@article{WallstabeBussemerGroeberBeckeretal.2020,
  author    = {Wallstabe, Julia and Bussemer, Lydia and Groeber-Becker, Florian and Freund, Lukas and Alb, Mirian and Dragan, Mariola and Waaga-Gasser, Ana Maria and Jakubietz, Rafael and Kneitz, Hermann and Rosenwald, Andreas and Rebhan, Silke and Walles, Heike and Mielke, Stephan},
  title     = {Inflammation-Induced Tissue Damage Mimicking GvHD in Human Skin Models as Test Platform for Immunotherapeutics},
  series = {ALTEX},
  volume    = {37},
  journal   = {ALTEX},
  number    = {3},
  doi       = {10.14573/altex.1907181},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-229974},
  pages     = {429-440},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Due to the rapidly increasing development and use of cellular products, there is a rising demand for non-animal-based test platforms to predict, study and treat undesired immunity. Here, we generated human organotypic skin models from human biopsies by isolating and expanding keratinocytes, fibroblasts and microvascular endothelial cells and seeding these components on a collagen matrix or a biological vascularized scaffold matrix in a bioreactor. We then were able to induce inflammation-mediated tissue damage by adding pre-stimulated, mismatched allogeneic lymphocytes and/or inflammatory cytokine-containing supernatants histomorphologically mimicking severe graft versus host disease (GvHD) of the skin. This could be prevented by the addition of immunosuppressants to the models. Consequently, these models harbor a promising potential to serve as a test platform for the prediction, prevention and treatment of GvHD. They also allow functional studies of immune effectors and suppressors including but not limited to allodepleted lymphocytes, gamma-delta T cells, regulatory T cells and mesenchymal stromal cells, which would otherwise be limited to animal models. Thus, the current test platform, developed with the limitation that no professional antigen presenting cells are in place, could greatly reduce animal testing for investigation of novel immune therapies.},
  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}
}