3D bioprinting of gellan gum and poly (ethylene glycol) diacrylate based hydrogels to produce human-scale constructs with high-fidelity

Wu, Dong; Yu, Yue; Tan, Jianwang; Huang, Lin; Luo, Binghong; Lu, Lu; Zhou, Changren

doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2018.09.040

Cited by 135 publications

(93 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Crosslinking the PEGDA network alone gave the bioink a 60 kPa compressive modulus and 34 kPa compressive strength, while allowing ions in the culture media to crosslink the gellan gum component increased these values to 184 kPa and 55 kPa, respectively. [87] These studies demonstrate that ionically crosslinkable, high molecular weight polysaccharides like gellan gum and carrageenan are well suited for use in ICE bioinks. Their molecular weight makes them effective viscosity modifiers useful for simultaneously improving both bioink flow and mechanical properties even at small polymer concentrations.…”

Section: Ionic Covalent Entanglement Bioinksmentioning

confidence: 84%

Hydrogel Bioink Reinforcement for Additive Manufacturing: A Focused Review of Emerging Strategies

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bioprinting is an emerging approach for fabricating cell-laden 3D scaffolds via robotic deposition of cells and biomaterials into custom shapes and patterns to replicate complex tissue architectures. Bioprinting uses hydrogel solutions called bioinks as both cell carriers and structural components, requiring bioinks to be highly printable while providing a robust and cell-friendly microenvrionment. Unfortunately, conventional hydrogel bioinks have not been able to meet these requirements and are mechanically weak due to their heterogeneously crosslinked networks and lack of energy dissipation mechanisms. Advanced bioink designs using various methods of dissipating mechanical energy are aimed at developing next-generation cellularized 3D scaffolds to mimic anatomical size, tissue architecture, and tissue specific functions. These next-generation bioinks need to have high print fidelity and should provide a biocompatible microenvironment along with improved mechanical properties. To design these advanced bioink formulations, it is important to understand the structure-property-function relationships of the hydrogel network. By specifically leveraging biophysical and biochemical characteristics of hydrogel networks, high performance bioinks can be designed to control and direct cell functions. In this review article, the authors will critically evaluate current and emerging approaches in hydrogel design and bioink reinforcement techniques. This bottom-up perspective provides a materials-centric approach to bioink design for 3D bioprinting.

show abstract

Section: Ionic Covalent Entanglement Bioinksmentioning

confidence: 84%

Hydrogel Bioink Reinforcement for Additive Manufacturing: A Focused Review of Emerging Strategies

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It also appears with alginate/GelMA (Kang et al, 2017 ) and with alginate/GelMA/cellulose (García-Lizarribar et al, 2018 ). Additionally, it is combined with gellan gum (Wu D. et al, 2018 ), carbomer hydrogel (Chen et al, 2019 ), and laponite (Peak et al, 2018 ). Finally, PEGMA is used in two papers, one of them with alginate and a modification of PEGMA that includes a fibrinogen molecule (Maiullari et al, 2018 ) and the other one with alginate/GelMA/agarose (Daly et al, 2016a ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to this, there are two temperature ranges widely used: 0–20°C (9 papers) (Jia et al, 2014 ; Das et al, 2015 ; He et al, 2016 ; Köpf et al, 2016 ; Ren et al, 2016 ; Wang et al, 2016 ; Li et al, 2017 , 2018c ; Gu et al, 2018 ; Xu X. et al, 2018 ) and 30–40°C, being 37°C the most used temperature (5 papers) (Duarte Campos et al, 2013 ; Fan et al, 2016 ; Lin et al, 2016 ; Narayanan et al, 2016 ; Law et al, 2018 ), while Celikkin et al ( 2018 ) uses 37 and 40°C, and the rest uses one temperature between this range (3 papers) (Bakirci et al, 2017 ; Mouser et al, 2017 ; Noh et al, 2019 ). Other bed temperature ranges are less commonly used: 20–30°C (5 papers) (Billiet et al, 2014 ; Ding et al, 2017 , 2018 ; Contessi Negrini et al, 2018 ; Wu D. et al, 2018 ), below 0°C (2 papers) (Béduer et al, 2018 ; Choi et al, 2018 ), and above 40°C (2 papers) (Daly et al, 2016a , b ). On the other hand, some extreme values of the whole range are used by Béduer et al ( 2018 ) with carboxymethylcellulose hydrogel (−80°C) and Daly et al ( 2016a ) with a mixture of agarose/alginate/GelMA/PEGMA hydrogel (70°C).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By taking a closer look, 91% of values are in the range of 1–30 mm/s where 57% of speeds are below 10 mm/s. In fact, the most used speed is 10 mm/s (13 entries) (Kim et al, 2016 ; Wang et al, 2016 ; Nguyen et al, 2017 ; Ahlfeld et al, 2018 ; Tijore et al, 2018b ; Wu D. et al, 2018 ; Yan et al, 2018 ; Zhang J. et al, 2018 ; Ji et al, 2019 ; Kiyotake et al, 2019 ; Krishnamoorthy et al, 2019 ; Xin et al, 2019 ) followed by 5 mm/s (10 entries) (Bakarich et al, 2014 ; Campbell et al, 2015 ; Irvine et al, 2015 ; Markstedt et al, 2015 ; Narayanan et al, 2016 ; Giuseppe et al, 2017 ; Stichler et al, 2017 ; Habib et al, 2018 ; Xu X. et al, 2018 ). There is a printing speed that stands out because of its high value.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, other cells are used to a lesser extent: MG-63 (5) (Blaeser et al, 2013 ; Duarte Campos et al, 2013 ; Kim et al, 2016 ; McBeth et al, 2017 ; Chen et al, 2018 ), MC3T3 (4) (Peak et al, 2018 ; Wu D. et al, 2018 ; Yu et al, 2018 ; Noh et al, 2019 ), NHDF (3) (Ding et al, 2017 , 2018 ; Choi et al, 2018 ), 3T3 (3) (Wu Y. et al, 2018 ; Xu X. et al, 2018 ; Zheng et al, 2018 ), ATDC5 (3) (Izadifar et al, 2016 ; Hafeez et al, 2018 ; Kim et al, 2019 ), NSCs (2) (Lin et al, 2016 ; Kiyotake et al, 2019 ), Human Fibroblast (2) (Béduer et al, 2018 ; Zhang J. et al, 2018 ), PC12 (2) (Chen et al, 2019 ; Haring et al, 2019 ), HepG2 (2) (Bertassoni et al, 2014 ; Billiet et al, 2014 ), and iPSCs (2) (Nguyen et al, 2017 ; Maiullari et al, 2018 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Hydrogels for Bioprinting: A Systematic Review of Hydrogels Synthesis, Bioprinting Parameters, and Bioprinted Structures Behavior

Sánchez¹,

Gómez-Blanco²,

Nieto

et al. 2020

Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nowadays, bioprinting is rapidly evolving and hydrogels are a key component for its success. In this sense, synthesis of hydrogels, as well as bioprinting process, and cross-linking of bioinks represent different challenges for the scientific community. A set of unified criteria and a common framework are missing, so multidisciplinary research teams might not efficiently share the advances and limitations of bioprinting. Although multiple combinations of materials and proportions have been used for several applications, it is still unclear the relationship between good printability of hydrogels and better medical/clinical behavior of bioprinted structures. For this reason, a PRISMA methodology was conducted in this review. Thus, 1,774 papers were retrieved from PUBMED, WOS, and SCOPUS databases. After selection, 118 papers were analyzed to extract information about materials, hydrogel synthesis, bioprinting process, and tests performed on bioprinted structures. The aim of this systematic review is to analyze materials used and their influence on the bioprinting parameters that ultimately generate tridimensional structures. Furthermore, a comparison of mechanical and cellular behavior of those bioprinted structures is presented. Finally, some conclusions and recommendations are exposed to improve reproducibility and facilitate a fair comparison of results.

show abstract

Grafting of 3D Bioprinting to In Vitro Drug Screening: A Review

Nie

Gao

et al. 2020

Adv Healthcare Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The inadequacy of conventional cell‐monolayer planar cultures and animal experiments in predicting the toxicity and clinical efficacy of drug candidates has led to an imminent need for in vitro methods with the ability to better represent in vivo conditions and facilitate the systematic investigation of drug candidates. Recent advances in 3D bioprinting have prompted the precise manipulation of cells and biomaterials, rendering it a promising technology for the construction of in vitro tissue/organ models and drug screening devices. This review presents state‐of‐the‐art in vitro methods used for preclinical drug screening and discusses the limitations of these methods. In particular, the significance of constructing 3D in vitro tissue/organ models and microfluidic analysis devices for drug screening is emphasized, and a focus is placed on the grafting process of 3D bioprinting technology to the construction of such models and devices. The in vitro methods for drug screening are generalized into three types: mini‐tissue, organ‐on‐a‐chip, and tissue/organ construct. The revolutionary process of the in vitro methods is demonstrated in detail, and relevant studies are listed as examples. Specifically, the tumor model is adopted as a precedent to illustrate the possible grafting of 3D bioprinting to antitumor drug screening.

show abstract

3D bioprinting of gellan gum and poly (ethylene glycol) diacrylate based hydrogels to produce human-scale constructs with high-fidelity

Cited by 135 publications

References 46 publications

Hydrogel Bioink Reinforcement for Additive Manufacturing: A Focused Review of Emerging Strategies

Hydrogel Bioink Reinforcement for Additive Manufacturing: A Focused Review of Emerging Strategies

Hydrogels for Bioprinting: A Systematic Review of Hydrogels Synthesis, Bioprinting Parameters, and Bioprinted Structures Behavior

Grafting of 3D Bioprinting to In Vitro Drug Screening: A Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About