Approximating scaffold printability utilizing computational methods

Bioprinting facilitates the generation of complex, three-dimensional (3D), cell-based constructs for various applications. Although multiple bioprinting technologies have been developed, extrusion-based systems have become the dominant technology due to the diversity of materials (bioinks) that can be utilized, either individually or in combination. However, each bioink has unique material properties and extrusion characteristics that affect bioprinting utility, accuracy, and precision. Here, we have extended our previous work to achieve high precision (i.e. repeatability) and printability across samples by optimizing bioink-specific printing parameters. Specifically, we hypothesized that a fuzzy inference system (FIS) could be used as a computational method to address the imprecision in 3D bioprinting test data and uncover the optimal printing parameters for a specific bioink that result in high accuracy and precision. To test this hypothesis, we have implemented a FIS model consisting of four inputs (bioink concentration, printing flow rate, speed, and temperature) and two outputs to quantify the precision (scaffold bioprinted linewidth variance) and printability. We validate our use of the bioprinting precision index with both standard and normalized printability factors. Finally, we utilize optimized printing parameters to bioprint scaffolds containing up to 30 × 106 cells ml−1 with high printability and precision. In total, our results indicate that computational methods are a cost-efficient measure to improve the precision and robustness of extrusion 3D bioprinting.

[1]  R. Tomlinson,et al.  Optimizing Mineralization of Bioprinted Bone Utilizing Type-2 Fuzzy Systems , 2022, Biophysica.

[2]  A. Vaccaro,et al.  Contactless Remote 3D Splinting during COVID-19: Report of Two Patients. , 2022, The journal of hand surgery Asian-Pacific volume.

[3]  A. Tamayol,et al.  In situ bioprinting: intraoperative implementation of regenerative medicine. , 2022, Trends in biotechnology.

[4]  A. Tamayol,et al.  (Bio)manufactured Solutions for Treatment of Bone Defects with Emphasis on US-FDA Regulatory Science Perspective. , 2022, Advanced nanobiomed research.

[5]  A. Tamayol,et al.  Nanoengineered myogenic scaffolds for skeletal muscle tissue engineering. , 2021, Nanoscale.

[6]  A. Tamayol,et al.  Bioinks and bioprinting strategies for skeletal muscle tissue engineering. , 2021, Advanced materials.

[7]  A. Kiliç,et al.  Developing centrifugal spun thermally cross‐linked gelatin based fibrous biomats for antibacterial wound dressing applications , 2021, Polymer Engineering & Science.

[8]  R. Tomlinson,et al.  Enhancing Precision in Bioprinting Utilizing Fuzzy Systems , 2021, bioRxiv.

[9]  A. Tamayol,et al.  In vivo printing of growth factor-eluting adhesive scaffolds improves wound healing , 2021, Bioactive materials.

[10]  R. Tomlinson,et al.  Comparison of Type-1 and Type-2 Fuzzy Systems for Mineralization of Bioprinted Bone , 2021, bioRxiv.

[11]  A. Sheikhi,et al.  In Vivo Printing of Nanoenabled Scaffolds for the Treatment of Skeletal Muscle Injuries , 2021, Advanced healthcare materials.

[12]  Derek H. Rosenzweig,et al.  The rheology of direct and suspended extrusion bioprinting , 2021, APL bioengineering.

[13]  S. Ramakrishna,et al.  Recent advanced on bioprinted gelatin methacrylate (GelMA)-based hydrogels for tissue repair. , 2021, Tissue engineering. Part A.

[14]  M. Ebrahimzadeh,et al.  Cubitus Varus Corrective Osteotomy and Graft Fashioning Using Computer Simulated Bone Reconstruction and 3D Printed Custom-Made Cutting Guides. , 2020, The archives of bone and joint surgery.

[15]  Ashkan Sedigh,et al.  Utilizing Q-Learning to Generate 3D Vascular Networks for Bioprinting Bone , 2020, bioRxiv.

[16]  P. Beredjiklian,et al.  Safety and Efficacy of Casting during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Comparison of the Mechanical Properties of Polymers Used for 3D Printing to Conventional Materials Used for the Generation of Orthopaedic Orthoses. , 2020, The archives of bone and joint surgery.

[17]  Liesbet Geris,et al.  Bayesian Multiobjective Optimisation With Mixed Analytical and Black-Box Functions: Application to Tissue Engineering , 2019, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[18]  Z. Salehi,et al.  Experimental and numerical study on a novel microfluidic method to fabricate curcumin loaded calcium alginate microfibres , 2018 .

[19]  James J. Yoo,et al.  3D Bioprinted Human Skeletal Muscle Constructs for Muscle Function Restoration , 2018, Scientific Reports.

[20]  Andreas Mark,et al.  Simulations of 3D bioprinting: predicting bioprintability of nanofibrillar inks , 2018, Biofabrication.

[21]  Malcolm Xing,et al.  3D bioprinting for biomedical devices and tissue engineering: A review of recent trends and advances , 2018, Bioactive materials.

[22]  Barry J. Doyle,et al.  Parameter optimization for 3D bioprinting of hydrogels , 2017 .

[23]  Karen Abrinia,et al.  Surface acoustic waves induced micropatterning of cells in gelatin methacryloyl (GelMA) hydrogels , 2017, Biofabrication.

[24]  Wei Sun,et al.  Effect of bioink properties on printability and cell viability for 3D bioplotting of embryonic stem cells , 2016, Biofabrication.

[25]  Edgar Yong Sheng Tan,et al.  A Mathematical Model on the Resolution of Extrusion Bioprinting for the Development of New Bioinks , 2016, Materials.

[26]  Terry K Koo,et al.  A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. , 2016, Journal of chiropractic medicine.

[27]  M. Modo,et al.  Intracerebral Cell Implantation: Preparation and Characterization of Cell Suspensions , 2016, Cell transplantation.

[28]  A. Khademhosseini,et al.  Synthesis, properties, and biomedical applications of gelatin methacryloyl (GelMA) hydrogels. , 2015, Biomaterials.

[29]  Miha Mraz,et al.  Fuzzy Logic as a Computational Tool for Quantitative Modelling of Biological Systems with Uncertain Kinetic Data , 2015, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics.

[30]  Anthony Atala,et al.  3D bioprinting of tissues and organs , 2014, Nature Biotechnology.

[31]  Xiaofeng Yang,et al.  In-silico analysis on biofabricating vascular networks using kinetic Monte Carlo simulations , 2014, Biofabrication.

[32]  Chaenyung Cha,et al.  25th Anniversary Article: Rational Design and Applications of Hydrogels in Regenerative Medicine , 2014, Advanced materials.

[33]  R. Küffner,et al.  Petri Nets with Fuzzy Logic (PNFL): Reverse Engineering and Parametrization , 2010, PloS one.

[34]  Yunxiao Liu,et al.  A biomimetic hydrogel based on methacrylated dextran-graft-lysine and gelatin for 3D smooth muscle cell culture. , 2010, Biomaterials.

[35]  J. Banga Optimization in computational systems biology , 2008, BMC Systems Biology.

[36]  Juan J. Nieto,et al.  Fuzzy Logic in Medicine and Bioinformatics , 2006, Journal of biomedicine & biotechnology.

[37]  Lin Zhang,et al.  Effects of mechanical stress/strain and estrogen on cancellous bone structure predicted by fuzzy decision , 2000, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[38]  C. Joly,et al.  Effect of Crosslinking by Microbial Transglutaminase of Gelatin Films on Lysozyme Kinetics of Release in Food Simulants , 2022, Social Science Research Network.

[39]  Jonathan M. Garibaldi,et al.  Parameter Estimation Using Metaheuristics in Systems Biology: A Comprehensive Review , 2012, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics.

[40]  Hiok Chai Quek,et al.  A Novel Biologically and Psychologically Inspired Fuzzy Decision Support System: Hierarchical Complementary Learning , 2008, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics.

[41]  Lingchong You,et al.  Toward computational systems biology , 2007, Cell Biochemistry and Biophysics.

[42]  C. van Nostrum,et al.  Novel crosslinking methods to design hydrogels. , 2002, Advanced drug delivery reviews.

[43]  H. Ramaswamy,et al.  Rheological properties of selected hydrocolloids as a function of concentration and temperature , 2001 .