The bioextrusion of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) directly seeded in a bioink enables the production of three-dimensional (3D) constructs, promoting their chondrogenic differentiation. Our study aimed to evaluate the effect of different type I collagen concentrations in the bioink on MSCs' chondrogenic differentiation. We printed 3D constructs using an alginate, gelatin, and fibrinogen-based bioink cellularized with MSCs, with four different quantities of type I collagen addition (0.0, 0.5, 1.0, and 5.0 mg per bioink syringe). We assessed the influence of the bioprinting process, the bioink composition, and the growth factor (TGF-β1) on the MSCs' survival rate. We confirmed the biocompatibility of the process and the bioinks' cytocompatibility. We evaluated the chondrogenic effects of TGF-β1 and collagen addition on the MSCs' chondrogenic properties through macroscopic observation, shrinking ratio, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction, glycosaminoglycan synthesis, histology, and type II collagen immunohistochemistry. The bioink containing 0.5 mg of collagen produces the richest hyaline-like extracellular matrix, presenting itself as a promising tool to recreate the superficial layer of hyaline cartilage. The bioink containing 5.0 mg of collagen enhances the synthesis of a calcified matrix, making it a good candidate for mimicking the calcified cartilaginous layer. Type I collagen thus allows the dose-dependent design of specific hyaline cartilage layers.
Impact statement
Three-dimensional (3D) bioextrusion is a promising cartilage tissue engineering tool.
We investigated different bioink type I collagen concentrations on mesenchymal stromal cell (MSC) chondrogenicity.
We used four different bioinks to print hydrogels.
We confirmed bioink biocompatibility and cytocompatibility for MSC chondrogenicity.
Type I collagen enables the dose-dependent design of specific hyaline cartilage layers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
NeogiT, ZhangY. Epidemiology of osteoarthritis. Rheum Dis Clin North Am, 2013; 39(1):1–19; doi: 10.1016/j.rdc.2012.10.004
2.
VinaER, KwohCK. Epidemiology of osteoarthritis: Literature update. Curr Opin Rheumatol, 2018; 30(2):160–167; doi: 10.1097/BOR.0000000000000479
3.
DieppePA, LohmanderLS. Pathogenesis and management of pain in osteoarthritis. Lancet, 2005; 365(9463):965–973; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)71086-2
4.
TrouvinA-P, PerrotS. Pain in osteoarthritis. Implications for optimal management. Joint Bone Spine, 2018; 85(4):429–434; doi: 10.1016/j.jbspin.2017.08.002
5.
MatthewsJR, BruticoJM, AbrahamDT, et al.Differences in clinical and functional outcomes between osteochondral allograft transplantation and autologous chondrocyte implantation for the treatment of focal articular cartilage defects. Orthop J Sports Med, 2022; 10(5):23259671221102062; doi: 10.1177/23259671211058425
6.
SolheimE, HegnaJ, StrandT, et al.Randomized study of long-term (15–17 years) outcome after microfracture versus mosaicplasty in knee articular cartilage defects. Am J Sports Med, 2018; 46(4):826–831; doi: 10.1177/0363546517745281
GuoX, MaY, MinY, et al.Progress and prospect of technical and regulatory challenges on tissue-engineered cartilage as therapeutic combination product. Bioact Mater, 2022; 20:501–518; doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2022.06.015
9.
XieZ, GaoM, LoboA, et al.3D bioprinting in tissue engineering for medical applications: The classic and the hybrid. Polymers (Basel), 2020; 12(8):1717; doi: 10.3390/polym12081717
10.
YilmazB, TahmasebifarA, BaranET. Bioprinting technologies in tissue engineering. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol, 2020; 171:279–319; doi: 10.1007/10_2019_108
11.
OzbolatIT, HospodiukM. Current advances and future perspectives in extrusion-based bioprinting. Biomaterials, 2016; 76:321–343; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.10.076
12.
Gungor-OzkerimPS, InciI, ZhangYS, et al.Bioinks for 3D bioprinting: An overview. Biomater Sci, 2018; 6(5):915–946; doi: 10.1039/c7bm00765e
13.
DerakhshanfarS, MbeleckR, XuK, et al.3D bioprinting for biomedical devices and tissue engineering: A review of recent trends and advances. Bioact Mater, 2018; 3(2):144–156; doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2017.11.008
14.
ShimJ-H, JangK-M, HahnSK, et al.Three-dimensional bioprinting of multilayered constructs containing human mesenchymal stromal cells for osteochondral tissue regeneration in the rabbit knee joint. Biofabrication, 2016; 8(1):014102; doi: 10.1088/1758-5090/8/1/014102
15.
BartholdJE, McCreeryKP, MartinezJ, et al.Particulate ECM biomaterial ink is 3D printed and naturally crosslinked to form structurally-layered and lubricated cartilage tissue mimics. Biofabrication, 2022; 14(2):025021; doi: 10.1088/1758-5090/ac584c
16.
LiZ, JiaS, XiongZ, et al.3D-printed scaffolds with calcified layer for osteochondral tissue engineering. J Biosci Bioeng, 2018; 126(3):389–396; doi: 10.1016/j.jbiosc.2018.03.014
17.
HanY, LianM, SunB, et al.Preparation of high precision multilayer scaffolds based on Melt Electro-Writing to repair cartilage injury. Theranostics, 2020; 10(22):10214–10230; doi: 10.7150/thno.47909
18.
ZhuM, HeX, XinC, et al.3D printing of an integrated triphasic MBG-alginate scaffold with enhanced interface bonding for hard tissue applications. J Mater Sci Mater Med, 2020; 31(12):113; doi: 10.1007/s10856-020-06459-6
19.
QiaoZ, LianM, HanY, et al.Bioinspired stratified electrowritten fiber-reinforced hydrogel constructs with layer-specific induction capacity for functional osteochondral regeneration. Biomaterials, 2021; 266:120385; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2020.120385
20.
Cournil-HenrionnetC, HuselsteinC, WangY, et al.Phenotypic analysis of cell surface markers and gene expression of human mesenchymal stem cells and chondrocytes during monolayer expansion. Biorheology, 2008; 45(3–4):513–526; doi: 10.3233/BIR-2008-0487
21.
IzadifarZ, ChangT, KulykW, et al.Analyzing biological performance of 3D-printed, cell-impregnated hybrid constructs for cartilage tissue engineering. Tissue Eng Part C Methods, 2016; 22(3):173–188; doi: 10.1089/ten.TEC.2015.0307
22.
HenrionnetC, PourchetL, NeybeckerP, et al.Combining innovative bioink and low cell density for the production of 3D-bioprinted cartilage substitutes: A pilot study. Stem Cells Int, 2020; 2020:e2487072; doi: 10.1155/2020/2487072
23.
PourchetLJ, ThepotA, AlbouyM, et al.Human skin 3D bioprinting using scaffold-free approach. Adv Healthc Mater, 2017; 6(4):1601101; doi: 10.1002/adhm.201601101
24.
LukinI, ErezumaI, MaesoL, et al.Progress in gelatin as biomaterial for tissue engineering. Pharmaceutics, 2022; 14(6):1177; doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics14061177
25.
SalamonA, van VlierbergheS, van NieuwenhoveI, et al.Gelatin-based hydrogels promote chondrogenic differentiation of human adipose tissue-derived mesenchymal stem cells in vitro. Materials, 2014; 7(2):1342–1359; doi: 10.3390/ma7021342
26.
RastogiP, KandasubramanianB. Review of alginate-based hydrogel bioprinting for application in tissue engineering. Biofabrication, 2019; 11(4):042001; doi: 10.1088/1758-5090/ab331e
27.
GrantGT, MorrisER, ReesDA, et al.Biological interactions between polysaccharides and divalent cations: The egg-box model. FEBS Lett, 1973; 32(1):195–198; doi: 10.1016/0014-5793(73)80770-7
28.
KhalilS, SunW. Bioprinting endothelial cells with alginate for 3D tissue constructs. J Biomech Eng, 2009; 131(11):111002; doi: 10.1115/1.3128729
29.
YangX, LuZ, WuH, et al.Collagen-alginate as bioink for three-dimensional (3D) cell printing based cartilage tissue engineering. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl, 2018; 83:195–201; doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2017.09.002
30.
ChuY, HuangL, HaoW, et al.Long-term stability, high strength, and 3D printable alginate hydrogel for cartilage tissue engineering application. Biomed Mater, 2021; 16(6):064102; doi: 10.1088/1748-605X/ac2595
31.
SchwarzS, KuthS, DistlerT, et al.3D printing and characterization of human nasoseptal chondrocytes laden dual crosslinked oxidized alginate-gelatin hydrogels for cartilage repair approaches. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl, 2020; 116:111189; doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2020.111189
32.
IranmaneshP, GowdiniM, KhademiA, et al.Bioprinting of three-dimensional scaffold based on alginate-gelatin as soft and hard tissue regeneration. J Mater Res Technol, 2021; 14:2853–2864; doi: 10.1016/j.jmrt.2021.08.069
33.
Rojas-MurilloJA, Simental-MendíaMA, Moncada-SaucedoNK, et al.Physical, mechanical, and biological properties of fibrin scaffolds for cartilage repair. Int J Mol Sci, 2022; 23(17):9879; doi: 10.3390/ijms23179879
34.
WeiselJW. Fibrinogen and Fibrin. In: Advances in Protein Chemistry. Academic Press, 2005; pp. 247–299; doi: 10.1016/S0065-3233(05)70008-5
35.
WangZH, ZhangJ, ZhangQ, et al.Evaluation of bone matrix gelatin/fibrin glue and chitosan/gelatin composite scaffolds for cartilage tissue engineering. Genet Mol Res, 2016; 15(3):1–8; doi: 10.4238/gmr.15038431
36.
ElangoJ, Zamora-LedezmaC, GeB, et al.Paradoxical duel role of collagen in rheumatoid arthritis: Cause of inflammation and treatment. Bioengineering (Basel), 2022; 9(7):321; doi: 10.3390/bioengineering9070321
YooTJ, KimSY, StuartJM, et al.Induction of arthritis in monkeys by immunization with type II collagen. J Exp Med, 1988; 168(2):777–782; doi: 10.1084/jem.168.2.777
39.
ZhangJ, ElangoJ, WangS, et al.Characterization of immunogenicity associated with the biocompatibility of type I collagen from tilapia fish skin. Polymers, 2022; 14(11):2300; doi: 10.3390/polym14112300
40.
LeeJ, YeoM, KimW, et al.Development of a tannic acid cross-linking process for obtaining 3D porous cell-laden collagen structure. Int J Biol Macromol, 2018; 110:497–503; doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.10.105
41.
KimYB, LeeH, KimGH. Strategy to achieve highly porous/biocompatible macroscale cell blocks, using a collagen/genipin-bioink and an optimal 3D printing process. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces, 2016; 8(47):32230–32240; doi: 10.1021/acsami.6b11669
42.
RenX, WangF, ChenC, et al.Engineering zonal cartilage through bioprinting collagen type II hydrogel constructs with biomimetic chondrocyte density gradient. BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 2016; 17:301; doi: 10.1186/s12891-016-1130-8
43.
SheY, FanZ, WangL, et al.3D printed biomimetic PCL scaffold as framework interspersed with collagen for long segment tracheal replacement. Front Cell Dev Biol, 2021; 9:629796; doi: 10.3389/fcell.2021.629796
44.
LeeC-F, HsuY-H, LinY-C, et al.3D printing of collagen/oligomeric proanthocyanidin/oxidized hyaluronic acid composite scaffolds for articular cartilage repair. Polymers, 2021; 13(18):3123; doi: 10.3390/polym13183123
45.
GoldbergRL, KolibasLM. An improved method for determining proteoglycans synthesized by chondrocytes in culture. Connect Tissue Res, 1990; 24(3–4):265–275; doi: 10.3109/03008209009152154
46.
MessaoudiO, HenrionnetC, BourgeK, et al.Stem cells and extrusion 3D printing for hyaline cartilage engineering. Cells, 2021; 10(1):2; doi: 10.3390/cells10010002
47.
CostantiniM, IdaszekJ, SzökeK, et al.3D bioprinting of BM-MSCs-loaded ECM biomimetic hydrogels for in vitro neocartilage formation. Biofabrication, 2016; 8(3):035002; doi: 10.1088/1758-5090/8/3/035002
48.
XuM, WangX, YanY, et al.An cell-assembly derived physiological 3D model of the metabolic syndrome, based on adipose-derived stromal cells and a gelatin/alginate/fibrinogen matrix. Biomaterials, 2010; 31(14):3868–3877; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.01.111
49.
LamT, DehneT, KrügerJP, et al.Photopolymerizable gelatin and hyaluronic acid for stereolithographic 3D bioprinting of tissue-engineered cartilage. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater, 2019; 107(8):2649–2657; doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.34354
50.
GuL, LiT, SongX, et al.Preparation and characterization of methacrylated gelatin/bacterial cellulose composite hydrogels for cartilage tissue engineering. Regen Biomater, 2020; 7(2):195–202; doi: 10.1093/rb/rbz050
51.
LuoX, LiuY, PangJ, et al.Thermo/photo dual-crosslinking chitosan-gelatin methacrylate hydrogel with controlled shrinking property for contraction fabrication. Carbohydr Polym, 2020; 236:116067; doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2020.116067
52.
Olate-MoyaF, ArensL, WilhelmM, et al.Chondroinductive alginate-based hydrogels having graphene oxide for 3D printed scaffold fabrication. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces, 2020; 12(4):4343–4357; doi: 10.1021/acsami.9b22062
53.
Ewa-ChoyYW, Pingguan-MurphyB, Abdul-GhaniNA, et al.Effect of alginate concentration on chondrogenesis of co-cultured human adipose-derived stem cells and nasal chondrocytes: A biological study. Biomater Res, 2017; 21(19):1–11; doi: 10.1186/s40824-017-0105-7
54.
HanW, SinghNK, KimJJ, et al.Directed differential behaviors of multipotent adult stem cells from decellularized tissue/organ extracellular matrix bioinks. Biomaterials, 2019; 224:119496; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2019.119496
55.
HolmesB, ZhuW, LiJ, et al.Development of novel three-dimensional printed scaffolds for osteochondral regeneration. Tissue Eng Part A, 2015; 21(1–2):403–415; doi: 10.1089/ten.tea.2014.0138
56.
MarquesCF, DiogoGS, PinaS, et al.Collagen-based bioinks for hard tissue engineering applications: A comprehensive review. J Mater Sci Mater Med, 2019; 30(3):32; doi: 10.1007/s10856-019-6234-x
57.
BellisSL. Advantages of RGD peptides for directing cell association with biomaterials. Biomaterials, 2011; 32(18):4205–4210; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.02.029
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
