| Literature DB >> 32154068 |
Yasamin A Jodat1,2, Kiavash Kiaee1,2, Daniel Vela Jarquin1,3, Rosakaren Ludivina De la Garza Hernández1,4, Ting Wang1,5, Sudeep Joshi2, Zahra Rezaei1,6, Bruna Alice Gomes de Melo1,7, David Ge1, Manu S Mannoor2, Su Ryon Shin1.
Abstract
Advances in biomanufacturing techniques have opened the doors to recapitulate human sensory organs such as the nose and ear in vitro with adequate levels of functionality. Such advancements have enabled simultaneous targeting of two challenges in engineered sensory organs, especially the nose: i) mechanically robust reconstruction of the nasal cartilage with high precision and ii) replication of the nose functionality: odor perception. Hybrid nasal organs can be equipped with remarkable capabilities such as augmented olfactory perception. Herein, a proof-of-concept for an odor-perceptive nose-like hybrid, which is composed of a mechanically robust cartilage-like construct and a biocompatible biosensing platform, is proposed. Specifically, 3D cartilage-like tissue constructs are created by multi-material 3D bioprinting using mechanically tunable chondrocyte-laden bioinks. In addition, by optimizing the composition of stiff and soft bioinks in macro-scale printed constructs, the competence of this system in providing improved viability and recapitulation of chondrocyte cell behavior in mechanically robust 3D constructs is demonstrated. Furthermore, the engineered cartilage-like tissue construct is integrated with an electrochemical biosensing system to bring functional olfactory sensations toward multiple specific airway disease biomarkers, explosives, and toxins under biocompatible conditions. Proposed hybrid constructs can lay the groundwork for functional bionic interfaces and humanoid cyborgs.Entities:
Keywords: 3D bioprinting; bioelectronic noses; biomaterials; bionic organs; electrochemical biosensors
Year: 2020 PMID: 32154068 PMCID: PMC7055567 DOI: 10.1002/advs.201901878
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Adv Sci (Weinh) ISSN: 2198-3844 Impact factor: 16.806
Figure 1Schematic diagram showing the procedure of printing the nose. The soft ink including the chondrocyte‐laden solution and the stiff ink are both loaded in the printer. Afterward, dual printing is performed on top of the microfabricated sensor functionalized with a TNT‐specific peptide. This hybrid system can be tuned to detect a range of targets such as natural odors, airborne pathogens, and odorless explosives.
Figure 2Rheological properties of the soft and stiff inks. a) Temperature‐dependent behavior of soft and stiff inks affecting the storage (G') and loss (G”) moduli, thus printability of each ink (N = 3). b) Storage (G') and loss (G”) moduli of soft and stiff inks across a frequency sweep (N = 3). c) Change of viscosity with increments of shear stress for both inks showing the shear thinning behavior of the inks (N = 3). d) Fluorescence imaging of dyed extruded fibers using the soft (red) and stiff (green) bioinks across a variation of nozzle printing speeds. The soft ink creates thicker fibers due to lower viscosity. e) Characterization of fiber diameter by nozzle printing speed for the extruded fibers shown in (d). The extruded fiber diameters ranged from 200 to 480 µm for the stiff ink and 550 to 1200 µm for the soft ink with lower viscosity (N = 4). f) Printability of the GelMA and gelatin optimized for printing.
Figure 3a) Schematic of each ink composition after the UV crosslinking procedure and 37 °C incubation. The dots represent crosslinked sites upon UV exposure. The stiff inks include more crosslinked sites due to higher GelMA concentration. After incubation at 37 °C, the gelatin is dissolved, leaving the construct with a porous structure. b) A cube printed with soft (red) and stiff (green) inks (1:1) and crosslinked at 150 mW cm−2. c) Different ratios of soft (red) to stiff (green) were selected and tested. (2:0) and (0:2) represent the softest and stiffest constructs, respectively. d,e) Stress–strain curve of the different print ratio composites depicted in (c). f) Young's modulus of the printed composite constructs (N = 4). g) Young's modulus for soft and stiff bulk gels (nonprinted). h) Percentage of weight loss in the hydrogel samples during the 17 day culture. The UV crosslinking intensity was optimized to reduce the degradation rate and 300 mW cm−2 represents the least degradation. i) One of the cubes crosslinked at 100 mW cm−2 before (top) and after (bottom) degradation within the 17 day culture. Scale bar is 5 mm. j) SEM imaging of printed soft (i,ii) and stiff (iii,iv) gels. Red line indicates the printed fiber edge. Scale bar is 200 µm.
Figure 4Characterization of cell‐laden ink during in vitro culture. a) Schematic diagram of cell integration in the bioprinted construct. b,c) Confocal images of 3D soft gels immunostained with F‐actin/DAPI on day 10 and day 30 of culture. The scale bars in the insets are 50 µm. d) Cell viability after printing shows a small decrease but the cells revive until day 7 (N = 3). e,f) 3D reconstruction of Z‐stack images of the printed construct. The thickness of the scanned layers is 890 µm. Scale bar in the phase contrast image is 200 µm. g) PrestoBlue assay to analyze the metabolic activity of the cells in the cell‐laden and cell‐seeded printed constructs over the course of 10 days of culture in vitro (N = 4, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01). h,i) COLII staining and confocal imaging of soft ink layers on the edge of (h) and inside (i) the gel after 20 days of culture. Scale bar in the inset image is 50 µm. j) Percentage of collagen production per cell decreased slightly from the edge of the printed construct into the inner layers of the hydrogel. The fluorescence intensity of the confocal layers was measured and the ratio of this intensity to total numbers of DAPI gave out the percentage of collagen deposition per cell.
Figure 5Integration of the biosensing system with the 3D‐printed construct. a) Dual ink nozzles printing a nose on top of the sensor electrodes. b,c) CAD 3D drawing of the nose with dual ink layers (top) and the printed construct using the same code (bottom). d) Optical image of the microfabricated Au biosensor with three electrode sensing system (top) and 3D‐printed dual‐ink nose integrated with the biosensors in each nostril (bottom). e,f) Live/dead assay images of chondrocytes seeded on the biosensor to test biocompatibility on Au (e) and Ag (f) electrodes. g) Quantified cell viability graph on Au and Ag electrodes on day 1 after integration with cells. h) F‐actin/DAPI staining of the sensor 7 days after integration.
Figure 6Biosensing mechanism and procedure. a) Schematic diagram of the functionalization procedure of the biosensor using the TNT‐specific peptide. b,c) Nyquist plot of measurement using different concentrations of TNT, sensing using ferrocyanide. Upon capturing TNT by the peptide, impedance increases in the ferrocyanide‐based measurement system. d) Bode plots using 0.1–1000 pg mL−1 TNT, sensing using ferrocyanide. Plots (c) and (d) share the same legend. e) Calibration curve for TNT sensing using ferrocyanide. f) Nyquist plots of measurement using 10 pg mL−1 of TNT, sensing using culture media. g) Bode plots using 0.1–1000 pg mL−1 TNT, sensing using culture media. h) Calibration curve for TNT sensing using cell culture media. i) Diagram of degradation of TNT peptide over 8 days of incubation at 37 °C.