Three-Dimensional Bioprinting of Anatomically Realistic Tissue Constructs for Disease Modeling and Drug Testing

Three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting is an emerging tissue engineering technology, already with several remarkable accomplishments and with more promises to fulfill. Besides the enduring goal of making tissues for implantation, it could also become an essential tool in the worldwide trend to replace animal experimentation with improved in vitro models for disease mechanism studies, or with new high-throughput pharmacological and toxicology assays. All these require the speed, reproducibility, and standardization that bioprinting could easily provide. However, originating from additive manufacturing with its top-down approach of “filling” a virtual volume with a semifluid (hydrogel) material, the finer internal anatomic structure of the tissues, as well as vascularization and innervation, has remained difficult to implement. Thus, the next frontier in bioprinting is the generation of more anatomically realistic models, needed for ascending to the functionality of living tissues. In this study, I discuss the conceptual and practical barriers still hampering the attainment of this goal and suggest solutions to overcome them. In this regard, I introduce two workflows that combine existing methods in new operational sequences: (1) bioprinting guided by images of histological sections assembled in 3D constructs and (2) bioprinting of bidimensional vascular patterns implemented among stackable cellular layers. While more sophisticated methods to capture the tissue structure in 3D constructs certainly exist, I contend that extrusion bioprinting may still offer a simple, practical, and affordable option. Impact statement Paucity of anatomic structural details is one of the limitations of three-dimensional bioprinting toward fulfilling its potential for tissue engineering, drug testing, and toxicological assays. The origins of this problem can be tracked back to derivation of bioprinting from inorganic additive manufacturing, making it more adept to render the shapes of the objects than their content. As solutions, I suggest two simple workflows that can be implemented by most current bioprinters, based on the import into the construct design of anatomically realistic structural information. If more largely adopted, these and similar approaches may significantly improve the applicability of bioprinted constructs.