↓ Skip to main content

Automated 3D bioassembly of micro-tissues for biofabrication of hybrid tissue engineered constructs

Overview of attention for article published in Biofabrication, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
patent
2 patents

Readers on

mendeley
246 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Automated 3D bioassembly of micro-tissues for biofabrication of hybrid tissue engineered constructs
Published in
Biofabrication, January 2018
DOI 10.1088/1758-5090/aa9ef1
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Bottom-up biofabrication approaches combining micro-tissue fabrication techniques with extrusion-based 3D printing of thermoplastic polymer scaffolds are emerging strategies in tissue engineering. These biofabrication strategies support native self-assembly mechanisms observed in developmental stages of tissue or organoid growth as well as promoting cell-cell interactions and cell differentiation capacity. Few technologies have been developed to automate the precise assembly of micro-tissues or tissue modules into structural scaffolds. We describe an automated 3D bioassembly platform capable of fabricating simple hybrid constructs via a two-step bottom-up bioassembly strategy, as well as complex hybrid hierarchical constructs via a multistep bottom-up bioassembly strategy. The bioassembly system consisted of a fluidic-based singularisation and injection module incorporated into a commercial 3D bioprinter. The singularisation module delivers individual micro-tissues to an injection module, for insertion into precise locations within a 3D plotted scaffold. To demonstrate applicability for cartilage tissue engineering, human chondrocytes were isolated and micro-tissues of 1 mm diameter were generated utilising a high throughput 96-well plate format. Micro-tissues were singularised with an efficiency of 96.0 ± 5.1%. There was no significant difference in size, shape or viability of micro-tissues before and after automated singularisation and injection. A layer-by-layer approach or aforementioned bottom-up bioassembly strategy was employed to fabricate a bilayered construct by alternatively 3D plotting a thermoplastic (PEGT/PBT) polymer scaffold and inserting pre-differentiated chondrogenic micro-tissues or cell-laden gelatin-based (GelMA) hydrogel micro-spheres, both formed via high-throughput fabrication techniques. No significant difference in viability between the construct assembled utilising the automated bioassembly system and manually assembled construct was observed. Bioassembly of pre-differentiated micro-tissues as well as chondrocyte-laden hydrogel micro-spheres demonstrated the flexibility of the platform while supporting tissue fusion, long-term cell viability, and deposition of cartilage-specific extracellular matrix proteins. This technology provides an automated and scalable pathway for bioassembly of both simple and complex 3D tissue constructs of clinically relevant shape and size, with demonstrated capability to facilitate direct spatial organisation and hierarchical 3D assembly of micro-tissue modules, ranging from biomaterial free cell pellets to cell-laden hydrogel formulations.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 246 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 246 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 55 22%
Student > Master 39 16%
Student > Bachelor 18 7%
Researcher 18 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 5%
Other 28 11%
Unknown 76 31%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 40 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 31 13%
Materials Science 23 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 6%
Other 31 13%
Unknown 89 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 June 2022.
All research outputs
#4,159,517
of 31,660,612 outputs
Outputs from Biofabrication
#213
of 935 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,860
of 478,104 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biofabrication
#7
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 31,660,612 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 935 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 478,104 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.