Page 15 - IJB-9-5

International Journal of Bioprinting 3D printed edible bird’s nests

Figure 2. Preparation and evaluation of the feeding layer of TeeBN. (A) Scheme of the feeding layer. (B) H-NMR spectrum of GelMA. (C) GelMA solution
1
and GelMA hydrogel formation after photo-crosslinking. (D) The flow sweeps of GelMA with different concentration. (E) Exploring the suitable printing
window by Pr values; “non-printable” is defined as “unable to extrude”; “congested” and “over-concentrated” are defined as Pr >1; “collapse” and “forming
square structure of ink” are defined as Pr < 1; “printable” is defined as Pr = 1. (F) The feeding layer printing model in printable window. (G) Schematic of
different culture models. (H) Live/dead staining of different culture models. Green: living cell. Red: dead cell; scale bar, 200 μm. (I) Quantification of living
cells, statistic by Image J; *P < 0.05 and ****P < 0.0001(n = 3). (J) Quantification of loading cells in different culture models, statistic by Image J; ****P <
0.0001 (n = 3). (K) Quantification of proliferation cells in different culture models, statistic by Image J; ** P < 0.01 and **** P < 0.0001 (n = 3). (L) The gene
of αSMA, Ki67, CK18 and AQP5 expression. * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001, and **** P < 0.0001, n.s. means not significant (n = 3). (M) Cytoskeleton
staining. Green (Phalloidin): cytoskeleton; blue (DAPI): nucleus; scale bar, 200 μm. White dotted box is the enlarged area, scale bar, 100 μm. (N) The cumu-
lative release of EGF of epithelial cells for 1, 3, 5, and 7 days. All results were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc multiple comparisons
tests in GraphPad Prism 8. Results of 3D Encapsulation vs. 2D Surface, 3D Printing vs. 2D Surface and 3D Printing vs. 3D Encapsulation are shown in
Figures I, J, K, and L.

Volume 9 Issue 5 (2023) 7 https://doi.org/10.18063/ijb.691