Page 11 - IJB-10-5

International Journal of Bioprinting 3D bioprinting for nanoparticle evaluation

Table 1. Bioprinted tumor models for evaluation of various chemotherapeutic nanoparticles.
Printed Used NPs Used drug Cell line Main materials of Bioprinting NPs evaluation study Ref.
model bioink method
Tumor Poly(ethylene Docetaxel MCF-7 dECM (adECM), Extrusion-based Cellular uptake, 33
models glycol)poly(ω- and GelMA 3D bioprinting cytotoxicity
pentadecalactone-co-
N-methyldiethyleneam
ine-co-3,3ʹ-
thiodipropionate)
(PEG-PPMT)
Pluronic® F127 Curcumin MDA- Sodium alginate, Extrusion-based Cytotoxicity 36
MB-231 gelatin, and bioprinting
nanoclay
Keratin-coated gold NP N/A U87-MG Gelatin, GelMA, Inkjet bioprinting Immunofluorescence 37
alginate study
Gold NP N/A MCF-7 hDAT Suspended Cytotoxicity test, H&E 38
layer additive staining
manufacturing
Glyceryl monoolein/ Meloxicam MCF-7, Poly Extrusion-based Cell viability, cytotoxicity 40
Pluronic® F127 mixed) MDA- (ε-caprolactone), bioprinting study
MB-231 25 kDa
Cetyl palmitate-based Paclitaxel, U87-MG Nanoshuttle- Magnetic Cellular uptake, 44
PEGylated solid lipid sorafenib PL (Nano3D bioprinting cytotoxicity study
NP Biosciences)
DSS lignin NP Benzazulene PC3- Nanoshuttle- Magnetic Cellular uptake, 46
MM2, PL (Nano3D bioprinting cytotoxicity study
MDA- Biosciences)
MB-231,
A549
Abbreviations: adECM: Adipose-derived decellularized extracellular matrix; dECM: Decellularized extracellular matrix;
DSS: Dentin phosphophoryn-derived peptide; GelMA: Gelatin methacryloyl; hDAT: Human decellularized adipose tissue; NP: Nanoparticle.

to illustrate the innovative approaches and breakthroughs evaluation of NPs for cancer treatment. The traditional
that have improved the evaluation methods for NP-based evaluation methods for NPs, such as 2D cell culture and
therapies (Figure 1). animal models, often fail to accurately replicate the human
tumor microenvironment and the complex transportation
2. Three-dimensional bioprinted mechanisms of NPs within it. This limitation hinders
cancer models the translation of nano-drug formulations from
preclinical studies to clinical applications. To address
Three-dimensional bioprinting technology has emerged these challenges, the researcher team leveraged the
as an innovative tool for developing and evaluating NP- capabilities of 3D bioprinting to create a more realistic
based therapies used in cancer research. 26,27 Recent studies and functional tumor model and utilized adipose-derived
have proposed methods to create models that mimic actual decellularized ECM (adECM) to enhance the bioink’s
tumor tissues using 3D bioprinting, thereby enabling a properties. This hybrid bioink, combining adECM and
more accurate assessment of the efficacy and safety of
NPs. This approach provides insights that are difficult to gelatin methacryloyl (GelMA), provides a scaffold that
obtain from traditional 2D cell culture methods and plays closely mimics the natural ECM in tumors. This bioink
a crucial role in maximizing the effectiveness of drug was carefully optimized to ensure excellent printability,
cytocompatibility, bioactivity, and mechanical support,
delivery systems. 28–31
which are essential for maintaining cell viability and
2.1. Three-dimensional bioprinted tumor models function in 3D culture. The bioprinting process involved
using adipose decellularized extracellular a modified extrusion-based 3D printer that accurately
matrix-enhanced bioinks for evaluating deposited the hybrid bioink layer by layer to form complex
PEG-PPMT nanoparticles 3D tumor structures. One of the significant advantages of
Chen et al. developed a sophisticated 3D-bioprinted using this ECM-enhanced bioink is its ability to replicate
33
tumor model using an extracellular matrix (ECM)- key characteristics of the tumor microenvironment,
enhanced hybrid bioink, which significantly improves the including ECM remodeling and epithelial-mesenchymal

Volume 10 Issue 5 (2024) 3 doi: 10.36922/ijb.4273