Confined bioprinting and culture in inflatable bioreactor for the sterile bioproduction of tissues and organs.
Bioprinting
Bioreactor
Confined environment
Organs production
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 05 2024
14 05 2024
Historique:
received:
14
02
2024
accepted:
22
04
2024
medline:
15
5
2024
pubmed:
15
5
2024
entrez:
14
5
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The future of organ and tissue biofabrication strongly relies on 3D bioprinting technologies. However, maintaining sterility remains a critical issue regardless of the technology used. This challenge becomes even more pronounced when the volume of bioprinted objects approaches organ dimensions. Here, we introduce a novel device called the Flexible Unique Generator Unit (FUGU), which is a unique combination of flexible silicone membranes and solid components made of stainless steel. Alternatively, the solid components can also be made of 3D printed medical-grade polycarbonate. The FUGU is designed to support micro-extrusion needle insertion and removal, internal volume adjustment, and fluid management. The FUGU was assessed in various environments, ranging from custom-built basic cartesian to sophisticated 6-axis robotic arm bioprinters, demonstrating its compatibility, flexibility, and universality across different bioprinting platforms. Sterility assays conducted under various infection scenarios highlight the FUGU's ability to physically protect the internal volume against contaminations, thereby ensuring the integrity of the bioprinted constructs. The FUGU also enabled bioprinting and cultivation of a 14.5 cm
Identifiants
pubmed: 38744985
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-60382-2
pii: 10.1038/s41598-024-60382-2
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
11003Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Mota, C., Camarero-Espinosa, S., Baker, M. B., Wieringa, P. & Moroni, L. Bioprinting: From tissue and organ development to in vitro models. Chem. Rev. 120, 10547–10607. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.9b00789 (2020).
doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.9b00789
pubmed: 32407108
Mladenovska, T., Choong, P. F., Wallace, G. G. & O’Connell, C. D. The regulatory challenge of 3D bioprinting. Regen. Med. 18, 659–674. https://doi.org/10.2217/rme-2022-0194 (2023).
doi: 10.2217/rme-2022-0194
pubmed: 37403962
Mao, H. et al. Recent advances and challenges in materials for 3D bioprinting. Progr. Natl. Sci.: Mater. Int. 30, 618–634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnsc.2020.09.015 (2020).
doi: 10.1016/j.pnsc.2020.09.015
Tong, A. et al. Review of low-cost 3D Bioprinters: State of the market and observed future trends. SLAS Technol. 26, 333–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/24726303211020297 (2021).
doi: 10.1177/24726303211020297
pubmed: 34137286
Prevention, C. C. F. D. C. A. Glossary of Terms for Infection Prevention and Control in Dental Settings, https://www.cdc.gov/oralhealth/infectioncontrol/glossary.htm (2020).
Newsom, S. W. & Walsingham, B. M. Sterilization of the biological safety cabinet. J. Clin. Pathol. 27, 921–924. https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.27.11.921 (1974).
doi: 10.1136/jcp.27.11.921
pubmed: 4216601
pmcid: 475528
Rosser, J. & Thomas, D. J. in 3D Bioprinting for Reconstructive Surgery (eds Daniel J. Thomas, Zita M. Jessop, & Iain S. Whitaker) 191–215 (Woodhead Publishing, 2018).
Thangadurai, M., Srinivasan, S. S., Sekar, M. P., Sethuraman, S. & Sundaramurthi, D. Emerging perspectives on 3D printed bioreactors for clinical translation of engineered and bioprinted tissue constructs. J. Mater. Chem. B 12, 350–381. https://doi.org/10.1039/D3TB01847D (2024).
doi: 10.1039/D3TB01847D
pubmed: 38084021
Sarkar, N., Bhumiratana, S., Geris, L., Papantoniou, I. & Grayson, W. L. Bioreactors for engineering patient-specific tissue grafts. Nat. Rev. Bioeng. 1, 361–377. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44222-023-00036-6 (2023).
doi: 10.1038/s44222-023-00036-6
Lamberti, A., Marasso, S. L. & Cocuzza, M. PDMS membranes with tunable gas permeability for microfluidic applications. RSC Adv. 4, 61415–61419. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4RA12934B (2014).
doi: 10.1039/C4RA12934B
Junne, S. & Neubauer, P. How scalable and suitable are single-use bioreactors?. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 53, 240–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2018.04.003 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2018.04.003
pubmed: 29753977
Courtial, E. J. et al. Silicone rheological behavior modification for 3D printing: Evaluation of yield stress impact on printed object properties. Addit. Manuf. 28, 50–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2019.04.006 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.addma.2019.04.006
Tong, A. et al. Review of low-cost 3D Bioprinters: State of the market and observed future trends. SLAS Technol. 26, 333–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/24726303211020297 (2021).
doi: 10.1177/24726303211020297
pubmed: 34137286
Li, K. et al. Advancements in robotic arm-based 3D bioprinting for biomedical applications. Life Med. https://doi.org/10.1093/lifemedi/lnad046 (2023).
doi: 10.1093/lifemedi/lnad046
Chastagnier, L. et al. Deciphering dermal fibroblast behavior in 3D bioprinted dermis constructs. Bioprinting 32, e00275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bprint.2023.e00275 (2023).
doi: 10.1016/j.bprint.2023.e00275
Ikari, R. et al. Differences in the central energy metabolism of cancer cells between conventional 2D and novel 3D culture systems. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 22, 1805 (2021).
doi: 10.3390/ijms22041805
pubmed: 33670390
pmcid: 7917672
Cadamuro, F. et al. 3D bioprinted colorectal cancer models based on hyaluronic acid and signalling glycans. Carbohydr. Polym. 302, 120395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2022.120395 (2023).
doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2022.120395
pubmed: 36604073
Magdeldin, T. et al. The efficacy of cetuximab in a tissue-engineered three-dimensional in vitro model of colorectal cancer. J. Tissue Eng. 5, 2041731414544183. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041731414544183 (2014).
doi: 10.1177/2041731414544183
pubmed: 25383169
pmcid: 4221936
McGuckin, C. et al. World’s first long-term colorectal cancer model by 3D bioprinting as a mechanism for screening oncolytic viruses. Cancers 15, 4724 (2023).
doi: 10.3390/cancers15194724
pubmed: 37835418
pmcid: 10571882
in Clinical Microbiology Procedures Handbook 5.20.21.21–25.20.23.10 (2016).
in Clinical Microbiology Procedures Handbook 5.2.1.1–5.2.2.10 (2016).
Pourchet, L. J. et al. Human skin 3D bioprinting using scaffold-free approach. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 6, 1601101. https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.201601101 (2017).
doi: 10.1002/adhm.201601101