Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40071586›Full record

ArticleBiotechnology progress

Development of multiparametric bioprinting method for generation of 3D printed cell-laden structures.

Sophie Lipshutz, Yoontae Kim, Micaila Curtis, Leanne Friedrich, Stella Alimperti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biotechnology progress. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Sophie LipshutzDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular & Cellular Biology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
Yoontae KimDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular & Cellular Biology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
Micaila CurtisDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular & Cellular Biology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
Leanne FriedrichMaterials Science and Engineering Division, Material Measurement Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
Stella AlimpertiDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular & Cellular Biology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7954-5737

Funding

Regulation of epithelial barrierR01DE031046 · NIDCR · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI ALIMPERTI, STELLA, GRAVES, DANA T · 2021 to 2025
$2.3M
3D bioengineered microfluidic platform for research on Ewing sarcoma bone metastasisR21CA294025 · NCI · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI ALIMPERTI, STELLA, KITLINSKA, JOANNA B. · 2024 to 2024
$401k
Georgetown University Startup Funds 91252NCI NIH HHS R21 CA294025NIDCR NIH HHS R01 DE031046NIH HHS R01DE031046NIH HHS R21CA294025Toulmin Award
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The organ transplantation field requires new approaches for replacing and regenerating tissues due to the lack of adequate transplant methods. Three-dimensional (3D) extrusion-based bioprinting is a rapid prototyping approach that can engineer 3D  scaffolds for tissue regeneration applications. In this process, 3D printed cell-based constructs, consisting of biomaterials, growth factors, and cells, are formed by the extrusion of bioinks from nozzles. However, extrusion applies shear stresses to cells, often leading to cellular damage or membrane rupture. To address this limitation, herein, we developed and optimized a 3D bioprinting approach by evaluating the effect of key extrusion-based 3D bioprinting parameters-bioink viscosity, nozzle size, shape, and printing speed-on cell viability. Our results revealed  that cells printed in higher-viscosity bioinks, with smaller, cylindrical nozzles, exhibited lower viability due to their exposure to high shear stresses. Translational flow speed had a cell-dependent impact, as different cell types have different sensitivities to the magnitude and duration of shear stress inside the nozzle. Overall, evaluating these parameters could facilitate the development of 3D high-resolution bioprinted constructs for tissue regeneration applications, offering a more efficient alternative to traditional fabrication methods, which are often labor intensive, expensive, and repetitive.

Indexed as

BioprintingPrinting, Three-DimensionalTissue EngineeringTissue ScaffoldsBiocompatible MaterialsCell SurvivalHumansViscosityBiocompatible Materials3D bioprintingadditive manufacturingcell viabilityregenerative medicineshear stresstissue engineering

Identifiers

PMID40071586
PMCPMC12344548

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.