Traction of 3D and 4D Printing in the Healthcare Industry: From Drug Delivery and Analysis to Regenerative Medicine.

Three-dimensional (3D) printing and 3D bioprinting are promising technologies for a broad range of healthcare applications from frontier regenerative medicine and tissue engineering therapies to pharmaceutical advancements yet must overcome the challenges of biocompatibility and resolution. Through comparison of traditional biofabrication methods with 3D (bio)printing, this review highlights the promise of 3D printing for the production of on-demand, personalized, and complex products that enhance the accessibility, effectiveness, and safety of drug therapies and delivery systems. In addition, this review describes the capacity of 3D bioprinting to fabricate patient-specific tissues and living cell systems (e.g., vascular networks, organs, muscles, and skeletal systems) as well as its applications in the delivery of cells and genes, microfluidics, and organ-on-chip constructs. This review summarizes how tailoring selected parameters (i.e., accurately selecting the appropriate printing method, materials, and printing parameters based on the desired application and behavior) can better facilitate the development of optimized 3D-printed products and how dynamic 4D-printed strategies (printing materials designed to change with time or stimulus) may be deployed to overcome many of the inherent limitations of conventional 3D-printed technologies. Comprehensive insights into a critical perspective of the future of 4D bioprinting, crucial requirements for 4D printing including the programmability of a material, multimaterial printing methods, and precise designs for meticulous transformations or even clinical applications are also given.

Self-Assembled Peptide Habitats to Model Tumor Metastasis.

Metastatic tumours are complex ecosystems; a community of multiple cell types, including cancerous cells, fibroblasts, and immune cells that exist within a supportive and specific microenvironment. The interplay of these cells, together with tissue specific chemical, structural and temporal signals within a three-dimensional (3D) habitat, direct tumour cell behavior, a subtlety that can be easily lost in 2D tissue culture. Here, we investigate a significantly improved tool, consisting of a novel matrix of functionally programmed peptide sequences, self-assembled into a scaffold to enable the growth and the migration of multicellular lung tumour spheroids, as proof-of-concept. This 3D functional model aims to mimic the biological, chemical, and contextual cues of an in vivo tumor more closely than a typically used, unstructured hydrogel, allowing spatial and temporal activity modelling. This approach shows promise as a cancer model, enhancing current understandings of how tumours progress and spread over time within their microenvironment.

Enhancing Peptide Biomaterials for Biofabrication.

Biofabrication using well-matched cell/materials systems provides unprecedented opportunities for dealing with human health issues where disease or injury overtake the body's native regenerative abilities. Such opportunities can be enhanced through the development of biomaterials with cues that appropriately influence embedded cells into forming functional tissues and organs. In this context, biomaterials' reliance on rigid biofabrication techniques needs to support the incorporation of a hierarchical mimicry of local and bulk biological cues that mimic the key functional components of native extracellular matrix. Advances in synthetic self-assembling peptide biomaterials promise to produce reproducible mimics of tissue-specific structures and may go some way in overcoming batch inconsistency issues of naturally sourced materials. Recent work in this area has demonstrated biofabrication with self-assembling peptide biomaterials with unique biofabrication technologies to support structural fidelity upon 3D patterning. The use of synthetic self-assembling peptide biomaterials is a growing field that has demonstrated applicability in dermal, intestinal, muscle, cancer and stem cell tissue engineering.

Replace and repair: Biomimetic bioprinting for effective muscle engineering.

The debilitating effects of muscle damage, either through ischemic injury or volumetric muscle loss (VML), can have significant impacts on patients, and yet there are few effective treatments. This challenge arises when function is degraded due to significant amounts of skeletal muscle loss, beyond the regenerative ability of endogenous repair mechanisms. Currently available surgical interventions for VML are quite invasive and cannot typically restore function adequately. In response to this, many new bioengineering studies implicate 3D bioprinting as a viable option. Bioprinting for VML repair includes three distinct phases: printing and seeding, growth and maturation, and implantation and application. Although this 3D bioprinting technology has existed for several decades, the advent of more advanced and novel printing techniques has brought us closer to clinical applications. Recent studies have overcome previous limitations in diffusion distance with novel microchannel construct architectures and improved myotubule alignment with highly biomimetic nanostructures. These structures may also enhance angiogenic and nervous ingrowth post-implantation, though further research to improve these parameters has been limited. Inclusion of neural cells has also shown to improve myoblast maturation and development of neuromuscular junctions, bringing us one step closer to functional, implantable skeletal muscle constructs. Given the current state of skeletal muscle 3D bioprinting, the most pressing future avenues of research include furthering our understanding of the physical and biochemical mechanisms of myotube development and expanding our control over macroscopic and microscopic construct structures. Further to this, current investigation needs to be expanded from immunocompromised rodent and murine myoblast models to more clinically applicable human cell lines as we move closer to viable therapeutic implementation.

Is Viral Vector Gene Delivery More Effective Using Biomaterials?

Gene delivery has been extensively investigated for introducing foreign genetic material into cells to promote expression of therapeutic proteins or to silence relevant genes. This approach can regulate genetic or epigenetic disorders, offering an attractive alternative to pharmacological therapy or invasive protein delivery options. However, the exciting potential of viral gene therapy has yet to be fully realized, with a number of clinical trials failing to deliver optimal therapeutic outcomes. Reasons for this include difficulty in achieving localized delivery, and subsequently lower efficacy at the target site, as well as poor or inconsistent transduction efficiency. Thus, ongoing efforts are focused on improving local viral delivery and enhancing its efficiency. Recently, biomaterials have been exploited as an option for more controlled, targeted and programmable gene delivery. There is a growing body of literature demonstrating the efficacy of biomaterials and their potential advantages over other delivery strategies. This review explores current limitations of gene delivery and the progress of biomaterial-mediated gene delivery. The combination of biomaterials and gene vectors holds the potential to surmount major challenges, including the uncontrolled release of viral vectors with random delivery duration, poorly localized viral delivery with associated off-target effects, limited viral tropism, and immune safety concerns.