Abstract
In the past, the ability to understand the formation, function, and pathology of tissues/organs was mostly dependent on 2D cell culture [1, 2]. However, a drawback of 2D cell culture-based studies is that cells grown in 2D condition are substantially different in their morphology, and in cell–cell and cell–matrix interactions, from those grown in physiologically more relevant 3D environments [3]. This supports the fact that the 2D environment cannot be used to represent the 3D environment in understanding the situation taking place in our body. As an alternative, animal models have been used as a testing platform owing to their similarities with regard to morphology and cell–matrix interactions in 3D as well as bulky supplies. Although they offer plausible results demonstrating the importance of specific molecules and processes, there have still been discrepancies in gene ablation and chemogenomics [4]. Around 50% of drugs that pass preclinical tests turn out to be toxic for humans. As a representative example, researchers at a German pharmaceutical company firstly discovered that thalidomide could relieve morning sickness in pregnant women. After rigorous validation via animal experiments including dogs, cats, rats, hamsters, and chickens, this drug was marketed in 1957 [5]. However, thalidomide was found to cause deformity in children born to mothers who took the drug; the babies were born with missing or abnormal limbs, feet, or hands. It turned out to be toxic for humans and was withdrawn from the market. This incident is vividly remembered as a tragedy showing the inaccuracy and uncertainty of animal experiments, giving us a valuable lesson in drug development. However, this also means that some of the drugs may be nontoxic and effective for humans even if they fail in animal models [6]. This causes rejection of potentially important drugs even before they reach clinical trials. Moreover, animal models are often ineffective in reproducing features of human tumors and autoimmune diseases, which are related with physiological processes, due to the fundamental differences in the evolution of two complex systems. Furthermore, most scientific research involving the use of animals since 2013 has begun with an ethical focus, motivating researchers to find an appropriate substitute for more effective studies [7].
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Imamura Y, Mukohara T, Shimono Y, Funakoshi Y, Chayahara N, Toyoda M, et al. Comparison of 2D-and 3D-culture models as drug-testing platforms in breast cancer. Oncol Rep. 2015;33:1837–43.
Doke SK, Dhawale SC. Alternatives to animal testing: a review. Saudi Pharmaceut J. 2015;23:223–9.
Snouwaert JN, Brigman KK, Latour AM, Malouf NN, Boucher RC, Smithies O, et al. An animal model for cystic fibrosis made by gene targeting. Science. 1992;257:1083–8.
Dick IP, Scott RC. Pig ear skin as an in‐vitro model for human skin permeability. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1992;44:640–5.
Vargesson N. Thalidomide‐induced teratogenesis: history and mechanisms. Birth Defects Res C Embryo Today. 2015;105:140–56.
Emami J. In vitro-in vivo correlation: from theory to applications. J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2006;9:169–89.
Adler S, Basketter D, Creton S, Pelkonen O, Van Benthem J, Zuang V, et al. Alternative (non-animal) methods for cosmetics testing: current status and future prospects—2010. Arch Toxicol. 2011;85:367–485.
Vailhé B, Vittet D, Feige J-J. In vitro models of vasculogenesis and angiogenesis. Lab Invest. 2001;81:439.
Kang JH, Gimble JM, Kaplan DL. In vitro 3D model for human vascularized adipose tissue. Tissue Eng Part A. 2009;15:2227–36.
Baker M. Tissue models: a living system on a chip. Nature. 2011;471:661.
Elliott NT, Yuan F. A review of three-dimensional in vitro tissue models for drug discovery and transport studies. J Pharm Sci. 2011;100:59–74.
Pati F, Gantelius J, Svahn HA. 3D bioprinting of tissue/organ models. Angew Chem Int Ed. 2016;55:4650–65.
Bhise NS, Ribas J, Manoharan V, Zhang YS, Polini A, Massa S, et al. Organ-on-a-chip platforms for studying drug delivery systems. J Control Release. 2014;190:82–93.
Lee H, Cho D-W. One-step fabrication of an organ-on-a-chip with spatial heterogeneity using a 3D bioprinting technology. Lab Chip. 2016;16:2618–25.
Mandrycky C, Wang Z, Kim K, Kim D-H. 3D bioprinting for engineering complex tissues. Biotechnol Adv. 2016;34:422–34.
Murphy SV, Atala A. 3D bioprinting of tissues and organs. Nat Biotechnol. 2014;32:773–85.
Zhang YS, Arneri A, Bersini S, Shin S-R, Zhu K, Goli-Malekabadi Z, et al. Bioprinting 3D microfibrous scaffolds for engineering endothelialized myocardium and heart-on-a-chip. Biomaterials. 2016;110:45–59.
Homan KA, Kolesky DB, Skylar-Scott MA, Herrmann J, Obuobi H, Moisan A, et al. Bioprinting of 3D convoluted renal proximal tubules on perfusable chips. Sci Rep. 2016;6:34845.
Bhise NS, Manoharan V, Massa S, Tamayol A, Ghaderi M, Miscuglio M, et al. A liver-on-a-chip platform with bioprinted hepatic spheroids. Biofabrication. 2016;8:014101.
Knowlton S, Yenilmez B, Tasoglu S. Towards single-step biofabrication of organs on a chip via 3D printing. Trends Biotechnol. 2016;34:685–8.
Hölzl K, Lin S, Tytgat L, Van Vlierberghe S, Gu L, Ovsianikov A. Bioink properties before, during and after 3D bioprinting. Biofabrication. 2016;8:032002.
Kesti M, Müller M, Becher J, Schnabelrauch M, D’Este M, Eglin D, et al. A versatile bioink for three-dimensional printing of cellular scaffolds based on thermally and photo-triggered tandem gelation. Acta Biomater. 2015;11:162–72.
Hynes RO. The extracellular matrix: not just pretty fibrils. Science. 2009;326:1216–9.
Chimene D, Lennox KK, Kaunas RR, Gaharwar AK. Advanced bioinks for 3D printing: a materials science perspective. Ann Biomed Eng. 2016;44:2090–102.
Kim BS, Kim H, Gao G, Jang J, Cho D-W. Decellularized extracellular matrix: a step towards the next generation source for bioink manufacturing. Biofabrication. 2017;9:034104.
Pati F, Jang J, Ha D-H, Kim SW, Rhie J-W, Shim J-H, et al. Printing three-dimensional tissue analogues with decellularized extracellular matrix bioink. Nat Commun. 2014;5:3935.
Choudhury D, Tun HW, Wang T, Naing MW. Organ-derived decellularized extracellular matrix: a game changer for bioink manufacturing? Trends Biotechnol. 2018;36:787.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cho, DW., Kim, B.S., Jang, J., Gao, G., Han, W., Singh, N.K. (2019). Introduction. In: 3D Bioprinting. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32222-9_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32222-9_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-32221-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-32222-9
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)