Of balls, inks and cages: Hybrid biofabrication of 3D tissue analogs

The overarching principle of three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting is the placing of cells or cell clusters in the 3D space to generate a cohesive tissue microarchitecture that comes close to in vivo characteristics. To achieve this goal, several technical solutions are available, generating considerable combinatorial bandwidth: (i) Support structures are generated first, and cells are seeded subsequently; (ii) alternatively, cells are delivered in a printing medium, so-called “bioink,” that contains them during the printing process and ensures shape fidelity of the generated structure; and (iii) a “scaffold-free” version of bioprinting, where only cells are used and the extracellular matrix is produced by the cells themselves, also recently entered a phase of accelerated development and successful applications. However, the scaffold-free approaches may still benefit from secondary incorporation of scaffolding materials, thus expanding their versatility. Reversibly, the bioink-based bioprinting could also be improved by adopting some of the principles and practices of scaffold-free biofabrication. Collectively, we anticipate that combinations of these complementary methods in a “hybrid” approach, rather than their development in separate technological niches, will largely increase their efficiency and applicability in tissue engineering

Of balls, inks and cages: Hybrid biofabrication of 3D tissue analogs

The overarching principle of three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting is the placing of cells or cell clusters in the 3D space to generate a cohesive tissue microarchitecture that comes close to in vivo characteristics. To achieve this goal, several technical solutions are available, generating considerable combinatorial bandwidth: (i) Support structures are generated first, and cells are seeded subsequently; (ii) alternatively, cells are delivered in a printing medium, so-called “bioink,” that contains them during the printing process and ensures shape fidelity of the generated structure; and (iii) a “scaffold-free” version of bioprinting, where only cells are used and the extracellular matrix is produced by the cells themselves, also recently entered a phase of accelerated development and successful applications. However, the scaffold-free approaches may still benefit from secondary incorporation of scaffolding materials, thus expanding their versatility. Reversibly, the bioink-based bioprinting could also be improved by adopting some of the principles and practices of scaffold-free biofabrication. Collectively, we anticipate that combinations of these complementary methods in a “hybrid” approach, rather than their development in separate technological niches, will largely increase their efficiency and applicability in tissue engineering

Scaffold-free bioprinting of mesenchymal stem cells using the Regenova printer: Spheroid characterization and osteogenic differentiation

Limitations in scaffold material properties, such as sub-optimal degradation time, highlight the need for alternative approaches to engineer de novo tissues. One emerging solution for fabricating tissue constructs is scaffold-free tissue engineering. To facilitate this approach, three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting technology (Regenova Bio 3D Printer) has been developed to construct complex geometric shapes from discrete cellular spheroids without exogenous scaffolds. Optimizing spheroid fabrication and characterizing cellular behavior in the spheroid environment are important first steps prior to printing larger constructs. Here, we characterized spheroids of immortalized mouse bone marrow stromal cells (BMSCs) that were differentiated to the osteogenic lineage. Immortalized BMSCs were seeded in low attachment 96-well plates in various numbers to generate self-aggregated spheroids either under the force of gravity or centrifugation. Cells were cultured in control or osteogenic media for up to 28 days. Spheroid diameter, roundness and smoothness were measured. Cell viability, DNA content and alkaline phosphatase activity were assessed at multiple time points. Additionally, expression of osteogenic markers was determined using real time qPCR. Spheroids formed under gravity with 20 K, 30 K and 40 K cells had average diameters of 498.5 ± 8.3 μm, 580.0 ± 32.9 μm and 639.2 ± 54.0 μm, respectively, while those formed under 300G centrifugation with the same numbers of cells had average diameters of 362.3 ± 3.5 μm, 433.1 ± 6.4 μm and 491.2 ± 8.0 μm. Spheroids formed via centrifugation were superior to those formed by gravity, as evidenced by better roundness and smoothness and double the retention of DNA (cellular) content. Cells in spheroids exhibited a robust osteogenic response to the differentiation medium, including higher mRNA expression of alkaline phosphatase, collagen type I, and osteocalcin than those cultured in control medium, as well as greater alkaline phosphatase activity. The optimal spheroid fabrication technique from this study was to aggregate 40 K cells under 150–300G centrifugation. In future investigations, these spheroids will be 3D printed into larger tissue constructs

Comparison of Biomaterial-Dependent and -Independent Bioprinting Methods for Cardiovascular Medicine

There is an increasing need of human organs for transplantation, of alternatives to animal experimentation, and of better in vitro tissue models for drug testing. All these needs create unique opportunities for the development of novel and powerful tissue engineering methods, among which the 3D bioprinting is one of the most promising. However, after decades of incubation, ingenuous efforts, early success and much anticipation, biomaterial-dependent 3D bioprinting, although shows steady progress, is slow to deliver the expected clinical results. For this reason, alternative ‘scaffold-free’ 3D bioprinting methods are developing in parallel at an accelerated pace. In this opinion paper we discuss comparatively the two approaches, with specific examples drawn from the cardiovascular field. Moving the emphasis away from competition, we show that the two platforms have similar goals but evolve in complementary technological niches. We conclude that the biomaterial-dependent bioprinting is better suited for tasks requiring faster, larger, anatomically-true, cell-homogenous and matrix-rich constructs, while the scaffold-free biofabrication is more adequate for cell-heterogeneous, matrix-poor, complex and smaller constructs, but requiring longer preparation time

Progenitor cells in auricular cartilage demonstrate promising cartilage regenerative potential in 3D hydrogel culture

The reconstruction of auricular deformities is a very challenging surgical procedure that could benefit from a tissue engineering approach. Nevertheless, a major obstacle is presented by the acquisition of sufficient amounts of autologous cells to create a cartilage construct the size of the human ear. Extensively expanded chondrocytes are unable to retain their phenotype, while bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC) show endochondral terminal differentiation by formation of a calcified matrix. The identification of tissue-specific progenitor cells in auricular cartilage, which can be expanded to high numbers without loss of cartilage phenotype, has great prospects for cartilage regeneration of larger constructs. This study investigates the largely unexplored potential of auricular progenitor cells for cartilage tissue engineering in 3D hydrogels