Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35246958›Full record

ArticleJournal of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine2022

Myoblast 3D bioprinting to burst in vitro skeletal muscle differentiation.

Flavio L Ronzoni, Flaminia Aliberti, Franca Scocozza, Laura Benedetti, Ferdinando Auricchio, Maurilio Sampaolesi, Gabriella Cusella, Itedale Namro Redwan, Gabriele Ceccarelli, Michele Conti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Extruded alginate tubes with myogenic potential.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Myoblast 3D bioprinting to burst in vitro skeletal muscle differentiation.Journal of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine · 2022
    Article
  15. Journal of tissue engineering
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Flavio L RonzoniDepartment of Public Health, Experimental and Forensic Medicine, Human Anatomy Unit, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Flaminia AlibertiDepartment of Public Health, Experimental and Forensic Medicine, Human Anatomy Unit, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Franca ScocozzaDepartment of Civil Engineering, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Laura BenedettiDepartment of Public Health, Experimental and Forensic Medicine, Human Anatomy Unit, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Ferdinando AuricchioDepartment of Civil Engineering, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Maurilio SampaolesiDepartment of Public Health, Experimental and Forensic Medicine, Human Anatomy Unit, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Gabriella CusellaDepartment of Public Health, Experimental and Forensic Medicine, Human Anatomy Unit, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Itedale Namro RedwanCELLINK AB, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Gabriele CeccarelliDepartment of Public Health, Experimental and Forensic Medicine, Human Anatomy Unit, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8576-694X
Michele ContiDepartment of Civil Engineering, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Skeletal muscle regeneration is one of the major areas of interest in sport medicine as well as trauma centers. Three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting (BioP) is nowadays widely adopted to manufacture 3D constructs for regenerative medicine but a comparison between the available biomaterial-based inks (bioinks) is missing. The present study aims to assess the impact of different hydrogels on the viability, proliferation, and differentiation of murine myoblasts (C2C12) encapsulated in 3D bioprinted constructs aided to muscle regeneration. We tested three different commercially available hydrogels bioinks based on: (1) gelatin methacrylate and alginate crosslinked by UV light; (2) gelatin methacrylate, xanthan gum, and alginate-fibrinogen; (3) nanofibrillated cellulose (NFC)/alginate-fibrinogen crosslinked with calcium chloride and thrombin. Constructs embedding the cells were manufactured by extrusion-based BioP and C2C12 viability, proliferation, and differentiation were assessed after 24 h, 7, 14, 21, and 28 days in culture. Although viability, proliferation, and differentiation were observed in all the constructs, among the investigated bioinks, the best results were obtained by using NFC/alginate-fibrinogen-based hydrogel from 7 to 14 days in culture, when the embedded myoblasts started fusing, forming at day 21 and day 28 multinucleated myotubes within the 3D bioprinted structures. The results revealed an extensive myotube alignment all over the linear structure of the hydrogel, demonstrating cell maturation, and enhanced myogenesis. The bioprinting strategies that we describe here denote a strong and endorsed approach for the creation of in vitro artificial muscle to improve skeletal muscle tissue engineering for future therapeutic applications.

Indexed as

BioprintingAlginatesAnimalsCelluloseFibrinogenGelatinHydrogelsMethacrylatesMiceMuscle DevelopmentMuscle, SkeletalMyoblastsPrinting, Three-DimensionalTissue EngineeringTissue ScaffoldsAlginatesCelluloseFibrinogenGelatinHydrogelsMethacrylatescommercially hydrogel bioinksmurine myoblasts (C2C12)muscle differentiationthree-dimensional (3D) bioprinting

Identifiers

PMID35246958
PMCPMC9311434

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.