Advances in the Research of Bioinks Based on Natural Collagen, Polysaccharide and Their Derivatives for Skin 3D Bioprinting

Xu, Jie; Zheng, Shuangshuang; Hu, Xueyan; Li, Liying; Li, Wenfang; Parungao, Roxanne; Wang, Yiwei; Nie, Yi; Liu, Tianqing; Song, Kedong

doi:10.3390/polym12061237

Cited by 82 publications

(80 citation statements)

References 169 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Current materials of choice are gelatin, chitosan, alginate, collagen, HA or fibrin among others. 54,56 However, there are some concerns over these materials, such as the use of harsh cross-linking agents. 57,58 Another important limitation is that the majority of the matrix materials used as bioinks so far for bioprinting cannot represent the complexity of the natural ECM.…”

Section: Bioinks With Decellularised Matrices For Three-dimensional Pmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decellularised scaffolds: just a framework? Current knowledge and future directions

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of decellularised matrices as scaffolds offers the advantage of great similarity with the tissue to be replaced. Moreover, decellularised tissues and organs can be repopulated with the patient’s own cells to produce bespoke therapies. Great progress has been made in research and development of decellularised scaffolds, and more recently, these materials are being used in exciting new areas like hydrogels and bioinks. However, much effort is still needed towards preserving the original extracellular matrix composition, especially its minor components, assessing its functionality and scaling up for large tissues and organs. Emphasis should also be placed on developing new decellularisation methods and establishing minimal criteria for assessing the success of the decellularisation process. The aim of this review is to critically review the existing literature on decellularised scaffolds, especially on the preparation of these matrices, and point out areas for improvement, finishing with alternative uses of decellularised scaffolds other than tissue and organ reconstruction. Such uses include three-dimensional ex vivo platforms for idiopathic diseases and cancer modelling.

show abstract

Section: Bioinks With Decellularised Matrices For Three-dimensional Pmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decellularised scaffolds: just a framework? Current knowledge and future directions

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Besides that, inject bioprinting can print a better structural composite bioscaffold with better cell viability than the extrusion-based bioprinting technique. However, inject bioprinting has a major limitation, which is printing high viscosity bioinks; this is due to their functionality [ 56 ].…”

Section: 3d-bioprinting For Wound Healing and Skin Regenerationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current Insight of Printability Quality Improvement Strategies in Natural-Based Bioinks for Skin Regeneration and Wound Healing

Masri

2021

Polymers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Skin tissue engineering aimed to replace chronic tissue injury commonly occurred due to severe burn and chronic wound in diabetic ulcer patients. The normal skin is unable to be regenerated until the seriously injured tissue is disrupted and losing its function. 3D-bioprinting has been one of the effective methods for scaffold fabrication and is proven to replace the conventional method, which reported several drawbacks. In light of this, researchers have developed a new fabrication approach via 3D-bioprinting by combining biomaterials (bioinks) with cells and biomolecules followed by a suitable crosslinking approach. This advanced technology has been subcategorised into three different printing techniques including inject-based, laser-based, and extrusion-based printing. However, the printable quality of the currently available bioinks demonstrated shortcomings in the physicochemical and mechanical properties. This review aims to identify the limitations raised by using natural-based bioinks and the optimum temperature for various applied printing techniques. It is essential to ensure maintaining the acceptable printed scaffold property such as the optimum pore sizes and porosity that allow cell migration activity. In addition, the properties required for an ideal bioinks design for better scaffold printability were also summarised.

show abstract

“…[49] Full-thickness complex human skin models generated by a 3D cell-printing process may offer another feasible strategy to reflect the complexity of native human skin. [56,57] This complexity is simulated in the skin model by incorporation of an epidermis and vascularized dermal and hypodermal compartments. [58] Of note, such vascularized skin models represent a further step forward to simulate the in vivo situation.…”

Section: S K In Model S a S Helpful Tool S In Per Sonalized Medmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this context, 3D bioprinting using specific bioink offers the possibility to generate biomimetic skin constructs in a fast and reproducible way because the automated process facilitates the deposition of specific cell types at desired positions. [56][57][58] It is intriguing to speculate that the combination of 3D bioprinting with patient-based bioink (including individual microbiota compositions) will allow for the construction of an in vitro copy of an individual diseased skin state. In the light of these recent developments, it will be exciting to see how future research will unravel personalized models to study individual pathophysiological factors contributing to different skin diseases.…”

Section: S K In Model S a S Helpful Tool S In Per Sonalized Medmentioning

confidence: 99%

Skin microbiota analysis in human 3D skin models—“Free your mice”

Emmert

Rademacher

Gläser

et al. 2020

Experimental Dermatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is rapid development in the generation of various human skin models. These encompass simple 2D models and more sophisticated 3D models [1,2] including immunocompetent skin models. [3] Human skin models offer one major advantage that should favour their future use: They are human! This simple statement may have important implications when investigating human skin-microbiota interactions. Many mouse models are in use to analyse skin physiology and biology, and it is beyond question that such mouse models help to address specific in vivo issues. However, mouse skin differs from human skin in many ways. In addition to differences in the anatomical structure (mouse skin is thinner due to fewer keratinocytes layers and contains more hair follicles), there are marked differences in gene expression. Gerber et al discovered that there is only 30% identity between the top human-and mouse skin-associated genes. The authors conclude that this huge diversity may explain why data generated in mouse models often fail to translate into humans. [4] There are also important differences in the composition of barrier-related structure proteins building the epidermal differentiation complex. [5] Moreover, human skin harbours different subsets of immune cells and produces different cytokines as compared to mouse skin. [6] Similarly, there are also distinct differences between skin-derived mouse and human antimicrobial peptides (AMPs), for example RNase 7 or SKALP (skin-derived antileukoprotease). This may have crucial consequences because AMPs are an important component of innate cutaneous defense, and there is increasing evidence that AMPs shape the microbiota and the microbiota in turn modulate AMP expression. [7,8] For example, RNase 7 is a major human skin-derived AMP playing an important role in human cutaneous innate defense by controlling the growth of various microbes.

show abstract

Advances in the Research of Bioinks Based on Natural Collagen, Polysaccharide and Their Derivatives for Skin 3D Bioprinting

Cited by 82 publications

References 169 publications

Decellularised scaffolds: just a framework? Current knowledge and future directions

Decellularised scaffolds: just a framework? Current knowledge and future directions

Current Insight of Printability Quality Improvement Strategies in Natural-Based Bioinks for Skin Regeneration and Wound Healing

Skin microbiota analysis in human 3D skin models—“Free your mice”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About