| Literature DB >> 35892719 |
Jialong Shen1, Sen Zhang1, Xiaomeng Fang1, Sonja Salmon1.
Abstract
Incorporating enzymes with three-dimensional (3D) printing is an exciting new field of convergence research that holds infinite potential for creating highly customizable components with diverse and efficient biocatalytic properties. Enzymes, nature's nanoscale protein-based catalysts, perform crucial functions in biological systems and play increasingly important roles in modern chemical processing methods, cascade reactions, and sensor technologies. Immobilizing enzymes on solid carriers facilitates their recovery and reuse, improves stability and longevity, broadens applicability, and reduces overall processing and chemical conversion costs. Three-dimensional printing offers extraordinary flexibility for creating high-resolution complex structures that enable completely new reactor designs with versatile sub-micron functional features in macroscale objects. Immobilizing enzymes on or in 3D printed structures makes it possible to precisely control their spatial location for the optimal catalytic reaction. Combining the rapid advances in these two technologies is leading to completely new levels of control and precision in fabricating immobilized enzyme catalysts. The goal of this review is to promote further research by providing a critical discussion of 3D printed enzyme immobilization methods encompassing both post-printing immobilization and immobilization by physical entrapment during 3D printing. Especially, 3D printed gel matrix techniques offer mild single-step entrapment mechanisms that produce ideal environments for enzymes with high retention of catalytic function and unparalleled fabrication control. Examples from the literature, comparisons of the benefits and challenges of different combinations of the two technologies, novel approaches employed to enhance printed hydrogel physical properties, and an outlook on future directions are included to provide inspiration and insights for pursuing work in this promising field.Entities:
Keywords: 3D printing; biocatalysis; biosensing; enzyme; hydrogel; immobilization
Year: 2022 PMID: 35892719 PMCID: PMC9331464 DOI: 10.3390/gels8080460
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Gels ISSN: 2310-2861
Comparison of biocatalysts fabricated by different immobilization methods.
| Method | Free Enzyme | Conventional Immobilization | 3D Printed Immobilization | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Post-Printing | Entrapment | |||
| Advantages | Ready-to-use; | High stability; | High stability; | High resolution; |
| Challenges | Low stability; | Difficult to form complex structures; | Harsh chemicals for surface modification; | Limited material types; |
| Future | Protein | More sustainable materials; | More sustainable materials; | New bioink materials; |
Figure 1Common 3D print methods. (A) Material extrusion (ME): (a) fused deposition modeling (FDM) and (b) direct ink writing (DIW) (B) vat photopolymerization (VP): (a) stereolithography (SLA) and (b) digital light processing (DLP).
Techniques for post-printing enzyme immobilization.
| 3D Printing Technique | Immobilization | Surface | Reagents | Enzymes | Application | Name, Year, and Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FDM | Covalent attachment; | ABS | GA | GOx; LOx | Biosensing | Su and Sun, 2016, 2018 [ |
| Covalent attachment | Nylon | GA | ω-transaminase | Biocatalytic | Sans, 2017 [ | |
| Physical adsorption; covalent attachment | Graphene/PLA; | EDC/NHS | ALP; HRP; GOx; L-amino acid oxidase | Biosensing | Pumera, 2019–2021 [ | |
| Drop-casting | Graphene/PLA | GA | GOx | Biosensing | Muñoz, 2020 [ | |
| Physical adsorption; covalent attachment | Carbon/PLA | EDC/NHS | GOx; | Biofuel cell | Goel, 2020 [ | |
| Physical adsorption | PLA | Aniline silane | Lipase | Biocatalytic | Chu and He, 2021 [ | |
| Covalent attachment | PLA | Chitosan coating with GA | Laccase | Biocatalytic | Stamatis, 2022 [ | |
| Covalent attachment; physical adsorption | Carbon-fiber reinforced PLA | Various silane coupling agents; | PGA; protease; | Biocatalytic | Gao and He, 2019 [ | |
| DIW | Drop-casting | Nafion | BSA | Lactate oxidase | Biosensing | Kim, 2018 [ |
| Covalent attachment | Na-based | Aminosilane; | Lipase | Biocatalytic | dos Santos, 2021 [ | |
| DLP | Drop-casting | Gold | GA | GOx | Biosensing | Yang and Cui, 2021 [ |
| Covalent attachment | Poly(2-carboxyethyl acrylate) | EDC | Trypsin | Biocatalytic | Dimartino, 2022 [ | |
| Encapsulation in ZIF grown on surface | ABS; | ZIF precursor | OpdA | Wastewater | Doherty, 2020 [ | |
| SLA | Covalent attachment | Ceramic | Aminosilane; | Phenolic acid Decarboxylase | Biocatalytic | Valotta and Gruber-Woelfler, 2021 [ |
| Encapsulation in ZIF grown on surface | PD/PEI | ZIF precursor | CA; FDH | Biocatalytic | Razmjou, 2021 [ | |
| Polyjet | Covalent attachment | Poly(acrylic acid) | EDC | GOx; HRP | Biocatalytic | Franzreb, 2016 [ |
Acronyms: FDM—fused deposition modeling; DIW—direct ink writing; DLP—digital light processing; SLA—stereolithography; ABS—acrylonitrile butadiene styrene; GA—glutaraldehyde; HCl—hydrochloric acid; PLA—poly(lactic acid); EDC—1-ethyl-3-(3-dimethylaminopropyl)carbodiimide; NHS—N-hydroxysuccinimide; BSA—bovine serum albumin (BSA); GOx—glucose oxidase; LOx—lactate oxidase; ALP—alkaline phosphatase; HRP—horseradish peroxidase; PGA—penicillin G acylase; ZIF—zeolitic imidazolate frameworks; OpdA—organophosphate degrading enzyme A; CA—carbonic anhydrase; FDH—formate dehydrogenase; PD—polydopamine; PEI—polyethyleneimine.
Figure 2(A) ABS-based flow reactor: (a) CAD drawings, (b) ordered cuboids pattern in the reaction chamber, and (c) photo of the printed reactor (Reproduced with permission from Ref. [20]); (B) multi-material substrate-impregnated micro-titer plate for glucose determination: (a) effect of ratio of GOx, peroxides mimic, and substrate on signals as varied by different 3D patterns, (b) CAD drawings and photos of plates with different material stacking pattern, (c) photo of two printed 48-well plates fitting to a regular 96-well plate frame, and (d) effect of 3D pattern on the kinetic signals (Reproduced with permission from Ref. [22]).
Figure 3(A) The 3D-printed PLA-based macroscaffolds for enzyme immobilization: (a) as-received PLA (I) and CAD drawings of the designed scaffolds (II) and (b) photos of the 3D-printed scaffolds (reproduced with permission from Ref. [42]). (B) The 3D-printed carbon fiber reinforced PLA-based scaffolds for enzyme immobilization: (a) CAD images of 3D scaffolds; (b) photo of an integrated reactor with immobilized enzymes on 3D-printed scaffold; and, (c) 3D models of microfluidic reactors with scaffolds in the channel (reproduced with permission from Ref. [56]).
Figure 4(A) Protocols for immobilizing lipase on 3D printed geopolymer lattices (Reproduced with permission from Ref. [58]). (B) Porous monoliths reaction beds for bioprocess engineering: (a) hollow cylinder that fits in the wells of a 96 multi-well plate for batch testing and (b) gyroid scaffold that fits in reactor column for dynamic testing (reproduced with permission from Ref. [60]).
Physical entrapment strategies for enzyme immobilization during 3D printing.
| 3D Printing Technique | Materials | Gelation Mechanism | Enzymes | Application | Name, Year, and Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PEG-DA hydrogel; Colloidal clay and branched polysaccharide as | Photo-crosslinking | ADH; BFD; | Biocatalytic reactor | Franzreb, 2018, 2019 [ | |
| Thermoreversible | Temperature-induced | Esterase; ADH; decarboxylase | Biocatalytic reactor cartridge | Rabe, 2018, 2019 [ | |
| PAA/PEG-DA hydrogel spheres enclosed in | Photo-crosslinking | β-Gal | Biocatalytic reactors; rapid screening of | Hubbuch, 2020 [ | |
| NapFFRK-acryloyl and PEG-MA hydrogel | Enzyme-triggered pH change and radical polymerization | GOx; | 3D cell culture; | Wang, 2016 [ | |
| SA/PAm/hydroxyapatite hybrid interpenetrating polymer network (HIPN) hydrogel | Electrostatic; | GOx; CAT; | Biocatalytic reactors; | Cui and Cao, 2019, 2020 [ | |
| DIW | SA hydrogel | Electrostatic | Xylanase; | Biocatalytic reactors | Jiang and Zhou, 2020, 2022 [ |
| SA hydrogel reinforced by calcium phosphate nanosheets | Electrostatic | GOx; | Bone tissue | Wang and Huang, 2021 [ | |
| Gelatin-based hydrogel | Enzymatic crosslinking | TGase | Bioprinting; | Hashimoto, 2020 [ | |
| Gelatin-based hydrogel/bacterial cellulose | Enzymatic crosslinking | TGase | Bioprinting; | Hu and Wang, 2021 [ | |
| Gelatin methacryloyl (GelMA) hydrogel | Enzymatic crosslinking; | TGase | Bioprinting; | Lee and Tan, 2019 [ | |
| PAm hydrogel/fused | Photo-crosslinking | ALP | Biomineralization; | Liu, 2022 [ | |
| Silk fibroin hydrogel | Enzymatic crosslinking (dityrosine bond) | HRP | Bioprinting; | Burke, 2020 [ | |
| Polysaccharide derivative/PAm hydrogel | Enzymatic crosslinking (phenolic); enzyme-initiated radical polymerization | GOx; | Bioprinting; | Wang, 2020 [ | |
| Phenol functionalized chitosan and alginate | Electrostatic; | HRP | Bioprinting; | Shavandi, 2022 [ | |
| DLP | PEG-DA hydrogel | Photo-crosslinking | GOx/HRP; ALP; thrombin | Biosensing; | Marquette, 2016, 2017 [ |
| SLA | PEG-DA hydrogel | Photo-crosslinking | Laccase | Water remediation | Goyanes and Basit, 2022 [ |
| 3DJW | PEG-DA hydrogel/PAA | Photo-crosslinking | β-Gal | Biocatalytic reactors | Lahann, 2020 [ |
| MEW | PCL | N/A (Solidification) | PTE; sfGFP | Self- decontaminating surfaces; fully biodegradable fluorescent plastic | Perriman, 2021 [ |
| FDM | PCL | N/A (Solidification) | Lipase | Biodegradable | Greene, 2021 [ |
Acronyms: DIW—direct ink writing; DLP—digital light processing; SLA—stereolithography; SA—sodium alginate; PEG-DA—poly(ethylene glycol) diacrylate; PAA—poly(acrylic acid); PEG-MA—poly(ethylene glycol methacrylate); PAm—polyacrylamide; TGase—transglutaminase; GOx—glucose oxidase; HRP—horseradish peroxidase; ADH—alcohol dehydrogenase; BFD—benzoylformate decarboxylase; β-Gal—β-galactosidase; ALP—alkaline phosphatase; CAT—catalase; PTE—phosphotriesterase; sfGFP—superfolder green fluorescent protein; 3DJW—3D jet writing; MEW—melt electrowriting; PCL—polycaprolactone.
Figure 5Evaluation of printability of hydrogel inks: (a) apparent viscosity vs. shear rate and (b) storage moduli (G′) and loss moduli (G″) vs. shear stress measured at oscillatory frequency of 1 Hz (reproduced with permission from Ref. [74]).
Figure 6Alginate-based hydrogels. (A) The 3D printed xylanase entrapped in sodium alginate hydrogel: (a) hook-shaped; (b) quadrilateral lattice; (c) hexagonal lattice (adapted with permission from Ref. [70]). (B) Interpenetrating polymer network (IPN) and hybrid interpenetrating polymer network (HIPN) hydrogel: (a,b) sodium alginate/polyacrylamide (SA/PAm) IPN; (c,d) sodium alginate/polyacrylamide/hydroxyapatite (SA/PAm/HA) HIPN (reproduced with permission from Ref. [23]). (C) Appearance of 3D printed alginate-based hydrogel (Alg) with or without immobilized glucose oxidase (GOx), calcium phosphate micro-sheet (CaP), or catalase-induced biomineralized calcium phosphate nanosheet (CaP@CAT) (adapted with permission from Ref. [72]).
Figure 7Hydrogel-filled high internal phase emulsion (HIPE). (A) The 3D printed scaffold: (a,b) cuboid grid structure with an edge length of 10mm and a height of 5 mm; (c,d) cubic gyroid structure with an edge length of 8mm; (e) hollow cylinders as used for activity assays. (B) Cross sectional morphology of HIPE: (a) no monomer in aqueous phase with empty voids and interconnecting pores between the voids; (b) with monomers in the aqueous phase forming hydrogel filling up the voids (adapted with permission from Ref. [44]).
Figure 8Biomineralized 3D printed hydrogel. (A) Schematic protocols for printing enzyme-loaded hydrogel precursors and enzyme-induced biomineralization. (B) Multi-scale observations of the mineral growth in hydrogel (reproduced with permission from Ref. [74]).
Figure 9Dual-enzyme catalyzed gelation of NapFFRK-acryloyl based hydrogel. (A) Schematics of the formation of pH regulated self-assembly of supramolecular hydrogel (Gel I) and radical polymerized and crosslinked hydrogel (Gel II). (B) SEM images of: (a) Gel I and (b) Gel II; TEM images of: (c) Gel I and (d) Gel II (adapted with permission from Ref. [68]).
Figure 10Schematics of enzyme-catalyzed dityrosine bond formation used for 3D printing. Glycidyl methacrylate (GMA) and tyrosine grafted chondroitin sulfate hydrogel (reproduced with permission from Ref. [76]).
Figure 11DLP 3D printed PEG-DA based enzyme immobilized hydrogel. (A) CAD drawings of complex 3D hydrogel objects entrapping both horseradish peroxidase and glucose oxidase and their chemiluminescent images in the presence of glucose and luminol (reproduced with permission from Ref. [78]). (B) Bi-enzyme heterogeneous system: (a) CAD drawing of a heterogeneous fanciful ball composed of glucose oxidase (left) and peroxidase (right); (b) visible light image of the printed heterogeneous fanciful ball, and chemiluminescent image of the homogeneous fanciful ball in the presence of glucose and luminol at (c) 60 and (d) 90 min after substrates addition (From Ref. [47] 2017 MDPI). (C) Sequential catalytic activities of thrombin and alkaline phosphatase leading to fibrin deposition and calcification (Reproduced with permission from Ref. [79]).
Figure 12(A) The 3D jet writing of hydrogel fibers yielding oriented hydrogel fibers loaded with enzymes (reproduced with permission from Ref. [80]). (B) Melt electrowriting of PCL with entrapped electrostatically stabilized enzymes/proteins: (a) photo of the fabric with area of 3 cm2; (b) widefield microscopy view of the fine structures of the printed fabric with fiber thickness <5 μm; (c) enzymatic activity after the melt electrowriting process as shown by the fluorescent emission from the enzyme catalyzed hydrolysis reaction; (d) fluorescent plastics created by entrapping superfolder green fluorescent protein into PCL; (e) printed ordered grid structure with fluorescent PCL; and (f) the fluorescent plastics were used to print fabrics with repetitive tangles (reproduced with permission from Ref. [81]).