buff-Lindner AH: The Role of Poly N Acetyl Glucosamine Nanofibers in Cutaneous Wound Healing. Baishideng Publishing Group Inc.; Pleasanton, CA: 2014 | |
|
Aicale R, Tarantino D and Maffulli N: Overuse injuries in sport: A comprehensive overview. J Orthop Surg Res. 13:3092018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
El Ayadi A, Jay JW and Prasai A: Current approaches targeting the wound healing phases to attenuate fibrosis and scarring. Int J Mol Sci. 21:11052020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Sephel GC and Woodward SC: Repair, Regeneration, and Fibrosis. Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins; Baltimore: pp. 84–117. 2001 | |
|
Huang C, Dai J and Zhang XA: Environmental physical cues determine the lineage specification of mesenchymal stem cells. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1850:1261–1266. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
El-Rashidy AA, El Moshy S, Radwan IA, Rady D, Abbass MMS, Dörfer CE and Fawzy El-Sayed KM: Effect of polymeric matrix stiffness on osteogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem/progenitor cells: Concise review. Polymers (Basel). 13:29502021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Lee J, Abdeen AA, Tang X, Saif TA and Kilian KA: Matrix directed adipogenesis and neurogenesis of mesenchymal stem cells derived from adipose tissue and bone marrow. Acta Biomater. 42:46–55. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Espina JA, Marchant CL and Barriga EH: Durotaxis: The mechanical control of directed cell migration. FEBS J. 289:2736–2754. 2022. View Article : Google Scholar : | |
|
Aubry D, Gupta M, Ladoux B and Allena R: Mechanical link between durotaxis, cell polarity and anisotropy during cell migration. Phys Biol. 12:0260082015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Fang Y, Wu D and Birukov KG: Mechanosensing and mechanoregulation of endothelial cell functions. Compr Physiol. 9:873–904. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Chen JC and Jacobs CR: Mechanically induced osteogenic lineage commitment of stem cells. Stem Cell Res Ther. 4:1072013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Niu H, Lin D, Tang W, Ma Y, Duan B, Yuan Y and Liu C: Surface topography regulates osteogenic differentiation of MSCs via crosstalk between FAK/MAPK and ILK/β-catenin pathways in a hierarchically porous environment. ACS Biomater Sci Eng. 3:3161–3175. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Jia YY, Li F, Geng N, Gong P, Huang SJ, Meng LX, Lan J and Ban Y: Fluid flow modulates the expression of genes involved in the Wnt signaling pathway in osteoblasts in 3D culture conditions. Int J Mol Med. 33:1282–1288. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Alfieri R, Vassalli M and Viti F: Flow-induced mechanotransduction in skeletal cells. Biophys Rev. 11:729–743. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Baskan O, Mese G and Ozcivici E: Low-intensity vibrations normalize adipogenesis-induced morphological and molecular changes of adult mesenchymal stem cells. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 231:160–168. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Kloc M and Wosik J: Mechanical forces, nucleus, chromosomes, and chromatin. Biomolecules. 15:3542025. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Cai X, Wang KC and Meng Z: Mechanoregulation of YAP and TAZ in cellular homeostasis and disease progression. Front Cell Dev Biol. 9:6735992021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Ahata B, Kan T, Serefoglu Gun B, Tanyeri Y, Oktay B, Oktay A and Koc RC: Bioreactors for tissue engineering. Biomaterials and Tissue Engineering. Gunduz O, Egles C, Pérez RA, Ficai D and Ustundag CB: Springer International Publishing; Cham: pp. 259–303. 2023, View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Chen J, Zhou R, Feng Y and Cheng L: Molecular mechanisms of exercise contributing to tissue regeneration. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 7:3832022. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Head PL: Rehabilitation considerations in regenerative medicine. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 27:1043–1054. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Kim S, Uroz M, Bays JL and Chen CS: Harnessing mechanobiology for tissue engineering. Dev Cell. 56:180–191. 2021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Shafiq M, Ali O, Han SB and Kim DH: Mechanobiological strategies to enhance stem cell functionality for regenerative medicine and tissue engineering. Front Cell Dev Biol. 9:7473982021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Xia T, Liu W and Yang L: A review of gradient stiffness hydrogels used in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. J Biomed Mater Res A. 105:1799–1812. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Janson IA and Putnam AJ: Extracellular matrix elasticity and topography: Material-based cues that affect cell function via conserved mechanisms. J Biomed Mater Res A. 103:1246–1258. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Song J, Li L, Fang L, Zhang E, Zhang Y, Zhang Z, Vangari P, Huang Y, Tian F, Zhao Y, et al: Advanced strategies of scaffolds design for bone regeneration. BMEMat. 1:e120462023. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Kim TG, Shin H and Lim DW: Biomimetic scaffolds for tissue engineering†. Adv Funct Mater. 22:2446–2468. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Monemian Esfahani A, Rosenbohm J, Reddy K, Jin X, Bouzid T, Riehl B, Kim E, Lim JY and Yang R: Tissue regeneration from mechanical stretching of cell-cell adhesion. Tissue Eng Part C Methods. 25:631–640. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Huang G, Li F, Zhao X, Ma Y, Li Y, Lin M, Jin G, Lu TJ, Genin GM and Xu F: Functional and biomimetic materials for engineering of the three-dimensional cell microenvironment. Chem Rev. 117:12764–12850. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Badekila AK, Kini S and Jaiswal AK: Fabrication techniques of biomimetic scaffolds in three-dimensional cell culture: A review. J Cell Physiol. 236:741–762. 2021. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Schumann D, Kujat R, Nerlich M and Angele P: Mechanobiological conditioning of stem cells for cartilage tissue engineering. Biomed Mater Eng. 16(Suppl 4): S37–S52. 2006.PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Wang T, Gardiner BS, Lin Z, Rubenson J, Kirk TB, Wang A, Xu J, Smith DW, Lloyd DG and Zheng MH: Bioreactor design for tendon/ligament engineering. Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 19:133–146. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Lim WL, Liau LL, Ng MH, Chowdhury SR and Law JX: Current progress in tendon and ligament tissue engineering. Tissue Eng Regen Med. 16:549–571. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Qin H, Du L, Luo Z, He Z, Wang Q, Chen S and Zhu YL: The therapeutic effects of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound in musculoskeletal soft tissue injuries: Focusing on the molecular mechanism. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 10:10804302022. View Article : Google Scholar : | |
|
Lei L, Zhang Q, Du M and Li L: Mechanoregulation of cell fate by low-intensity pulsed ultrasound: Mechanisms and advances in regenerative medicine. BIO Integr. 6:1–18. 2025. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Malik S: The physics of the human body: Biomechanics and beyond. Worldw J Phys. 1:53–63. 2020. | |
|
Glatt V, Evans CH and Tetsworth K: A concert between biology and biomechanics: The influence of the mechanical environment on bone healing. Front Physiol. 7:6782017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Ng JL, Kersh ME, Kilbreath S and Knothe Tate M: Establishing the basis for mechanobiology-based physical therapy protocols to potentiate cellular healing and tissue regeneration. Front Physiol. 8:3032017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Khan KM and Scott A: Mechanotherapy: How physical therapists' prescription of exercise promotes tissue repair. Br J Sports Med. 43:247–252. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Xiao Z and Quarles LD: Physiological mechanisms and therapeutic potential of bone mechanosensing. Rev Endocr Metab Disord. 16:115–129. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Mobasheri A, Carter SD, Martín-Vasallo P and Shakibaei M: Integrins and stretch activated ion channels; putative components of functional cell surface mechanoreceptors in articular chondrocytes. Cell Biol Int. 26:1–18. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Lambrianides Y: Temporal Dynamics of Muscle and Tendon Adaptation to Mechano-Metabolic Stimuli. London South Bank University; 2024 | |
|
Beeharry MW and Ahmad B: Principles of fracture healing and fixation: A literature review. Cureus. 16:e762502024.PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Thakur AJ: The Elements of Fracture Fixation. 4th edition. Elsevier Health Sciences; India: 2019 | |
|
Qin YX and Zhao J: Mechanobiology in cellular, molecular, and tissue adaptation. Mechanobiol Med. 1:1000222023. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Pourshafie S, Ashnagar Z, Jalaie S and Bashardoust Tajali S: Effects of eccentric exercises with and without dry needling approaches at the patients with chronic rotator cuff tendinopathy. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 42:976–981. 2025. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Fazalare JA, Griesser MJ, Siston RA and Flanigan DC: The use of continuous passive motion following knee cartilage defect surgery: A systematic review. Orthopedics. 33:8782010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Howard JS, Mattacola CG, Romine SE and Lattermann C: Continuous passive motion, early weight bearing, and active motion following knee articular cartilage repair: Evidence for clinical practice. Cartilage. 1:276–286. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Elder BD and Athanasiou KA: Hydrostatic pressure in articular cartilage tissue engineering: From chondrocytes to tissue regeneration. Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 15:43–53. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Bonewald LF and Johnson ML: Osteocytes, mechanosensing and Wnt signaling. Bone. 42:606–615. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
ur Rehman S, Iqbal S, Shahid MU, Jahangir MS and Malik AL: Cartilage: Structure, function, and the pathogenesis of osteoarthritis. Advancements in Synovial Joint Science-Structure, Function, and Beyond. IntechOpen; London: 2024, View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Houpt JB, Gahunia HK and Pritzker KPH: Physical and rehabilitative therapy for knee articular cartilage injury and disease. Articular Cartilage of the Knee: Health, Disease and Therapy. Springer; New York, NY: pp. 235–251. 2020, View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Galloway MT, Lalley AL and Shearn JT: The role of mechanical loading in tendon development, maintenance, injury, and repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 95:1620–1628. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Gonçalves AI, Righelli L, Reis RL, El Haj AJ and Gomes ME: Understanding degeneration and healing pathways for tissue engineered treatment strategies in tendinopathy. Cells Tissues Organs. 214:459–476. 2025. | |
|
Burdick JA and Vunjak-Novakovic G: Engineered microenvironments for controlled stem cell differentiation. Tissue Eng Part A. 15:205–219. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : | |
|
McKay J, Nasb M and Hafsi K: Mechanobiology-based physical therapy and rehabilitation after orthobiologic interventions: A narrative review. Int Orthop. 46:179–188. 2022. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Benulič Č, Canton G, Rasio N, Murena L and Kristan A: Mechanobiology of indirect bone fracture healing under conditions of relative stability: A narrative review for the practicing clinician. Acta Biomed. 92:e20215822022. | |
|
Claes L, Eckert-Hübner K and Augat P: The effect of mechanical stability on local vascularization and tissue differentiation in callus healing. J Orthop Res. 20:1099–1105. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Zhang B, Mateus J and Hargens A: Osteoporosis, circulation, and fluid dynamics. Skeletal Circulation in Clinical Practice. World Scientific; pp. 253–282. 2016, View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Zernicke R, MacKay C and Lorincz C: Mechanisms of bone remodeling during weight-bearing exercise. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 31:655–660. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Wang X, Tian Y, Liang X, Yin C, Huai Y, Zhao Y, Huang Q, Chu X, Wang W and Qian A: Bergamottin promotes osteoblast differentiation and bone formation via activating the Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway. Food Funct. 13:2913–2924. 2022. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Walker NA, Denegar CR and Preische J: Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound and pulsed electromagnetic field in the treatment of tibial fractures: A systematic review. J Athl Train. 42:530–535. 2007. | |
|
Li K, Zhang C, Qiu L, Gao L and Zhang X: Advances in application of mechanical stimuli in bioreactors for cartilage tissue engineering. Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 23:399–411. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Carotenuto F, Politi S, Ul Haq A, De Matteis F, Tamburri E, Terranova ML, Teodori L, Pasquo A and Di Nardo P: From soft to hard biomimetic materials: Tuning micro/nano-architecture of scaffolds for tissue regeneration. Micromachines (Basel). 13:7802022. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Rajendran AK, Sankar D, Amirthalingam S, Kim HD, Rangasamy J and Hwang NS: Trends in mechanobiology guided tissue engineering and tools to study cell-substrate interactions: A brief review. Biomater Res. 27:552023. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Han HM, Kim SY and Kim DH: Mechanotransduction for therapeutic approaches: Cellular aging and rejuvenation. APL Bioeng. 9:0215022025. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Akilbekova D and Turlybekuly A: Patient-specific 3D bioprinting for in situ tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. 3D Printing in Medicine. Elsevier; New York, NY: pp. 149–178. 2023, View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Behringer M, Heinrich C and Franz A: Anabolic signals and muscle hypertrophy-significance for strength training in sports medicine. Sports Orthop Traumatol. 41:9–18. 2025. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Raman R and Langer R: Biohybrid design gets personal: New materials for patient-specific therapy. Adva Mater. 32:e19019692020. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Soumya MAAK: AI-driven insights: Revolutionizing health diagnostics and treatment. Budha Publication; Tamil, Nadu: 2024 | |
|
Gantenbein B, Frauchiger DA, May RD, Bakirci E, Rohrer U and Grad S: Developing bioreactors to host joint-derived tissues that require mechanical stimulation. Encyclopedia of Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine. Elsevier; New York, NY: pp. 261–280. 2019 |