Page 115 - IJB-4-1

Sriphutkiat Y, et al

4. Conclusion -mimetic PCL scaffolds: Influence of molecular weight
and pore geometry. Biofabrication, 8(2): 025020. http://
In this study, the device with PDMS cavity and IDTs to dx.doi.org/10.1088/1758–5090/8/2/025020
form cell spheroids by SSAW was developed, and its 5. Sing S L, An J, Yeong W Y, et al., 2016, Laser and
performance was evaluated. The effects of excitation electron-beam powder-bed additive manufacturing of
frequency on the accumulation time and the size of cell metallic implants: A review on processes, materials and
spheroids immediately after the formation and growth designs. J Orthop Res, 34(3): 369–385. http://dx.doi.org/
and cell viability after culturing for up to 7 days were 10.1002/jor.23075
studied. The cell accumulation time by SSAW using the 6. Zhuang P, Sun A X, An J, et al., 2018, 3D neural tissue
high-frequency (23.8 MHz) excitation could be reduced
by ~2.5 fold compared to that using the low-frequency models: From spheroids to bioprinting. Biomaterials, 154:
(10.4 MHz) frequency excitation in the simulation. Size 113–133. http: //dx. doi. org/ 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2017.
of cell spheroids formed by the high-frequency excitation is 10.002
smaller than that by the low-frequency excitation by 7. Lee J M, Sing S L, Tan E Y S, et al., 2016, Bioprinting in
about 43% on day 0 and 34% on day 7, respectively. The cardiovascular tissue engineering: A review. Int J
viability of HepG2 cell spheroids is over 90% up to 7 days Bioprint,2: 27–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.18063/Ijb.2016.02.
of cell culture and similar to the control group, which 006
illustrates no influence of acoustic manipulation and suggests 8. Kolesky D B, Truby R L, Gladman A, et al., 2014, 3D
the acoustically prepared cell spheroids as good candidate bioprinting of vascularized, heterogeneous cell-laden
of bioink. In the future, this technology could be applied tissue constructs. Adv Mater, 26(19): 3124–3130. http://dx.
for various biotechnology applications (e.g., drug testing, doi.org/10.1002/adma.201305506
tissue engineering, and 3D bioprinting). 9. Murphy S V, Atala A, 2014, 3D bioprinting of tissues
Conflict of Interest and organs. Nat Biotechnology, 32(8): 773–785. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2958
No conflict of interest was reported by all the authors. 10. Mehrban N, Teoh G Z, Birchall M A, 2016, 3D
Acknowledgments bioprinting for tissue engineering: Stem cells in
hydrogels. Int J Bioprint, 2: 6–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.
This study was partially funded by Academic Research 18063/Ijb.2016.01.006
Fund (AcRF) Tier 1 (RG171/15), Ministry of Education, 11. Ji S, Guvendiren M, 2017, Recent advances in bioink
Singapore, and A*STAR-P&G Biomedical Research design for 3D bioprinting of tissues and organs. Front
Council Strategic Positioning Fund (BMRC SPF, APG Bioeng Biotechnol, 5: 23. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.
2013/045A). 2017.00023
12. Lin R Z, Chang H Y, 2008, Recent advances in three-
References
dimensional multicellular spheroid culture for biomedical
research. Biotechnol J, 3(9–10): 1172–1184. http://dx.doi.
1. Ng W L, Wang S, Yeong W Y, et al., 2016, Skin org/10.1002/biot.200700228
bioprinting: Impending reality or fantasy? Trends 13. Page H, Flood P, Reynaud E G, 2013, Three-dimensional
Biotechnol, 35(3): 278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech. tissue cultures: Current trends and beyond. Cell Tissue
2016.04.006 Res, 352(1): 123–131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00441–
2. Ng W L, Tan J, Yeong W Y, et al., 2018, Proof-of- 012–1441–5
concept: 3D bioprinting of pigmented human skin 14. LeCluyse E L, Bullock P L, Parkinson A, 1996,
constructs. Biofabrication, 10. Strategies for restoration and maintenance of normal
3. Suntornnond R, Tan E Y S, An J, et al., 2017, A highly hepatic structure and function in long-term cultures of rat
printable and biocompatible hydrogel composite for hepatocytes. Adv Drug Deliv Rev, 22(1): 133–186. http://
direct printing of soft and perfusable vasculature-like dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169–409x(96)00418–8
structures. Sci Rep, 7(1): 16902. http://dx.doi.org/10.103 15. Shepherd J A, Kerlikowske K, Ma L, et al., 2011,
8/s41598–017–17198–0 Volume of mammographic density and risk of breast
4. Olubamiji A D, Izadifar Z, Si J L, et al., 2016, cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 20(7):1473–
Modulating mechanical behaviour of 3D-printed cartilage 1482. http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1055–9965.EPI–10–1150

International Journal of Bioprinting (2018)–Volume 4, Issue 1 9