Layer-by-layer bioassembly of cellularized polylactic acid porous membranes for bone tissue engineering


The conventional tissue engineering is based on seeding of macroporous scaffold on its surface (“top–down” approach). The main limitation is poor cell viability in the middle of the scaffold due to poor diffusion of oxygen and nutrients and insufficient vascularization. Layer-by-Layer (LBL) bioassembly is based on “bottom–up” approach, which considers assembly of small cellularized blocks. The aim of this work was to evaluate proliferation and differentiation of human bone marrow stromal cells (HBMSCs) and endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) in two and three dimensions (2D, 3D) using a LBL assembly of polylactic acid (PLA) scaffolds fabricated by 3D printing. 2D experiments have shown maintain of cell viability on PLA, especially when a co-cuture system was used, as well as adequate morphology of seeded cells. Early osteoblastic and endothelial differentiations were observed and cell proliferation was increased after 7 days of culture. In 3D, cell migration was observed between layers of LBL constructs, as well as an osteoblastic differentiation. These results indicate that LBL assembly of PLA layers could be suitable for BTE, in order to promote homogenous cell distribution inside the scaffold and gene expression specific to the cells implanted in the case of co-culture system.

Graphical Abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6


  1. 1.

    Arealis G, Nikolaou VS. Bone printing: new frontiers in the treatment of bone defects. Injury. 2015;46(Suppl 8):S20–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    O’Brien FJ. Biomaterials and scaffolds for tissue engineering,. Mater Today. 2011;14(3):88–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Oliveira H, et al. The proangiogenic potential of a novel calcium releasing biomaterial: impact on cell recruitment. Acta Biomater. 2016;29:435–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Feng T, Liu Y, Xu Q, Li X, Luo X, Chen Y. In vitro experimental study on influences of final degradation products of polyactic acid on proliferation and osteoblastic phenotype of osteoblast-like cells. J Repar Reconstr Surg. 2014;28(12):1525–9.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Saito E, Suarez-Gonzalez D, Murphy WL, Hollister SJ. Biomineral coating increases bone formation by ex vivo BMP-7 gene therapy in rapid prototyped poly(l-lactic acid) (PLLA) and poly(ε-caprolactone) (PCL) porous scaffolds. Adv Healthc Mater. 2015;4(4):621–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Ciocca L, De Crescenzio F, Fantini M, Scotti R. CAD/CAM and rapid prototyped scaffold construction for bone regenerative medicine and surgical transfer of virtual planning: a pilot study. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2009;33(1):58–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Mangano F, et al. Maxillary ridge augmentation with custom-made CAD/CAM scaffolds. A 1-year prospective study on 10 patients. J Oral Implantol. 2014;40(5):561–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Nga NK, Hoai TT, Viet PH. Biomimetic scaffolds based on hydroxyapatite nanorod/poly(d,l) lactic acid with their corresponding apatite-forming capability and biocompatibility for bone-tissue engineering. Colloids Surf B. 2015;128:506–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Lou T, Wang X, Song G, Gu Z, Yang Z. Fabrication of PLLA/β-TCP nanocomposite scaffolds with hierarchical porosity for bone tissue engineering. Int J Biol Macromol. 2014;69:464–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    D’Alessandro D, et al. Processing large-diameter poly(l-lactic acid) microfiber mesh/mesenchymal stromal cell constructs via resin embedding: an efficient histologic method. Biomed Mater Bristol Engl. 2014;9(4):045007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Zamparelli A, et al. Growth on poly(l-lactic acid) porous scaffold preserves CD73 and CD90 immunophenotype markers of rat bone marrow mesenchymal stromal cells. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2014;25(10):2421–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Kao C-T, Lin C-C, Chen Y-W, Yeh C-H, Fang H-Y, Shie M-Y. Poly(dopamine) coating of 3D printed poly(lactic acid) scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Mater Sci Eng C. 2015;56:165–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Hu Y, Zou S, Chen W, Tong Z, Wang C. Mineralization and drug release of hydroxyapatite/poly(l-lactic acid) nanocomposite scaffolds prepared by pickering emulsion templating. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2014;122:559–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Ding M, Henriksen SS, Wendt D, Overgaard S. An automated perfusion bioreactor for the streamlined production of engineered osteogenic grafts. J Biomed Mater Res B. 2015;104:532–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Lian Q, Zhuang P, Li C, Jin Z, Li D. Mechanical properties of polylactic acid/beta-tricalcium phosphate composite scaffold with double channels based on three-dimensional printing technique. Chin J Repar Reconstr Surg. 2014;28(3):309–13.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Ronca A, et al. Large defect-tailored composite scaffolds for in vivo bone regeneration. J Biomater Appl. 2014;29(5):715–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Hamad K. Properties and medical applications of polylactic acid: a review. Express Polym Lett. 2015;9(5):435–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Vidyasekar P, Shyamsunder P, Sahoo SK, Verma RS. Scaffold-free and scaffold-assisted 3D culture enhances differentiation of bone marrow stromal cells. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Anim. 2016;52(2):204–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Huang J, et al. Evaluation of the novel three-dimensional porous poly (l-lactic acid)/nano-hydroxyapatite composite scaffold. Biomed Mater Eng. 2015;26(Suppl 1):S197–205.

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Giordano RA, Wu BM, Borland SW, Cima LG, Sachs EM, Cima MJ. Mechanical properties of dense polylactic acid structures fabricated by three dimensional printing. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed. 1996;8(1):63–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Almeida CR, Serra T, Oliveira MI, Planell JA, Barbosa MA, Navarro M. Impact of 3-D printed PLA- and chitosan-based scaffolds on human monocyte/macrophage responses: unraveling the effect of 3-D structures on inflammation. Acta Biomater. 2014;10(2):613–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Serra T, Mateos-Timoneda MA, Planell JA, Navarro M. 3D printed PLA-based scaffolds: a versatile tool in regenerative medicine. Organogenesis. 2013;9(4):239–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Schlaubitz S, et al. Pullulan/dextran/nHA macroporous composite beads for bone repair in a femoral condyle defect in rats. PLoS One. 2014;9(10):e110251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Groll J, et al. Biofabrication: reappraising the definition of an evolving field. Biofabrication. 2016;8(1):013001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Sathy BN, Mony U, Menon D, Baskaran VK, Mikos AG, Nair S. Bone tissue engineering with multilayered scaffolds-part I: an approach for vascularizing engineered constructs in vivo. Tissue Eng Part A. 2015;21(19–20):2480–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Ren L, et al. Preparation of three-dimensional vascularized MSC cell sheet constructs for tissue regeneration. BioMed Res Int. 2014;2014:301279

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Nishiguchi A, Matsusaki M, Asano Y, Shimoda H, Akashi M. Effects of angiogenic factors and 3D-microenvironments on vascularization within sandwich cultures. Biomaterials. 2014;35(17):4739–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Derda R, et al. Paper-supported 3D cell culture for tissue-based bioassays. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009;106(44):18457–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Wan W, et al. Layer-by-layer paper-stacking nanofibrous membranes to deliver adipose-derived stem cells for bone regeneration. Int J Nanomedicine. 2015;10:1273–90.

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Catros S, et al. Layer-by-layer tissue microfabrication supports cell proliferation in vitro and in vivo. Tissue Eng Part C Methods. 2012;18(1):62–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Wen L, et al. Role of endothelial progenitor cells in maintaining stemness and enhancing differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells by indirect cell–cell interaction. Stem Cells Dev. 2016;25(2):123–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Eldesoqi K, et al. Safety evaluation of a bioglass-polylactic acid composite scaffold seeded with progenitor cells in a rat skull critical-size bone defect. PLoS One. 2014;9(2):e87642

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Vilamitjana-Amedee J, Bareille R, Rouais F, Caplan AI, Harmand MF. Human bone marrow stromal cells express an osteoblastic phenotype in culture. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Anim. 1993;29A(9):699–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Thebaud NB, Bareille R, Remy M, Bourget C, Daculsi R, Bordenave L. Human progenitor-derived endothelial cells vs. venous endothelial cells for vascular tissue engineering: an in vitro study. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2010;4(6):473–84.

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Thébaud NB, et al. Labeling and qualification of endothelial progenitor cells for tracking in tissue engineering: an in vitro study. Int J Artif Organs. 2015;38(4):224–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Lau KR, Evans RL, Case RM. Intracellular Cl- concentration in striated intralobular ducts from rabbit mandibular salivary glands. Pflüg Arch Eur J Physiol. 1994;427(1–2):24–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Poole CA, Brookes NH, Clover GM. Keratocyte networks visualised in the living cornea using vital dyes. J Cell Sci. 1993;106(Pt 2):685–91.

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Vaughan PJ, Pike CJ, Cotman CW, Cunningham DD. Thrombin receptor activation protects neurons and astrocytes from cell death produced by environmental insults. J Neurosci. 1995;15(7):5389–401. Pt 2

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Metcalf DJ, Nightingale TD, Zenner HL, Lui-Roberts WW, Cutler DF. Formation and function of Weibel-Palade bodies. J Cell Sci. 2008;121(Pt 1):19–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Szczurek AT, et al. Single molecule localization microscopy of the distribution of chromatin using Hoechst and DAPI fluorescent probes. Nucl Austin Tex. 2014;5(4):331–40.

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Serra T, Ortiz-Hernandez M, Engel E, Planell JA, Navarro M. Relevance of PEG in PLA-based blends for tissue engineering 3D-printed scaffolds. Mater Sci Eng C. 2014;38:55–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Ahn S, Lee H, Kim G. Functional cell-laden alginate scaffolds consisting of core/shell struts for tissue regeneration. Carbohydr Polym. 2013;98(1):936–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Aguirre A, Planell JA, Engel E. Dynamics of bone marrow-derived endothelial progenitor cell/mesenchymal stem cell interaction in co-culture and its implications in angiogenesis. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2010;400(2):284–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Grellier M, Bordenave L, Amédée J. Cell-to-cell communication between osteogenic and endothelial lineages: implications for tissue engineering. Trends Biotechnol. 2009;27(10):562–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors wish to thank the French Institute in Belgrade, Serbia, via Campus France agency. 2-photon observations were done at Bordeaux Imaging Center, France.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sylvain Catros.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Guduric, V., Metz, C., Siadous, R. et al. Layer-by-layer bioassembly of cellularized polylactic acid porous membranes for bone tissue engineering. J Mater Sci: Mater Med 28, 78 (2017).

Download citation