Over the past decade, bioprinting has emerged as a promising patterning strategy to organize cells and extracellular components both in two and three dimensions (2D and 3D) to engineer functional tissue mimicking constructs. So far, tissue printing has neither been used for 3D patterning of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) in multiphase growth factor embedded 3D hydrogels nor been investigated phenotypically in terms of simultaneous differentiation into different cell types within the same micropatterned 3D tissue constructs. Accordingly, we demonstrated a biochemical gradient by bioprinting nanoliter droplets encapsulating human MSCs, bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP-2), and transforming growth factor β1 (TGF- β1), engineering an anisotropic biomimetic fibrocartilage microenvironment. Assessment of the model tissue construct displayed multiphasic anisotropy of the incorporated biochemical factors after patterning. Quantitative real time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) results suggested genomic expression patterns leading to simultaneous differentiation of MSC populations into osteogenic and chondrogenic phenotype within the multiphasic construct, evidenced by upregulation of osteogenesis and condrogenesis related genes during in vitro culture. Comprehensive phenotypic network and pathway analysis results, which were based on genomic expression data, indicated activation of differentiation related mechanisms, via signaling pathways, including TGF, BMP, and vascular endothelial growth factor.
Over the past decade, bioprinting has emerged as a promising patterning strategy to organize cells and extracellular components both in two and three dimensions (2D and 3D) to engineer functional tissue mimicking constructs. So far, tissue printing has neither been used for 3D patterning of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) in multiphase growth factor embedded 3D hydrogels nor been investigated phenotypically in terms of simultaneous differentiation into different cell types within the same micropatterned 3D tissue constructs. Accordingly, we demonstrated a biochemical gradient by bioprinting nanoliter droplets encapsulating human MSCs, bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP-2), and transforming growth factor β1 (TGF- β1), engineering an anisotropic biomimetic fibrocartilage microenvironment. Assessment of the model tissue construct displayed multiphasic anisotropy of the incorporated biochemical factors after patterning. Quantitative real time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) results suggested genomic expression patterns leading to simultaneous differentiation of MSC populations into osteogenic and chondrogenic phenotype within the multiphasic construct, evidenced by upregulation of osteogenesis and condrogenesis related genes during in vitro culture. Comprehensive phenotypic network and pathway analysis results, which were based on genomic expression data, indicated activation of differentiation related mechanisms, via signaling pathways, including TGF, BMP, and vascular endothelial growth factor.
Recent
advances in tissue engineering have enabled engineered 3D
tissue structures for various applications, including regenerative
medicine and in vitro biomimetic functional tissue
platforms.[1−16] Engineered 3D tissue models that mimic native tissues have emerged
and started playing an important role in drug discovery and development.[17−19] The need for complex microengineered 3D methods for tissue engineering
applications is well accepted due to the limitations of 2D systems
in effectively representing the complex tissue environment.[20−22] Current 3D tissue scaffolding methods present shortcomings due to
lack of control over spatial and temporal control over cell seeding
and extracellular matrix (ECM) composition.[4,13,22−24] To engineer 3D biomimetic
multiphase complex tissue structures such as tissue interfaces, it
is critical to have control over the microenvironment components,
including cellular, extracellular, and biological factor gradients
in microscale. As a result of recent advances in stem cell biology,
it is possible to create microenvironments which can direct controlled
differentiation of cells and, hence, facilitate reorganization of
the bioengineered structures toward a specific tissue phenotype.[25]Designs involving single-phasic,[26,27] dual-phasic,[28] and continuous-gradation[29] scaffolds have been developed. However, the
small scale
of the tissue interfaces (Figure 1A,B), which
range from 50 μm to 2 mm in length (depending on tissue, species
and age),[30,31] presents significant challenges in engineering
the microscale anisotropy observed in extracellular, biochemical,
and cellular composition.[32] Therefore,
in the case of interface tissue engineering, there is an unmet need
for advanced biomanufacturing methods to mimic the intricate microscale
3D anisotropic environment with precision. Bioprinting can overcome
the limitations of existing tissue scaffolding methods in interface
tissue engineering by providing control over encapsulation and patterning
of the cells and the accompanying ECM components in microscale.[23,33]
Figure 1
Complex
anisotropic organization of the fibrocartilage phase at
the bone–tendon interface. (A) Both tendon and bone tissues
are rich in collagen type I with significant difference in cellular
composition. Tendon (soft tissue) attaches to bone (hard tissue) through
an anisotropic insertion site: the fibrocartilage phase. Scale bars
in the figures represent 50 μm, 1 mm, and 50 μm, respectively.
(B) Fibrocartilage phase presents an intricate gradation in terms
of structure, ECM components, cells, and biological factors in a diminutive
space (∼1–2 mm in length). (C) Fibrocartilage phase
is composed of four continuous and intertwined phases: (i) tendon
(proper), (ii) fibrocartilage, (iii) mineralized fibrocartilage, and
(iv) bone. (D) We mimicked the native fibrocartilage phase via 3D
micropatterning nanoliter gel encapsulated hMSCs, ECM components,
and compositions of biochemical factors, BMP-2 and TGF-β1 in
a multiphase pattern. Tendon and bone junction photograph was adapted
from Wopenka et al.,[50] copyright 2008,
and reproduced with permission of Society for Applied Spectroscopy.
Complex
anisotropic organization of the fibrocartilage phase at
the bone–tendon interface. (A) Both tendon and bone tissues
are rich in collagen type I with significant difference in cellular
composition. Tendon (soft tissue) attaches to bone (hard tissue) through
an anisotropic insertion site: the fibrocartilage phase. Scale bars
in the figures represent 50 μm, 1 mm, and 50 μm, respectively.
(B) Fibrocartilage phase presents an intricate gradation in terms
of structure, ECM components, cells, and biological factors in a diminutive
space (∼1–2 mm in length). (C) Fibrocartilage phase
is composed of four continuous and intertwined phases: (i) tendon
(proper), (ii) fibrocartilage, (iii) mineralized fibrocartilage, and
(iv) bone. (D) We mimicked the native fibrocartilage phase via 3D
micropatterning nanoliter gel encapsulated hMSCs, ECM components,
and compositions of biochemical factors, BMP-2 and TGF-β1 in
a multiphase pattern. Tendon and bone junction photograph was adapted
from Wopenka et al.,[50] copyright 2008,
and reproduced with permission of Society for Applied Spectroscopy.Bioprinting involves the use of
computer-aided transfer processes
for patterning and assembling living and nonliving materials with
a prescribed 2D or 3D organization to produce bioengineered structures
serving in regenerative medicine, drug discovery, and basic cell biology
studies.[34] Bioprinting, biomanufacturing,
and multilayer fabrication methods have been used to control cell
patterning and seeding.[4,1133,35−45] In this study, we expand the use of microscale bioprinting to facilitate
engineering of the complex anisotropic fibrocartilage tissue phase
via nanoliter encapsulation and printing of MSCs along with biochemical
factors and ECM components (Figure 1C,D). MSCs
were used in this study as they are the common progenitors of musculoskeletal
tissues, including bone and cartilage.[46,47]Phenotypic
characterization of cells within in vitro culture
models by genomic expression analysis provides essential
generic indicators and high-content biomarkers for drug testing and
for studying the impact of uncharacterized perturbations on cells.[17,48,49] In this work, we investigated
the state of the patterned cells within the 3D multiphasic tissue
constructs in terms of a comprehensive genomic expression analysis,
which is directly relevant to development of new in vitro functional models and their use in drug discovery. Through genomic
expression analysis, we demonstrate the potential of bioprinting in
engineering functional biomimetic multiphase 3D tissue models, such
as the fibrocartilage phase at the soft and hard tissue interface.
Experimental
Section
Micropatterning and in Vitro Culture of Fibrocartilage
Phase
A computer-aided design of the bioprinting pathway
was first generated (Figure 2A) for each experimental
group. Microdroplets of Bioinks were generated in a sterile laminar
flow hood under controlled humidity by cell-encapsulating droplet
generation system developed in our laboratory.[9,33,51,52] Using the
valve-based droplet ejector setup, the Bioink droplets composed of
cell encapsulating hydrogel were printed on gel-coated substrates
(Transwell permeable culture inserts, Corning Inc., Figure 2B). The nominal droplet size was around 300 μm
in diameter following deposition on the substrate (Figure 2C,D). The interdroplet distance was determined by
the size of the droplets residing on the substrate, which was around
700 μm measured from center to center (Figure 2D). Multiple layers of these droplets were printed and photo-cross-linked
layer-by-layer using ultraviolet light (UV) at a power setting of
6.9 mW/cm2 for 30 s based on earlier work.[4] Bioprinted and photo-cross-linked multiple layers were
merged forming a seamless and continuous 3D tissue structure (Figure 2D). Methacrylated gelatin precursor solution (5%)
with photoinitiator for photo-cross-linking (0.5%, Irgacure 2959)
was used as the major constituent of the Bioink, as we described previously.[4] Diffusion and integration of the phases were
assessed using the fluorescent Rhodamine B (red; 0.04 mM; 479 Da)
and Dextran-Alexa Fluor 488 (green; 0.01 mM; 10 kDa). To bioprint
the fibrocartilage phase, hydrogel solution was supplemented with
human MSCs (hMSCs, Lonza) at a concentration of 106 cells
per milliliter of hydrogel and growth factors (BMP-2 at 20 ng per
mL of hydrogel; TGF-β1 at 10 ng per mL of hydrogel; human recombinant
growth factors from R&D Systems). To maintain cellular viability
during bioprinting, Bioink was supplemented with 10% culture medium
and the pH was neutralized to 7.0 using 0.1 M sodium hydroxide solution.
hMSCs were mixed into the Bioink and patterned in microdroplets with
BMP-2 and TGF- β1 growth factors in single phase or multiphase
pattern representing the fibrocartilage phase. We evaluated four different
Bioink compositions to investigate the effect of bioprinting based
patterning on engineered fibrocartilage phase: (1) multiphase TGF-β1
and BMP-2 patterning with hMSCs, (2) single phase TGF-β1 patterning
with hMSCs, (3) single phase BMP-2 patterning with hMSCs, and (4)
control (no growth factors, hMSCs only). The culture medium was composed
of α-MEM (Sigma), 10% MSC-qualified-FBS (Invitrogen), 60 U/mL
Pen-Strep (Invitrogen), and 2.5 μg/mL Fungizone (Sigma), based
on our earlier work.[6,13,14,16] The culture medium was changed every two
days, and all samples were maintained at 37 °C, 5% CO2, 95–99% relative humidity (to prevent dehydration) throughout
the experiment (up to 36 days). To evaluate cell viability in the
bioprinted constructs, cells were stained with fluorescent dyes of
calcein-AM and propidium iodide (Live-Dead assay, Invitrogen) after
bioprinting was completed.
Figure 2
Micropatterning and bioprinting the anisotropic
3D fibrocartilage
phase. (A) A computer-aided drawing and a path map of the bioprinter
was developed. Experimental groups and corresponding Bioink compositions
were determined. (B) Nanoliter droplets encapsulating hMSCs, ECM components,
and growth factors were deposited on a cell culture insert covered
with a thin layer of hydrogel. The lower part of the insert was filled
with DPBS to keep the deposited nanoliter droplets hydrated. Each
layer was photo-cross-linked using UV light to stabilize the structure.
(C) The patterned nanoliter droplets initially form a single layer
structure on the insert. (D) Single layer design and layer-by-layer
deposition can be repeated to achieve a multilayered 3D tissue construct
in a single phase or multiphase format. When multiple layers of these
droplets are printed and cross-linked, they merge forming a seamless
and continuous 3D tissue structure.
Micropatterning and bioprinting the anisotropic
3D fibrocartilage
phase. (A) A computer-aided drawing and a path map of the bioprinter
was developed. Experimental groups and corresponding Bioink compositions
were determined. (B) Nanoliter droplets encapsulating hMSCs, ECM components,
and growth factors were deposited on a cell culture insert covered
with a thin layer of hydrogel. The lower part of the insert was filled
with DPBS to keep the deposited nanoliter droplets hydrated. Each
layer was photo-cross-linked using UV light to stabilize the structure.
(C) The patterned nanoliter droplets initially form a single layer
structure on the insert. (D) Single layer design and layer-by-layer
deposition can be repeated to achieve a multilayered 3D tissue construct
in a single phase or multiphase format. When multiple layers of these
droplets are printed and cross-linked, they merge forming a seamless
and continuous 3D tissue structure.
Quantitative RT-PCR Analysis
Extraction and isolation
of mRNA was performed separately and individually for (i) control,
(ii) single phase BMP-2, (iii) single phase TGF-β, and (iv)
multiphase BMP-2 and TGF-β groups using the TRIzol reagent and
following the manufacturer’s RNA isolation protocol (Invitrogen).
qRT-PCR array analysis was used to assess the differentiation of hMSCs
to bone, cartilage, tendon, adipose, and muscle phenotypes after 14,
21, and 36 days of culture. Genomic expression analysis was performed
using the Human Mesenchymal Stem Cell RT2 Profiler PCR
Array (PAHS-082Z, SABiosciences, Qiagen, Valencia, CA) for the expression
of 84 key genes according to manufacturer’s instructions utilizing
Roche LightCycler 480 instrument. The data generated were analyzed
using the SABioscience software. Normalization was performed using
arithmetic mean utilizing housekeeping genes (ACTB, B2M, GAPDH, HPRT1,
RPLP0). The genes were initially categorized in terms of stemness
markers, MSC-specific markers, and other genes associated with MSCs.
Stemness markers were grouped as FGF2, INS, LIF, POU5F1, SOX2, TERT,
WNT3A, ZFP42. MSC-specific markers were categorized as ALCAM, ANPEP,
BMP2, CASP3, CD44, ENG, ERBB2, FUT4, FZD9, ITGA6, ITGAV, KDR, MCAM,
NGFR, NT5E, PDGFRB, PROM1, THY1, VCAM1. Other genes associated with
MSCs were ANXA5, BDNF, BGLAP, BMP7, COL1A1, CSF2, CSF3, CTNNB1, EGF,
FUT1, GTF3A, HGF, ICAM1, IFNG, IGF1, IL10, IL1B, IL6, ITGB1, KITLG,
MITF, MMP2, NES, NUDT6, PIGS, PTPRC, SLC17A5, TGFB3, TNF, VEGFA, VIM,
VWF. MSC differentiation markers were categorized in four main groups:
(i) genes involved in osteogenesis and chondrogenesis, namely, BMP2,
BMP4, BMP6, COL1A1, ERBB2, FGF10, GDF6, HDF, IGF1, IL10, IL6, KDR,
LIF, RUNX2, SOX9, TBX5, TGFB1, TGFB3, VEGFA, WNT3A; (ii) genes involved
in adipogenesis, namely, PPARG, RHOA, RUNX2; (iii) genes involved
in myogenesis, namely, JAG1, NOTCH1; and (iv) genes involved in tenogenesis,
namely, BMP2, GDF15, SMAD4, TGFB1.
Pathway and Network Analysis
Comprehensive network
and pathway analyses were performed using the qRT-PCR data and GeneGo
Metacore Software and Database. For GeneGo Metacore pathway and network
analysis, fold regulation data obtained from qRT-PCR results were
used. To eliminate the noise level data points, intensity levels and
fold change data were compared for each sample at each time point.
Fold change values were determined relative to control group, which
included only hMSCs and did not include any growth factors. According
to this comparison, the genes were categorized in the following groups:
(i) single phase BMP-2, (ii) single phase TGF-β, and (iii) multiphase
BMP-2 and TGF-β. Before analysis, the general threshold value
was set as 1.3 and the p-value was set as 0.01 for
all time points and samples. Next, GO processes were determined for
day 14 (Table S1 in the Supporting Information), day 21 (Table S2 in the Supporting Information), and day 36 (Table S3 in the Supporting Information) for all three categories. Similarly, pathway maps were determined
for day 14 (Figure S1 and Table S4 in the Supporting
Information), day 21 (Figure S2 and Table S5 in the Supporting Information), and day 36 (Figure S3 and
Table S6 in the Supporting Information). Process
networks were obtained for day 14 (Table S7 in the Supporting Information), day 21 (Table S8 in the Supporting Information), and day 36 (Table S9 in the Supporting Information). Finally, map folders (Figure
S4 in the Supporting Information) were determined
for all time points using GeneGo software.
Results and Discussion
Anisotropy
and Multiphase Patterning of Engineered 3D Fibrocartilage
Tissue Model
We studied the distinctness and integration
of the bioprinted phases by using large molecular weight fluorescent
dyes, Rhodamine B (red) and Dextran-Alexa Fluor 488 (green), where
red color represents the TGF-β1 phase and the green color represents
the BMP-2 phase (Figure 2A–C). The printed
multiphase hydrogel structure representing an anisotropic tissue unit
displayed boundaries between the individual droplets immediately after
printing (Figure 2D). The dyes were considered
to mimic the embedded growth factors in different phases in constructs,
and they were employed to visualize the anisotropy after patterning
(Figure 3A). Release and delivery of growth
factors from hydrogel carriers have been extensively studied for applications
in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine.[555−557] In this study, our aim was to retain the growth factors in the patterned
hydrogel constructs together with the cells, which would assist in
differentiation of embedded stem cells toward osteogenic and chondrogenic
phenotypes in the patterned structures. Imaging after patterning indicated
a limited integration and a gradient between the two adjacent phases,
and a distinction was still present between the bulk of two phases
(Figure 3A). In a smaller scale, the boundaries
were observed to fade and smooth transitions emerged between the two
phases after the multilayer printing process was completed (Figure 3A inset). The transition region in the tissue construct
(indicated by the dashed line in the Figure 3A inset) was observed to be around ∼1–2 mm in length,
which mimics the native fibrocartilage interface region. A similar
integration pattern between the phases was considered to be present
in the case of growth factor and cell patterning.
Figure 3
Micropatterned anisotropic
fibrocartilage phase. (A) The predesigned
architecture was realized via depositing and patterning nanoliter
droplets encapsulating hMSCs and compositions of TGF-β1 and
BMP-2. Red color zone represents the TGF-β1 patterned section,
and green color represents the BMP-2 patterned section. Red to green
color transition region in the engineered construct (indicated by
dashed line) was observed to be around ∼1–2 mm in length,
which mimics the native fibrocartilage interface region. Scale bar
represents 500 μm of length. (B) Viability of hMSCs was assessed
via a live/dead assay one day after deposition and micropatterning
of nanoliter droplets at various magnifications using phase contrast
and fluorescent microscopy. Cell viability was greater than 90%, indicated
by green colored cells. Cells displayed typical healthy morphology
in the bioprinted constructs. Scale bars represent 500 μm of
length for the upper images, and 100 μm of length for the lower
images.
Micropatterned anisotropic
fibrocartilage phase. (A) The predesigned
architecture was realized via depositing and patterning nanoliter
droplets encapsulating hMSCs and compositions of TGF-β1 and
BMP-2. Red color zone represents the TGF-β1 patterned section,
and green color represents the BMP-2 patterned section. Red to green
color transition region in the engineered construct (indicated by
dashed line) was observed to be around ∼1–2 mm in length,
which mimics the native fibrocartilage interface region. Scale bar
represents 500 μm of length. (B) Viability of hMSCs was assessed
via a live/dead assay one day after deposition and micropatterning
of nanoliter droplets at various magnifications using phase contrast
and fluorescent microscopy. Cell viability was greater than 90%, indicated
by green colored cells. Cells displayed typical healthy morphology
in the bioprinted constructs. Scale bars represent 500 μm of
length for the upper images, and 100 μm of length for the lower
images.Most biomaterials and scaffolding
approaches result in mismatch
of compositional properties at the tissue interface due to the lack
of the physiological anisotropy.[59,60] Soft–hard
tissue interfaces between tendon, ligament, cartilage, and bone are
complex, and they are composed of four main zones: (i) soft tissue
proper, (ii) fibrocartilage, (iii) mineralized fibrocartilage, and
(iv) bone, in a microscale intricate organization.[50] Mimicking the functional integration site of soft tendon
tissue to rigid bone tissue can be attained by regenerating the fibrocartilage
phase, which requires population by multiple cell types and associated
ECM heterogeneity similar to a native tissue interface.[2] An anisotropic and stratified structure is essential
to mimic the mechanical, compositional and cellular features of the
tissue interface. The transition occurs in a microscopic space (50
μm to ∼1–2 mm, depending on species and age)[30,31] with dramatic change in cellular, ECM, and biological factor composition
(Figure 1), which could be mimicked using bioprinting
method.
Morphological Organization and Characterization of Embedded
Cells in Multiphase Patterned Tissue Structure
In an earlier
study, we presented an extensive genomic analysis of stem cell markers
in bioprinted stem cells, which infer the proliferation potential
of the printed cells.[51] In this study,
to test the viability of the cells after patterning, we performed
calcein-AM and propidium iodide based viability assay on the cells.
Cell viability was observed to be greater than 90% after micropatterning
(Figure 3B) in the engineered fibrocartilage
phase. This result indicated that bioprinting did not significantly
affect cell survival, which is consistent with our earlier studies.[9,33,51,52] Cells displayed typical healthy morphology generally observed in
hydrogels (Figure 3B).
Genomic Expression Analysis
on Single Phase and Multiphase Patterned
Tissue Models
Quantitative RT-PCR genomic expression analysis
results demonstrated that most of the osteogenesis and chondrogenesis
related genes analyzed were simultaneously upregulated in multiphase
BMP-2 and TGF-β1 patterned constructs, especially after long-term
culture (Figure 4A). Fold change values were
observed to be higher for most osteogenesis and chondrogenesis related
genes in the multiphase BMP-2 and TGF-β construct compared to
single phase constructs after 36 days in culture (Figure 4B). A number of tendon, muscle, and adipose tissue
related genes were also expressed at lower upregulation values (Figure 5).
Figure 4
Osteogenesis and chondrogenesis related genes in single
phase and
multiphase samples for days 14, 21, and 36. (A) Red color intensity
in osteogenesis and chondrogenesis related genes in BMP-2 and TGF-β1
patterned groups, especially after 36 days of culture, suggests simultaneous
expression of these two phenotypes in the engineered tissue constructs.
(B) Fold changes were higher for most osteogenesis and chondrogenesis
related genes in the multiphase BMP-2 and TGF-β tissue construct
compared to single phase constructs after 36 days in culture.
Figure 5
Genomic expression analysis results presented
as a clustergram
after three different culture durations (days 14, 21, and 36) for
both single phase and multiphase patterning.
Osteogenesis and chondrogenesis related genes in single
phase and
multiphase samples for days 14, 21, and 36. (A) Red color intensity
in osteogenesis and chondrogenesis related genes in BMP-2 and TGF-β1
patterned groups, especially after 36 days of culture, suggests simultaneous
expression of these two phenotypes in the engineered tissue constructs.
(B) Fold changes were higher for most osteogenesis and chondrogenesis
related genes in the multiphase BMP-2 and TGF-β tissue construct
compared to single phase constructs after 36 days in culture.Genomic expression analysis results presented
as a clustergram
after three different culture durations (days 14, 21, and 36) for
both single phase and multiphase patterning.Various growth factors, including BMP-2 and TGF-β superfamily
factors, have previously been immobilized in combination with ECM
components by utilizing the inherent binding ability of these cytokines
and ECM components.[55,56] These factors were used in combination
with bioprinting to form 2D structures to study the response and differentiation
of cells, which were seeded postprinting.[57,58] In this study we incorporated BMP-2 and TGF-β1 in photo-cross-linkable
gelatin based hydrogel matrix in combination with hMSCs as a Bioink
to form multiphase 3D tissue models. With this 3D tissue structure,
we studied phenotypic differentiation and genomic expression of embedded
hMSCs toward bone and cartilage, mimicking the fibrocartilage phase
in skeletal system.
Phenotypic Pathway and Network Analysis Based
on Genomic Expression
Data
General pathway analysis was performed on genomic expression
data to obtain a comprehensive list of all the differentiation related
pathways involved in the engineered tissue model, which is an approach
directly related to drug discovery and development. Activation of
differentiation related mechanisms, via signaling pathways, including
TGF, Wnt, BMP, and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), were
analyzed and presented for qRT-PCR results obtained at day 14 (Figure
S1 in the Supporting Information), day 21 (Figure
S2 in the Supporting Information), and day
36 (Figure S3 in the Supporting Information), with references to the relevant literature. The specific genes
identified in each analysis and the statistical p-values calculated by the GeneGo software are presented in Tables
S1–S9 in the Supporting Information.
These results demonstrated that, at all the time points, differentiation
related pathways were activated in the engineered fibrocartilage tissues
via bone and cartilage related signaling pathways, including TGF,
Wnt, BMP, and VEGF (Figures S1–S4 in the Supporting
Information). In the light of the various pathways observed
in this study, future studies are needed that focus on specific relevant
pathways involved in differentiation of hMSCs in engineered interface
tissues. The approach and the results presented in this work are directly
relevant to development of new in vitro functional
models based on stem cells and their use in drug discovery.
Summary
and Conclusions
We present the application of emerging bioprinting
technology in
engineering anisotropic multiphase 3D tissue models with potential
impact in in vitro drug testing, discovery, and development.
We designed a biochemical gradient with microscale gels encapsulating
hMSCs and growth factors in an organization that aims to mimic the
native fibrocartilage phase. Quantitative RT-PCR analysis showed that
the hMSCs displayed an upregulation of osteogenesis and chondrogenesis
related genes simultaneously in the 3D fibrocartilage model. Phenotypic
pathway and network analysis results were presented based on the genomic
expression data obtained from the model. Bioprinted microscale anisotropic
tissue structures can potentially be utilized as functional in vitro 3D tissue models and platforms for high-throughput
pharmaceutical testing and validation studies. Functional tissue models
coupled with comprehensive genomic expression analysis on high-content
biomarkers via bioinformatics data mining tools open new venues in
drug testing and discovery. These methods and platforms would ultimately
allow the use of a patient’s own cells for generating personalized in vitro functional tissue models as testbeds for assessing
drug candidates and therapeutics.
Authors: T R Hughes; M J Marton; A R Jones; C J Roberts; R Stoughton; C D Armour; H A Bennett; E Coffey; H Dai; Y D He; M J Kidd; A M King; M R Meyer; D Slade; P Y Lum; S B Stepaniants; D D Shoemaker; D Gachotte; K Chakraburtty; J Simon; M Bard; S H Friend Journal: Cell Date: 2000-07-07 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: SangJun Moon; Syed K Hasan; Young S Song; Feng Xu; Hasan Onur Keles; Fahim Manzur; Sohan Mikkilineni; Jong Wook Hong; Jiro Nagatomi; Edward Haeggstrom; Ali Khademhosseini; Utkan Demirci Journal: Tissue Eng Part C Methods Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 3.056
Authors: Juan M Colazo; Brian C Evans; Angel F Farinas; Salam Al-Kassis; Craig L Duvall; Wesley P Thayer Journal: Tissue Eng Part B Rev Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 6.389
Authors: Emine Alarçin; Xiaofei Guan; Sara Saheb Kashaf; Khairat Elbaradie; Huazhe Yang; Hae Lin Jang; Ali Khademhosseini Journal: Regen Med Date: 2016-11-25 Impact factor: 3.806
Authors: Gareth Turnbull; Jon Clarke; Frédéric Picard; Philip Riches; Luanluan Jia; Fengxuan Han; Bin Li; Wenmiao Shu Journal: Bioact Mater Date: 2017-12-01
Authors: Rami El Assal; Sinan Guven; Umut Atakan Gurkan; Irep Gozen; Hadi Shafiee; Sedef Dalbeyler; Noor Abdalla; Gawain Thomas; Wendy Fuld; Ben M W Illigens; Jessica Estanislau; Joseph Khoory; Richard Kaufman; Claudia Zylberberg; Neal Lindeman; Qi Wen; Ionita Ghiran; Utkan Demirci Journal: Adv Mater Date: 2014-07-22 Impact factor: 30.849