Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Bioprinting of Alginate-Encapsulated Pre-osteoblasts in PLGA/β-TCP Scaffolds Enhances Cell Retention but Impairs Osteogenic Differentiation Compared to Cell Seeding after 3D-Printing

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Regenerative Engineering and Translational Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

In tissue engineering, cellularization of scaffolds has typically been performed by seeding the cells after scaffold fabrication. 3D-printing technology now allows bioprinting of cells encapsulated in a hydrogel simultaneously with the scaffold material. Here, we aimed to investigate whether bioprinting or cell seeding post-printing is more effective in enhancing responses of pre-osteoblastic MC3T3-E1 cell line derived from mouse calvaria.

Methods

Two methods were used for incorporation of pre-osteoblasts in poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid)/β-tricalcium phosphate (PLGA/β-TCP) scaffolds: first, seeding the cells after scaffold printing, and second, bioprinting of alginate-encapsulated cells between PLGA/β-TCP struts. AlamarBlue® assay was used to determine cell retention and proliferation. Live/dead staining and picrosirius red staining were used to assess cell viability and collagen deposition, respectively. Alkaline phosphatase activity was measured to assess the osteoblastic phenotype of pre-osteoblasts.

Results

Cell retention was 51 ± 5% in cell-seeded and 87 ± 3% in bioprinted scaffolds, whereas cell viabilities were 87 ± 2% and 78 ± 4%, respectively. Cell proliferation was higher on cell-seeded scaffolds (day 7: 2.5-fold, day 14: 4.0-fold, day 21: 4.7-fold) compared with bioprinted scaffolds (1.2-fold, 2.1-fold, and 3.9-fold, respectively). At day 21, the voids between PLGA/β-TCP struts were covered with cell-deposited collagenous matrix in both scaffold types. Alkaline phosphatase activity was higher (3.4-fold) on cell-seeded scaffolds compared with bioprinted scaffolds.

Conclusion

Our data demonstrate that encapsulation of pre-osteoblasts in alginate and printing inside PLGA/β-TCP scaffolds enhances cell retention but decreases cell proliferation and osteogenic differentiation compared to seeding cells on scaffolds post-printing. This might have important implications for bone tissue engineering.

Lay Summary

Bioprinting, i.e., printing of hydrogel-encapsulated cells alone or in combination with scaffold material, presents an attractive tool for fabrication of customized tissue equivalents as opposed to conventional cell seeding on tissue engineering scaffolds. However, the function of the printed cells might be adversely affected by the hydrogel encapsulation and printing process. Our aim was to investigate whether bioprinting of alginate-encapsulated pre-osteoblasts in poly(lactic-co-glycolic) acid/β-tricalcium phosphate scaffold is more effective in enhancing cell retention, proliferation, and osteogenic differentiation as opposed to cell seeding post-printing. Our studies showed that the bioprinted scaffold had enhanced cell retention capacity, but impaired cell proliferation and osteogenic differentiation compared to the cell-seeded scaffold. These findings might have important implications for the improvement of alginate-based bioinks with, e.g., (natural) bioactive peptides for bioprinting of bone tissue engineering scaffolds.

Grapical abstract

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Buza JA III, Einhorn T. Bone healing in 2016. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab. 2016;13:101–5. https://doi.org/10.11138/ccmbm/2016.13.2.101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Marino JT, Ziran BH. Use of solid and cancellous autologous bone graft for fractures and nonunions. Orthop Clin North Am. 2010;41:15–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocl.2009.08.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Nerem RM. Regenerative medicine: the emergence of an industry. J R Soc Interface. 2010;7:S771–5. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2010.0348.focus.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Arul KT, Manikandan E, Ladchumananandasivam R. Polymer-based calcium phosphate scaffolds for tissue engineering applications. In: Grumezescu AM, editor. Nanoarchitectonics in Biomedicine: William Andrew Publishing; 2019. p. 585–618. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-816200-2.00011-6.

  5. Ramesh N, Moratti SC, Dias GJ. Hydroxyapatite-polymer biocomposites for bone regeneration: a review of current trends. J Biomed Mater Res B App Biomater. 2018;106:2046–57. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.33950.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Yu NY, Schindeler A, Little DG, Ruys AJ. Biodegradable poly (α-hydroxy acid) polymer scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. J Biomed Mater Res B App Biomater. 2010;93:285–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.31588.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Felfel R, Poocza L, Gimeno-Fabra M, Milde T, Hildebrand G, Ahmed I, et al. In vitro degradation and mechanical properties of PLA-PCL copolymer unit cell scaffolds generated by two-photon polymerization. Biomed Mater. 2016;11:015011. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-6041/11/1/015011.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Pan Z, Ding J. Poly(lactide-co-glycolide) porous scaffolds for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Interface Focus. 2012;2:366–77. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2011.0123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sun X, Xu C, Wu G, Ye Q, Wang C. Poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid): applications and future prospects for periodontal tissue regeneration. Polymers (Basel). 2017;9:189. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym9060189.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Yoshida T, Miyaji H, Otani K, Inoue K, Nakane K, Nishimura H, et al. Bone augmentation using a highly porous PLGA/β-TCP scaffold containing fibroblast growth factor-2. J Periodontal Res. 2015;50:265–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jre.12206.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Bizenjima T, Takeuchi T, Seshima F, Saito A. Effect of poly (lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA)-coated beta-tricalcium phosphate on the healing of rat calvarial bone defects: a comparative study with pure-phase beta-tricalcium phosphate. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;27:1360–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lee SK, Han CM, Park W, Kim IH, Joung YK, Han DK. Synergistically enhanced osteoconductivity and anti-inflammation of PLGA/β-TCP/mg(OH)2 composite for orthopedic applications. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2019;94:65–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2018.09.011.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Roseti L, Parisi V, Petretta M, Cavallo C, Desando G, Bartolotti I, et al. Scaffolds for bone tissue engineering: state of the art and new perspectives. Mater Sci Eng C. 2017;78:1246–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2017.05.017.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Miar S, Shafiee A, Guda T, Narayan R. Additive manufacturing for tissue engineering. In: Ovsianikov A, Yoo J, Mironov V, editors. 3D printing and biofabrication. Cham: Reference Series in Biomedical Engineering. Springer; 2018. p. 3–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45444-3_2.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Chan BP, Leong KW. Scaffolding in tissue engineering: general approaches and tissue-specific considerations. Eur Spine J. 2008;17:467–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-008-0745-3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Piard CM, Chen Y, Fisher JP. Cell-laden 3D printed scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Clin Rev Bone Miner Metab. 2015;13:245–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12018-015-9198-5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. England S, Rajaram A, Schreyer DJ, Chen X. Bioprinted fibrin-factor XIII-hyaluronate hydrogel scaffolds with encapsulated Schwann cells and their in vitro characterization for use in nerve regeneration. Bioprinting. 2017;5:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bprint.2016.12.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Duarte CD, Blaeser A, Weber M, Jäkel J, Neuss S, Jahnen-Dechent W, et al. Three-dimensional printing of stem cell-laden hydrogels submerged in a hydrophobic high-density fluid. Biofabrication. 2013;5:015003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5082/5/1/015003.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Tabriz AG, Hermida MA, Leslie NR, Shu W. Three-dimensional bioprinting of complex cell laden alginate hydrogel structures. Biofabrication. 2015;7:045012. https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/7/4/045012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Pepelanova I, Kruppa K, Scheper T, Lavrentieva A. Gelatin-methacryloyl (GelMA) hydrogels with defined degree of functionalization as a versatile toolkit for 3D cell culture and extrusion bioprinting. Bioengineering (Basel). 2018;5:55. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering5030055.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Pawar SN, Edgar KJ. Alginate derivatization: a review of chemistry, properties and applications. Biomaterials. 2012;33:3279–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.01.007.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Axpe E, Oyen M. Applications of alginate-based bioinks in 3D bioprinting. Int J Mol Sci. 2016;17:1976. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms17121976.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Bendtsen ST, Quinnell SP, Wei M. Development of a novel alginate-polyvinyl alcohol-hydroxyapatite hydrogel for 3D bioprinting bone tissue engineered scaffolds. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2017;105:1457–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.36036.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Schuurman W, Khristov V, Pot MW, van Weeren PR, Dhert WJ, Malda J. Bioprinting of hybrid tissue constructs with tailorable mechanical properties. Biofabrication. 2011;3:021001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5082/3/2/021001.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Detsch R, Sarker B, Grigore A, Boccaccini AR. Alginate and gelatine blending for bone cell printing and biofabrication. In: IASTED International Conference Biomedical Engineering Innsbruck. Innsbruck: ACTA Press; 2013. p. 451–5. https://doi.org/10.2316/P.2013.791-177.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Gelinsky M. Biopolymer hydrogel bioinks. In: Thomas DJ, Jessop ZM, Whitaker IS, editors. 3D Bioprinting for Reconstructive Surgery: Woodhead Publishing; 2018. p. 125–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-101103-4.00008-9.

  27. Blaeser A, Duarte Campos DF, Puster U, Richtering W, Stevens MM, Fischer H. Controlling shear stress in 3D bioprinting is a key factor to balance printing resolution and stem cell integrity. Adv Healthc Mater. 2016;5:326–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.201500677.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Wang W, Caetano G, Ambler WS, Blaker JJ, Frade MA, Mandal P, et al. Enhancing the hydrophilicity and cell attachment of 3D printed PCL/graphene scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Materials. 2016;9:992–103. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma9120992.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Kroeze RJ, Knippenberg M, Helder MN. Osteogenic differentiation strategies for adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells. Methods Mol Biol. 2011;702:233–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-61737-960-4_17.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Zamani Y, Mohammadi J, Amoabediny G, Visscher DO, Helder MN, Zandieh-Doulabi B, et al. Enhanced osteogenic activity by MC3T3-E1 pre-osteoblasts on chemically surface-modified poly (ε-caprolactone) 3D-printed scaffolds compared to RGD immobilized scaffolds. Biomed Mater. 2018;14:015008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-605X/aaeb82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Tserepi A, Gogolides E, Bourkoula A, Kanioura A, Kokkoris G, Petrou P, et al. Plasma nano textured polymeric surfaces for controlling cell attachment and proliferation: a short review. Plasma Chem Plasma P. 2016;36:107–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11090-015-9674-1.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Chang R, Nam J, Sun W. Effects of dispensing pressure and nozzle diameter on cell survival from solid free form fabrication-based direct cell writing. Tissue Eng Part A. 2008;14:41–8. https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.a.2007.0004.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Nair K, Gandhi M, Khalil S, Yan KC, Marcolingo M, Barbee K, et al. Characterization of cell viability during bioprinting processes. Biotechnol J. 2009;4:1168–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/biot.200900004.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Sarker B, Rompf J, Silva R, Lang N, Detsch R, Kaschta J, et al. Alginate-based hydrogels with improved adhesive properties for cell encapsulation. Int J Biol Macromol. 2015;78:72–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2015.03.061.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Jia J, Richards DJ, Pollard S, Tan Y, Rodriguez J, Visconti RP, et al. Engineering alginate as bioink for bioprinting. Acta Biomater. 2014;10:4323–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2014.06.034.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Gungor-Ozkerim PS, Inci I, Zhang YS, Khademhosseini A, Dokmeci MR. Bioinks for 3D bioprinting: an overview. Biomater Sci. 2018;6:915–46. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7BM00765E.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Das RK. Harnessing cell-material interaction to control cell fate: design principle of advanced functional hydrogel materials. J Chem Sci. 2017;129:1807–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12039-017-1387-y.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Tsukanaka M, Fujibayashi S, Otsuki B, Takemoto M, Matsuda S. Osteoinductive potential of highly purified porous β-TCP in mice. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2015;26:132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-015-5469-4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Wilson JL, Najia MA, Saeed R, McDevitt TC. Alginate encapsulation parameters influence the differentiation of microencapsulated embryonic stem cell aggregates. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2014;111:618–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.25121.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Khatab S, Leijs MJ, van Buul GM, Haeck JC, Kops N, Bos KP, et al. Encapsulation in alginate beads prolongs mesenchymal stem cell longevity in vivo but does not enhance their therapeutic efficacy in a murine model for osteoarthritis. Osteoarth Cart. 2019;27:S425–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2019.02.444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Availability of Data and Material

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of New Sciences and Technologies, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

    Yasaman Zamani & Javad Mohammadi

  2. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Research Center for New Technologies in Life Science Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

    Yasaman Zamani & Ghassem Amoabediny

  3. School of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

    Ghassem Amoabediny

  4. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery/Oral Pathology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers-location VUMC and Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Ghassem Amoabediny & Marco N. Helder

  5. Department of Oral Cell Biology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Behrouz Zandieh-Doulabi & Jenneke Klein-Nulend

Authors
  1. Yasaman Zamani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Javad Mohammadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ghassem Amoabediny
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marco N. Helder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Behrouz Zandieh-Doulabi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jenneke Klein-Nulend
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: Yasaman Zamani, Marco N. Helder, Behrouz Zandieh-Doulabi, Jenneke Klein-Nulend. Methodology: Yasaman Zamani, Marco N. Helder, Behrouz Zandieh-Doulabi, Jenneke Klein-Nulend. Formal analysis: Yasaman Zamani, Behrouz Zandieh-Doulabi. Investigation: Yasaman Zamani, Behrouz Zandieh-Doulabi. Data curation: Yasaman Zamani. Writing—original draft: Yasaman Zamani. Writing—review and editing: Yasaman Zamani, Javad Mohammadi, Ghassem Amoabediny, Marco N. Helder, Behrouz Zandieh-Doulabi, Jenneke Klein-Nulend. Resources: Javad Mohammadi, Ghassem Amoabediny, Marco N. Helder, Behrouz Zandieh-Doulabi, Jenneke Klein-Nulend. Supervision: Ghassem Amoabediny, Marco N. Helder, Behrouz Zandieh-Doulabi, Jenneke Klein-Nulend.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Javad Mohammadi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Description of Future Works

Future works include incorporation of varying concentrations of (natural) bioactive peptides in the bioink formulation to compensate for the bioinertness of alginate for enhanced osteogenic activity by the bioprinted cells.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zamani, Y., Mohammadi, J., Amoabediny, G. et al. Bioprinting of Alginate-Encapsulated Pre-osteoblasts in PLGA/β-TCP Scaffolds Enhances Cell Retention but Impairs Osteogenic Differentiation Compared to Cell Seeding after 3D-Printing. Regen. Eng. Transl. Med. 7, 485–493 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40883-020-00163-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40883-020-00163-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation