@article{VollandKauppSchmitzetal.2022,
  author    = {Volland, Julian Manuel and Kaupp, Johannes and Schmitz, Werner and W{\"u}nsch, Anna Chiara and Balint, Julia and M{\"o}llmann, Marc and El-Mesery, Mohamed and Frackmann, Kyra and Peter, Leslie and Hartmann, Stefan and K{\"u}bler, Alexander Christian and Seher, Axel},
  title     = {Mass spectrometric metabolic fingerprinting of 2-Deoxy-D-Glucose (2-DG)-induced inhibition of glycolysis and comparative analysis of methionine restriction versus glucose restriction under perfusion culture in the murine L929 model system},
  series = {International Journal of Molecular Sciences},
  volume    = {23},
  journal   = {International Journal of Molecular Sciences},
  number    = {16},
  issn      = {1422-0067},
  doi       = {10.3390/ijms23169220},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-286007},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {All forms of restriction, from caloric to amino acid to glucose restriction, have been established in recent years as therapeutic options for various diseases, including cancer. However, usually there is no direct comparison between the different restriction forms. Additionally, many cell culture experiments take place under static conditions. In this work, we used a closed perfusion culture in murine L929 cells over a period of 7 days to compare methionine restriction (MetR) and glucose restriction (LowCarb) in the same system and analysed the metabolome by liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (LC-MS). In addition, we analysed the inhibition of glycolysis by 2-deoxy-D-glucose (2-DG) over a period of 72 h. 2-DG induced very fast a low-energy situation by a reduced glycolysis metabolite flow rate resulting in pyruvate, lactate, and ATP depletion. Under perfusion culture, both MetR and LowCarb were established on the metabolic level. Interestingly, over the period of 7 days, the metabolome of MetR and LowCarb showed more similarities than differences. This leads to the conclusion that the conditioned medium, in addition to the different restriction forms, substantially reprogramm the cells on the metabolic level.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{GenslerLeikeimMoellmannetal.2020,
  author    = {Gensler, Marius and Leikeim, Anna and M{\"o}llmann, Marc and Komma, Miriam and Heid, Susanne and M{\"u}ller, Claudia and Boccaccini, Aldo R. and Salehi, Sahar and Groeber-Becker, Florian and Hansmann, Jan},
  title     = {3D printing of bioreactors in tissue engineering: A generalised approach},
  series = {PLoS One},
  volume    = {15},
  journal   = {PLoS One},
  number    = {11},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pone.0242615},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-231368},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {3D printing is a rapidly evolving field for biological (bioprinting) and non-biological applications. Due to a high degree of freedom for geometrical parameters in 3D printing, prototype printing of bioreactors is a promising approach in the field of Tissue Engineering. The variety of printers, materials, printing parameters and device settings is difficult to overview both for beginners as well as for most professionals. In order to address this problem, we designed a guidance including test bodies to elucidate the real printing performance for a given printer system. Therefore, performance parameters such as accuracy or mechanical stability of the test bodies are systematically analysed. Moreover, post processing steps such as sterilisation or cleaning are considered in the test procedure. The guidance presented here is also applicable to optimise the printer settings for a given printer device. As proof of concept, we compared fused filament fabrication, stereolithography and selective laser sintering as the three most used printing methods. We determined fused filament fabrication printing as the most economical solution, while stereolithography is most accurate and features the highest surface quality. Finally, we tested the applicability of our guidance by identifying a printer solution to manufacture a complex bioreactor for a perfused tissue construct. Due to its design, the manufacture via subtractive mechanical methods would be 21-fold more expensive than additive manufacturing and therefore, would result in three times the number of parts to be assembled subsequently. Using this bioreactor we showed a successful 14-day-culture of a biofabricated collagen-based tissue construct containing human dermal fibroblasts as the stromal part and a perfusable central channel with human microvascular endothelial cells. Our study indicates how the full potential of biofabrication can be exploited, as most printed tissues exhibit individual shapes and require storage under physiological conditions, after the bioprinting process.},
  language  = {en}
}