Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Comment
  • Published:

Oversimplified immunology is holding biomaterials back

Immune responses are complex, often defying rigid classifications. Instead of interpreting results according to reductionist categories, researchers should rely on comprehensive single-cell data to guide analysis and should remain open to unexpected immunological complexity.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Recommendations for studying the immune response to biomaterials.

References

  1. Sadtler, K. et al. The scaffold immune microenvironment: biomaterial-mediated immune polarization in traumatic and nontraumatic applications. Tissue Eng. Part A 23, 144–1053 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hu, C. et al. Dissecting the microenvironment around biosynthetic scaffolds in murine skin wound healing. Sci. Adv. 7, eabf0787 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chen, S. et al. Integrated -omics profiling unveils the disparities of host defense to ECM scaffolds during wound healing in aged individuals. Biomaterials 311, 122685 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Doloff, J. C. et al. Colony stimulating factor-1 receptor is a central component of the foreign body response to biomaterial implants in rodents and non-human primates. Nat. Mater. 16, 671–680 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Wang, H. & Mooney, D. J. Biomaterial-assisted targeted modulation of immune cells in cancer treatment. Nat. Mater. 17, 761–772 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Adusei, K. M., Ngo, T. B. & Sadtler, K. T lymphocytes as critical mediators in tissue regeneration, fibrosis, and the foreign body response. Acta Biomater. 133, 17–33 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Zielinski, C. E. T helper cell subsets: diversification of the field. Eur. J. Immunol. 53, e2250218 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Rogozynski, N. P. & Dixon, B. The Th1/Th2 paradigm: a misrepresentation of helper T cell plasticity. Immunol. Lett. 268, 106870 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Doloff, J. C. & Waxman, D. J. VEGF receptor inhibitors block the ability of metronomically dosed cyclophosphamide to activate innate immunity–induced tumor regression. Cancer Res. 72, 1103–1115 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kerr, M. D. et al. Immune-responsive biodegradable scaffolds for enhancing neutrophil regeneration. Bioeng. Transl. Meds 8, e10309 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Elisia, I. et al. Comparison of RAW264.7, human whole blood and PBMC assays to screen for immunomodulators. J. Immunol. Meth. 452, 26–31 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Doloff, J. C. et al. Identification of a humanized mouse model for functional testing of immune-mediated biomaterial foreign body response. Sci. Adv. 9, eade9488 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. King, A., Sandler, S. & Andersson, A. The effect of host factors and capsule composition on the cellular overgrowth on implanted alginate capsules. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 57, 374–383 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Neshat, S. Y. et al. Improvement of islet engrafts via treg induction using immunomodulating polymeric tolerogenic microparticles. ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng. 9, 3522–3534 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Márquez, E. J. et al. Sexual-dimorphism in human immune system aging. Nat. Commun. 11, 751 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) through grant R01 DE031488 (H.-Q.M. and J.C.D.), NIH National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering grant P41EB028239 (J.P.S. and H.-Q.M.), NIH National Cancer Institute grant R33CA278429 (J.P.S.), and NIH National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research grant F31DE032900 (J.L.S.), as well as by the Biomedical Engineering Department at Johns Hopkins University (J.C.D.). J.L.S. was also supported by an ARCS Foundation Metropolitan Washington Chapter scholar award.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joshua C. Doloff.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Reviews Bioengineering thanks Alessandra Cambi, Diana Boraschi and Eric Appel for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stelzel, J.L., Schneck, J.P., Mao, HQ. et al. Oversimplified immunology is holding biomaterials back. Nat Rev Bioeng 3, 523–525 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44222-025-00320-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44222-025-00320-7

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing: Translational Research

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Translational Research newsletter — top stories in biotechnology, drug discovery and pharma.

Get what matters in translational research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Translational Research