Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2)
Year of publication
- 2020 (2) (remove)
Document Type
- Journal article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Keywords
- biofabrication (1)
- breast cancer (1)
- hydrogel (1)
- melanoma (1)
- stem cells (1)
- technology (1)
- tumor heterogeneity (1)
Bioprinting offers the opportunity to fabricate precise 3D tumor models to study tumor pathophysiology and progression. However, the choice of the bioink used is important. In this study, cell behavior was studied in three mechanically and biologically different hydrogels (alginate, alginate dialdehyde crosslinked with gelatin (ADA–GEL), and thiol-modified hyaluronan (HA-SH crosslinked with PEGDA)) with cells from breast cancer (MDA-MB-231 and MCF-7) and melanoma (Mel Im and MV3), by analyzing survival, growth, and the amount of metabolically active, living cells via WST-8 labeling. Material characteristics were analyzed by dynamic mechanical analysis. Cell lines revealed significantly increased cell numbers in low-percentage alginate and HA-SH from day 1 to 14, while only Mel Im also revealed an increase in ADA–GEL. MCF-7 showed a preference for 1% alginate. Melanoma cells tended to proliferate better in ADA–GEL and HA-SH than mammary carcinoma cells. In 1% alginate, breast cancer cells showed equally good proliferation compared to melanoma cell lines. A smaller area was colonized in high-percentage alginate-based hydrogels. Moreover, 3% alginate was the stiffest material, and 2.5% ADA–GEL was the softest material. The other hydrogels were in the same range in between. Therefore, cellular responses were not only stiffness-dependent. With 1% alginate and HA-SH, we identified matrices that enable proliferation of all tested tumor cell lines while maintaining expected tumor heterogeneity. By adapting hydrogels, differences could be accentuated. This opens up the possibility of understanding and analyzing tumor heterogeneity by biofabrication.
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.