Periosteum and fascia lata: Are they so different? Julie Manon 1,2,3,4 *, Robin Evrard 1,2,3,4 , Louis Maistriaux 2,3 , Lies Fievé 2 , Ugo Heller 5,6 , Delphine Magnin 7 , Jean Boisson 6 , Natacha Kadlub 5,6 , Thomas Schubert 1,4 , Benoît Lengelé 2 , Catherine Behets 2 and Olivier Cornu 1,4 1 Neuromusculoskeletal Lab (NMSK), Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique (IREC), UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium, 2 Morphology Lab (MORF), IREC, UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium, 3 Transplantation and Experimental Surgery Lab (CHEX), IREC, UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium, 4 Centre de Thérapie Cellulaire et Tissulaire Locomoteur, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Brussels, Belgium, 5 APHP, Necker Enfants Malades, Unit of Maxillofacial Surgery and Plastic Surgery, Paris, France, 6 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ecole Nationale Supérieure de Techniques Avancées (ENSTA) de Paris, Institut des Sciences de la Mécanique et Applications Industrielles (IMSIA), Paris, France, 7 Bio- and Soft Matter (BSMA), Institute of Condensed Matter and Nanosciences (IMCN), Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium Introduction: The human fascia lata (HFL) is used widely in reconstructive surgery in indications other than fracture repair. The goal of this study was to compare microscopic, molecular, and mechanical properties of HFL and periosteum (HP) from a bone tissue engineering perspective. Material and Methods: Cadaveric HP and HFL (N = 4 each) microscopic morphology was characterized using histology and immunohistochemistry (IHC), and the extracellular matrix (ECM) ultrastructure assessed by means of scanning electron microscopy (SEM). DNA, collagen, elastin, glycosaminoglycans, major histocompatibility complex Type 1, and bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) contents were quantified. HP (N = 6) and HFL (N = 11) were submitted to stretch tests. Results: Histology and IHC highlighted similarities (Type I collagen fibers and two-layer organization) but also differences (fiber thickness and compaction and cell type) between both tissues, as confirmed using SEM. The collagen content was statistically higher in HFL than HP (735 vs. 160.2 μg/mg dry weight, respectively, p < 0.0001). On the contrary, DNA content was lower in HFL than HP (404.75 vs. 1,102.2 μg/mg dry weight, respectively, p = 0.0032), as was the immunogenic potential (p = 0.0033). BMP-2 and BMP-7 contents did not differ between both tissues (p = 0.132 and p = 0.699, respectively). HFL supported a significantly higher tension stress than HP. OPEN ACCESS EDITED BY Bryan Brown, University of Pittsburgh, United States REVIEWED BY Ching-Li Tseng, Taipei Medical University, Taiwan Carmelo Pirri, University of Padua, Italy Mariah Hahn, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, United States *CORRESPONDENCE Julie Manon, julie.manon@uclouvain.be SPECIALTY SECTION This article was submitted to Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, a section of the journal Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology RECEIVED 15 May 2022 ACCEPTED 03 October 2022 PUBLISHED 19 October 2022 CITATION Manon J, Evrard R, Maistriaux L, Fievé L, Heller U, Magnin D, Boisson J, Kadlub N, Schubert T, Lengelé B, Behets C and Cornu O (2022), Periosteum and fascia lata: Are they so different? Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 10:944828. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.944828 COPYRIGHT © 2022 Manon, Evrard, Maistriaux, Fievé, Heller, Magnin, Boisson, Kadlub, Schubert, Lengelé, Behets and Cornu. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. Abbreviations: AB, alcian blue; IHC, immunohistochemistry; BMP, bone morphogenetic protein; l, length; BSA, bovine serum albumin; L1, Layer 1; CSBD, critical size bone defect; L2, Layer 2; CPD, critical point dryer; MHC-1, major histocompatibility complex Type 1; DAB, 3,3′-diaminobenzidine; MT, Masson’s trichrome; ECM, extracellular matrix; RT, room temperature; EDTA, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid; RIPA, radioimmunoprecipitation assay buffer; F, force; S, surface; GAG, glycosaminoglycans; SEM, scanning electron microscopy; H&E, hematoxylin and eosin; SEM, standard error of the mean; HFL, human fascia lata; SR, srius red; HP, human periosteum; TBS, tris- buffered saline; HRP, horseradish peroxidase. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology frontiersin.org 01 TYPE Original Research PUBLISHED 19 October 2022 DOI 10.3389/fbioe.2022.944828