Bioprinting-Associated Shear Stress and Hydrostatic Pressure Affect the Angiogenic Potential of Human Umbilical Vein Endothelial Cells
Bioprinting-associated shear stress and hydrostatic pressure can negatively affect the functionality of dispensed cells. We hypothesized that these mechanical stimuli can potentially affect the angiogenic potential of human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs). A numerical simulation model was used to calculate the shear stress during microvalve-based droplet ejection. The impact of different levels of applied pressure and the resulting shear stress levels on the angiogenic potential of HUVECs was investigated after up to 14 days of cultivation. In vitro results showed that bioprinting-associated stress not only has short-term but also long-term effects. The short-term viability results indicate a 20% loss in post-printing cell viability in samples printed under the harshest conditions compared to those with the lowest shear stress level. Further, it was revealed that even in two-dimensional culture, HUVECs were able to form a capillary-like network organization regardless of bioprinting pressure. In three-dimensional culture experiments; however, the HUVECs printed at 3 bar were not able to form tubular structures due to their exposure to high shear stress levels. In conclusion, this study provides new insights into how the bioprinting process should be conducted to control printing-associated shear stress and hydrostatic pressure to preserve the functionality and angiogenetic potential of HUVEC.
1. Malda J, Visser J, Melchels J, et al., 2013, 25th Anniversary Article: Engineering Hydrogels for Biofabrication. Adv Mater, 25:5011–28. http://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201302042
2. Wang Z, Kapadia W, Li C, et al., 2021, Tissue-specific Engineering: 3D Bioprinting in Regenerative Medicine. J Control Release, 329:237–56. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconrel.2020.11.044
3. Jain RK, Au P, Tam J, et al., 2005, Engineering Vascularized Tissue. Nat Biotechnol, 23:821–3. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0705-821.
4. Subbiah R, Thrivikraman G, Parthiban SP, et al., 2021, Prevascularized Hydrogels with Mature Vascular Networks Promote the Regeneration of Critical-size Calvarial Bone Defects In Vivo. J Tissue Eng Regen Med, 15:219–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/term.3166
5. Zimoch J, Zielinska D, Michalak-Micka K, et al., 2021, Bio-engineering a Prevascularized Human Tri-layered Skin Substitute Containing a Hypodermis. Acta Biomater, 134:215–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2021.07.033
6. Kreimendahl F, Köpf M, Thiebes AL, et al., 2017, Three-dimensional Printing and Angio-genesis: Tailored Agarose-type I Collagen Blends Comprise 3D Printability and Angio-genesis Potential for Tissue Engineered Substitutes. Tissue Eng Part C Methods, 23:604–15. https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.tec.2017.0234
7. Stratesteffen H, Köpf M, Kreimendahl F, et al., 2017, GelMA collagen Blends Enable Drop-on-demand 3D Printablility and Promote Angiogenesis. Biofabrication, 9:045002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/aa857c
8. Blaeser A, Campos DF, Fischer H, 2017, 3D Bioprinting of Cell-laden Hydrogels for Advanced Tissue Engineering. Curr Opin Biomed Eng, 2:58–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobme.2017.04.003
9. Simunovic F, Finkenzeller G, 2021, Vascularization Strategies in Bone Tissue Engineering. Cells, 10:1749. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells10071749
10. Blaeser A, Campos DF, Puster U, et al., 2016, Controlling Shear Stress in 3D-Bioprinting is a Key Factor to Balance Printing Resolution and Stem Cell Integrity. Adv Healthc Mater, 5:326–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.201500677
11. Jentsch S, Nasehi R, Kuckelkorn C, et al., 2021, Multiscale 3D Bioprinting by Nozzle-free Acoustic Droplet Ejection. Small Methods, 5:e2000971. https://doi.org/10.1002/smtd.202000971
12. Chand R, Muhire BS, Vijayavenkataraman SS, 2022, Computational Fluid Dynamics Assessment of the Effect of Bioprinting Parameters in Extrusion Bioprinting. Int J Bioprint, 8:45-60. http://doi.org/10.18063/ijb.v8i2.545
13. Axpe E, Oyen ML, 2016, Applications of Alginate-based Bioinks in 3D Bioprinting. Int J Mol Sci, 17:1976. http://doi.org/10.3390/ijms17121976.
14. Augst AD, Kong HJ, Mooney DJ, 2006, Alginate Hydrogels as Biomaterials. Macromol Biosci, 6:623–33. http://doi.org/10.1002/mabi.200600069
15. Kuo CK, Ma PX, 2001, Ionically Crosslinked Alginate Hydrogels as Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering: Part 1. Structure, Gelation Rate and Mechanical Properties. Biomaterials, 22:511–21. http://doi.org/10.1016/s0142-9612(00)00201-5
16. Gasperini L, Mano JF, Reis RL, 2014, Natural Polymers for the Microencapsulation of Cells J R Soc Interface, 11:20140817. http://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2014.0817
17. Lee KY, Mooney DJ, 2001, Hydrogels for Tissue Engineering. Chem Rev, 101:1869–79. http://doi.org/10.1021/cr000108x
18. Duan B, Hockaday LA, Kang KH, et al., 2013, 3D Bioprinting of Heterogeneous Aortic Valve Conduits with Alginate/Gelatin Hydrogels. J Biomed Mater Res A, 101:1255–64. http://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.34420
19. Tabriz AG, Hermida MA, Leslie NR, et al., Three dimensional Bioprinting of Complex Cell Laden Alginate Hydrogel Structures. Biofabrication, 7:045012. http://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/7/4/045012
20. Papaioannou TG, Stefanadis C, 2005, Vascular Wall Shear Stress: Basic Principles and Methods. Hellenic J Cardiol, 46:9–15.
21. Koutsiaris AG, Tachmitzi SV, Batis N, et al., 2007, Volume Flow and Wall Shear Stress Quantification in the Human Conjunctival Capillaries and Post-capillary Venules In Vivo. Biorheology, 44:375–86.
22. Reneman RS, Hoeks AP, 2008, Wall Shear Stress as Measured In Vivo: Consequences for the Design of the Arterial System. Med Biol Eng Comput, 46:499–507. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-008-0330-2
23. Mahmoud MM, Serbanovic-Canic J, Feng S, et al., 2017, Shear Stress Induces Endothelial-to-mesenchymal Transition Via the Transcription Factor Snail. Sci Rep, 7:3375. http://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-03532-z
24. van der Meer AD, Poot AA, Feijen J, et al., 2010, Analyzing Shear Stress-Induced Alignment of Actin Filaments in Endothelial Cells with a Microfluidic Assay. Biomicrofluidics, 4:11103. http://doi.org/10.1063/1.3366720
25. Pang Z, Antonetti DA, Tarbell JM, 2005, Shear Stress Regulates HUVEC Hydraulic Conductivity by Occludin Phosphorylation. Ann Biomed Eng, 33:1536–45. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-005-7786-0
26. Faulkner-Jones A, Fyfe C, Cornelissen DJ, et al., 2015, Bioprinting of Human Pluripotent Stem Cells and their Directed Differentiation into Hepatocyte-like Cells for the Generation of Mini-livers in 3D. Biofabrication, 7:044102. http://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/7/4/044102
27. Markstedt K, Mantas A, Tournier I, et al., 2015, 3D Bioprinting Human Chondrocytes with Nanocellulose alginate Bioink for Cartilage Tissue Engineering Applications. Biomacromolecules, 16:1489–96. http://doi.org/10.1021/acs.biomac.5b00188
28. Nair K, Gandhi M, Khalil S, et al., 2009, Characterization of Cell Viability during Bioprinting Processes. Biotechnol J, 4:1168–77. http://doi.org/10.1002/biot.200900004
29. Horváth L, Umehara Y, Jud C, et al., 2015, Engineering an In Vitro Air-blood Barrier by 3D Bioprinting. Sci Rep, 5:7974. http://doi.org/10.1038/srep07974
30. Khalil S, Sun W, 2009, Bioprinting Endothelial Cells with Alginate for 3D Tissue Constructs. J Biomech Eng, 131:111002. http://doi.org/10.1115/1.3128729
31. Wang H, Riha GM, Yan S, et al., 2005, Shear Stress Induces Endothelial Differentiation from a Murine Embryonic Mesenchymal Progenitor Cell Line. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol, 25:1817–23. http://doi.org/10.1161/01.ATV.0000175840.90510.a8
32. Grolman JM, Weinand P, Mooney DJ, 2020, Extracellular Matrix Plasticity as a Driver of Cell Spreading. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 117:25999–6007. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2008801117
33. Chaudhuri O, Gu L, Klumpers D, et al., 2016, Hydrogels with Tunable Stress Relaxation Regulate Stem Cell Fate and Activity. Nat Mater, 15:326–34. http://doi.org/10.1038/nmat4489
34. Figueiredo L, Pace R, D’Arros C, et al., 2018, Assessing Glucose and Oxygen Diffusion in Hydrogels for the Rational Design of 3D Stem Cell Scaffolds in Regenerative Medicine. J Tissue Eng Regen Med, 12:1238–46. http://doi.org/10.1002/term.2656
35. Malda J, Rouwkema J, Martens DE, et al., Oxygen Gradients in Tissue-engineered PEGT/PBT Cartilaginous Constructs: Measurement and Modeling. Biotechnol Bioeng, 86:9–18. http://doi.org/10.1002/bit.20038
36. Bland E, Dréau D, Burg KJ, 2013, Overcoming Hypoxia to Improve Tissue-engineering Approaches to Regenerative Medicine. J Tissue Eng Regen Med, 7:505–14. http://doi.org/10.1002/term.540
37. Köpf M, 2019. Synthese Sowie Rheologische, Mechanische und Zellbiologische Charakterisierung von Agarose-Kollagen-Hydrogel-Mischungen für den 3D-Druck von Prävaskularisiertem Luftröhren-Ersatzgewebe, PhD Thesis, RWTH Aachen University. http://doi.org/10.18154/RWTH-2019-05138