Traditional regenerative medicine has long relied on cells engineered or cultivated outside the body. But a new wave of innovation is emerging that programs and regenerates tissues in situ, or directly within the body. Whether through smart biomaterials, local immune modulation, or targeted gene delivery, in situ therapeutics promise to streamline treatment, reduce rejection risk, and improve integration with native biology.
The Paradigm Shift Toward In Situ Therapeutics
Regenerative medicine has traditionally relied on ex vivo and in vitro strategies — methods that involve engineering tissues or cells outside the body before reintroducing them into the patient. Ex vivo approaches, such as cell therapy and tissue-engineered grafts, require isolating and manipulating cells in a laboratory environment, while in vitro models serve primarily as preclinical platforms for studying cellular behavior under controlled conditions. These methods have enabled tremendous advances, but they are often resource-intensive, technically complex, and difficult to scale. More critically, they impose artificial boundaries between the therapeutic and the biological environment into which it must ultimately integrate.
In contrast, in situ programming, engineering, and regeneration aim to carry out biological interventions directly within the body. Rather than building tissues externally and transplanting them, in situ strategies harness the body's own cells, immune system, and microenvironment as active participants in repair and regeneration. This shift reframes the therapeutic goal from replacement to orchestration and offers a fundamentally different set of tools and design principles.1–3
The central thesis of this emerging field is clear: by working within native biological contexts, in situ therapeutics offer a path toward greater precision, faster clinical translation, and broader scalability. These interventions can be designed to modulate immune activity, promote endogenous healing, or reprogram cell behavior without removing tissues from the body. They can also eliminate many of the logistical and biological hurdles associated with ex vivo approaches, including issues related to cell viability, immunogenicity, and surgical burden.
Clinically, in situ strategies hold significant appeal. They enable minimally invasive delivery, often through injections or localized application of scaffolds rather than open surgery. They reduce the need for costly and time-consuming cell expansion procedures, bioreactors, or tissue culturing platforms. And because they operate in harmony with the host’s existing tissues and immune networks, they can mitigate the risk of rejection or the need for long-term immunosuppression. These advantages make in situ therapeutics not only a scientific frontier but a practical and potentially democratizing force in regenerative medicine.
Why In Situ? Scientific and Clinical Advantages
The appeal of in situ therapeutic strategies lies not only in their conceptual elegance but in their growing track record of biological and clinical promise. By enabling interventions to occur directly within the body, these approaches offer unique advantages in fidelity, efficiency, adaptability, and immune compatibility that are difficult to replicate with ex vivo or synthetic alternatives.
A defining strength of in situ tissue engineering is its capacity to support regeneration within native biological environments. Tissues are not merely rebuilt; they are coaxed into repairing themselves, often by activating local progenitor cells, recruiting circulating stem cells, or reshaping the extracellular matrix. This enables a level of biological fidelity and architectural integration that is difficult to reproduce with grafted or cultured tissues.1,2 The microenvironment, including mechanical cues, oxygen gradients, and immune signals, plays a vital role in directing regenerative outcomes, and in situ methods harness that environment rather than trying to replicate it externally.
This native context also eliminates the need for complex and resource-heavy laboratory procedures. Traditional tissue engineering often requires harvesting autologous cells, expanding them in culture, and seeding them onto scaffolds under sterile, controlled conditions. These steps introduce significant logistical and regulatory hurdles and are typically limited to specialized centers. In situ techniques bypass these steps entirely, delivering bioactive materials or genetic instructions directly to the site of interest, where the body’s own cells serve as the agents of change.3,4
Equally compelling is the modularity of in situ tools. Because these strategies rely on broadly applicable mechanisms, such as chemotaxis, scaffold degradation, or immune signaling, they can be tailored to suit a range of clinical contexts. Bone, cartilage, cardiovascular tissue, neural networks, and even immune landscapes can all be targeted using different combinations of materials and payloads. This adaptability makes in situ approaches particularly attractive for complex or heterogeneous conditions, where no single ex vivo product would be practical or effective across patients.
Finally, the in situ paradigm reduces the likelihood of immune complications. Unlike transplanted tissues or allogeneic cell therapies, which often carry foreign proteins that trigger immune rejection, in situ approaches preserve the native antigenic landscape. This can minimize inflammatory responses and reduce or eliminate the need for immunosuppressive drugs. In applications like cancer immunotherapy or vaccine development, in situ immune modulation can also offer localized control, enhancing efficacy while avoiding systemic toxicity.5
Together, these advantages position in situ programming and regeneration not simply as a technical alternative, but as a clinically superior path forward that merges the body's intrinsic regenerative potential with the precision of modern bioengineering.
Enabling Technologies and Platforms
The promise of in situ therapeutics is being realized through a suite of enabling technologies that allow researchers and clinicians to deliver biological cues, structural support, and genetic instructions directly within the body. These platforms not only facilitate regeneration and reprogramming but also determine the specificity, duration, and safety of the therapeutic response. Three core categories — biomaterials, gene delivery systems, and localized immunomodulation — are at the center of this transformation.
Biomaterials and Scaffolds
A foundational element of many in situ strategies is the use of bioresorbable scaffolds that provide temporary support while directing cell behavior and tissue formation. These materials, often made from polymers, such as polycaprolactone or polylactic acid, are designed to degrade over time as the body restores its own architecture. The degradation rate, porosity, and biochemical surface properties can all be tuned to influence regenerative outcomes. In orthopedic applications, for example, scaffolds can be engineered to guide osteogenesis while allowing vascular ingrowth and immune compatibility.4,6
Osteopore has emerged as a prominent case study in this space, demonstrating how synthetic scaffolds for bone and cartilage can be integrated into clinical workflows without the need for ex vivo manipulation. Their platforms illustrate how structure alone, without cellular seeding, can create the conditions necessary for effective tissue regeneration in vivo.7
Beyond rigid scaffolds, hydrogels and nanofiber matrices are increasingly being used to deliver soluble signals and create permissive microenvironments. These materials can be loaded with growth factors, chemokines, or extracellular matrix components that attract endogenous progenitor cells and promote differentiation. Hydrogels, in particular, offer injectable formats that conform to complex anatomical defects, enabling minimally invasive delivery of bioactive cargo.8,9 Their versatility has made them a preferred vehicle for integrating structural support with biochemical programming in situ.
Gene and Nucleic Acid Delivery In Situ
The ability to directly reprogram cells within the body represents one of the most transformative dimensions of in situ therapeutics. By delivering nucleic acids such as messenger RNA (mRNA), small interfering RNA (siRNA), or plasmid DNA to target tissues, researchers can modulate gene expression without permanently altering the genome. This opens the door to transient yet powerful therapeutic effects, such as silencing inflammatory genes, inducing growth factor production, or promoting phenotypic switching in immune cells.
To achieve this, platforms based on nanoparticles, hydrogels, or lipid carriers have been developed that protect nucleic acids and release them at the site of injury or disease. These delivery systems can be engineered to respond to pH, temperature, or enzymatic activity, ensuring that the payload is activated only under the desired conditions.10,11 Their in situ application avoids systemic exposure and improves the therapeutic index, especially in sensitive or inflamed tissues.
One illustrative example involves the direct reprogramming of macrophages within tumors to shift their phenotype from immunosuppressive to pro-inflammatory. Using in situ gene delivery vectors, local immune cells can be converted into active participants in cancer eradication—effectively turning the tumor microenvironment against itself.12 These approaches are laying the groundwork for programmable immunity that begins not in the lab, but within the patient.
Immune Modulation and Vaccination In Situ
Immunotherapy has typically relied on systemic administration of checkpoint inhibitors, cytokines, or engineered cells. However, in situ immunomodulation is gaining traction as a more targeted and controllable alternative. By delivering immunoregulatory agents directly to tissues, such as interleukins, Toll-like receptor agonists, or tumor antigens, clinicians can shape local immune responses with greater precision and fewer off-target effects.
This approach is particularly promising in oncology, where in situ cancer vaccines are being explored as a means to initiate tumor-specific immunity without the need for personalized cell harvesting or systemic adjuvants. These vaccines rely on scaffolds or injectable matrices that release immunostimulatory compounds over time, recruiting dendritic cells and activating cytotoxic T cells directly at the tumor site.5,11
By shifting immune interventions from systemic to local, in situ methods may reduce toxicity, improve therapeutic windows, and unlock new opportunities in autoimmune disease, transplantation, and infectious disease prevention. As delivery platforms become more sophisticated, the line between regenerative medicine and immunotherapy continues to blur, unified by the shared logic of in situ control.
From Lab to Clinic: Applications and Use Cases
The technological foundation of in situ therapeutics is already enabling a broad spectrum of clinical applications, many of which address persistent challenges in tissue repair, vascular regeneration, immune modulation, and wound healing. While some platforms remain in early development, others have progressed to clinical use, offering a glimpse into the translational power of this approach.
Orthopedics and Musculoskeletal Regeneration
One of the most mature clinical applications of in situ regeneration is in orthopedics, where bioresorbable scaffolds are used to support bone and cartilage repair. These implants serve as temporary matrices that guide cell migration, vascularization, and mineral deposition — all without the need for seeded cells or tissue grafts. Osteopore’s platform, for example, utilizes 3D-printed scaffolds that are shaped to fit patient-specific defects and gradually degrade as new bone forms. This approach has shown particular promise in craniofacial, spinal, and orthopedic surgeries, where structural fidelity and biological integration are both critical.4,6
The ability to trigger repair from within, rather than through external supplementation, also improves surgical efficiency and reduces the need for costly cell manipulation. Moreover, these materials can be designed to deliver bioactive cues, such as growth factors or chemokines, further enhancing regenerative outcomes through localized control.
Cardiac and Vascular Repair
In situ engineering is also emerging as a valuable tool in vascular and cardiac repair, where the ability to restore endothelial integrity is key to preventing thrombosis and restenosis. Traditional grafts often require pre-seeding with autologous cells or rely on synthetic materials that lack biological responsiveness. In contrast, newer in situ platforms incorporate materials that actively recruit host endothelial progenitor cells, promoting vessel lining and integration post-implantation.
One such approach involves electrospun vascular grafts functionalized with surface cues that enhance cell adhesion and migration. These grafts are designed to support the formation of a natural endothelium over time, reducing inflammation and improving long-term patency without the need for in vitro conditioning.8 This strategy highlights the convergence of materials science and regenerative medicine, with clinical applications that extend to bypass grafts, stents, and even heart valve repair.
Cancer and Immunotherapy
The intersection of in situ technology and oncology is perhaps one of the most innovative frontiers, particularly in the development of localized immunotherapies. Instead of administering systemic checkpoint inhibitors or harvesting and modifying immune cells ex vivo, researchers are now designing platforms that stimulate anti-tumor immunity directly within the tumor microenvironment.
In situ cancer vaccines represent a particularly promising application. These systems rely on biodegradable scaffolds or injectable hydrogels that release tumor antigens and immune activators over time. By recruiting antigen-presenting cells and promoting local T cell priming, these platforms transform the tumor into a site of immune activation rather than immune escape.5,11 Such localized immunotherapies could reduce the risk of immune-related adverse events while broadening the patient population eligible for treatment.
Wound Healing and Skin Regeneration
Rapid and effective wound healing is another domain where in situ approaches are showing clinical utility. Chronic wounds, burns, and surgical defects all benefit from strategies that can accelerate tissue closure while minimizing scarring and infection. Hydrogels and extracellular matrix (ECM) mimics have been developed to fill this niche, providing structural support while releasing bioactive compounds that promote angiogenesis, keratinocyte migration, and collagen remodeling.
Injectable ECM-like materials can conform to irregular wound geometries and offer a hospitable environment for resident or recruited cells. These scaffolds can also be engineered to respond to wound-specific cues, such as pH or enzymatic activity, enabling controlled release of therapeutic agents.2,9 The result is a regenerative microenvironment that supports not only structural repair but also functional tissue restoration.
Remaining Challenges and Unresolved Questions
Despite their promise, in situ therapeutics face a range of scientific, clinical, and regulatory hurdles that must be addressed before these platforms can reach their full potential. As with any emerging modality, the path from bench to bedside is shaped not only by innovation but also by the ability to anticipate and overcome key obstacles.
One of the most pressing technical challenges is achieving precise control over the spatial and temporal behavior of in situ interventions. Whether delivering nucleic acids, cytokines, or scaffold materials, maintaining localization is critical to both efficacy and safety. Payloads that diffuse away from the intended site may lead to off-target effects or diluted therapeutic responses. Efforts to address this have included engineering materials that respond to specific environmental cues, such as pH, enzymatic activity, or mechanical stress, but fine-tuning these responses across different tissue types and patient conditions remains difficult.
Closely tied to this is the issue of standardization. Unlike traditional therapeutics, in situ platforms often involve dynamic biological interactions that evolve over time and vary by patient. This raises complex questions about how to define product identity, potency, and quality. Regulatory frameworks are still adapting to these challenges, particularly for products that are administered in a form that transforms or activates once inside the body. Establishing robust manufacturing standards and analytical assays will be essential to gain regulatory approval and ensure reproducibility at scale.
There are also meaningful translational gaps to consider. Many promising in situ technologies have demonstrated success in rodent models, where immune responses and tissue architectures differ significantly from those in humans. Scaling these results to larger, more heterogeneous populations introduces new variables in biodistribution, material degradation, and immune compatibility. Moreover, long-term studies on safety, durability, and integration are still limited for most in situ platforms.
Finally, the question of how in situ therapeutics integrate with existing modalities, such as cell therapies, biologics, and surgical interventions, remains open. In some cases, in situ platforms may complement or enhance these approaches; in others, they may serve as a simpler, standalone alternative. The ability to combine scaffolds, gene delivery vectors, and immunomodulators into a single programmable system is appealing, but coordinating their kinetics and interactions introduces new layers of complexity.2,7 Achieving modularity without sacrificing precision will be a key challenge as the field evolves.
Addressing these limitations will require close collaboration between material scientists, clinicians, regulators, and industry partners. The complexity of in situ therapeutics demands a systems-level approach — not only in design but in deployment.
Looking Ahead: The Future of In Situ Bioengineering
As the field of in situ therapeutics matures, its trajectory increasingly points toward convergence across disciplines, technologies, and clinical needs. Future advances are likely to integrate smart biomaterials, machine learning, and personalized medicine into cohesive, adaptable systems capable of regenerating tissue, modulating immunity, and delivering complex payloads on demand.
One of the most exciting areas of development lies in the design of next-generation biomaterials that respond dynamically to biological cues. These materials are being engineered to sense their environment and adapt accordingly, whether by stiffening in response to mechanical load, releasing payloads when exposed to inflammation, or degrading in synchrony with tissue repair. As these “smart” systems become more refined, they will blur the line between passive scaffolding and active therapy.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is also poised to reshape how in situ platforms are designed. Algorithms trained on biological, clinical, and materials data sets could help predict optimal combinations of scaffold architecture, biochemical signals, and gene delivery vectors for specific tissues or diseases. This could dramatically accelerate development timelines and improve the precision of therapeutic programming.
In parallel, the push toward patient-specific or on-demand regenerative programming will continue to gain momentum. Rather than relying on off-the-shelf constructs or broadly targeted biologics, future interventions may be composed at the point of care and delivered through injectable formulations that tune their behavior based on patient-specific biomarkers, injury microenvironments, or even real-time feedback from embedded sensors.
The long-term vision includes programmable implants that not only support tissue regeneration but also communicate with host cells, respond to relapse or reinjury, and eventually dissolve without a trace. Similarly, immune-resilient biologics that reshape local immunity without systemic suppression may offer safer, more effective treatments for cancer, autoimmune disease, and transplant tolerance.
Achieving these goals will depend on sustained collaboration between academia and industry. Academic labs continue to lead in the development of novel materials, mechanisms, and delivery strategies, while commercial partners are essential for translating these advances into scalable, regulated, and clinically validated products. Cross-sector partnerships will be key to navigating the complexity of in situ platforms, from preclinical optimization to market access.
As highlighted in emerging platforms for localized nucleic acid delivery and immune reprogramming, the shift toward in situ intervention represents more than a technological evolution; it signals a philosophical shift in how we think about therapy. Rather than imposing solutions onto the body, in situ approaches aim to collaborate with it, harnessing endogenous processes as co-engineers in recovery.10,11 This collaborative model may ultimately redefine the boundaries of regenerative medicine — not as a field that replaces what is lost, but as one that restores what is possible.
References
1. Jakob, Franz, et al. “In situ guided tissue regeneration in musculoskeletal diseases and aging.” Cell & Tissue Research. 347: 725–735 (2012).
2. Dias, Juliana R, et al. “In situ Enabling Approaches for Tissue Regeneration: Current Challenges and New Developments.” Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology. Feb. 2020.
3. Rhiahinezhad, Hosseian, Gad Sabbatier, and Laura McKiel. “SC6: In vitro, in vivo, and in situ tissue engineering: pros and cons.” CBS Kingston Student Chapter. 26 Apr. 2017.
4. Ko, In Kap, et al. “In situ tissue regeneration through host stem cell recruitment.” Experimental & Molecular Medicine. 45: e57 (2013).
5. Calmeiro, João, et al. “Biomaterial-based platforms for in situ dendritic cell programming and their use in antitumor immunotherapy.” Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer. 7: 238 (2019).
6. Seng, Goh Khoon. “In-vitro vs in-situ tissue engineering. What are the differences?” Osteopore 3 Sep. 2021.
7. Grath, Alexander, and Guohao Dai. “Direct cell reprogramming for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine.” Journal of Bilogical Engineering. 13: 14 (2019).
8. Abdulghani, Saba, and Geoffrey R Mitchell. “Biomaterials for In Situ Tissue Regeneration: A Review.” Biomolecules. 9L 750 (2019).
9. Chan, Tzu-Min, Hu-Ping Lin, and Shinn-Zong Lin. “In Situ Altering of the Extracellular Matrix to Direct the Programming of Endogenous Stem Cells .” Stem Cells. 32: 1989–1990 (2014).
10. Parayath, NN and MT Stephan. “In Situ Programming of CAR T Cells.” Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering. 23: 385–405 (2021).
11. Safina, Ingrid, and Mildred C Embree. “Biomaterials for recruiting and activating endogenous stem cells in situ tissue regeneration.” Acta Biomaterialia. 143: 26–38 (2022).
12. Goldstein, Jill M, et al. “In Situ Modification of Tissue Stem and Progenitor Cell Genomes.” Cell Reports. 27: 1254–1264 (2019).