Bioprinting technology is a fast-evolving multidisciplinary field, harnessing the benefits and capabilities of three-dimensional printing and regenerative medicine approaches to interface the fields of biology and engineering.1 It allows the incorporation of traditional additive manufacturing approaches toward the biologic fabrication of microscale tissues through the spatiotemporal deposition of cell-laden bioinks (Figure 1).2 Bioassembly is the coordinated assembly of cells, spheroids, and biologic factors into desired geometries within in vitro microsystems and biofabricated constructs.4 To date, the most common bioprinting approaches employed include extrusion-based, inkjet, and microvalve; alongside light-based approaches of stereolithography, direct laser writing, digital light processing, and volumetric techniques.5,6 The ability to incorporate living cells, biomaterials, and biologic factors within biomimetically engineered tissue constructs holds great potential to recapitulate complex elements of natural tissues and organs.7
The Australian Bioprinting Workshop for Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine was founded to create a community of scientists, clinicians, and engineers to work in synergy with industry, government, and regulatory agencies to tackle key challenges in the bioprinting field and facilitate the clinical translation of this promising technology.8 Annual workshops are hosted by the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) alongside company sponsorship, with support from professional three-dimensional printing networks such as 3D Heals. In recent years, Australia has seen considerable growth and investment dedicated toward establishing collaborative research centers to maximize research impact through industry-orientated projects and the clinical translation. This is supported by the several bioprinting laboratories located within a hospital, such as the Herston Biofabrication Institute at Metro North Hospital, Brisbane, and BioFab3D located within St Vincent’s Hospital, Melbourne. These workshops seek to build on existing collaborative partnerships to assist in publications of international scientific consensus on key developmental areas including biomaterials for bioprinting, organ-on-a-chip studies, and the bioprinting of tissue-specific models for drug development and oncology applications.9 Key elements in developing these events have been the principle that all member publications should reflect a consensus of those engaged in its continued discussions.
The meeting was opened by Prof. Joanne Tipper (the Head of the School of Biomedical Engineering at UTS), and Dr. Carmine Gentile (workshop organizer and leader of the Cardiovascular Regeneration Group both at UTS and at the Kolling Institute/University of Sydney), followed by introducing the program for the day and chairing the opening session focusing on industry innovation, as detailed in the following.
The purpose of this session was to provide the opportunity to hear directly from world leaders in the field of bioprinting how commercially available bioprinting platforms are helping researchers in tackling several of the problems characteristic of bioprinted tissues. This session was opened by Dr. Manuel Figueruela García (Regemat3D) with a focus on the customization of bioprinting and bioreactor platforms that can be applied through tissue specificity for regenerative medicine applications. Dr. Matija Rojnik (Fluicell) followed by presenting the capabilities of achieving multicellular models with single cell bioprinting precision through harnessing power of microfluidics-based approaches. Derek Mathers (Advanced Solutions Life Sciences) and Dr Martin Engel alongside Dr. Jeremy Dobrowolski (Inventia Life Science) discussed the benefits of establishing automated workcell operations for biofabrication processes and recent advances in three-dimensional cell culture using digital bioprinting platforms, respectively. Dr. Haruka Yoshie (CELLINK) closed the session by detailing a range of tissue-specific applications, spanning from extrusion-based and light-activated polymers, with a focus on their limitations and possibilities associated with each fabrication modality.
Biomaterials for Bioprinting
Identifying the optimal biomaterial for bioprinting tissues and organs is one of the greatest challenges in defining the microenvironment in which for cells to grow.10 Prof. Gordon Wallace and Dr. Zhilian Yue (University of Wollongong, UOW) introduced their recent progression on biopolymers for bioinks for bioprinting, raising issues associated with the sourcing of biomaterials, processing requirements, and logistical considerations required when planning for the future clinical translation of bioprinted tissues and organs.11,12 Dr. Khoon Lim (University of Otago) opened his presentation on the use of light-activated polymers for bioprinting applications by giving a definition of commonly used bioprinting techniques and their respective advantages and disadvantages according to their resolution, speed, and complexity. Dr Lim’s presentation covered aspects of photo-crosslinking approaches (Figure 2, A),13 an example of a bioprinted cartilage construct (Figure 2, B),14 routinely used photoinitiators (Figure 2, C) and a bioprinted distal lung subunit demonstrating the oxygenation of red blood cells within a biocompatible hydrogel (Figure 2, D).15
Bioprinting of Organoids and Tissues
Next-generation organogenesis has the potential to revolutionize many biofabrication processes. These include cosmetics testing and drug development by improving clinical trial speeds and model efficacy while reducing associated costs and the dependence for early-stage animal studies.16 Prof. Anthony Weiss (University of Sydney) summarized his group’s recent efforts in the generation and use of human recombinant elastin-based bioinks for bioprinting vascularized soft tissues.17 Central to developing the next generation of human tissues and organs is the need to address the fields most prominent hurdle of achieving perfusable vascularization within bioprinted constructs and in vitro systems.18,19 A/Prof. Jeremy Crook (UOW), Dr. Carmine Gentile (UTS), and Dr. Anita Quigley (RMIT) reported their recent progression in reproducing neuronal models (Figure 3), cardiac and skeletal muscle models (Figure 4), respectively.
Cross-talk with clinical partners is fundamental for speedy translation of findings from the bench to the bedside. Prof. Peter Choong (University of Melbourne) described his clinical perspectives for bone tissue bioprinting to open the session and how surgeons can work together with engineers and biologists to look for practical solutions to key clinical problems that typically arise from trauma and osteoarthritis. Prof. Choong outlined the regenerative potential of combing stem cells with bioprinting techniques to fill bone defects and by developing a handheld device for surgical applications (Figure 5, A).29,30 Dr. Liudmila Polonchuk (Hoffman La-Roche) discussed the potential use of bioprinted tissues for drug development, with an application in cardiac safety.
The four major driving factors of bioprinting development can be attributed from increasing public and private investments in drug discovery, cosmetics testing, tissue regeneration, and medical device development.38 To safeguard patient safety whilst aiding the successful translation of bioprinting technologies, Michelle Knight (Hydrix) discussed the regulatory requirements to ensure maximum benefit and minimum risk to the patient. Prof. Dianne Nicol (University of Tasmania) followed by detailing the patentability of bioprinting technologies, highlighting that there are currently approximately more than 700 patents and applications worldwide with only a small percentage abandoned, suggesting an active growth phase.39
Stepping into the Future
A better understanding of where the field is potentially going and where new technologies may benefit from the cross-talk between experts in different fields was the focus of this session. Dr. Alfredo Martinez-Coll (UTS) opened the session with a presentation on market trends in bioprinting technologies, in which organ-on-a-chip models were described as playing a key role in the development of the field. Dr. Jesus Shrestha discussed three-dimensional printed microfluidic lung-on-a-chip models for respiratory diseases and drug studies shown in Figure 5, B9 followed by, Dr. Mark Allenby (Queensland University of Technology) describing the potential of harnessing computational modeling to enhance biofabrication processes, as shown below in Figure 5, C.35 Next, Dr. Irina Kabakova (UTS) outlined the capabilities of three-dimensional noncontact micromechanical characterization for bioprinted structures and materials,40 followed by the final keynote presentation for the day on the magnetic levitational bioassembly of three-dimensional tissue constructs in space by Dr. Vladimir Mironov (3D Bioprinting Solutions) as shown in (Figure 5, D).37 The decision to conduct bioassembly experiments of cartilage generation in space further warrants a growing vested interest in biofabrication technologies and in the evaluation of the effects of microgravity on human intervertebral discs and articular cartilages during long-term spaceflights.
Recent advances in bioprinting technologies for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine approaches show great potential for the strategic arrangement of multiple materials, cells, and extracellular matrix components at different length scales to replicate aspects of the heterogenous compositions and complex hierarchal organization commensurate to native tissues and organs. For this reason, bioprinting techniques are well placed to recreate physiologically relevant microenvironments to further the clinical translation of this promising technology from the bench to bedside.
A particular thanks to 3D Heals for their kind support as well.
1. Murphy SV, Atala A. 3D bioprinting of tissues and organs. Nat Biotechnol. 32:773–785, 2014
2. Kang HW, Lee SJ, Ko IK, Kengla C, Yoo JJ, Atala A. A 3D bioprinting system to produce human-scale tissue constructs with structural integrity. Nat Biotechnol. 34:312–319, 2016
3. Castilho M, de Ruijter M, Beirne S, et al. Multitechnology biofabrication: A new approach for the manufacturing of functional tissue structures? Trends Biotechnol. 38:1316–1328, 2020
4. Moroni L, Burdick JA, Highley C, et al. Biofabrication strategies for 3D in vitro
models and regenerative medicine. Nat Rev Mater. 3:21–37, 2018
5. Moroni L, Boland T, Burdick JA, et al. Biofabrication: A guide to technology and terminology. Trends Biotechnol. 36:384–402, 2018
6. Gao G, Huang Y, Schilling AF, Hubbell K, Cui X. Organ bioprinting: Are we there yet? Adv Healthc Mater. 7:17010182018
7. Roche CD, Brereton RJL, Ashton AW, Jackson C, Gentile C. Current challenges in three-dimensional bioprinting heart tissues for cardiac surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 58:500–510, 2020
8. Harley W, Gentile C. Second Australian Bioprinting Workshop for Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine. Available at: https://whova.com/web/biopr_202011/
. Accessed November 15, 2020.
9. Shrestha J, Razavi Bazaz S, Aboulkheyr Es H, et al. Lung-on-a-chip: The future of respiratory disease models and pharmacological studies. Crit Rev Biotechnol. 40:213–230, 2020
10. Groll J, Burdick JA, Cho DW, et al. A definition of bioinks and their distinction from biomaterial inks. Biofabrication. 11:0130012018
11. Javadi M, Gu Q, Naficy S, et al. Conductive tough hydrogel for bioapplications. Macromol Biosci. 18:17002702018
12. Chen Z, You J, Liu X, et al. Biomaterials for corneal bioengineering. Biomed Mater. 13:0320022018
13. Lim KS, Galarraga JH, Cui X, Lindberg GCJ, Burdick JA, Woodfield TBF. Fundamentals and applications of photo-cross-linking in bioprinting. Chem Rev. 120:10662–10694, 2020
14. Lim KS, Abinzano F, Bernal PN, et al. One-step photoactivation of a dual-functionalized bioink as cell carrier and cartilage-binding glue for chondral regeneration. Adv Healthc Mater. 9:e19017922020
15. Grigoryan B, Paulsen SJ, Corbett DC, et al. Multivascular networks and functional intravascular topologies within biocompatible hydrogels. Science. 364:458–464, 2019
16. Sreekala P, Suresh M, Lakshmi Priyadarsini S. 3D organ printing: Review on operational challenges and constraints. Mater Today Proc. 33:4703–4707, 2020
17. Lee S, Sani ES, Spencer AR, et al. Human-recombinant-elastin-based bioinks for 3D bioprinting of vascularized soft tissues. Adv Mater. 32::20039152020
18. Grover H, Spatarelu CP, De’De K, et al. Vascularization in 3D printed tissues: Emerging technologies to overcome longstanding obstacles. AIMS Cell Tissue Eng. 2:163–184, 2018
19. Kim JJ, Hou L, Huang NF. Vascularization of three-dimensional engineered tissues for regenerative medicine applications. Acta Biomater. 41:17–26, 2016
20. Chen Z, Liu X, You J, et al. Biomimetic corneal stroma using electro-compacted collagen. Acta Biomater. 113:360–371, 2020
21. Tomaskovic-Crook E, Zhang P, Ahtiainen A, et al. Human neural tissues from neural stem cells using conductive biogel and printed polymer microelectrode arrays for 3D electrical stimulation. Adv Healthc Mater. 8:19004252019
22. Pillai MM, Sathishkumar G, Houshyar S, et al. Nanocomposite-coated silk-based artificial conduits: The influence of structures on regeneration of the peripheral nerve. ACS Appl Bio Mater. 3:4454–4464, 2020
23. Kim JH, Kim I, Seol YJ, et al. Neural cell integration into 3D bioprinted skeletal muscle constructs accelerates restoration of muscle function. Nat Commun. 11:: 10252020
24. Quigley AF, Cornock R, Mysore T, et al. Wet-spun trojan horse cell constructs for engineering muscle. Front Chem. 8:182020
25. Ngan C, Quigley A, O’Connell C, et al. 3D Bioprinting and differentiation of primary skeletal muscle progenitor cells. Methods Mol Biol. 2140:229–242, 2020
26. Polonchuk L, Chabria M, Badi L, et al. Cardiac spheroids as promising in vitro
models to study the human heart microenvironment. Sci Rep. 7:70052017
27. Skylar-Scott MA, Uzel SGM, Nam LL, et al. Biomanufacturing of organ-specific tissues with high cellular density and embedded vascular channels. Sci Adv. 5:eaaw24592019
28. Mirdamadi E, Tashman JW, Shiwarski DJ, Palchesko RN, Feinberg AW. FRESH 3D bioprinting a full-size model of the human heart. ACS Biomater Sci. Eng. 6:6453–6459, 2020
29. Duchi S, Onofrillo C, O’Connell C, Wallace GG, Choong P, Di Bella C. Bioprinting stem cells in hydrogel for in situ surgical application: A case for articular cartilage. Methods Mol Biol. 2140:145–157, 2020
30. Duchi S, Onofrillo C, O’Connell CD, et al. Handheld co-axial bioprinting: Application to in situ surgical cartilage repair. Sci Rep. 7:58372017
31. Di Bella C, Duchi S, O’Connell CD, et al. In situ handheld three-dimensional bioprinting for cartilage regeneration. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 12:611–621, 2018
32. Cheng RY, Eylert G, Gariepy JM, et al. Handheld instrument for wound-conformal delivery of skin precursor sheets improves healing in full-thickness burns. Biofabrication. 12:0250022020
33. Corbett DC, Fabyan WB, Grigoryan B, et al. Thermofluidic heat exchangers for actuation of transcription in artificial tissues. Sci Adv. 6:eabb90622020
34. Hassell BA, Goyal G, Lee E, et al. Human organ chip models recapitulate orthotopic lung cancer growth, therapeutic responses, and tumor dormancy in vitro. Cell Rep. 21:508–516, 2017
35. Buenzli PR, Lanaro M, Wong CS, et al. Cell proliferation and migration explain pore bridging dynamics in 3D printed scaffolds of different pore size. Acta Biomater. 114:285–295, 2020
36. Allenby MC, Misener R, Panoskaltsis N, Mantalaris A. A quantitative three-dimensional image analysis tool for maximal acquisition of spatial heterogeneity data. Tissue Eng Part C Methods. 23:108–117, 2017
37. Parfenov VA, Khesuani YD, Petrov SV, et al. Magnetic levitational bioassembly of 3D tissue construct in space. Sci Adv. 6:eaba41742020
38. Bicudo E, Faulkner A, Li P. Patents and the experimental space: Social, legal and geographical dimensions of 3D bioprinting. Int Review Law Comp Technol. 35:1–22, 2020
39. Mendis DK, Lemley MA, Rimmer M. 3D Printing and Beyond: Intellectual Property and Regulation. Cheltenham, UK & Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2019
40. Wu PJ, Masouleh MI, Dini D, et al. Detection of proteoglycan loss from articular cartilage using Brillouin microscopy, with applications to osteoarthritis. Biomed Opt Express. 10:2457–2466, 2019