AccScience Publishing / IJB / Online First / DOI: 10.36922/IJB026280295
Cite this article
22
Download
382
Views
Journal Browser
Volume | Year
Issue
Search
News and Announcements
View All
RESEARCH ARTICLE

Human airway-derived extracellular matrix bioinks for the engineering of proximal airway-like constructs: A proof-of-feasibility study

Heather Wanczyk1 Nina D. Kosciuszek1,2 Joanne Walker1 Daniel J. Weiss3* Christine Finck1,2*
Show Less
1 Department of Pediatrics, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT , United States of America
2 Department of Surgery, Connecticut Children's Medical Center, Hartford, CT , United States of America
3 Department of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT , United States of America
Received: 8 July 2026 | Revised: 8 August 2026 | Accepted: 13 August 2026 | Published online: 14 August 2026
© 2026 by the Author(s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ )
Abstract

Three-dimensional bioprinting offers a promising strategy for the fabrication of physiologically relevant airway constructs; however, generating hollow, anatomically accurate proximal airway structures using tissue-specific bioinks with sufficient printability and mechanical stability remains challenging. This study describes the development and characterization of biocompatible, polymer-blended human airway-derived decellularized extracellular matrix (AW-dECM) bioinks for extrusion bioprinting of structurally and mechanically relevant proximal airway-like hollow constructs. A formulation consisting of 30 mg/mL AW-dECM and nanofibrillar cellulose-alginate conjugated to RGD supported the fabrication of simple and complex hollow airway structures with elastic moduli of approximately 8-10 kPa, within the range measured for bulk proximal airway tissue. The bioinks also supported preliminary primary human airway epithelial cell viability and adhesion, as well as gene expression patterns consistent with differentiation toward mucociliary and secretory phenotypes during 28 days of air-liquid interface culture. Following subcutaneous implantation in immunocompetent rats, acellular AW-dECM polymer-blended bioinks maintained structural integrity over 30 days and were tolerated without evidence of infection or tissue necrosis, although a localized foreign body response was observed. Collectively, these findings demonstrate proof of concept for combining tissue-specific AW-dECM with commercially available printable polymers to fabricate mechanically relevant hollow airway-like constructs. This approach provides a basis for further development of advanced ex vivo airway models and regenerative airway engineering strategies.

Keywords
Airway-derived decellularized extracellular matrix
3D bioprinting
Proximal airways
Polymer blended bioinks
Tissue engineering
Viscoelasticity
Funding
Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health (Award Number T32AR079114 and R21 HD104069, NSF Recode 3 Award 2225554). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
Conflict of interest
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
  1. Atale N, Ling Z, Ren X, et al. Establishing an Ex Vivo Culture Model of Human Proximal Airway Tissue. Methods Protoc. 2025;8(6):20251102. doi: 10.3390/mps8060132
  2. Heise RL. Computational, Ex Vivo, and Tissue Engineering Techniques for Modeling Large Airways. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2023;1413:107–120. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-26625-6_6
  3. Lee-Ferris RE, Okuda K, Galiger JR, et al. Prolonged airway explant culture enables study of health, disease, and viral pathogenesis. Sci Adv. 2025;11(17):eadp0451. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adp0451
  4. Han JJ. Surgeon who implanted the world's first artificial trachea found guilty of causing bodily harm. Artif Organs. 2022;46(9):1720–1721. doi: 10.1111/aor.14358
  5. Zhang Y, Liu Y, Shu C, et al. 3D bioprinting of the airways and lungs for applications in tissue engineering and in vitro models. J Tissue Eng. 2024;15:20417314241309183. doi: 10.1177/20417314241309183
  6. Park JH, Ahn M, Park SH, et al. 3D bioprinting of a trachea-mimetic cellular construct of a clinically relevant size. Biomaterials. 2021;279:121246. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2021.121246
  7. Bae SW, Lee KW, Park JH, et al. 3D Bioprinted Artificial Trachea with Epithelial Cells and Chondrogenic-Differentiated Bone Marrow-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells. Int J Mol Sci. 2018;19(6):1624. doi: 10.3390/ijms19061624
  8. Torsello M, Salvati A, Borro L, et al. 3D bioprinting in airway reconstructive surgery: A pilot study. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2022;161:111253. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2022.111253
  9. Johnston DR, Watters K, Ferrari LR, et al. Laryngeal cleft: evaluation and management. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2014;78(6):905–911. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2014.03.015
  10. Hysinger EB. Laryngomalacia, Tracheomalacia and Bronchomalacia. Curr Probl Pediatr Adolesc Health Care. 2018;48(4):113–118. doi: 10.1016/j.cppeds.2018.03.002
  11. Shteinberg M, Haq IJ, Polineni D, et al. Cystic fibrosis. Lancet. 2021;397(10290):2195–2211. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(20)32542-3
  12. Despotes KA, Zariwala MA, Davis SD, et al. Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia: A Clinical Review. Cells. 2024;13(12):974. doi: 10.3390/cells13110974
  13. Myo YPA, Camus SV, Freeberg MAT, et al. Protocol for differentiating primary human small airway epithelial cells at the air-liquid interface. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2025;328(6):L757–l771. doi: 10.1152/ajplung.00380.2024
  14. Berical A, Beermann ML, Suzuki S, et al. Generation of Airway Epithelial Cell Air-Liquid Interface Cultures from Human Pluripotent Stem Cells. J Vis Exp. 2022(184):e63882. doi: 10.3791/63882
  15. Chen L, Gabriela AH, Pathinayake PS, et al. Inflammation-induced loss of CFTR-expressing airway ionocytes in non-eosinophilic asthma. Respirology. 2025;30(1):25–40. doi: 10.1111/resp.14833
  16. Moses E, Wang T, Corbett S, et al. Molecular Impact of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Exposure in Human Bronchial Epithelium. Toxicol Sci. 2017;155(1):248–257. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfw198
  17. Brocke SA, Speen AM, Masood S, et al. Comparison of permeable cell culture inserts for use in culture of a human in vitro air–liquid interface model system. Physiological Reports. 2024;12(3):e15921. doi: 10.14814/phy2.15921
  18. Hoffman ET, Uriarte JJ, Uhl FE, et al. Human alveolar hydrogels promote morphological and transcriptional differentiation in iPSC-derived alveolar type 2 epithelial cells. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):12057. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-37685-x
  19. Noori A, Mokhber Dezfouli MR, Rajabi S, et al. Decellularized lung extracellular matrix scaffold promotes human embryonic stem cell differentiation towards alveolar progenitors. Cell J. 2023;25(6):372–382. doi: 10.22074/cellj.2023.563370.1148
  20. Garlíková Z, Silva AC, Rabata A, et al. Generation of a Close-to-Native In Vitro System to Study Lung Cells-Extracellular Matrix Crosstalk. Tissue Eng Part C Methods. 2018;24(1):1–13. doi: 10.1089/ten.tec.2017.0283
  21. Gilpin SE, Ren X, Okamoto T, et al. Enhanced lung epithelial specification of human induced pluripotent stem cells on decellularized lung matrix. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;98(5):1721–1729. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.05.080
  22. Ohata K, Ott HC. Human-scale lung regeneration based on decellularized matrix scaffolds as a biologic platform. Surg Today. 2020;50(7):633–643. doi: 10.1007/s00595-020-02000-y
  23. Aamodt JM, Grainger DW. Extracellular matrix-based biomaterial scaffolds and the host response. Biomaterials. 2016;86:68–82. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.02.003
  24. Elomaa L, Almalla A, Keshi E, et al. Rise of tissue- and species-specific 3D bioprinting based on decellularized extracellular matrix-derived bioinks and bioresins. Biomater Biosyst. 2023;12:100084. doi: 10.1016/j.bbiosy.2023.100084
  25. Liu H, Gong Y, Zhang K, et al. Recent Advances in Decellularized Matrix-Derived Materials for Bioink and 3D Bioprinting. Gels. 2023;9(3):195. doi: 10.3390/gels9030195
  26. Yu C, Ma X, Zhu W, et al. Scanningless and continuous 3D bioprinting of human tissues with decellularized extracellular matrix. Biomaterials. 2019;194:1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.12.009
  27. Lian L, Xie M, Luo Z, et al. Rapid Volumetric Bioprinting of Decellularized Extracellular Matrix Bioinks. Adv Mater. 2024;36(34): e2304846. doi: 10.1002/adma.202304846
  28. Zhang H, Wang Y, Zheng Z, et al. Strategies for improving the 3D printability of decellularized extracellular matrix bioink. Theranostics. 2023;13(8):2562–2587. doi: 10.7150/thno.81785
  29. Wanczyk H, Porritt L, Linke J, et al. Characterization of human airway-derived decellularized extracellular matrix hydrogels and their effects on airway epithelial cell growth, organization and differentiation. Biomaterials. 2027;336:124420. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2026.124420
  30. Cai Y, Chang SY, Gan SW, et al. Nanocomposite bioinks for 3D bioprinting. Acta Biomater. 2022;151:45–69. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2022.08.014
  31. Hinton TJ, Jallerat Q, Palchesko RN, et al. Three-dimensional printing of complex biological structures by freeform reversible embedding of suspended hydrogels. Sci Adv. 2015;1(9):e1500758. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1500758
  32. Sattari S, Mariano CA, Eskandari M. Biaxial mechanical properties of the bronchial tree: Characterization of elasticity, extensibility, and energetics, including the effect of strain rate and preconditioning. Acta Biomaterialia. 2023;155:410–422. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2022.10.047
  33. Hoffman E, Song Y, Zhang F, et al. Regional and disease-specific glycosaminoglycan composition and function in decellularized human lung extracellular matrix. Acta Biomater. 2023;168:388–399. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2023.06.043
  34. Hoffman ET, Uhl FE, Asarian L, et al. Regional and disease specific human lung extracellular matrix composition. Biomaterials. 2023;293:121960. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2022.121960
  35. Uhl FE, Wagner DE, Weiss DJ. Preparation of Decellularized Lung Matrices for Cell Culture and Protein Analysis. Methods Mol Biol. 2017;1627:253–283. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-7113-8_18
  36. Tashman JW, Shiwarski DJ, Feinberg AW. Development of a high-performance open-source 3D bioprinter. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):22652. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-26809-4
  37. Tashman JW, Shiwarski DJ, Coffin B, et al. In situ volumetric imaging and analysis of FRESH 3D bioprinted constructs using optical coherence tomography. Biofabrication. 2022;15(1):014102. doi: 10.1088/1758-5090/ac975e
  38. Bae M, Kim JJ, Kim J, et al. Decellularized extracellular matrix for three-dimensional bioprinted in vitro disease modeling. Int J Bioprint. 2024;10(2):1970. doi: 10.36922/ijb.1970
  39. Prasad PR, Sahni PK, Mondal D, et al. Towards a bioengineered airway: advances in tracheal tissue engineering and biofabrication. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2026;14:171343. doi: 10.3389/fcell.2026.1713743
  40. Sirotkina MY, Chabina AS, Lomert EV, et al. Effect of Telopeptides in Collagen on the Behavior of Mesenchymal Stromal Cells In Vitro. Cell and Tissue Biology. 2024;18(6):699–706. doi: 10.1134/S1990519X24700603
  41. Paglia EB, de Freitas GP, Baldin EKK, et al. Innovative approaches in alginate grafting: Amino acids of RGD peptide composition for biomimetic and biocompatible biomaterial. Int J Biol Macromol. 2025;322:147080. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2025.147080
  42. Wu M, Zhou H, Hu J, et al. Decellularized porcine kidney-incorporated hydrogels for cell-laden bioprinting of renal cell carcinoma model. Int J Bioprint. 2024;10(1):1413. doi: 10.36922/ijb.1413
  43. Bupesh Raja JK, Y. Díaz G, La Boucan F, et al. Advances in decellularized extracellular matrix bioinks for regenerative medicine applications. Int J Bioprint. 2025;11(5):23-45. doi: 10.36922/ijb025210205
  44. Brumberg VA, Bikmulina PY, Pozdnyakov AA, et al. Scaling liver bioprinting: A guide for usage of the hepatic extracellular matrix as a bioink. Int J Bioprint. 2025;11:57-83. doi: 10.36922/ijb.4343
  45. Zhang C, Xu Y, Yu H, et al. Fabrication of an in vitro three-dimensional tumor model using liver-derived decellularized extracellular matrix/gelatin methacrylate bioink for investigating cancer characteristics and drug resistance. Int J Bioprint. 2025;11(4):025160142. doi: 10.36922/ijb025160142
  46. Li P, Li X, Tang G, et al. Emerging frontiers in 3D bioprinting: Harnessing decellularized matrix bioink for advancements in musculoskeletal tissue engineering. Int J Bioprint. 2024;10(5):3418. doi: 10.36922/ijb.3418
  47. Polio SR, Kundu AN, Dougan CE, et al. Cross-platform mechanical characterization of lung tissue. PLoS One. 2018;13(10):e0204765. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204765
  48. Elango J, Zamora-Ledezma C. Rheological, Structural, and Biological Trade-Offs in Bioink Design for 3D Bioprinting. Gels. 2025:11(8):659. doi: 10.3390/gels11080659
  49. Eskandari M, Arvayo AL, Levenston ME. Mechanical properties of the airway tree: heterogeneous and anisotropic pseudoelastic and viscoelastic tissue responses. Journal of Applied Physiology. 2018;125(3):878–888. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00090.2018
  50. Wu Z, Su X, Xu Y, et al. Bioprinting three-dimensional cell-laden tissue constructs with controllable degradation. Sci Rep. 2016;6(1):24474. doi: 10.1038/srep24474
  51. Tuftee C, Alsberg E, Ozbolat IT, et al. Emerging granular hydrogel bioinks to improve biological function in bioprinted constructs. Trends Biotechnol. 2024;42(3):339–352. doi: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2023.09.007
  52. Dickenson ME, Oakes RS, Morris AH. Don’t judge an implant by its cover: how the foreign body response and fibrotic capsule might be harnessed for good. npj Biomedical Innovations. 2026;3(1):3. doi: 10.1038/s44385-025-00053-7
  53. Kenneth Ward W. A review of the foreign-body response to subcutaneously-implanted devices: the role of macrophages and cytokines in biofouling and fibrosis. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2008;2(5):768–777. doi: 10.1177/193229680800200504
  54. Swartzlander MD, Barnes CA, Blakney AK, et al. Linking the foreign body response and protein adsorption to PEG-based hydrogels using proteomics. Biomaterials. 2015;41:26–36. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.11.026
  55. Appel AA, Ibarra V, Somo SI, et al. Imaging of Hydrogel Microsphere Structure and Foreign Body Response Based on Endogenous X-Ray Phase Contrast. Tissue Eng Part C Methods. 2016;22(11):1038–1048. doi: 10.1089/ten.TEC.2016.0253
  56. Abraham AA, Means AK, Clubb FJ, Jr., et al. Foreign Body Reaction to a Subcutaneously Implanted Self-Cleaning, Thermoresponsive Hydrogel Membrane for Glucose Biosensors. ACS Biomater Sci Eng. 2018;4(12):4104–4111. doi: 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.8b01061
  57. Neves MI, Moroni L, Barrias CC. Modulating Alginate Hydrogels for Improved Biological Performance as Cellular 3D Microenvironments. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2020;8:665. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.00665
  58. Kumar S, Malviya R, Srivastava S, et al. Advancements in alginate-derived biomaterials for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine: Emerging innovations and translational outlooks. J Drug Deliv Sci Technol. 2025;114:107569. doi: 10.1016/j.jddst.2025.107569
  59. Güven K, Dhawan A, Filippi C. RGD-modified alginate enhances viability, metabolic reprogramming, and cytokine secretion profiles in encapsulated mesenchymal stromal cells. Sci Rep. 2026;16(1):14927. doi: 10.1038/s41598-026-42864-7
  60. Cao H, Duan L, Zhang Y, et al. Current hydrogel advances in physicochemical and biological response-driven biomedical application diversity. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2021;6(1):426. doi: 10.1038/s41392-021-00830-x
  61. Kim A, Downer MA, Berry CE, et al. Investigating Immunomodulatory Biomaterials for Preventing the Foreign Body Response. Bioengineering. 2023;10(12):1411. doi: 10.3390/bioengineering10121411
  62. You C, Cao J, Du Y, et al. ε-Poly-l-lysine-hydroxyphenyl propionic acid/IL-4 composite hydrogels with inflammation regulation and antibacterial activity for improving integration stability of soft tissues and orthopedic implants. Int J Biol Macromol. 2024;254:127937. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.127937
  63. Shi C, Pamer EG. Monocyte recruitment during infection and inflammation. Nat Rev Immunol. 2011;11(11):762–774. doi: 10.1038/nri3070
  64. Vegas AJ, Veiseh O, Doloff JC, et al. Combinatorial hydrogel library enables identification of materials that mitigate the foreign body response in primates. Nature Biotechnology. 2016;34(3):345–352. doi: 10.1038/nbt.3462
  65. Hong JY, Seo Y, Davaa G, et al. Decellularized brain matrix enhances macrophage polarization and functional improvements in rat spinal cord injury. Acta Biomaterialia. 2020;101:357–371. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2019.11.012
  66. Ariganello MB, Simionescu DT, Labow RS, et al. Macrophage differentiation and polarization on a decellularized pericardial biomaterial. Biomaterials. 2011;32(2):439–449. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.09.004
  67. Kasravi M, Ahmadi A, Babajani A, et al. Immunogenicity of decellularized extracellular matrix scaffolds: a bottleneck in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Biomaterials Research. 2023;27(1):10. doi: 10.1186/s40824-023-00348-z
  68. Butenko S, Nagalla RR, Guerrero-Juarez CF, et al. Hydrogel crosslinking modulates macrophages, fibroblasts, and their communication, during wound healing. Nature Communications. 2024;15(1):6820. doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-50072-y
  69. De Santis MM, Alsafadi HN, Tas S, et al. Extracellular-Matrix-Reinforced Bioinks for 3D Bioprinting Human Tissue. Adv Mater. 2021;33(3):2005476. doi: 10.1002/adma.202005476
  70. Liang Y, Wei S, Zhang A. Bioengineered tracheal graft with enhanced vascularization and mechanical stability for functional airway reconstruction. Regen Ther. 2025;29:364–380. doi: 10.1016/j.reth.2025.03.016
  71. Yeou SH, Shin YS. Tissue-Engineered Tracheal Reconstruction. Biomimetics. 2025;10(7):457. doi: 10.3390/biomimetics10070457
  72. Fonseca KB, Gomes DB, Lee K, et al. Injectable MMP-sensitive alginate hydrogels as hMSC delivery systems. Biomacromolecules. 2014;15(1):380–390. doi: 10.1021/bm4016495
Share
Back to top
International Journal of Bioprinting, Electronic ISSN: 2424-8002 Print ISSN: 2424-7723, Published by AccScience Publishing