Laryngorhinootologie 2023; 102(S 02): S192
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1767066
Abstracts | DGHNOKHC
Biomaterials/Tissue Engineering/Stem Cells

Novel alternatives to conventional in-vitro-cancer models using 3D-bioprinting technology

Alexya Azhakesan
1   Medical Faculty of Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery
,
Johann Kern
1   Medical Faculty of Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery
,
Karen Bieback
2   Institute of Transfusion Medicine & Immunology, Medical Faculty of Mannheim, University of Heidelberg
,
Annette Affolter
1   Medical Faculty of Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery
,
Nicole Rotter
1   Medical Faculty of Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
 

Introduction 3D-bioprinting, an evolving biofabrication technique in regenerative medicine & tissue engineering with the prospect of mimicking the native tumour niche. The aim of this pilot study was to determine the optimal bioprinting parameters and to compare different nanocellulose (NC) based bioinks suitable to fabricate a 3D-bioprinted head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) model.

Methods First, we designed a 3D-structure and optimized the respective bioprinting parameters. Further, we printed the designed 3D-structure with HNSCC cell lines (UM-SCC-11B & UM-SCC-22B) in different tunicate derived NC bioinks (Bioink1-TEMPO-mediated oxidised NC; Bioink2–Carboxymethylated NC). To determine the comparative bioink biocompatibility, we performed chemiluminescence based viability assay.

Results Characterizing the bioconstructs for 16days in culture, we observed that UM-SCC-22B cell-laden bioconstructs (5*106 cells/mL bioink (NC in alginate at 2:1 ratio) bioprinted using 6-8kPa printing pressure at 2-3mm/s printing speed in R.T with 75-80% infill density) in bioink2 showed twice higher viability than cells in bioink1 bioconstructs. Moreover, the viability of UM-SCC-22B cells in NC bioink was significantly higher than UM-SCC-11B cells in the bioconstructs.

Conclusion  Differences in biocompatibility characteristics of NC bioink are likely caused by differences in bio-chemical & mechanical properties. The carboxymethyl backbone of bioink2 highly promotes cell proliferation & matrix modification whereas bioink1’s carboxyl backbone allows comparatively lower proliferation rate due to its heavy functional group & NC fiber distribution differences which additionally might affect viability. These findings are the first-steps towards the development of a 3D-bioprinted HNSCC model.

Project funding by the state of Baden-Württemberg 3R-network (grant number 33-7533-6-1522/10/4)



Publication History

Article published online:
12 May 2023

Georg Thieme Verlag
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany