Bioengineers used a modular, step-by-step chemical technique to create algae that carry antibiotic payloads.
Well… that’s me uninvited to the bioethicist’s christmas party…
Bioethicists frequently dictate what patients can and cannot do with their own bodies, and yet the general public very rarely questions this. Maybe it’s time we started to question what right bioethicists have to dictate what we can and cannot do with our own bodies?
In addition to laser-assisted bioprinting, other light-based 3D bioprinting techniques include digital light processing (DLP) and two-photon polymerization (TPP)-based 3D bioprinting. DLP uses a digital micro-mirror device to project a patterned mask of ultraviolet (UV)/visible range light onto a polymer solution, which in turn results in photopolymerization of the polymer in contact [56, 57]. DLP can achieve high resolution with rapid printing speed regardless of the layer’s complexity and area. In this method of 3D bioprinting, the dynamics of the polymerization can be regulated by modulating the power of the light source, the printing rate, and the type and concentrations of the photoinitiators used. TPP, on the other hand, utilizes a focused near-infrared femtosecond laser of wavelength 800 nm to induce polymerization of the monomer solution [56]. TPP can provide a very high resolution beyond the light diffraction limit since two-photon absorption only happens in the center region of the laser focal spot where the energy is above the threshold to trigger two-photon absorption [56].
The recent development of the integrated tissue and organ printer (ITOP) by our group allows for bioprinting of human scale tissues of any shape [45]. The ITOP facilitates bioprinting with very high precision; it has a resolution of 50 μm for cells and 2 μm for scaffolding materials. This enables recapitulation of heterocellular tissue biology and allows for fabrication of functional tissues. The ITOP is configured to deliver the bioink within a stronger water-soluble gel, Pluronic F-127, that helps the printed cells to maintain their shape during the printing process. Thereafter, the Pluronic F-127 scaffolding is simply washed away from the bioprinted tissue. To ensure adequate oxygen diffusion into the bioprinted tissue, microchannels are created with the biodegradable polymer, polycaprolactone (PCL). Stable human-scale ear cartilage, bone, and skeletal muscle structures were printed with the ITOP, which when implanted in animal models, matured into functional tissue and developed a network of blood vessels and nerves [45]. In addition to the use of materials such as Pluronic F-127 and PCL for support scaffolds, other strategies for improving structural integrity of the 3D bioprinted constructs include the use of suitable thickening agents such as hydroxyapatite particles, nanocellulose, and Xanthan and gellan gum. Further, the use of hydrogel mixtures instead of a single hydrogel is a helpful strategy. For example, the use of gelatin-methacrylamide (GelMA)/hyaluronic acid (HA) mixture instead of GelMA alone shows enhanced printability since HA improves the viscosity of mixture while crosslinking of GelMA retains post-printing structural integrity [58].
To date, several studies have investigated skin bioprinting as a novel approach to reconstruct functional skin tissue [44, 59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67]. Some of the advantages of fabrication of skin constructs using bioprinting compared to other conventional tissue engineering strategies are the automation and standardization for clinical application and precision in deposition of cells. Although conventional tissue engineering strategies (i.e., culturing cells on a scaffold and maturation in a bioreactor) might currently achieve similar results to bioprinting, there are still many aspects that require improvements in the production process of the skin, including the long production times to obtain large surfaces required to cover the entire burn wounds [67]. There are two different approaches to skin bioprinting: in situ bioprinting and in vitro bioprinting. Both these approaches are similar except for the site of printing and tissue maturation. In situ bioprinting involves direct printing of pre-cultured cells onto the site of injury for wound closure allowing for skin maturation at the wound site. The use of in situ bioprinting for burn wound reconstruction provides several advantages, including precise deposition of cells on the wound, elimination of the need for expensive and time-consuming in vitro differentiation, and the need for multiple surgeries [68]. In the case of in vitro bioprinting, printing is done in vitro and the bioprinted skin is allowed to mature in a bioreactor, after which it is transplanted to the wound site. Our group is working on developing approaches for in situ bioprinting [69]. An inkjet-based bioprinting system was developed to print primary human keratinocytes and fibroblasts on dorsal full-thickness (3 cm × 2.5 cm) wounds in athymic nude mice. First, fibroblasts (1.0 × 105 cells/cm2) incorporated into fibrinogen/collagen hydrogels were printed on the wounds, followed by a layer of keratinocytes (1.0 × 107 cells/cm2) above the fibroblast layer [69]. Complete re-epithelialization was achieved in these relatively large wounds after 8 weeks. This bioprinting system involves the use of a novel cartridge-based delivery system for deposition of cells at the site of injury. A laser scanner scans the wound and creates a map of the missing skin, and fibroblasts and keratinocytes are printed directly on to this area. These cells then form the dermis and epidermis, respectively. This was further validated in a pig wound model, wherein larger wounds (10 cm × 10 cm) were treated by printing a layer of fibroblasts followed by keratinocytes (10 million cells each) [69]. Wound healing and complete re-epithelialization were observed by 8 weeks. This pivotal work shows the potential of using in situ bioprinting approaches for wound healing and skin regeneration. Clinical studies are currently in progress with this in situ bioprinting system. In another study, amniotic fluid-derived stem cells (AFSCs) were bioprinted directly onto full-thickness dorsal skin wounds (2 cm × 2 cm) of nu/nu mice using a pressure-driven, computer-controlled bioprinting device [44]. AFSCs and bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells were suspended in fibrin-collagen gel, mixed with thrombin solution (a crosslinking agent), and then printed onto the wound site. Two layers of fibrin-collagen gel and thrombin were printed on the wounds. Bioprinting enabled effective wound closure and re-epithelialization likely through a growth factor-mediated mechanism by the stem cells. These studies indicate the potential of using in situ bioprinting for treatment of large wounds and burns.
In a first-of-its-kind clinical trial, a human has received a 3D-bioprinted ear implant grown from the patient’s own living cells – thanks to a technology platform developed by a Cornellian-founded startup company.
This bioengineered breakthrough has the potential to significantly improve the lives of the approximately 1,500 children who are born annually in the U.S. with microtia, a congenital ear deformity. The approach could eventually lead to tissue implants for treating other conditions and traumatic injuries, reconstructive and regenerative therapy, and possibly even the biomanufacture of whole organs.
The company, 3DBio Therapeutics, was founded in 2014 by Dan Cohen ‘04, M.S. ‘07, Ph.D. ‘10, along with Lawrence Bonassar, the Daljit S. and Elaine Sarkaria Professor in Biomedical Engineering and in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering in the College of Engineering, and Hod Lipson, who taught at Cornell for 14 years and is now a professor at Columbia University.
MSM and Experts fail to see the logic in how Elon Musk is taking over Twitter. They think it’s chaos, a mess, he’s out of his depth. But Elon is just working AGILE, and AGILE always seems like a mess to onlookers used to traditional work!
The video describes Elon’s Agile Takeover of Twitter and shows the opportunity worth BILLION$ that Elon Musk has ALREADY unlocked.
Please consider supporting the channel:
🔹Join my PATREON for Ad-Free Early-Access to videos plus Patreon-Exclusive newsletter: http://www.patreon.com/ConnectingODots.
🔹Become a YouTube channel member: https://www.youtube.com/ConnectingTheDotsOK/join.
🔹Or CLICK the THANKS🙏 BUTTON ABOVE
Kindly see my latest FORBES article:
In the piece I explore some of the emerging tech that will impact our coming year. Thank you for reading and sharing!
2022 was a transformative year for technological innovation and digital transformation. The trend will continue as the pace of innovation and development of potentially disruptive emerging technologies exponentially increases every year. The question arises, what lies ahead for tech for us to learn and experience in 2023?
Continue reading “4 Mind-Boggling Technology Advances In Store For 2023” »
In the underground movement known as, people are taking their health into their own hands. Biohacking ranges from people making simple lifestyle changes to extreme body modifications.
One popular form of focuses on nutrigenomics, where biohackers study how the foods they eat affect their genes over time. They believe they can map and track the way their diet affects genetic function. They use dietary restrictions and blood tests, while tracking their moods, energy levels, behaviors, and cognitive abilities.
Continue reading “I got a chip implanted in a biohacking garage” »
An international research team led by Dr. Ana Guadaño at the Alberto Sols Biomedical Research Institute (IIBM, a combined CSIC-UAM center) and involving the Complutense University of Madrid (UCM), used CRISPR gene editing techniques to incorporate into mice a mutation of the MCT8 protein responsible for transporting thyroid hormones to the interior of the cell.
Patients with mutations in this protein suffer from Allan-Herndon-Dudley syndrome, a rare disease that takes the form of serious neurological alterations, in which each patient may reveal a different mutation of MCT8.
This study, published in Neurobiology of Disease, describes the first avatar model for the disease—in other words, the first animal model with the same genetic alteration as various patients.
These genetically engineered plants can take over the work of 30 houseplants.
A bioengineered plant is able to clean the air by doing the work of over 30 houseplantsIt could be the start of a bold new industry that develps over the next 15 to 20 years.
The Neo P1 is the first of its kind.
Continue reading “Plant-based air purifiers are coming to your home — The Blueprint” »
Discusses the possibility of Femtotech and the technological possibilities it may unlock. Not long ago nanotechnology was a fringe topic; now it’s a flourishing engineering field, and fairly mainstream. For example, while writing this article, I happened to receive an email advertisement for the “Second World Conference on Nanomedicine and Drug Delivery,” in Kerala, India. It wasn’t so long ago that nanomedicine seemed merely a flicker in the eyes of Robert Freitas and a few other visionaries!
But nano is not as small as the world goes. A nanometer is 10–9 meters – the scale of atoms and molecules. A water molecule is a bit less than one nanometer long, and a germ is around a thousand nanometers across. On the other hand, a proton has a diameter of a couple femtometers – where a femtometer, at 10–15 meters, makes a nanometer seem positively gargantuan. Now that the viability of nanotech is widely accepted (in spite of some ongoing heated debates about the details), it’s time to ask: what about femtotech? Picotech or other technologies at the scales between nano and femto seem relatively uninteresting, because we don’t know any basic constituents of matter that exist at those scales. But femtotech, based on engineering structures from subatomic particles, makes perfect conceptual sense, though it’s certainly difficult given current technology.
