Literature DB >> 28812982

Quantitative criteria to benchmark new and existing bio-inks for cell compatibility.

Karen Dubbin, Anthony Tabet, Sarah C Heilshorn.   

Abstract

Recent advancements in 3D bioprinting have led to the fabrication of more complex, more precise, and larger printed tissue constructs. As the field continues to advance, it is critical to develop quantitative benchmarks to compare different bio-inks for key cell-biomaterial interactions, including (1) cell sedimentation within the ink cartridge, (2) cell viability during extrusion, and (3) cell viability after ink curing. Here we develop three simple protocols for quantitative analysis of bio-ink performance. These methods are used to benchmark the performance of two commonly used bio-inks, poly(ethylene glycol) diacrylate (PEGDA) and gelatin methacrylate (GelMA), against three formulations of a novel bio-ink, Recombinant-protein Alginate Platform for Injectable Dual-crosslinked ink (RAPID ink). RAPID inks undergo peptide-self-assembly to form weak, shear-thinning gels in the ink cartridge and undergo electrostatic crosslinking with divalent cations during curing. In the one hour cell sedimentation assay, GelMA, the RAPID inks, and PEGDA with xanthan gum prevented appreciable cell sedimentation, while PEGDA alone or PEGDA with alginate experienced significant cell settling. To quantify cell viability during printing, 3T3 fibroblasts were printed at a constant flow rate of 75 μl min-1 and immediately tested for cell membrane integrity. Less than 10% of cells were damaged using the PEGDA and GelMA bio-inks, while less than 4% of cells were damaged using the RAPID inks. Finally, to evaluate cell viability after curing, cells were exposed to ink-specific curing conditions for five minutes and tested for membrane integrity. After exposure to light with photoinitiator at ambient conditions, over 50% of cells near the edges of printed PEGDA and GelMA droplets were damaged. In contrast, fewer than 20% of cells found near the edges of RAPID inks were damaged after a 5 min exposure to curing in a 10 mM CaCl2 solution. As new bio-inks continue to be developed, these protocols offer a convenient means to quantitatively benchmark their performance against existing inks.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28812982      PMCID: PMC5811195          DOI: 10.1088/1758-5090/aa869f

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biofabrication        ISSN: 1758-5082            Impact factor:   9.954


  53 in total

1.  Improving viability of stem cells during syringe needle flow through the design of hydrogel cell carriers.

Authors:  Brian A Aguado; Widya Mulyasasmita; James Su; Kyle J Lampe; Sarah C Heilshorn
Journal:  Tissue Eng Part A       Date:  2011-12-20       Impact factor: 3.845

2.  Mechanical Properties, Cytocompatibility and Manufacturability of Chitosan:PEGDA Hybrid-Gel Scaffolds by Stereolithography.

Authors:  Viola B Morris; Siddharth Nimbalkar; Mousa Younesi; Phillip McClellan; Ozan Akkus
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2016-05-10       Impact factor: 3.934

3.  Controlling cell interactions by micropatterning in co-cultures: hepatocytes and 3T3 fibroblasts.

Authors:  S N Bhatia; M L Yarmush; M Toner
Journal:  J Biomed Mater Res       Date:  1997-02

4.  Direct 3D Printing of Shear-Thinning Hydrogels into Self-Healing Hydrogels.

Authors:  Christopher B Highley; Christopher B Rodell; Jason A Burdick
Journal:  Adv Mater       Date:  2015-07-15       Impact factor: 30.849

5.  A simple and high-resolution stereolithography-based 3D bioprinting system using visible light crosslinkable bioinks.

Authors:  Zongjie Wang; Raafa Abdulla; Benjamin Parker; Roya Samanipour; Sanjoy Ghosh; Keekyoung Kim
Journal:  Biofabrication       Date:  2015-12-22       Impact factor: 9.954

6.  Multilineage potential of adult human mesenchymal stem cells.

Authors:  M F Pittenger; A M Mackay; S C Beck; R K Jaiswal; R Douglas; J D Mosca; M A Moorman; D W Simonetti; S Craig; D R Marshak
Journal:  Science       Date:  1999-04-02       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 7.  Biomaterials for integration with 3-D bioprinting.

Authors:  Aleksander Skardal; Anthony Atala
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2014-12-05       Impact factor: 3.934

8.  Effect of cell density on osteoblastic differentiation and matrix degradation of biomimetic dense collagen scaffolds.

Authors:  Malak Bitar; Robert A Brown; Vehid Salih; Asmeret G Kidane; Jonathan C Knowles; Showan N Nazhat
Journal:  Biomacromolecules       Date:  2007-12-21       Impact factor: 6.988

Review 9.  Hydrogel scaffolds for tissue engineering: Progress and challenges.

Authors:  Ibrahim M El-Sherbiny; Magdi H Yacoub
Journal:  Glob Cardiol Sci Pract       Date:  2013-11-01

10.  Low-cost, rapidly-developed, 3D printed in vitro corpus callosum model for mucopolysaccharidosis type I.

Authors:  Anthony Tabet; Matthew Gardner; Sebastian Swanson; Sydney Crump; Austin McMeekin; Diana Gong; Rebecca Tabet; Benjamin Hacker; Igor Nestrasil
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2016-12-02
View more
  17 in total

1.  Bioprinting of stem cell expansion lattices.

Authors:  Christopher D Lindsay; Julien G Roth; Bauer L LeSavage; Sarah C Heilshorn
Journal:  Acta Biomater       Date:  2019-05-13       Impact factor: 8.947

Review 2.  3D Bioprinting of Cell-Laden Hydrogels for Improved Biological Functionality.

Authors:  Sarah M Hull; Lucia G Brunel; Sarah C Heilshorn
Journal:  Adv Mater       Date:  2021-10-20       Impact factor: 30.849

3.  Computational Modeling and Experimental Characterization of Extrusion Printing into Suspension Baths.

Authors:  Margaret E Prendergast; Jason A Burdick
Journal:  Adv Healthc Mater       Date:  2021-11-20       Impact factor: 9.933

4.  Hybrid 3D Printing of Synthetic and Cell-Laden Bioinks for Shape Retaining Soft Tissue Grafts.

Authors:  Sarah Van Belleghem; Leopoldo Torres; Marco Santoro; Bhushan Mahadik; Arley Wolfand; Peter Kofinas; John P Fisher
Journal:  Adv Funct Mater       Date:  2019-10-15       Impact factor: 18.808

Review 5.  3D bioprinting of functional tissue models for personalized drug screening and in vitro disease modeling.

Authors:  Xuanyi Ma; Justin Liu; Wei Zhu; Min Tang; Natalie Lawrence; Claire Yu; Maling Gou; Shaochen Chen
Journal:  Adv Drug Deliv Rev       Date:  2018-06-21       Impact factor: 15.470

6.  Rapid Diels-Alder Cross-linking of Cell Encapsulating Hydrogels.

Authors:  Christopher M Madl; Sarah C Heilshorn
Journal:  Chem Mater       Date:  2019-09-27       Impact factor: 9.811

Review 7.  Translational Applications of Hydrogels.

Authors:  Santiago Correa; Abigail K Grosskopf; Hector Lopez Hernandez; Doreen Chan; Anthony C Yu; Lyndsay M Stapleton; Eric A Appel
Journal:  Chem Rev       Date:  2021-05-03       Impact factor: 60.622

8.  Engineering a Chemically Defined Hydrogel Bioink for Direct Bioprinting of Microvasculature.

Authors:  Ryan W Barrs; Jia Jia; Michael Ward; Dylan J Richards; Hai Yao; Michael J Yost; Ying Mei
Journal:  Biomacromolecules       Date:  2020-12-17       Impact factor: 6.988

9.  3D bioprinting of oligo(poly[ethylene glycol] fumarate) for bone and nerve tissue engineering.

Authors:  Xifeng Liu; Bipin Gaihre; Matthew N George; A Lee Miller; Haocheng Xu; Brian E Waletzki; Lichun Lu
Journal:  J Biomed Mater Res A       Date:  2020-06-28       Impact factor: 4.396

10.  3D Bioprinting using UNIversal Orthogonal Network (UNION) Bioinks.

Authors:  Sarah M Hull; Christopher D Lindsay; Lucia G Brunel; Daniel J Shiwarski; Joshua W Tashman; Julien G Roth; David Myung; Adam W Feinberg; Sarah C Heilshorn
Journal:  Adv Funct Mater       Date:  2020-11-20       Impact factor: 18.808

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.