Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38590606›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2024

GelMA synthesis and sources comparison for 3D multimaterial bioprinting.

Cesare Gabriele Gaglio, Désireé Baruffaldi, Candido Fabrizio Pirri, Lucia Napione, Francesca Frascella

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Broadly Accessible 3DACS applied materials & interfaces · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
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

5 authors.

Cesare Gabriele GaglioDepartment of Applied Science and Technology (DISAT)-PolitoBIOMed Lab-Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy.
Désireé BaruffaldiDepartment of Applied Science and Technology (DISAT)-PolitoBIOMed Lab-Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy.
Candido Fabrizio PirriDepartment of Applied Science and Technology (DISAT)-PolitoBIOMed Lab-Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy.
Lucia NapioneDepartment of Applied Science and Technology (DISAT)-PolitoBIOMed Lab-Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy.
Francesca FrascellaDepartment of Applied Science and Technology (DISAT)-PolitoBIOMed Lab-Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gelatin Methacryloyl (GelMA) is one of the most used biomaterials for a wide range of applications, such as drug delivery, disease modeling and tissue regeneration. GelMA is obtained from gelatin, which can be derived from different sources (e.g., bovine skin, and porcine skin), through substitution of reactive amine and hydroxyl groups with methacrylic anhydride (MAA). The degree of functionalization (DoF) can be tuned by varying the MAA amount used; thus, different protocols, with different reaction efficiency, have been developed, using various alkaline buffers (e.g., phosphate-buffered saline, DPBS, or carbonate-bicarbonate solution). Obviously, DoF modulation has an impact on the final GelMA properties, so a deep investigation on the features of the obtained hydrogel must be carried on. The purpose of this study is to investigate how different gelatin sources and synthesis methods affect GelMA properties, as literature lacks direct and systematic comparisons between these parameters, especially between synthesis methods. The final aim is to facilitate the choice of the source or synthesis method according to the needs of the desired application. Hence, chemical and physical properties of GelMA formulations were assessed, determining the DoFs, mechanical and viscoelastic properties by rheological analysis, water absorption by swelling capacity and enzymatic degradation rates. Biological tests with lung adenocarcinoma cells (A549) were performed. Moreover, since 3D bioprinting is a rapidly evolving technology thanks to the possibility of precise deposition of cell-laden biomaterials (bioinks) to mimic the 3D structures of several tissues, the potential of different GelMA formulations as bioinks have been tested with a multi-material approach, revealing its printability and versatility in various applications.

Indexed as

bioprintingGelMA bioinkmultimaterial 3D printingsacrifical polymerscaffold

Identifiers

PMID38590606
PMCPMC10999536

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.