Bio-printing method as a novel approach to obtain a fibrin scaffold settled by limbal epithelial cells for corneal regeneration

Bio-printing method as a novel approach to obtain a fibrin scaffold settled by limbal epithelial cells for corneal regeneration | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Bio-printing method as a novel approach to obtain a fibrin scaffold settled by limbal epithelial cells for corneal regeneration Krzysztof Pietryga, Katarzyna Jesse, Rafał Drzyzga, Adam Konka, and 7 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4701489/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 07 Oct, 2024 Read the published version in Scientific Reports → Version 1 posted 11 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Treatment of Limbal Stem Cell Deficiency (LSCD), based on autologous transplantation of the patient's stem cells, is one of the few medical stem cell therapies approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). It relies on isolating and culturing in vivo Limbal Epithelial Stem Cells (LESC) and then populating them on the fibrin substrate, creating a scaffold for corneal epithelial regeneration. Such a solution is then implanted into the patient's eye. The epithelial cell culture process is specific, and its results strongly depend on the initial cell seeding density. Achieving control of the density and repeatability of the process is a desirable aim and can contribute to the success of the therapy. The study aimed to test 3D printing as a potential technique to increase the control over LESCs seeding on a scaffold and improve process reproducibility. Cells were applied to 0.5 mm thick, flat, transparent fibrin substrates using extrusion bioprinting; the control was the traditional manual application of cells using a pipette. The 3D printing enabled uniform coverage of the scaffold surface, and LESCs density in printed lines was close to the targeted value. Moreover, printed cells had higher cell viability than those seeded traditionally (91.1 ± 8.2% vs 82.6 ± 12.8%). The growth rate of the epithelium was higher in 3D-printed samples. In both methods, the epithelium had favorable phenotypic features (p63 + and CK14+). 3D printing constitutes a promising approach in LSCD therapy. It provides favorable conditions for LESCs growth and process reproducibility. Its application may lead to reduced cell requirements, thereby to using fewer cells on lower passages, which will contribute to preserving LESCs proliferative potential. Health sciences/Medical research/Pre clinical studies Health sciences/Medical research/Stem cell research LESC fibrin cell culture LSCD bioprinting epithelium ocular regeneration Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Introduction Limbal stem cell deficiency (LSCD) is a rare corneal disorder caused by dysfunction and/or insufficient amount of corneal limbal stem cells, affecting 1–5/10 000 people worldwide. It can be genetic, idiopathic, or acquired - certain conditions, i.e., ocular surface disorders, such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome, ocular cicatricial pemphigoid, and chemical or thermal burns, can contribute to developing LSCD and, consequently, to impaired vision or blindness. Efficient and widely available treatment options for LSCD are limited and challenging. Corneal transplantation remains the golden standard of treatment. However, the number of donors, compared to the needs, is insufficient. Moreover, some patients have contraindications for full-thickness keratoplasty 1,2 . Transplanting a cultured corneal epithelial cell equivalent containing potential adult stem cells and corneal epithelium constitutes today an alternative enabling the restoration of the ocular surface 3 . The most commonly performed procedure in unilateral LSCD is the conjunctival limbal autograft (CLAU), in which an opposing pair of two clock-hour-long conjunctival-limbal biopsies are harvested from the healthy eye to be grafted to the affected eye. This technique, however, is associated with the risk of inducing iatrogenic LSCD in the healthy donor eye 4,5 . Therefore, other therapeutic methods have been introduced. One is cultivated limbal epithelial transplant (CLET) – a technique in which a small biopsy (approximately 2–3 mm 2 ) is harvested in a healthy eye. Cells are then expanded ex vivo on a human amniotic membrane or a fibrin carrier scaffold and grafted onto the affected eye. CLET provides a long-term solution to LSCDs by transplanting a self-renewing limbal stem cell population that can maintain a clear corneal epithelium 6,7 . This method, however, also has its limitations. The finding that human limbal cell cultures contain holoclones 8 led to the first therapeutic use of such cultures propagated with a feeder layer in the regeneration of corneal epithelium 9 . Similar therapy, with some modifications, was successfully reproduced by Ivan Schwab in the USA 10 , Ray Tsai in Taiwan 11 , and later by V Sangwan in India 12 . In the above-mentioned treatment, the culture protocol required the use of lethally irradiated 3T3 feeder cells in co-culture with the LESCs. In recent years, numerous protocols for culturing LESCs have been developed; they differ significantly from each other. They assume either the use of limbal explants (explant technique) or single cell culture (suspension technique), the presence or absence of feeder-layer (FL) usage (e.g. murine 3T3- J2 FL), as well as the application of different LESCs markers, and various culture media compositions 8,13–15 . Standard complex culturing media therefore contain fetal bovine serum (FBS) in addition to various growth hormones and cholera toxin 16 . Moreover, isolated LESCs are seeded on different carriers for cell expansion and transplantation in each method. The most frequently used scaffolds are human amniotic membrane (AM) and fibrin matrix gels 17,18 . What is common for all those protocols is that LESCs are applied using traditional – manual, cell seeding method, i.e., pipetting. Fibrin is considered a versatile substrate for cell growth, with great potential to be used in tissue regeneration and wound healing 19 . Next to the amniotic membrane, it is the most frequently used material in CLET procedures, and fibrin glue has been used to secure the amniotic membrane in those therapies 20 . Fibrin can also be used as a temporary basal membrane for the epithelium to grow on its surface. It is also considered far superior in enhancing the epithelial cells’ survival, growth, and migration compared to collagen I and puramatrix 21 . Due to its ability to mimic extracellular matrix (ECM), fibrin is considered today the most optimal material for stem cell seeding: it forms a favorable ground for cell implantation and a supportive environment for engraftment or accelerating stem cell differentiation. Thanks to its unique features, it reduces the number of stem cells required for final tissue reconstruction and stimulates stem cell self-renewal 22 . Moreover, use of the fibrin may also result in obtaining holoclone formation on the scaffold 23 . The density of cell deposition on the materials to be implanted is essential due to the paracrine exchange of chemical signals between epithelial cells and stem cells. Too high cell density in the preparation may result in a limited growth surface for the transplanted cells. In turn, too low cell density may lead to loss of cell-cell or cell-ECM adhesion-related survival signals and, as a consequence, to cell death called anoikis, form of apoptosis 22 . The mechanisms responsible for acute donor cell death after transplantation are complex and result from many factors, including disruption of interaction between cells and loss of survival signals from matrix attachment. Stem cells require a strictly controlled environment to maintain high viability throughout the process, until transplantation 22 . The use of a 3D printer can provide such accurate monitoring of the cell seeding and growing procedure 24 . Cell density can be controlled by extrusion volumes. Moreover, a typical printing pattern consisting of lines separated by empty spaces can result in an epithelial regeneration model, allowing for faster in vitro expansion and reducing the number of cells required. Pramotton at al. 25 tested this approach using PDMS magnetic stencil. In their research, seeding epithelial cells at high density in a confined channel led to three times faster complete epithelization of the target surface. However, to the best of our knowledge this approach has not been applied to LESCs yet, and 3D printing of the epithelium has so far been carried out only in such a way that the cells are distributed evenly over the entire surface 26,27 . We assume that simple extrusion-based 3D printing of cell suspension combined with well-defined fibrin material (with flat surface) can constitute a faster and more efficient method to obtain epithelium scaffolds for cornea regeneration. In our opinion numerous advantages of this method may contribute to a better standardization of the process, and its wider implementation. Printing cells, especially epithelial ones, at the appropriate seeding density provides an optimal growth niche for cells transplanted on fibrin. Such a microenvironment creates a favorable condition for cells to communicate – exchange signals with stem cells to induce the cellular activity, and avoid anoikis process. Such effect cannot be achieved to such an extent by traditional method of cell seeding – pipetting. The primary objective of this study was to compare LESC cultivation at in vitro conditions using 3D printing and pipetting (droplet seeding) method. LESCs were isolated from porcine eyes, and after the in vitro propagation process, they were seeded on fibrin either by 3D printing or manually, by droplet method. First, the extrusion-based printing process was characterized in terms of ( 1 ) initial cell viability during printing, ( 2 ) cell density control, ( 3 ) printed line diameter, ( 4 ) cell distribution on material, ( 5 ) print reproducibility and ( 6 ) cells viability on the material. The results were compared to those obtained through droplet seeding. Then, flat fibrin scaffolds were seeded with cells using 3D printing and droplet method. The cell coverage area was analyzed for different initial seeding densities over time to assess the rate of epithelialization. Additionally, morphology and phenotype differences were analyzed for both methods to confirm LESCs presence on the fibrin scaffold. In our opinion, using 3D cell printing to prepare scaffolds in the Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) regime could significantly improve the quality of Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMP) 28 and hence, increase their presence in the clinical trials. Until now, the cell banks’ quality control of ATMPs preparations has concentrated mostly on the type and number of cells, their origin and viability. Since the density of epithelial cell seeding largely determines the transplantation’s success, optimizing this parameter in scaffold preparation is crucial. The 3D printing method guarantees a highly repeatable process: not only does it allow to seed cells in a controlled, very precise manner, maintaining appropriate even distances between the patterns, but it also enables the achievement of repeatability of appropriate growth niches for transplanted cells. Such features can contribute to replacing the traditional method of pipetting cell suspensions in the production of cell grafts (ATMP). Results 3.1. Cell isolation and characteristics Cell culture containing LESCs was obtained from the explants of the limbal region of porcine eyeballs (Fig. 1 A-C). First, those tissues were subjected to enzymatic treatment; after a 3-day culture in CNT medium, the LESCs started to migrate from the explants (Fig. 1 D). Their morphology closely resembled limbal epithelial stem cells – small rounded cells with high proliferative potential. Within 7–12 days, most of the surface was covered with cells, although their morphology had become more heterogenic. Also, more giant cells were present (Fig. 1 E,F). Fluorescent staining of the cytoskeleton by phalloidin was characteristic of the epithelial cells – most fibers were located in junction areas (Fig. 1 G). Also, most cells were CK14 + and p63+ (Fig. 1 H-J). Data collected during numerous isolations indicated that the obtained cells had an average viability of 85 ± 0.1% and contained at least 70% of p63 + cells. Cell culture could be carried out until passage P4, although the best results in scaffold preparations were obtained in lower passages. In our experiments with fibrin scaffolds, we used only cells on passage P3.The efficiency of isolation from 1 mm 2 explant was approximately 2.6 ± 1.3 × 10 4 cells on P1, 8.8 ± 4.5 × 10 4 cells on P2 and 1.1 ± 0.5 × 10 5 on P3. It should be noted, however, that cell yield was highly determined by individual variability of donors. 3.2. Extrusion-based bioprinting process characteristics Viability and cell concentration in extruded cell suspension were tested to determine whether the process associated with 3D printing has no harmful effect on the cells. It was also verified whether printing from the cell suspension could be reliable regarding the final cell count in extruded volumes. It was reported that for 100 µl load and 16 000 cell/µl cells sedimented slowly in the printing nozzle, and within 20 min, cell concentration increased almost four times (Fig. 2 A). The sedimentation process could be eliminated almost entirely by 1% MC; but in this case MC caused deterioration in cell adhesion (S1, Supplementary Data). Performed later experiments with smaller volumes (8 µl) and shorter time (1 min for each print) demonstrated that extruded cell concentration remained stable (no statistical difference), and obtained results were close to the target values (Fig. 2 B). The viability of cells inside the nozzle was high during the first 30 min of the experiment (Fig. 2 A). Printed cells (Fig. 2 C, E) had a significantly higher viability than those deposited by pipetting (Fig. 2 G), i.e. 91.3 ± 4.6% vs. 75 ± 4.6%. In addition, printed cells covered the surface more thoroughly (Fig. 2 D, F). After seven days, differences in cell viability between printed and manually pipetted samples were still significant (91.1 ± 8.2% vs 82.6 ± 12.8%, Fig. 2 G). Then, LESCs were printed in an 8x8 mm rectilinear dense pattern to cover the entire surface with cells, determine cell distribution in printed area, and compare it with manual drop deposition (Fig. 3 ). Patterns with 500 cells/mm 2 were printed, and the same number of cells as in 0.8 µl volume of printed pattern was placed in drops. For 3D printed samples, the density of cells in most areas ranged from 350–600 cells/mm 2 . Lower cell counts were noted only on the edges (at the start and stop printing points). For traditionally prepared samples, cell density ranged from 50–550 cells/mm 2 , and higher cell counts were only noted in the central area. In contrast, the edges of counting areas were almost entirely depleted with cells. In this case, the count of cells was nearly twice smaller because cells were deposited outside the counting area (and, frequently, outside the fibrin scaffold). Aggregated data of the distribution of cell counts presented in the histogram showed relatively narrow and unimodal distribution for 3D printed samples and bimodal, wide distribution for manually prepared models. LESCs’ viability 20 min after dense 3D printing was significantly lower than of the manually deposited control (70.5 ± 5.2% vs 80.3 ± 3.6%, p = 0.02, n = 4). For 3D prints with widely spared lines (1.2 mm apart), such parameters as deposited cell density in line and line width were measured. The experiment was carried out for three different concentrations − 500, 250 and 125 cell/mm (Fig. 4 A). Cells were not evenly distributed in lines but were forming groups and were located more densely on the edges of the lines (Fig. 4 B). Cell count in 1 mm line was slightly higher than intended values for all samples (Fig. 4 C). After 15 min most of the cells’ morphology indicated cell adhesion (Fig. 4 B). Line width was similar within groups and within each sample. Line width variation from the average value was less than 5% for all samples within a group. Individual lines had less than 8.6% variations from average sample line width (Table 1 ). Line width decreased with increasing cell concentration (Fig. 4 D). Differences in line width between 125 vs. 250 cells/mm, 125 vs. 500 cells/mm, 250 vs. 500 cells/mm were statistically significant (Table 1 ). Concluding, the obtained line width was much higher than printing nozzle diameter of 200 µm. Table 1 Width of 3D printed lines for samples printed with three cell concentrations. Kruskal-Wallis test 125 vs 250 cells/mm # p = 0.0186, 125 vs 500 cells/mm ## p < 0.001, 250 vs 500 cells/mm ### p < 0.001. Sample 6k 12k 24k 125 cells/mm 250 cells/mm 500 cells/mm Sample number 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Line number I 1031,4 1081,6 975,0 972,2 1027,3 997,1 871,4 966,9 886,2 886,8 1015,3 964,1 918,6 948,0 979,7 878,4 925,0 856,1 974,5 980,6 1015,2 918,4 926,6 951,4 894,3 987,6 844,9 II 965,2 992,7 937,6 887,7 896,4 1048,6 886,5 875,0 816,3 956,0 1001,4 1039,2 853,4 1007,2 1047,5 886,3 873,9 845,8 989,9 1018,5 1014,9 902,0 1010,8 1056,2 861,5 866,2 825,9 III 1008,9 1032,9 991,1 912,5 996,6 966,7 918,6 887,4 856,1 998,4 936,4 955,0 926,6 955,4 1076,0 854,1 906,5 856,1 1002,9 966,9 995,4 864,6 925,8 976,9 822,2 846,0 876,7 IV 917,3 1012,2 924,3 876,6 948,3 1047,3 797,5 837,1 797,8 1024,0 1055,5 941,4 870,2 874,5 916,7 886,0 805,1 825,7 995,3 1079,3 1005,6 888,2 823,9 791,6 878,3 825,8 805,7 Average for lines I 964,2 1025,8 984,8 936,4 967,3 976,1 881,4 959,8 862,4 II 970,4 1004,2 997,2 881,0 971,5 1050,8 878,1 871,7 829,3 III 1003,4 978,7 980,5 901,3 959,2 1006,5 865,0 880,0 863,0 IV 978,9 1049,0 957,1 878,3 882,3 918,5 853,9 822,7 809,7 Average for samples I-IV 979,2 1014,4 979,9 899,3 945,1 988,0 869,6 883,5 841,1 ± 40,9 ± 41,7 ± 34,5 ± 31,5 ± 58,1 ± 75,8 ± 31,3 ± 52,9 ± 26,2 Total average 991.2 ± 42.5 #,## 944.1 ± 68.4 #,### 864.8 ± 42.4 ##,### The initial retention of the cells on the fibrin and the further cell spreading over the surface for different conditions were assessed (Fig. S2, Supplementary Data). A concentrated drop of cell suspension with a concentration similar to that of 3D printing was placed on a fibrin surface to simulate this process and determine proper fibrin preparation (dehydration level) and the first incubation time before adding the medium. Even after successful printing, we observed that cells did not retain on a surface; an added medium washed them out. On the other hand, prolonged incubation, meant to give more time for cell adhesion, has often led to over-drying and death of cells. 5 min of dehydration and 1h of incubation caused minimal cell retention. In this case, longer incubation (1.5 and 2h) reversed this undesirable phenomenon. For more dehydrated (10 min) fibrin, 2h incubation led to over-drying and loss of proliferative potential; however, cells retain on a surface and proliferate properly for shorter (1 and 1.5h) incubations. For most dehydrated fibrines (15 min), only short incubation led to the preservation of the proliferative potential of LESCs. 3.3. Scaffolds characteristics - viability, cell coverage, density, phenotyping Cell cultures of LESC on fibrin, which were applied using traditional and bioprinting methods, are shown in Fig. 5 A, B. LESCs were applied in the same number for each method – 6, 12 and 24×10 3 and cell morphology and growth area were analyzed over seven days. Results showed that cell spreading (Fig. 5 C, D) was more efficient for bioprinting when fewer cells were applied (6 and 12×10 3 ). Furthermore, the 12×10 3 sample printing method resulted in almost full coverage after seven days, while for the 12×10 3 manually seeded sample, only 60% coverage was achieved at that time (significantly different, p = 0.0243). Similarly, cell coverage after five days for 6×10 3 and 12×10 3 was more advanced for the printing method (p = 0.0403, p = 0.0373, respectively). Interestingly, higher initial cell numbers of 24×10 3 led to similar results for manual and bioprinting methods. Changes in cell morphology were also visible. Cells applied manually on the surface in lower numbers grew in separate spots – clones (Fig. 5 B, 6 k, day 7). For the bioprinting method, clones were also visible, but in this case, the surface was mostly covered with a dense, confluent layer of cells (Fig. 5 A, 6 k, day 7). Phenotypes for previously described groups at day seven were analyzed by p63 and CK14 immunostaining (Fig. 6 A). Most of the cells were p63 and CK14 positive; however, edges of expanding epithelia in many cases revealed the presence of fully differentiated keratinocytes or fibroblasts - characterized by the absence of p63 and CK14 antigens. Those cells usually were separated and did not form a confluent cell layer. They were often observed in 6 ×10 3 and 12 ×10 3 drop samples, as there were more areas with less confluency. However, statistical analysis of p63 and CK14 percentages did not show significant differences between manual and printing techniques (Fig. S3 D, E, Supplementary Data). Several p63 and CK14 positive cells for each sample were presented (Fig. S3 A, B, Supplementary Data). The samples produced by the printing method had a narrower cell number value distribution of p63 and CK14 than those produced by pipetting. Only for 24×10 3 cells seeded manually were no visible changes in p63 and CK14 cell number value distribution. Changes in p63 + and CK14 + cell number distribution were mainly caused by the fact that 6 ×10 3 and 12 ×10 3 samples were less thoroughly covered by cells at day seven than their printed counterparts. Concluding, the total number of cells on scaffolds was significantly higher for the printing method, as shown by quantitative data from Hoechst staining (Fig. S3 C, Supplementary Data). Discussion 4.1. Cell isolation and characterisation The LESCs needed for the bioprinting assessment were obtained by a mechano-enzymatic method involving partial digestion of the scrap and then culture and migration of the cells. The culture allowed the efficient isolation of cells in the amount needed to populate fibrin scaffolds. Their characteristics indicated epithelial cells, which was confirmed by the presence of p63 and CK14. These antigens frequently appear in publications describing the LESCs characteristics 29,30 . However, there is no clear statement regarding which antigens are specific for corneal epithelial stem cells. LESCs do not express CK3 or CK12 but have been reported to express CK19, CK14 31,32 , vimentin 33 , and ABCG2 31 . The TP63 gene generates six isoforms 34 . Ocular keratinocytes may contain all the ΔN isoforms, but ΔNp63α (referred to as p63) is by far the most abundant 14,35 . It is present in the limbus but not in the uninjured central cornea 29,36 , and is expressed in holoclones but not in paraclones 35 . In our experiment, the cells had the p63 antigen in a significant percentage (> 80%), similar to what was previously presented in literature 30,37,38 . It needs to be clarified what proportion of the cells are stem cells with the highest proliferative potential and how many are TAC (Transient Amplifying Cells) cells. Holoclones and meroclones have the highest proliferative potential (100 divisions and 40 divisions, respectively) and are characterized by the p63 antigen. Terminally differentiated cells with low proliferative potential forming paraclones are not p63 positive 29 . The proliferative potential of the cells has a significant impact on their ability to form epithelium on a scaffold (irrespective of the cell application method) and the success of future cell therapy. It has been reported that > 3% levels of p63 + correlate with a 78.1% treatment success rate 15 . However, it is worth noting that individual variability also plays an important role. 4.2. Bioprinting process Flat fibrines, obtained by casting between two defined and flat surfaces, allowed on printing cells using extrusion without hydrogel or other thickener. The proposed approach enabled the application of cells on the surface in a controlled manner, either as a compact patch or as separated lines. It also allowed cell density and viability monitoring, provided, that specific conditions are met. One of them is the flatness of the fibrin. As the printer nozzle moves very close to the material, small changes in the thickness of the hydrogel can contribute to breaks in the strand due to approaching either too close or too far. Coming too close may result in rubbing cells against the surface and their mechanical damage. In our study, observed decreased cell viability in printed compact patches was most likely due to the nozzle snagging on already applied cells. In comparison, viability was not reduced when the lines were printed separately. Interestingly, the extrusion of the cell suspension from the nozzle did not result in a cell viability loss, as it in the case of hydrogels 39 and the formation of high shear forces in the nozzle. In our experiment, a low-viscosity suspension was extruded at relatively low rates. We found that the viability of the cells may also be affected by holding them in the nozzle at a relatively high concentration before the printing process. However, it has been shown that even 30 min of holding the cells in the printer nozzle did not result in viability loss. More problematic was the sedimentation of the cells, which occurred quite rapidly and could lead to a four times increase in the suspension density. This phenomenon, however, did not significantly affect cell density obtained for small suspension volumes and an instantaneous printing process (up to 3 min). The handling of concentrated cell suspensions also turned out challenging. It is likely that either too high or too low measured cell density values may have been caused by the difficulty of preparing a cell suspension. The printing process went well, and the printed lines were repeatable with only minor variability. The thickness of the printed lines was much greater than the thickness of the nozzle due to the process of droplet adhesion onto the hydrophilic material. It is likely that for high cell densities - the effect of cell clustering at the edge was dictated by snatching cells by the medium flow moving away from the nozzle. Cell density, in this case, had affected line thickness. For higher cell densities, the lines were thinner due to the higher viscosity of the suspension and the lower medium content. In a more viscous suspension, flow on a fibrin surface was suppressed. The printing process has been shown to allow much greater control over the density of cells on the surface than a manual application of cell suspension droplets. In the latter case, the cells spread throughout the fibrin surface, but a high concentration remained only in the center. Occasionally, cell suspension was spilled from the surface, and many cells dropped outside the sample. In the case of bioprinting, it was possible to apply the cells as a compact patch over a limited area. The cell density in this area remained even, and the fluctuations were much smaller than those of the droplet method. In the case of the droplet method, the edges of the material had a cell density more than 10x lower than the center. On the other hand, the density distribution was relatively narrow for bioprinting, and the cells were also concentrated at the edges. Controlling cell seeding density in such a manner has a crucial impact on maintaining epithelial cells’ correct phenotype and growth potential. For this type of cells, growth at low densities is not favorable. In this case, it was possible to simulate a growth niche. Limbal cells needed to be cultivated in sufficient seeding concentrations to obtain enough paracrine signals from one another to survive in serum-free conditions or a medium with low calcium concentration 40 . In our case, FBS was present in the culture, but no feeder layer or amniotic membrane was used. So far, to the best of our knowledge, there has been no report of culturing cornea epithelia on fibrin without a feeder layer. Cell density, proper preparation of the surface, and proper seeding process might have been crucial in this case. However, as experiments have shown, it is even more advantageous to use separate lines in which the cells are compacted, as total surface coverage leads to decreased viability due to probable mechanical damage. This approach is similar to the wound healing model presented by Pramotton 25 . This method provides local densification of cells in separated lines. After confluency is reached within these lines, epithelium spreads toward unseeded areas. This mechanism resembles physiological conditions when the epithelium is partially damaged. In our study, a significant challenge requiring optimization was the retention of cells on the fibrin after the printing process. The question was which degree of fibrin hydration was optimal for cell adhesion and what the length of incubation should before adding the medium. We found that cells adhered weakly to hydrated fibrin and were flushed when the medium was added. Dehydrated fibrin favored cell adhesion; however, the incubation time needed to be shortened as it caused cells to become too dry and lose viability. The experiment showed that for printing accurately (in a small, medium volume), it is necessary to strictly control the humidity parameters as it can significantly impact on the success of the entire scaffold preparation process. 4.3. Scaffolds characteristics The process of epithelium growth on the scaffold differed between the printing and the traditional method. This phenomenon was associated with the way the cells were applied. Cells applied in drops via pipetting were distributed throughout the fibrin, reaching the highest density of cells in the middle. In the center, the densest layer of epithelium (sample 6k, Fig. 6 ) was formed, and it gradually moved towards the edges of the fibrin. When lines of cells were printed, the confluent layer formed within these lines in the first few days of the culture. After that, gradual overgrowth proceeded, but the path for the epithelium to spread was shorter than in the traditional method. Moreover, in the case of printing, shortly after confluence was reached, the epithelium started growing as one front from every side of the printed pattern. Such a phenomenon is analogous to the wound healing model. Under such conditions, through the proximity of other cells on the other side of the gap, a migration of cell accelerates 41 . This mechanism translated into an acceleration in the rate of surface overgrowth, although, in our case, the overgrowth was not as significant as previously described in the literature for HaCat cells 25 . This mechanism is illustrated by the fact that, for the 6k sample, the expansion of cells leading to the fusion of gaps was significantly faster than the expansion leading into areas at the periphery of the sample (see sample 6k, day 5, Fig. 5 ). The 3D printing method allowed faster surface overgrowth only for samples with a relatively low seeding densitiy of 6 and 12k. For a density of 24k, the printing produced results comparable to those of the traditional method. This fact may indicate a specific threshold of the cell density on the fibrin necessary for a proper overgrowth process. The phenotype of the cells after the overgrowth period showed no significant differences in the levels of p63 and CK14 antigens for either application method. In all cases, the percentage of p63 + and CK14 + cells were similar. The approximately 80% p63 + cells for cultures on fibrin was very similar to that of the p63 + percentage on culture plates, indicating that the proliferative potential of cells plated on fibrin was preserved. Those observations were similar to previously reported 30,37,38 . Comparing the 3D printing with the traditional method in terms of phenotype showed only minor differences. Scaffolds obtained by the 3D printing were characterized by greater p63 and CK14 cell percentage homogeneity and p63 and CK14 total number (S3, Supplementary Data). Samples from the traditional method were characterized by a favourable phenotype in the centre, where the culture density was high. However, the edges were dominated by larger cells or cells with unfavourable fibroblast-like morphology and phenotype (S4, Supplementary Data). The use of low cell counts, condensed in lines resembling a wound model, could be a good approach from the point of view of the lower need for cells required for therapy. It is also possible to use a smaller number of cells at a lower passage but with a higher proliferative potential. It has been shown that as the passage number increases, the dividing potential of the cells decreases, and the success of the therapy is closely correlated with the presence of stem cells (p63+) 8 . The feeder layers promote niche regulation and stemness of cultivated cells. Though no adverse reactions have been reported in the use of 3T3 feeder layers in large case series 42,43 , avoiding xenogeneic material may reduce the risk of animal-derived infection and potential graft rejection. Moreover, clinical studies using non-xenogeneic reagents are also currently being conducted 20,37,44 . According to the authors, using the 3D cell printing on scaffolds in the GMP standard system will increase the quality of ATMPs preparations in human trials. It will ensure the repeatability in obtaining appropriate growth niches for transplanted cells. New developments in additive manufacturing and regenerative medicine have the potential to radically disrupt the traditional pipelines of therapy development and medical device manufacture. These technologies constitute a challenge for regulators as the traditional regulatory frameworks are designed for mass-manufactured therapies rather than personalized solutions. Moreover, 3D bioprinting technologies present another dimension of complexity by including living cells in the manufacturing process. Until now, cell banks’ quality control of ATMP preparations has concentrated mainly on the type and number of cells, their origin and viability. Regulators (EMA/FDA) typically require testing cell phenotypes to confirm purity, potency, and identity in product lot release specifications. Since the density of epithelial cell seeding determines significantly the success of transplantation, it is also necessary to focus on this parameter. The use of 3D cell printing, with its potential to seed cells in a controlled, highly repeatable manner, could contribute to replacing the traditional method of pipetting cell suspensions in the production of cell grafts (ATMP). In Europe, for example, the ATMP Regulation includes a 'hospital exemption' for non-routine, custom-made products that are not intended to be marketed. EU (EMA) regulation allows the application of regulatory exemptions to advanced medicinal products, including cell-therapy medicinal products, that 3D bioprinting may be covered by (and thus be exempt) 45 . Conclusion The research demonstrated the feasibility of printing cells on a fibrin layer as a reproducible and high-quality method for obtaining scaffolds for corneal regeneration. Compared to the traditional manual technique, 3D printing yielded a more reproducible cell distribution which resulted in higher viability and accelerated surface overgrowth. The phenotype of cells on the 3D-printed scaffolds was similar to traditional scaffolds; however, the number of cells was significantly higher. Due to the reproducible nature of the culture and the more homogeneous scaffold parameters obtained, this method could be more effective in LSCD treatment. Materials and methods 6.1. Fibrin scaffold preparation Fibrin hydrogels were prepared by modifying commercially available fibrin glue (Tisseel Lyo, Baxter). For the final mixture, 900 µl of fibrinogen dissolved in PBS with aprotinin, 50 µl of thrombin dissolved in PBS and 50 µl of CaCl 2 solution (WarChem) were used. The final ingredient concentration was: 3.6% fibrinogen, 2.5 IU/ml thrombin, 1000 KIU/ml aprotinin and 5 mM CaCl 2 . Fibrin scaffolds were formed into 0.6 mm thick rectangular surfaces by pouring the final mixture into a mould consisting of two parallel flat Teflon surfaces separated by a 0.6 mm thick spacer and incubated at room temperature for 30 minutes for fibrin gelation. Then, fibrin hydrogels were washed twice in PBS, dried at room temperature for 15 minutes transferred to an airtight container, and stored for at least 3 days at 4 o C. Before cell seeding, small circular fibrin scaffolds were prepared by cutting rectangular fibrin hydrogels using a 14 mm diameter punch. The above-described fibrin forming process, using two parallel surfaces, enabled the production of fibrin scaffolds of the desired thickness and flatness, which was necessary for the correct cells to be 3D printed on the surface. 6.2. Cell isolation LESCs were obtained from pig’s eyes taken from a local slaughterhouse. First, the eyes were rinsed in PBS solution (Corning), sterilized in 5% iodopovidone (EGIS Pharmaceuticals PLC, 10%, diluted in PBS) and stored in CnT-XP3 solution (CELLnTEC) with 100 U/mL penicillin, and 100 µg/mL streptomycin (Gibco) in 4 o C. The corneal limbal tissue was punched out of the pig's eyes using a 3 mm biopsy punch and then cut into pieces with a scalpel. The obtained tissue fragments were treated with 100 U/ml collagenase II (17101015, Gibco) for two hours, then rinsed with PBS and placed in CnT-PR-HC (CELLnTEC) medium with 5% FBS (fetal bovine serum, 16140071, Gibco), 100 U/mL penicillin, and 100 µg/mL streptomycin mixture in standard conditions (37 o C) in a humidified atmosphere of 5% CO 2 and 95% air. Cell migration from explants was observed under an inverted phase-contrast microscope (Axio Vert.A1, Zeiss, Germany). 6.3. Cell culture After 6–10 days, the number of migrated cells allowed to carry out the first passage. Cells with explants were rinsed with PBS, detached with TrypLE™ Express Enzyme (Gibco) solution and centrifuged at 230×g for 3 minutes. Cells were counted and seeded on f100 plates pre-coated with a mixture of 0.01 mg/ml fibronectin (F2006, Sigma-Aldrich), 0.03 mg/mL bovine collagen (PureCol, 5006, Sigma-Aldrich) and 0.01 mg/mL bovine serum albumin (A8022, Sigma-Aldrich). Cells were routinely cultured in CnT-PR-HC medium supplemented with 5% FBS, 100 U/mL penicillin, and 100 µg/mL streptomycin in a humidified atmosphere containing 5% CO 2 and 95% air at 37°C. The culture medium was changed every 2–3 days. Cell morphology was controlled using a phase-contrast microscope (PrimoVert, Zeis, Germany). Cultures with small cell sizes and high nucleus-to-cytoplasm ratios were selected for further experiments. Cells on fibrin scaffolds were cultured in a growth medium consisting of a 1:1 mixture of CnT-PR-HC and Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle’s Medium (DMEM, 11966-025, Gibco) supplemented with 5% FBS, 0.5 mM sodium pyruvate (25-000CIR, Corning), 0.5% (v/v) amino acid solution (non-essential amino acids, 11140-035, Gibco), 100 U/mL penicillin, 100 µg/mL streptomycin and the addition of 150 KIU/ml aprotinin (from Tisseel Lyo, Baxter). The culture medium was changed every 2–3 days. 6.4. Determining the parameters of scaffold preparation for the cell seeding The optimal drying time of the fibrin scaffold before seeding cells and the adjustment of the appropriate cell attachment time before adding the culture medium were analysed. For this purpose, the fibrin scaffolds were air-dried in a laminar chamber for 5, 10, and 15 minutes before cell seeding. Cells were then manually seeded in a very small volume (0.2 µl) of concentrated LESCs suspension in the centre of a fibrin scaffold (φ14 mm) placed on φ60 mm dishes. Samples were then incubated without adding medium for 15 minutes in the cell incubator; and next 30 µl of the medium was added to the edge of the scaffold. Samples were then incubated for another 1, 1.5, or 2 hours before adding the medium’s total volume (2.5 ml). The surface of the fibrin scaffold was covered with cells, and the morphology of cells on fibrin was analysed over 12 days. 6.5. Cell culture on scaffolds obtained by traditional method Fibrin scaffolds were placed in φ 60 mm dishes and incubated in CnT-PR-HC medium in 5% CO2, at 37 o C for 60 minutes. LESCs were then manually seeded at densities of 0.6, 1.2, and 2.4 x 10 4 in a 30 µl drop covering the whole fibrin surface using an automated pipette and placed in the incubator for 90 minutes to attach the cells to the fibrin surface. After this time, 2 ml of CnT/DMEM medium was added. The culture was maintained for 7 days. The medium was changed every 2–3 days. 6.6. Cell culture on scaffolds obtained by bioprinting Printing of LESC was performed using a 200 µl microsyringe (1725 TLX, Hamilton, USA) with a conical tip, mounted in the Syringe Pump Printhead (no. 20855) of the BioX bioprinter (Cellink, Sweden). Printing on the fibrin surface was performed with a φ 0.2 mm nozzle, with a speed of 10 mm/s, and an extrusion speed of 17.2 nl/mm at room temperature. Three printing patterns were used for cell printing: ( 1 ) for the viability test, the first pattern created in the shape of a square with 3 parallel lines inside the square with a total print length of 64 mm, ( 2 ) for cell distribution test, the second pattern in the shape of a square with 9 parallel lines inside the square with a total length of 112 mm, ( 3 ) for long-term culture, third pattern, having no outer edges, only 5 parallel lines spaced 1.8 mm with total print length of 48 mm. The cell-printed fibrin scaffolds were incubated for 15 minutes to ensure appropriate cell attachment to the fibrin surface. Then, 30 µl of CnT/DMEM medium was added around the scaffold for another 60 minutes. After this time, cell cultures on scaffolds were supplemented with 2 ml of medium. The culture was carried out for 7 days. The medium was changed every 2–3 days. 6.7. Stability of cell number during bioprinting The number of cells extruded during the 3D printing process was analysed at intervals (1, 2, 3 minutes or 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, 50 and 60 minutes) to check whether the given number of cells (0.6, 1.2 or 2.4 x 10 4 cells) is actually extruded in the total print volume and whether it changes over time. Cells were extruded into the Eppendorf tube, diluted by medium, mixed with trypan blue and counted in Bürker counting chamber. Three separate counts were made for each time point. 6.8. Cell viability after bioprinting The viability of printed cells was evaluated by fluorescent staining with Live/Dead solution containing 1% calcein AM (17783, Sigma-Aldrich) and 1% propidium iodide (P4864, Sigma-Aldrich) in CnT-PR-HC medium. Fibrin scaffolds were incubated with Live/Dead solution for 10 minutes before cell printing; then cells were printed on scaffolds according to pattern 1 (extrusion rate: 500 cells/mm) and visualized after 15 minutes with a fluorescent microscope (AxioZoom, Zeiss, Germany) equipped with Zeiss HXP 200 C Fluorescence Light Source. The control sample cells were manually applied to the fibrin surface in a 30 µl drop. After 7 days, the viability of the culture was analysed by 15 minute staining with a Live/Dead solution. Live and dead cells were counted in each of the 1 mm 2 spots for four samples. 6.9. Cell distribution on fibrin scaffolds To determine cell distribution on fibrin scaffolds, cells were printed (extrusion rate of 250 cells/mm) according to pattern 2 (dense printing) and visualized by Live/Dead staining. The control samples constituted cells manually applied to the fibrin surface in a 30 µl drop. The number of live and dead cells was counted in 25 areas (1 mm 2 ) arranged in a 5x5 rectangular grid for each sample. Collected data was presented as maps representing each sample's cell distribution and viability distribution and as histograms for printing and control groups. 6.10. Characteristic of printed lines Cells were printed at densities of 0.6, 1.2, or 2.4 × 10 4 per sample according to pattern and counted to check whether the number of cells in the printed lines was consistent with theoretical assumptions. Counts from each of the four samples collected from 1 mm samples of the printed line were averaged and represented as a bar chart. The line thickness of every print for three different cell concentrations (0.6, 1.2, or 2.4 × 10 4 cells) was measured. Each printed line was measured in 3 points. Collected data was represented as table. 6.11. Characterization of cell cultures spread on fibrin The cell spreading on the fibrin scaffolds (n = 3) printed with 125, 250, and 500 cells/mm cell concentration and corresponding control cultures obtained by manual seeding were analyzed by evaluating the fibrin surface covered by the cells. The stage of fibrin coverage by the cells was visualized using a microscope with oblique contrast illumination (AxioZoom, Zeiss, Germany) for 7 or 12 days. The area of the fibrin scaffold covered by the cells was manually marked using a graphics program (Zen Blue, Zeiss + ImageJ). Then, the number of pixels and the percentage of coverage relative to the total fibrin scaffold size was determined. In the case of samples with cells seeded manually, it was not possible to determine the degree of coverage during the first 2–4 days due to the spread of single cells across the fibrin surface. 6.12. Cell phenotyping on fibrin scaffolds Immunofluorescent staining was performed to confirm the stem cell-associated markers p63 and CK14 expression. Cultured cells on fibrin were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde (252549, Sigma-Aldrich) for 5 minutes, washed twice with 0.1% Triton X-100 (T8787, Sigma-Aldrich), and permeabilized for 15 minutes. Then cells were washed and blocked with 5% Hores Serum (H1138, Sigma-Aldrich) in 0.1% Triton X-100 for 30 minutes at room temperature or 4 o C overnight. Next, the samples were incubated with primary antibodies including PE-conjugated rabbit monoclonal anti-human p63-α (#56687, Cell Signaling Technology, diluted 1:100) and FITC-conjugated mouse monoclonal anti-human CK14 (LS-C535410, LsBio, diluted 1:100) at 4 o C overnight. Then, the samples were washed and incubated with secondary antibodies, including Alexa Fluor 568-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG (A11001, Invitrogen, diluted 1:5000) and Alexa Fluor 488-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG (A11036, Invitrogen, diluted 1:2500) at RT for 3 hours. To visualize the cytoskeleton of the cells, fixed cells were stained with phalloidin (A12379, Invitrogen) for 40 minutes. After washing, Hoechst solution (1 ul/ml) (H1399, Invitrogen) was used for nuclei staining. The stained cells were observed on a fluorescent microscope (AxioZoom, AxioObserver, Zeiss). The p63α -positive cells were identified by the red fluorescent signals in the cell nuclei, and the CK14-positive cells were identified by the green fluorescent signals in the cell cytoplasm. For each sample, 100 fields of 100x100 µm evenly distributed throughout the sample area were generated using the software (ZenBlue). Then, the p63-positive cells, CK14-positive cells, and the total number of cells in Hoechst staining from each field were counted. 6.13. Statistical analysis Statistical analysis was performed using the Statistica (v14.0 StatSoft). Results were presented as mean ± SD or/and median with interquartile range. To check normality, the Shapiro-Wilk test was performed. The Mann-Whitney rank sum test or Student's t-test was used to evaluate the significance of the two groups. In order to compare more than two groups, in the case of normal distribution of results, one-way ANOVA with Tukey's or Newman-Keuls post hoc test was performed; on the contrary, the nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis test was used. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Declarations Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Funding Research was a part of project “Scaffold for corneal reconstruction using 3D printing and bio-printing” as part of Priority Axis: I. Modern economy for the measure: 1.2 Research, development and innovation in enterprises of the Regional Operational Program of the Silesian Voivodeship for 2014–2020 (European Regional Development Fund). Author Contribution KP, KJ conducted the primary experiment, analysed and interpreted the data, and played a significant role in writing the manuscript. RD contribute by moulding fibrin material for experiments. AK, JZD, RB, DD, EW consulted research concept, provided supervision, consulted results and reviewed the final version of the manuscript. All authors carefully reviewed and approved the final manuscript. Data Availability The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request. References Hu, J. C. W. & Trief, D. A narrative review of limbal stem cell deficiency & severe ocular surface disease. Ann. Eye Sci. 8, 13–13 (2023). Limbal stem cell deficiency - ORPHA:171673 https://www.orpha.net/en/disease/detail/171673. Yokoo, S., Yamagami, S., Usui, T., Amano, S. & Araie, M. Human Corneal Epithelial Equivalents for Ocular Surface Reconstruction in a Complete Serum-Free Culture System without Unknown Factors. Investig. Opthalmology Vis. Sci. 49, 2438 (2008). Holland, E. J. & Schwartz, G. S. The evolution of epithelial transplantation for severe ocular surface disease and a proposed classification system. Cornea 15, (1996). Lang, S. J., Böhringer, D., Geerling, G. & Reinhard, T. Long-term results of allogenic penetrating limbo-keratoplasty: 20 years of experience. Eye 31, 372–378 (2017). Kolli, S., Ahmad, S., Lako, M. & Figueiredo, F. Successful Clinical Implementation of Corneal Epithelial Stem Cell Therapy for Treatment of Unilateral Limbal Stem Cell Deficiency. Stem Cells 28, 597–610 (2010). Guérin, L.-P. et al. Cultured Autologous Corneal Epithelia for the Treatment of Unilateral Limbal Stem Cell Deficiency: A Case Series of 15 Patients. Biomedicines 10, 1958 (2022). Pellegrini, G. et al. Location and Clonal Analysis of Stem Cells and Their Differentiated Progeny in the Human Ocular Surface. J. Cell Biol. 145, 769–782 (1999). Pellegrini, G. et al. Long-term restoration of damaged corneal surfaces with autologous cultivated corneal epithelium. The Lancet 349, 990–993 (1997). Schwab, I. R., Reyes, M. & Isseroff, R. R. Successful Transplantation of Bioengineered Tissue Replacements in Patients with Ocular Surface Disease: Cornea 19, 421–426 (2000). Tsai, R. J.-F., Li, L.-M. & Chen, J.-K. Reconstruction of Damaged Corneas by Transplantation of Autologous Limbal Epithelial Cells. N. Engl. J. Med. 343, 86–93 (2000). Sangwan, V. S., Vemuganti, G. K., Singh, S. & Balasubramanian, D. Successful Reconstruction of Damaged Ocular Outer Surface in Humans Using Limbal and Conjuctival Stem Cell Culture Methods. Biosci. Rep. 23, 169–174 (2003). Ramos, T., Scott, D. & Ahmad, S. An Update on Ocular Surface Epithelial Stem Cells: Cornea and Conjunctiva. Stem Cells Int. 2015, 1–7 (2015). Di Iorio, E. et al. Techniques for Culture and Assessment of Limbal stem Cell Grafts. Ocul. Surf. 8, 146–153 (2010). Rama, P. et al. Limbal Stem-Cell Therapy and Long-Term Corneal Regeneration. N. Engl. J. Med. 363, 147–155 (2010). Pellegrini, G. & De Luca, M. Eyes on the Prize: Limbal Stem Cells and Corneal Restoration. Cell Stem Cell 15, 121–122 (2014). Pedrotti, E. et al. In Vivo Confocal Microscopy 1 Year after Autologous Cultured Limbal Stem Cell Grafts. Ophthalmology 122, 1660–1668 (2015). Rama, P. et al. Autologous fibrin-cultured limbal stem cells permanently restore the corneal surface of patients with total limbal stem cell deficiency. Transplantation 72, 1478–1485 (2001). Ahmed, T. A. E., Dare, E. V. & Hincke, M. Fibrin: A Versatile Scaffold for Tissue Engineering Applications. Tissue Eng. Part B Rev. 14, 199–215 (2008). Sangwan, V. S. et al. Clinical outcomes of xeno-free autologous cultivated limbal epithelial transplantation: a 10-year study. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 95, 1525–1529 (2011). Forni, M. F. et al. Comparison Between Different Biomaterial Scaffolds for Limbal-Derived Stem Cells Growth and Enrichment. Curr. Eye Res. 38, 27–34 (2013). He, N. et al. Extracellular Matrix can Recover the Downregulation of Adhesion Molecules after Cell Detachment and Enhance Endothelial Cell Engraftment. Sci. Rep. 5, 10902 (2015). Wright, B., Mi, S. & Connon, C. J. Towards the use of hydrogels in the treatment of limbal stem cell deficiency. Drug Discov. Today 18, 79–86 (2013). Jeffries, G. D. M. et al. 3D micro-organisation printing of mammalian cells to generate biological tissues. Sci. Rep. 10, 19529 (2020). Pramotton, F. M. et al. Optimized Topological and Topographical Expansion of Epithelia. ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng. 5, 3922–3934 (2019). Cubo, N., Garcia, M., Del Cañizo, J. F., Velasco, D. & Jorcano, J. L. 3D bioprinting of functional human skin: production and in vivo analysis. Biofabrication 9, 015006 (2016). Deniz Derman, I. et al. High-throughput bioprinting of the nasal epithelium using patient-derived nasal epithelial cells. Biofabrication 15, 044103 (2023). Pellegrini, G. et al. From discovery to approval of an advanced therapy medicinal product-containing stem cells, in the EU. Regen. Med. 11, 407–420 (2016). Pellegrini, G. et al. p63 identifies keratinocyte stem cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 98, 3156–3161 (2001). Sharifi, A. M., Darabi, R. & Jadidi, K. Isolation, culture, characterization and optimization of human corneal stem cells. Biocell Off. J. Soc. Latinoam. Microsc. Electron. Al 34, 53–55 (2010). Chen, Z. et al. Characterization of Putative Stem Cell Phenotype in Human Limbal Epithelia. STEM CELLS 22, 355–366 (2004). Kurpakus, M. A., Maniaci, M. T. & Esco, M. Expression of keratins K12, K4 and K14 during development of ocular surface epithelium. Curr. Eye Res. 13, 805–814 (1994). Schlötzer-Schrehardt, U. & Kruse, F. E. Identification and characterization of limbal stem cells. Exp. Eye Res. 81, 247–264 (2005). Yang, A. et al. p63, a p53 Homolog at 3q27–29, Encodes Multiple Products with Transactivating, Death-Inducing, and Dominant-Negative Activities. Mol. Cell 2, 305–316 (1998). Di Iorio, E. et al. Isoforms of ΔNp63 and the migration of ocular limbal cells in human corneal regeneration. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 102, 9523–9528 (2005). Barbaro, V. et al. C/EBPδ regulates cell cycle and self-renewal of human limbal stem cells. J. Cell Biol. 177, 1037–1049 (2007). Zakaria, N. et al. Results of a phase I/II clinical trial: standardized, non-xenogenic, cultivated limbal stem cell transplantation. J. Transl. Med. 12, 58 (2014). Ekpo, P. et al. Characterization of limbal explant sites: Optimization of stem cell outgrowth in in vitro culture. PLOS ONE 15, e0233075 (2020). Malekpour, A. & Chen, X. Printability and Cell Viability in Extrusion-Based Bioprinting from Experimental, Computational, and Machine Learning Views. J. Funct. Biomater. 13, 40 (2022). Lužnik, Z. et al. Towards xeno-free cultures of human limbal stem cells for ocular surface reconstruction. Cell Tissue Bank. 18, 461–474 (2017). Farooqui, R. & Fenteany, G. Multiple rows of cells behind an epithelial wound edge extend cryptic lamellipodia to collectively drive cell-sheet movement. J. Cell Sci. 118, 51–63 (2005). Green, H. The birth of therapy with cultured cells. BioEssays 30, 897–903 (2008). De Luca, M., Pellegrini, G. & Green, H. Regeneration of squamous epithelia from stem cells of cultured grafts. Regen. Med. 1, 45–57 (2006). Sejpal, K. et al. Cultivated Limbal Epithelial Transplantation in Children With Ocular Surface Burns. JAMA Ophthalmol. 131, 731 (2013). Mladenovska, T., Choong, P. F., Wallace, G. G. & O’Connell, C. D. The regulatory challenge of 3D bioprinting. Regen. Med. 18, 659–674 (2023). Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Suplement.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 07 Oct, 2024 Read the published version in Scientific Reports → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 14 Aug, 2024 Reviews received at journal 25 Jul, 2024 Reviews received at journal 23 Jul, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 12 Jul, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 12 Jul, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 11 Jul, 2024 Reviewers invited by journal 11 Jul, 2024 Editor assigned by journal 11 Jul, 2024 Editor invited by journal 10 Jul, 2024 Submission checks completed at journal 10 Jul, 2024 First submitted to journal 07 Jul, 2024 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-4701489","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":335495416,"identity":"94f64749-ce40-4a39-8e50-3766667b1436","order_by":0,"name":"Krzysztof Pietryga","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Silesian Park of Medical Technology Kardio-Med Silesia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Krzysztof","middleName":"","lastName":"Pietryga","suffix":""},{"id":335495417,"identity":"9dd52b35-7a7d-49f3-8cbf-1d6c5383c8f0","order_by":1,"name":"Katarzyna Jesse","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Silesian Park of Medical Technology Kardio-Med Silesia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Katarzyna","middleName":"","lastName":"Jesse","suffix":""},{"id":335495418,"identity":"5edb2057-6d11-41bc-beed-62c909aaf48a","order_by":2,"name":"Rafał Drzyzga","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Silesian Park of Medical Technology Kardio-Med Silesia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rafał","middleName":"","lastName":"Drzyzga","suffix":""},{"id":335495419,"identity":"4bd124a9-34c5-44e0-a961-66016291cca8","order_by":3,"name":"Adam Konka","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Silesian Park of Medical Technology Kardio-Med Silesia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Adam","middleName":"","lastName":"Konka","suffix":""},{"id":335495420,"identity":"f66bca77-4111-4bb2-aa17-57a35ec0795a","order_by":4,"name":"Joanna Zembala-John","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Acellmed","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Joanna","middleName":"","lastName":"Zembala-John","suffix":""},{"id":335495421,"identity":"9520817f-d96d-4387-a29e-a0fd170161c6","order_by":5,"name":"Aleksandra Kowalik","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Acellmed","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Aleksandra","middleName":"","lastName":"Kowalik","suffix":""},{"id":335495422,"identity":"05790e02-036f-4d9e-8b35-dbc605e50d0b","order_by":6,"name":"Zdzisław Kiełbowicz","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Zdzisław","middleName":"","lastName":"Kiełbowicz","suffix":""},{"id":335495423,"identity":"8c88acda-61ce-473e-9dfa-d842f6bbf6dd","order_by":7,"name":"Marek Ćwirko","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Spektrum","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Marek","middleName":"","lastName":"Ćwirko","suffix":""},{"id":335495424,"identity":"d9962bfb-a67d-40e8-80ae-b20bf8c53d33","order_by":8,"name":"Rafał J. Bułdak","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Acellmed","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rafał","middleName":"J.","lastName":"Bułdak","suffix":""},{"id":335495425,"identity":"c3600193-5eb5-4249-9db5-e5cea7cef3af","order_by":9,"name":"Dariusz Dobrowolski","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Medical University of Silesia in Katowice","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Dariusz","middleName":"","lastName":"Dobrowolski","suffix":""},{"id":335495426,"identity":"d2a28407-22d1-418f-a639-a8595a8feeff","order_by":10,"name":"Edward Wylęgała","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Medical University of Silesia in Katowice","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Edward","middleName":"","lastName":"Wylęgała","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-07-07 19:38:35","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4701489/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4701489/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-73383-y","type":"published","date":"2024-10-07T15:57:20+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":62186652,"identity":"d5437b22-9e3a-4e41-a76b-1f4d98c92ba4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-10 12:07:02","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":4620564,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLESC cells isolated from porcine eye explants and its characterization.\u003c/strong\u003e Explants of corneoscleral junction (A,B,C), LESC cells migrated from explants after 3 days (D), confluent culture after 7 days (E,F, scalebar = 100 µm). Cells with characteristic epithelial cytoskeletal structure visualized by phalloidin staining (G). CK14 (H) and p63 (I) antigens are present in high percentage. Additional composite image with Hoechst staining and CK14 and p63 (J) showing that significant fraction of cells are CK14 and p63 positive (scalebar = 200 µm).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4701489/v1/e3e31bda4b82ae5fcbd0de7b.png"},{"id":62186653,"identity":"5667a35e-01bd-480a-a9c6-af2bdcafc033","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-10 12:07:02","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":2003722,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConcentration and viability during and after printing process.\u003c/strong\u003e Cells inside 3d-printer nozzle are sedimenting (A). Viability of cells inside nozzle is stable within long period of time and it is dropping slightly only after 30 min time point (A). Short series of 3 consecutive printing with smaller cell volumes are characterized by relatively stable cell concentration close to the target value (B). Viability of cells deposited on fibrin scaffold remains very high. 3D printed cells are significantly more viable (*p\u0026lt;0.001, n=39) than manually deposited control (C,E,G). Alter 7 days viability of 3D printed cells is still significantly higher (*p\u0026lt;0.001, n=58) than control (D, F, G). Scalebar = 1 mm.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4701489/v1/6e392ad6011b8baf55c700e3.png"},{"id":62186654,"identity":"41531a8d-c1cc-45bb-9644-d362d9535254","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-10 12:07:02","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":3859466,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCell density distribution (cell/mm\u003c/strong\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e) and viability (%) for dense 3D printed vs drop deposited samples\u003c/strong\u003e. Fibrin surface can covered by cells more homogamically by 3D printing compared to manual drop deposition where cells are mostly located in central area and cell density on fibrin edges is very low.\u0026nbsp; However dense 3D printing cases cell damage which is represented by significant drop in cell viability compared to control (p=0.0203, n=4). Scalebar = 2 mm.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4701489/v1/8a4c780af12a469a98b0e712.png"},{"id":62186659,"identity":"61cfd41e-9222-4b60-9cac-a69b34307af9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-10 12:07:02","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":4469030,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eRectilinear patterns printed with LESC cells on fibrin for tree different cell concentrations (A,B,C). Cell count in each print is close to targeted values of 500, 250 and 125 cell/mm2. Cell distribution in line is not homogenic – cells are mostly located in groups on the edges of the lines. The width of the printed lines decreases as the cell concentration increases (D).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4701489/v1/3d916709a7983c11b541a3d9.png"},{"id":62186658,"identity":"af5d76ed-59bf-4839-aa59-5c6673132dfa","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-10 12:07:02","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":5079061,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eEpithelium cell growth on a fibrin surface over 7 day culture for bioprinted samples as well as for manually dispensed cells. Cell spreading is more efficient for bioprinting method when smaller number of cells is applied (6 and 12×10\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e, #p=0.0403, ##p=0.0373, $p=0.0251, *p=0.0243, n=3). Higher initial cell number (24×10\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e) led to similar results for both manual and bioprining methods (not significant).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4701489/v1/b81b310836256727b58e4812.png"},{"id":62186657,"identity":"7505968d-20dc-4f48-b271-47f3e3cd2600","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-10 12:07:02","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":4396325,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCK14 and p63 positive cells on a fibrin surface after 7 day culture for bioprinted samples as well as for manual method. High percentage of CK14+ and p63+ was noted in all groups. Images from immunostaining (A) show mostly areas partially covered by cell to illustrate morphological differences of expanding epithelia. Differentiated (CK14- and p63-) cells are more abundant on the edges of samples produced by drop method. However quantitative data (B,C,D) of cells dyed by specific markers (p63, CK14 and Hoechst) did not showed significant differences between corresponding groups (Supplementary Data, S2).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4701489/v1/a0299444e3765a04b596920a.png"},{"id":66597142,"identity":"bce8d9b8-df86-4d3e-adbf-5e88d6fa2e79","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-10-14 16:07:42","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":30571399,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4701489/v1/6ed65bee-5ec1-4fa1-a6bb-d68820e9fab8.pdf"},{"id":62186655,"identity":"b9876fee-ab14-49bb-909e-faa3715265b4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-10 12:07:02","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":2403318,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Suplement.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4701489/v1/537df0cbb82795653e97ae97.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Bio-printing method as a novel approach to obtain a fibrin scaffold settled by limbal epithelial cells for corneal regeneration","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eLimbal stem cell deficiency (LSCD) is a rare corneal disorder caused by dysfunction and/or insufficient amount of corneal limbal stem cells, affecting 1\u0026ndash;5/10 000 people worldwide. It can be genetic, idiopathic, or acquired - certain conditions, i.e., ocular surface disorders, such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome, ocular cicatricial pemphigoid, and chemical or thermal burns, can contribute to developing LSCD and, consequently, to impaired vision or blindness. Efficient and widely available treatment options for LSCD are limited and challenging. Corneal transplantation remains the golden standard of treatment. However, the number of donors, compared to the needs, is insufficient. Moreover, some patients have contraindications for full-thickness keratoplasty\u003csup\u003e1,2\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTransplanting a cultured corneal epithelial cell equivalent containing potential adult stem cells and corneal epithelium constitutes today an alternative enabling the restoration of the ocular surface\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e. The most commonly performed procedure in unilateral LSCD is the conjunctival limbal autograft (CLAU), in which an opposing pair of two clock-hour-long conjunctival-limbal biopsies are harvested from the healthy eye to be grafted to the affected eye. This technique, however, is associated with the risk of inducing iatrogenic LSCD in the healthy donor eye\u003csup\u003e4,5\u003c/sup\u003e. Therefore, other therapeutic methods have been introduced. One is cultivated limbal epithelial transplant (CLET) \u0026ndash; a technique in which a small biopsy (approximately 2\u0026ndash;3 mm\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e) is harvested in a healthy eye. Cells are then expanded \u003cem\u003eex vivo\u003c/em\u003e on a human amniotic membrane or a fibrin carrier scaffold and grafted onto the affected eye. CLET provides a long-term solution to LSCDs by transplanting a self-renewing limbal stem cell population that can maintain a clear corneal epithelium\u003csup\u003e6,7\u003c/sup\u003e. This method, however, also has its limitations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe finding that human limbal cell cultures contain holoclones\u003csup\u003e8\u003c/sup\u003e led to the first therapeutic use of such cultures propagated with a feeder layer in the regeneration of corneal epithelium\u003csup\u003e9\u003c/sup\u003e. Similar therapy, with some modifications, was successfully reproduced by Ivan Schwab in the USA\u003csup\u003e10\u003c/sup\u003e, Ray Tsai in Taiwan\u003csup\u003e11\u003c/sup\u003e, and later by V Sangwan in India\u003csup\u003e12\u003c/sup\u003e. In the above-mentioned treatment, the culture protocol required the use of lethally irradiated 3T3 feeder cells in co-culture with the LESCs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn recent years, numerous protocols for culturing LESCs have been developed; they differ significantly from each other. They assume either the use of limbal explants (explant technique) or single cell culture (suspension technique), the presence or absence of feeder-layer (FL) usage (e.g. murine 3T3- J2 FL), as well as the application of different LESCs markers, and various culture media compositions\u003csup\u003e8,13\u0026ndash;15\u003c/sup\u003e. Standard complex culturing media therefore contain fetal bovine serum (FBS) in addition to various growth hormones and cholera toxin\u003csup\u003e16\u003c/sup\u003e. Moreover, isolated LESCs are seeded on different carriers for cell expansion and transplantation in each method. The most frequently used scaffolds are human amniotic membrane (AM) and fibrin matrix gels\u003csup\u003e17,18\u003c/sup\u003e. What is common for all those protocols is that LESCs are applied using traditional \u0026ndash; manual, cell seeding method, i.e., pipetting.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFibrin is considered a versatile substrate for cell growth, with great potential to be used in tissue regeneration and wound healing\u003csup\u003e19\u003c/sup\u003e. Next to the amniotic membrane, it is the most frequently used material in CLET procedures, and fibrin glue has been used to secure the amniotic membrane in those therapies\u003csup\u003e20\u003c/sup\u003e. Fibrin can also be used as a temporary basal membrane for the epithelium to grow on its surface. It is also considered far superior in enhancing the epithelial cells\u0026rsquo; survival, growth, and migration compared to collagen I and puramatrix\u003csup\u003e21\u003c/sup\u003e. Due to its ability to mimic extracellular matrix (ECM), fibrin is considered today the most optimal material for stem cell seeding: it forms a favorable ground for cell implantation and a supportive environment for engraftment or accelerating stem cell differentiation. Thanks to its unique features, it reduces the number of stem cells required for final tissue reconstruction and stimulates stem cell self-renewal\u003csup\u003e22\u003c/sup\u003e. Moreover, use of the fibrin may also result in obtaining holoclone formation on the scaffold\u003csup\u003e23\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe density of cell deposition on the materials to be implanted is essential due to the paracrine exchange of chemical signals between epithelial cells and stem cells. Too high cell density in the preparation may result in a limited growth surface for the transplanted cells. In turn, too low cell density may lead to loss of cell-cell or cell-ECM adhesion-related survival signals and, as a consequence, to cell death called anoikis, form of apoptosis\u003csup\u003e22\u003c/sup\u003e. The mechanisms responsible for acute donor cell death after transplantation are complex and result from many factors, including disruption of interaction between cells and loss of survival signals from matrix attachment. Stem cells require a strictly controlled environment to maintain high viability throughout the process, until transplantation\u003csup\u003e22\u003c/sup\u003e. The use of a 3D printer can provide such accurate monitoring of the cell seeding and growing procedure\u003csup\u003e24\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCell density can be controlled by extrusion volumes. Moreover, a typical printing pattern consisting of lines separated by empty spaces can result in an epithelial regeneration model, allowing for faster \u003cem\u003ein vitro\u003c/em\u003e expansion and reducing the number of cells required. Pramotton \u003cem\u003eat al.\u003c/em\u003e \u003csup\u003e25\u003c/sup\u003e tested this approach using PDMS magnetic stencil. In their research, seeding epithelial cells at high density in a confined channel led to three times faster complete epithelization of the target surface. However, to the best of our knowledge this approach has not been applied to LESCs yet, and 3D printing of the epithelium has so far been carried out only in such a way that the cells are distributed evenly over the entire surface\u003csup\u003e26,27\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe assume that simple extrusion-based 3D printing of cell suspension combined with well-defined fibrin material (with flat surface) can constitute a faster and more efficient method to obtain epithelium scaffolds for cornea regeneration. In our opinion numerous advantages of this method may contribute to a better standardization of the process, and its wider implementation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrinting cells, especially epithelial ones, at the appropriate seeding density provides an optimal growth niche for cells transplanted on fibrin. Such a microenvironment creates a favorable condition for cells to communicate \u0026ndash; exchange signals with stem cells to induce the cellular activity, and avoid anoikis process. Such effect cannot be achieved to such an extent by traditional method of cell seeding \u0026ndash; pipetting.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe primary objective of this study was to compare LESC cultivation at \u003cem\u003ein vitro\u003c/em\u003e conditions using 3D printing and pipetting (droplet seeding) method. LESCs were isolated from porcine eyes, and after the \u003cem\u003ein vitro\u003c/em\u003e propagation process, they were seeded on fibrin either by 3D printing or manually, by droplet method. First, the extrusion-based printing process was characterized in terms of (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) initial cell viability during printing, (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e) cell density control, (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e) printed line diameter, (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e) cell distribution on material, (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e) print reproducibility and (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e) cells viability on the material. The results were compared to those obtained through droplet seeding. Then, flat fibrin scaffolds were seeded with cells using 3D printing and droplet method. The cell coverage area was analyzed for different initial seeding densities over time to assess the rate of epithelialization. Additionally, morphology and phenotype differences were analyzed for both methods to confirm LESCs presence on the fibrin scaffold.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn our opinion, using 3D cell printing to prepare scaffolds in the Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) regime could significantly improve the quality of Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMP)\u003csup\u003e28\u003c/sup\u003e and hence, increase their presence in the clinical trials. Until now, the cell banks\u0026rsquo; quality control of ATMPs preparations has concentrated mostly on the type and number of cells, their origin and viability. Since the density of epithelial cell seeding largely determines the transplantation\u0026rsquo;s success, optimizing this parameter in scaffold preparation is crucial.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe 3D printing method guarantees a highly repeatable process: not only does it allow to seed cells in a controlled, very precise manner, maintaining appropriate even distances between the patterns, but it also enables the achievement of repeatability of appropriate growth niches for transplanted cells. Such features can contribute to replacing the traditional method of pipetting cell suspensions in the production of cell grafts (ATMP).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1. Cell isolation and characteristics\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCell culture containing LESCs was obtained from the explants of the limbal region of porcine eyeballs (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eA-C). First, those tissues were subjected to enzymatic treatment; after a 3-day culture in CNT medium, the LESCs started to migrate from the explants (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eD). Their morphology closely resembled limbal epithelial stem cells \u0026ndash; small rounded cells with high proliferative potential. Within 7\u0026ndash;12 days, most of the surface was covered with cells, although their morphology had become more heterogenic. Also, more giant cells were present (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eE,F). Fluorescent staining of the cytoskeleton by phalloidin was characteristic of the epithelial cells \u0026ndash; most fibers were located in junction areas (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eG). Also, most cells were CK14\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;and p63+ (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eH-J).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eData collected during numerous isolations indicated that the obtained cells had an average viability of 85\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.1% and contained at least 70% of p63\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;cells. Cell culture could be carried out until passage P4, although the best results in scaffold preparations were obtained in lower passages. In our experiments with fibrin scaffolds, we used only cells on passage P3.The efficiency of isolation from 1 mm\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e explant was approximately 2.6\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.3 \u0026times; 10\u003csup\u003e4\u003c/sup\u003e cells on P1, 8.8\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.5 \u0026times; 10\u003csup\u003e4\u003c/sup\u003e cells on P2 and 1.1\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.5 \u0026times; 10\u003csup\u003e5\u003c/sup\u003e on P3. It should be noted, however, that cell yield was highly determined by individual variability of donors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2. Extrusion-based bioprinting process characteristics\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eViability and cell concentration in extruded cell suspension were tested to determine whether the process associated with 3D printing has no harmful effect on the cells. It was also verified whether printing from the cell suspension could be reliable regarding the final cell count in extruded volumes. It was reported that for 100 \u0026micro;l load and 16 000 cell/\u0026micro;l cells sedimented slowly in the printing nozzle, and within 20 min, cell concentration increased almost four times (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eA). The sedimentation process could be eliminated almost entirely by 1% MC; but in this case MC caused deterioration in cell adhesion (S1, Supplementary Data). Performed later experiments with smaller volumes (8 \u0026micro;l) and shorter time (1 min for each print) demonstrated that extruded cell concentration remained stable (no statistical difference), and obtained results were close to the target values (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eB).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe viability of cells inside the nozzle was high during the first 30 min of the experiment (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eA). Printed cells (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eC, E) had a significantly higher viability than those deposited by pipetting (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eG), i.e. 91.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.6% vs. 75\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.6%. In addition, printed cells covered the surface more thoroughly (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eD, F). After seven days, differences in cell viability between printed and manually pipetted samples were still significant (91.1\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;8.2% vs 82.6\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;12.8%, Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eG).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThen, LESCs were printed in an 8x8 mm rectilinear dense pattern to cover the entire surface with cells, determine cell distribution in printed area, and compare it with manual drop deposition (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). Patterns with 500 cells/mm\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e were printed, and the same number of cells as in 0.8 \u0026micro;l volume of printed pattern was placed in drops.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor 3D printed samples, the density of cells in most areas ranged from 350\u0026ndash;600 cells/mm\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e. Lower cell counts were noted only on the edges (at the start and stop printing points). For traditionally prepared samples, cell density ranged from 50\u0026ndash;550 cells/mm\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e, and higher cell counts were only noted in the central area. In contrast, the edges of counting areas were almost entirely depleted with cells. In this case, the count of cells was nearly twice smaller because cells were deposited outside the counting area (and, frequently, outside the fibrin scaffold). Aggregated data of the distribution of cell counts presented in the histogram showed relatively narrow and unimodal distribution for 3D printed samples and bimodal, wide distribution for manually prepared models.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLESCs\u0026rsquo; viability 20 min after dense 3D printing was significantly lower than of the manually deposited control (70.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;5.2% vs 80.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.6%, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.02, n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor 3D prints with widely spared lines (1.2 mm apart), such parameters as deposited cell density in line and line width were measured. The experiment was carried out for three different concentrations \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;500, 250 and 125 cell/mm (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003eA). Cells were not evenly distributed in lines but were forming groups and were located more densely on the edges of the lines (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003eB). Cell count in 1 mm line was slightly higher than intended values for all samples (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003eC). After 15 min most of the cells\u0026rsquo; morphology indicated cell adhesion (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003eB).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLine width was similar within groups and within each sample. Line width variation from the average value was less than 5% for all samples within a group. Individual lines had less than 8.6% variations from average sample line width (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Line width decreased with increasing cell concentration (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003eD). Differences in line width between 125 \u003cem\u003evs.\u003c/em\u003e 250 cells/mm, 125 \u003cem\u003evs.\u003c/em\u003e 500 cells/mm, 250 \u003cem\u003evs.\u003c/em\u003e 500 cells/mm were statistically significant (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Concluding, the obtained line width was much higher than printing nozzle diameter of 200 \u0026micro;m.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWidth of 3D printed lines for samples printed with three cell concentrations. Kruskal-Wallis test 125 vs 250 cells/mm \u003csup\u003e#\u003c/sup\u003ep\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0186, 125 vs 500 cells/mm \u003csup\u003e##\u003c/sup\u003ep\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, 250 vs 500 cells/mm \u003csup\u003e###\u003c/sup\u003ep\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"10\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSample\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6k\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12k\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24k\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e125 cells/mm\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e250 cells/mm\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e500 cells/mm\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSample number\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLine number\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eI\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1031,4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1081,6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e975,0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e972,2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1027,3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e997,1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e871,4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e966,9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e886,2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e886,8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1015,3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e964,1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e918,6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e948,0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e979,7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e878,4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e925,0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e856,1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e974,5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e980,6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1015,2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e918,4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e926,6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e951,4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e894,3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e987,6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e844,9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eII\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e965,2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e992,7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e937,6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e887,7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e896,4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1048,6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e886,5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e875,0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e816,3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e956,0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1001,4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1039,2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e853,4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1007,2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1047,5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e886,3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e873,9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e845,8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e989,9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1018,5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1014,9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e902,0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1010,8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1056,2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e861,5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e866,2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e825,9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIII\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1008,9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1032,9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e991,1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e912,5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e996,6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e966,7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e918,6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e887,4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e856,1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e998,4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e936,4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e955,0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e926,6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e955,4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1076,0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e854,1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e906,5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e856,1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1002,9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e966,9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e995,4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e864,6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e925,8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e976,9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e822,2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e846,0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e876,7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIV\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e917,3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1012,2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e924,3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e876,6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e948,3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1047,3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e797,5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e837,1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e797,8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1024,0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1055,5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e941,4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e870,2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e874,5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e916,7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e886,0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e805,1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e825,7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e995,3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1079,3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1005,6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e888,2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e823,9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e791,6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e878,3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e825,8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e805,7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAverage for lines\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eI\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e964,2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1025,8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e984,8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e936,4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e967,3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e976,1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e881,4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e959,8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e862,4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eII\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e970,4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1004,2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e997,2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e881,0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e971,5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1050,8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e878,1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e871,7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e829,3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIII\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1003,4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e978,7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e980,5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e901,3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e959,2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1006,5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e865,0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e880,0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e863,0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIV\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e978,9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1049,0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e957,1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e878,3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e882,3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e918,5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e853,9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e822,7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e809,7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAverage for samples\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eI-IV\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e979,2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1014,4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e979,9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e899,3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e945,1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e988,0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e869,6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e883,5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e841,1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;40,9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;41,7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;34,5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;31,5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;58,1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;75,8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;31,3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;52,9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;26,2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal average\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e991.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;42.5\u003c/b\u003e \u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003e#,##\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e944.1\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;68.4\u003c/b\u003e \u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003e#,###\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e864.8\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;42.4\u003c/b\u003e \u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003e##,###\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe initial retention of the cells on the fibrin and the further cell spreading over the surface for different conditions were assessed (Fig. S2, Supplementary Data). A concentrated drop of cell suspension with a concentration similar to that of 3D printing was placed on a fibrin surface to simulate this process and determine proper fibrin preparation (dehydration level) and the first incubation time before adding the medium. Even after successful printing, we observed that cells did not retain on a surface; an added medium washed them out. On the other hand, prolonged incubation, meant to give more time for cell adhesion, has often led to over-drying and death of cells. 5 min of dehydration and 1h of incubation caused minimal cell retention. In this case, longer incubation (1.5 and 2h) reversed this undesirable phenomenon. For more dehydrated (10 min) fibrin, 2h incubation led to over-drying and loss of proliferative potential; however, cells retain on a surface and proliferate properly for shorter (1 and 1.5h) incubations. For most dehydrated fibrines (15 min), only short incubation led to the preservation of the proliferative potential of LESCs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3. Scaffolds characteristics - viability, cell coverage, density, phenotyping\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCell cultures of LESC on fibrin, which were applied using traditional and bioprinting methods, are shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003eA, B. LESCs were applied in the same number for each method \u0026ndash; 6, 12 and 24\u0026times;10\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e and cell morphology and growth area were analyzed over seven days. Results showed that cell spreading (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003eC, D) was more efficient for bioprinting when fewer cells were applied (6 and 12\u0026times;10\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e). Furthermore, the 12\u0026times;10\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e sample printing method resulted in almost full coverage after seven days, while for the 12\u0026times;10\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e manually seeded sample, only 60% coverage was achieved at that time (significantly different, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0243). Similarly, cell coverage after five days for 6\u0026times;10\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e and 12\u0026times;10\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e was more advanced for the printing method (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0403, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0373, respectively). Interestingly, higher initial cell numbers of 24\u0026times;10\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e led to similar results for manual and bioprinting methods.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eChanges in cell morphology were also visible. Cells applied manually on the surface in lower numbers grew in separate spots \u0026ndash; clones (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003eB, \u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003ek, day 7). For the bioprinting method, clones were also visible, but in this case, the surface was mostly covered with a dense, confluent layer of cells (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003eA, \u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003ek, day 7).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhenotypes for previously described groups at day seven were analyzed by p63 and CK14 immunostaining (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003eA). Most of the cells were p63 and CK14 positive; however, edges of expanding epithelia in many cases revealed the presence of fully differentiated keratinocytes or fibroblasts - characterized by the absence of p63 and CK14 antigens. Those cells usually were separated and did not form a confluent cell layer. They were often observed in 6 \u0026times;10\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e and 12 \u0026times;10\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e drop samples, as there were more areas with less confluency. However, statistical analysis of p63 and CK14 percentages did not show significant differences between manual and printing techniques (Fig. S3 D, E, Supplementary Data). Several p63 and CK14 positive cells for each sample were presented (Fig. S3 A, B, Supplementary Data). The samples produced by the printing method had a narrower cell number value distribution of p63 and CK14 than those produced by pipetting. Only for 24\u0026times;10\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e cells seeded manually were no visible changes in p63 and CK14 cell number value distribution. Changes in p63\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;and CK14\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;cell number distribution were mainly caused by the fact that 6 \u0026times;10\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e and 12 \u0026times;10\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e samples were less thoroughly covered by cells at day seven than their printed counterparts. Concluding, the total number of cells on scaffolds was significantly higher for the printing method, as shown by quantitative data from Hoechst staining (Fig. S3 C, Supplementary Data).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1. Cell isolation and characterisation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe LESCs needed for the bioprinting assessment were obtained by a mechano-enzymatic method involving partial digestion of the scrap and then culture and migration of the cells. The culture allowed the efficient isolation of cells in the amount needed to populate fibrin scaffolds. Their characteristics indicated epithelial cells, which was confirmed by the presence of p63 and CK14. These antigens frequently appear in publications describing the LESCs characteristics\u003csup\u003e29,30\u003c/sup\u003e. However, there is no clear statement regarding which antigens are specific for corneal epithelial stem cells. LESCs do not express CK3 or CK12 but have been reported to express CK19, CK14\u003csup\u003e31,32\u003c/sup\u003e, vimentin\u003csup\u003e33\u003c/sup\u003e, and ABCG2\u003csup\u003e31\u003c/sup\u003e. The TP63 gene generates six isoforms\u003csup\u003e34\u003c/sup\u003e. Ocular keratinocytes may contain all the ΔN isoforms, but ΔNp63α (referred to as p63) is by far the most abundant\u003csup\u003e14,35\u003c/sup\u003e. It is present in the limbus but not in the uninjured central cornea\u003csup\u003e29,36\u003c/sup\u003e, and is expressed in holoclones but not in paraclones\u003csup\u003e35\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn our experiment, the cells had the p63 antigen in a significant percentage (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;80%), similar to what was previously presented in literature\u003csup\u003e30,37,38\u003c/sup\u003e. It needs to be clarified what proportion of the cells are stem cells with the highest proliferative potential and how many are TAC (Transient Amplifying Cells) cells. Holoclones and meroclones have the highest proliferative potential (100 divisions and 40 divisions, respectively) and are characterized by the p63 antigen. Terminally differentiated cells with low proliferative potential forming paraclones are not p63 positive\u003csup\u003e29\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe proliferative potential of the cells has a significant impact on their ability to form epithelium on a scaffold (irrespective of the cell application method) and the success of future cell therapy. It has been reported that \u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;3% levels of p63\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;correlate with a 78.1% treatment success rate\u003csup\u003e15\u003c/sup\u003e. However, it is worth noting that individual variability also plays an important role.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2. Bioprinting process\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFlat fibrines, obtained by casting between two defined and flat surfaces, allowed on printing cells using extrusion without hydrogel or other thickener. The proposed approach enabled the application of cells on the surface in a controlled manner, either as a compact patch or as separated lines. It also allowed cell density and viability monitoring, provided, that specific conditions are met. One of them is the flatness of the fibrin. As the printer nozzle moves very close to the material, small changes in the thickness of the hydrogel can contribute to breaks in the strand due to approaching either too close or too far. Coming too close may result in rubbing cells against the surface and their mechanical damage. In our study, observed decreased cell viability in printed compact patches was most likely due to the nozzle snagging on already applied cells. In comparison, viability was not reduced when the lines were printed separately.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterestingly, the extrusion of the cell suspension from the nozzle did not result in a cell viability loss, as it in the case of hydrogels\u003csup\u003e39\u003c/sup\u003e and the formation of high shear forces in the nozzle. In our experiment, a low-viscosity suspension was extruded at relatively low rates. We found that the viability of the cells may also be affected by holding them in the nozzle at a relatively high concentration before the printing process. However, it has been shown that even 30 min of holding the cells in the printer nozzle did not result in viability loss. More problematic was the sedimentation of the cells, which occurred quite rapidly and could lead to a four times increase in the suspension density. This phenomenon, however, did not significantly affect cell density obtained for small suspension volumes and an instantaneous printing process (up to 3 min).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe handling of concentrated cell suspensions also turned out challenging. It is likely that either too high or too low measured cell density values may have been caused by the difficulty of preparing a cell suspension.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe printing process went well, and the printed lines were repeatable with only minor variability. The thickness of the printed lines was much greater than the thickness of the nozzle due to the process of droplet adhesion onto the hydrophilic material. It is likely that for high cell densities - the effect of cell clustering at the edge was dictated by snatching cells by the medium flow moving away from the nozzle. Cell density, in this case, had affected line thickness. For higher cell densities, the lines were thinner due to the higher viscosity of the suspension and the lower medium content. In a more viscous suspension, flow on a fibrin surface was suppressed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe printing process has been shown to allow much greater control over the density of cells on the surface than a manual application of cell suspension droplets. In the latter case, the cells spread throughout the fibrin surface, but a high concentration remained only in the center. Occasionally, cell suspension was spilled from the surface, and many cells dropped outside the sample. In the case of bioprinting, it was possible to apply the cells as a compact patch over a limited area. The cell density in this area remained even, and the fluctuations were much smaller than those of the droplet method. In the case of the droplet method, the edges of the material had a cell density more than 10x lower than the center. On the other hand, the density distribution was relatively narrow for bioprinting, and the cells were also concentrated at the edges.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eControlling cell seeding density in such a manner has a crucial impact on maintaining epithelial cells\u0026rsquo; correct phenotype and growth potential. For this type of cells, growth at low densities is not favorable. In this case, it was possible to simulate a growth niche. Limbal cells needed to be cultivated in sufficient seeding concentrations to obtain enough paracrine signals from one another to survive in serum-free conditions or a medium with low calcium concentration\u003csup\u003e40\u003c/sup\u003e. In our case, FBS was present in the culture, but no feeder layer or amniotic membrane was used. So far, to the best of our knowledge, there has been no report of culturing cornea epithelia on fibrin without a feeder layer. Cell density, proper preparation of the surface, and proper seeding process might have been crucial in this case. However, as experiments have shown, it is even more advantageous to use separate lines in which the cells are compacted, as total surface coverage leads to decreased viability due to probable mechanical damage. This approach is similar to the wound healing model presented by Pramotton\u003csup\u003e25\u003c/sup\u003e. This method provides local densification of cells in separated lines. After confluency is reached within these lines, epithelium spreads toward unseeded areas. This mechanism resembles physiological conditions when the epithelium is partially damaged.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn our study, a significant challenge requiring optimization was the retention of cells on the fibrin after the printing process. The question was which degree of fibrin hydration was optimal for cell adhesion and what the length of incubation should before adding the medium. We found that cells adhered weakly to hydrated fibrin and were flushed when the medium was added. Dehydrated fibrin favored cell adhesion; however, the incubation time needed to be shortened as it caused cells to become too dry and lose viability. The experiment showed that for printing accurately (in a small, medium volume), it is necessary to strictly control the humidity parameters as it can significantly impact on the success of the entire scaffold preparation process.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3. Scaffolds characteristics\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe process of epithelium growth on the scaffold differed between the printing and the traditional method. This phenomenon was associated with the way the cells were applied. Cells applied in drops via pipetting were distributed throughout the fibrin, reaching the highest density of cells in the middle. In the center, the densest layer of epithelium (sample 6k, Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e) was formed, and it gradually moved towards the edges of the fibrin. When lines of cells were printed, the confluent layer formed within these lines in the first few days of the culture. After that, gradual overgrowth proceeded, but the path for the epithelium to spread was shorter than in the traditional method.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, in the case of printing, shortly after confluence was reached, the epithelium started growing as one front from every side of the printed pattern. Such a phenomenon is analogous to the wound healing model. Under such conditions, through the proximity of other cells on the other side of the gap, a migration of cell accelerates\u003csup\u003e41\u003c/sup\u003e. This mechanism translated into an acceleration in the rate of surface overgrowth, although, in our case, the overgrowth was not as significant as previously described in the literature for HaCat cells\u003csup\u003e25\u003c/sup\u003e. This mechanism is illustrated by the fact that, for the 6k sample, the expansion of cells leading to the fusion of gaps was significantly faster than the expansion leading into areas at the periphery of the sample (see sample 6k, day 5, Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e). The 3D printing method allowed faster surface overgrowth only for samples with a relatively low seeding densitiy of 6 and 12k. For a density of 24k, the printing produced results comparable to those of the traditional method. This fact may indicate a specific threshold of the cell density on the fibrin necessary for a proper overgrowth process.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe phenotype of the cells after the overgrowth period showed no significant differences in the levels of p63 and CK14 antigens for either application method. In all cases, the percentage of p63\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;and CK14\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;cells were similar. The approximately 80% p63\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;cells for cultures on fibrin was very similar to that of the p63\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;percentage on culture plates, indicating that the proliferative potential of cells plated on fibrin was preserved. Those observations were similar to previously reported\u003csup\u003e30,37,38\u003c/sup\u003e. Comparing the 3D printing with the traditional method in terms of phenotype showed only minor differences. Scaffolds obtained by the 3D printing were characterized by greater p63 and CK14 cell percentage homogeneity and p63 and CK14 total number (S3, Supplementary Data). Samples from the traditional method were characterized by a favourable phenotype in the centre, where the culture density was high. However, the edges were dominated by larger cells or cells with unfavourable fibroblast-like morphology and phenotype (S4, Supplementary Data).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe use of low cell counts, condensed in lines resembling a wound model, could be a good approach from the point of view of the lower need for cells required for therapy. It is also possible to use a smaller number of cells at a lower passage but with a higher proliferative potential. It has been shown that as the passage number increases, the dividing potential of the cells decreases, and the success of the therapy is closely correlated with the presence of stem cells (p63+)\u003csup\u003e8\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe feeder layers promote niche regulation and stemness of cultivated cells. Though no adverse reactions have been reported in the use of 3T3 feeder layers in large case series\u003csup\u003e42,43\u003c/sup\u003e, avoiding xenogeneic material may reduce the risk of animal-derived infection and potential graft rejection. Moreover, clinical studies using non-xenogeneic reagents are also currently being conducted\u003csup\u003e20,37,44\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to the authors, using the 3D cell printing on scaffolds in the GMP standard system will increase the quality of ATMPs preparations in human trials. It will ensure the repeatability in obtaining appropriate growth niches for transplanted cells. New developments in additive manufacturing and regenerative medicine have the potential to radically disrupt the traditional pipelines of therapy development and medical device manufacture. These technologies constitute a challenge for regulators as the traditional regulatory frameworks are designed for mass-manufactured therapies rather than personalized solutions. Moreover, 3D bioprinting technologies present another dimension of complexity by including living cells in the manufacturing process. Until now, cell banks\u0026rsquo; quality control of ATMP preparations has concentrated mainly on the type and number of cells, their origin and viability. Regulators (EMA/FDA) typically require testing cell phenotypes to confirm purity, potency, and identity in product lot release specifications. Since the density of epithelial cell seeding determines significantly the success of transplantation, it is also necessary to focus on this parameter. The use of 3D cell printing, with its potential to seed cells in a controlled, highly repeatable manner, could contribute to replacing the traditional method of pipetting cell suspensions in the production of cell grafts (ATMP). In Europe, for example, the ATMP Regulation includes a 'hospital exemption' for non-routine, custom-made products that are not intended to be marketed. EU (EMA) regulation allows the application of regulatory exemptions to advanced medicinal products, including cell-therapy medicinal products, that 3D bioprinting may be covered by (and thus be exempt)\u003csup\u003e45\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe research demonstrated the feasibility of printing cells on a fibrin layer as a reproducible and high-quality method for obtaining scaffolds for corneal regeneration. Compared to the traditional manual technique, 3D printing yielded a more reproducible cell distribution which resulted in higher viability and accelerated surface overgrowth. The phenotype of cells on the 3D-printed scaffolds was similar to traditional scaffolds; however, the number of cells was significantly higher. Due to the reproducible nature of the culture and the more homogeneous scaffold parameters obtained, this method could be more effective in LSCD treatment.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Materials and methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.1. Fibrin scaffold preparation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFibrin hydrogels were prepared by modifying commercially available fibrin glue (Tisseel Lyo, Baxter). For the final mixture, 900 \u0026micro;l of fibrinogen dissolved in PBS with aprotinin, 50 \u0026micro;l of thrombin dissolved in PBS and 50 \u0026micro;l of CaCl\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e solution (WarChem) were used. The final ingredient concentration was: 3.6% fibrinogen, 2.5 IU/ml thrombin, 1000 KIU/ml aprotinin and 5 mM CaCl\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFibrin scaffolds were formed into 0.6 mm thick rectangular surfaces by pouring the final mixture into a mould consisting of two parallel flat Teflon surfaces separated by a 0.6 mm thick spacer and incubated at room temperature for 30 minutes for fibrin gelation. Then, fibrin hydrogels were washed twice in PBS, dried at room temperature for 15 minutes transferred to an airtight container, and stored for at least 3 days at 4\u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC. Before cell seeding, small circular fibrin scaffolds were prepared by cutting rectangular fibrin hydrogels using a 14 mm diameter punch.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe above-described fibrin forming process, using two parallel surfaces, enabled the production of fibrin scaffolds of the desired thickness and flatness, which was necessary for the correct cells to be 3D printed on the surface.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.2. Cell isolation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eLESCs were obtained from pig\u0026rsquo;s eyes taken from a local slaughterhouse. First, the eyes were rinsed in PBS solution (Corning), sterilized in 5% iodopovidone (EGIS Pharmaceuticals PLC, 10%, diluted in PBS) and stored in CnT-XP3 solution (CELLnTEC) with 100 U/mL penicillin, and 100 \u0026micro;g/mL streptomycin (Gibco) in 4\u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC. The corneal limbal tissue was punched out of the pig's eyes using a 3 mm biopsy punch and then cut into pieces with a scalpel. The obtained tissue fragments were treated with 100 U/ml collagenase II (17101015, Gibco) for two hours, then rinsed with PBS and placed in CnT-PR-HC (CELLnTEC) medium with 5% FBS (fetal bovine serum, 16140071, Gibco), 100 U/mL penicillin, and 100 \u0026micro;g/mL streptomycin mixture in standard conditions (37\u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC) in a humidified atmosphere of 5% CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e and 95% air. Cell migration from explants was observed under an inverted phase-contrast microscope (Axio Vert.A1, Zeiss, Germany).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.3. Cell culture\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAfter 6\u0026ndash;10 days, the number of migrated cells allowed to carry out the first passage. Cells with explants were rinsed with PBS, detached with TrypLE\u0026trade; Express Enzyme (Gibco) solution and centrifuged at 230\u0026times;g for 3 minutes. Cells were counted and seeded on f100 plates pre-coated with a mixture of 0.01 mg/ml fibronectin (F2006, Sigma-Aldrich), 0.03 mg/mL bovine collagen (PureCol, 5006, Sigma-Aldrich) and 0.01 mg/mL bovine serum albumin (A8022, Sigma-Aldrich). Cells were routinely cultured in CnT-PR-HC medium supplemented with 5% FBS, 100 U/mL penicillin, and 100 \u0026micro;g/mL streptomycin in a humidified atmosphere containing 5% CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e and 95% air at 37\u0026deg;C. The culture medium was changed every 2\u0026ndash;3 days. Cell morphology was controlled using a phase-contrast microscope (PrimoVert, Zeis, Germany). Cultures with small cell sizes and high nucleus-to-cytoplasm ratios were selected for further experiments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCells on fibrin scaffolds were cultured in a growth medium consisting of a 1:1 mixture of CnT-PR-HC and Dulbecco\u0026rsquo;s Modified Eagle\u0026rsquo;s Medium (DMEM, 11966-025, Gibco) supplemented with 5% FBS, 0.5 mM sodium pyruvate (25-000CIR, Corning), 0.5% (v/v) amino acid solution (non-essential amino acids, 11140-035, Gibco), 100 U/mL penicillin, 100 \u0026micro;g/mL streptomycin and the addition of 150 KIU/ml aprotinin (from Tisseel Lyo, Baxter). The culture medium was changed every 2\u0026ndash;3 days.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.4. Determining the parameters of scaffold preparation for the cell seeding\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe optimal drying time of the fibrin scaffold before seeding cells and the adjustment of the appropriate cell attachment time before adding the culture medium were analysed. For this purpose, the fibrin scaffolds were air-dried in a laminar chamber for 5, 10, and 15 minutes before cell seeding. Cells were then manually seeded in a very small volume (0.2 \u0026micro;l) of concentrated LESCs suspension in the centre of a fibrin scaffold (φ14 mm) placed on φ60 mm dishes. Samples were then incubated without adding medium for 15 minutes in the cell incubator; and next 30 \u0026micro;l of the medium was added to the edge of the scaffold. Samples were then incubated for another 1, 1.5, or 2 hours before adding the medium\u0026rsquo;s total volume (2.5 ml). The surface of the fibrin scaffold was covered with cells, and the morphology of cells on fibrin was analysed over 12 days.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.5. Cell culture on scaffolds obtained by traditional method\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFibrin scaffolds were placed in φ 60 mm dishes and incubated in CnT-PR-HC medium in 5% CO2, at 37\u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC for 60 minutes. LESCs were then manually seeded at densities of 0.6, 1.2, and 2.4 x 10\u003csup\u003e4\u003c/sup\u003e in a 30 \u0026micro;l drop covering the whole fibrin surface using an automated pipette and placed in the incubator for 90 minutes to attach the cells to the fibrin surface. After this time, 2 ml of CnT/DMEM medium was added. The culture was maintained for 7 days. The medium was changed every 2\u0026ndash;3 days.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.6. Cell culture on scaffolds obtained by bioprinting\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrinting of LESC was performed using a 200 \u0026micro;l microsyringe (1725 TLX, Hamilton, USA) with a conical tip, mounted in the Syringe Pump Printhead (no. 20855) of the BioX bioprinter (Cellink, Sweden). Printing on the fibrin surface was performed with a φ 0.2 mm nozzle, with a speed of 10 mm/s, and an extrusion speed of 17.2 nl/mm at room temperature.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThree printing patterns were used for cell printing: (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) for the viability test, the first pattern created in the shape of a square with 3 parallel lines inside the square with a total print length of 64 mm, (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e) for cell distribution test, the second pattern in the shape of a square with 9 parallel lines inside the square with a total length of 112 mm, (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e) for long-term culture, third pattern, having no outer edges, only 5 parallel lines spaced 1.8 mm with total print length of 48 mm.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe cell-printed fibrin scaffolds were incubated for 15 minutes to ensure appropriate cell attachment to the fibrin surface. Then, 30 \u0026micro;l of CnT/DMEM medium was added around the scaffold for another 60 minutes. After this time, cell cultures on scaffolds were supplemented with 2 ml of medium. The culture was carried out for 7 days. The medium was changed every 2\u0026ndash;3 days.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.7. Stability of cell number during bioprinting\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe number of cells extruded during the 3D printing process was analysed at intervals (1, 2, 3 minutes or 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, 50 and 60 minutes) to check whether the given number of cells (0.6, 1.2 or 2.4 x 10\u003csup\u003e4\u003c/sup\u003e cells) is actually extruded in the total print volume and whether it changes over time. Cells were extruded into the Eppendorf tube, diluted by medium, mixed with trypan blue and counted in B\u0026uuml;rker counting chamber. Three separate counts were made for each time point.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.8. Cell viability after bioprinting\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe viability of printed cells was evaluated by fluorescent staining with Live/Dead solution containing 1% calcein AM (17783, Sigma-Aldrich) and 1% propidium iodide (P4864, Sigma-Aldrich) in CnT-PR-HC medium. Fibrin scaffolds were incubated with Live/Dead solution for 10 minutes before cell printing; then cells were printed on scaffolds according to pattern 1 (extrusion rate: 500 cells/mm) and visualized after 15 minutes with a fluorescent microscope (AxioZoom, Zeiss, Germany) equipped with Zeiss HXP 200 C Fluorescence Light Source. The control sample cells were manually applied to the fibrin surface in a 30 \u0026micro;l drop. After 7 days, the viability of the culture was analysed by 15 minute staining with a Live/Dead solution. Live and dead cells were counted in each of the 1 mm\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e spots for four samples.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.9. Cell distribution on fibrin scaffolds\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo determine cell distribution on fibrin scaffolds, cells were printed (extrusion rate of 250 cells/mm) according to pattern 2 (dense printing) and visualized by Live/Dead staining. The control samples constituted cells manually applied to the fibrin surface in a 30 \u0026micro;l drop. The number of live and dead cells was counted in 25 areas (1 mm\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e) arranged in a 5x5 rectangular grid for each sample. Collected data was presented as maps representing each sample's cell distribution and viability distribution and as histograms for printing and control groups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.10. Characteristic of printed lines\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCells were printed at densities of 0.6, 1.2, or 2.4 \u0026times; 10\u003csup\u003e4\u003c/sup\u003e per sample according to pattern and counted to check whether the number of cells in the printed lines was consistent with theoretical assumptions. Counts from each of the four samples collected from 1 mm samples of the printed line were averaged and represented as a bar chart.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe line thickness of every print for three different cell concentrations (0.6, 1.2, or 2.4 \u0026times; 10\u003csup\u003e4\u003c/sup\u003e cells) was measured. Each printed line was measured in 3 points. Collected data was represented as table.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.11. Characterization of cell cultures spread on fibrin\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe cell spreading on the fibrin scaffolds (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3) printed with 125, 250, and 500 cells/mm cell concentration and corresponding control cultures obtained by manual seeding were analyzed by evaluating the fibrin surface covered by the cells. The stage of fibrin coverage by the cells was visualized using a microscope with oblique contrast illumination (AxioZoom, Zeiss, Germany) for 7 or 12 days. The area of the fibrin scaffold covered by the cells was manually marked using a graphics program (Zen Blue, Zeiss\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;ImageJ). Then, the number of pixels and the percentage of coverage relative to the total fibrin scaffold size was determined. In the case of samples with cells seeded manually, it was not possible to determine the degree of coverage during the first 2\u0026ndash;4 days due to the spread of single cells across the fibrin surface.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.12. Cell phenotyping on fibrin scaffolds\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eImmunofluorescent staining was performed to confirm the stem cell-associated markers p63 and CK14 expression. Cultured cells on fibrin were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde (252549, Sigma-Aldrich) for 5 minutes, washed twice with 0.1% Triton X-100 (T8787, Sigma-Aldrich), and permeabilized for 15 minutes. Then cells were washed and blocked with 5% Hores Serum (H1138, Sigma-Aldrich) in 0.1% Triton X-100 for 30 minutes at room temperature or 4\u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC overnight. Next, the samples were incubated with primary antibodies including PE-conjugated rabbit monoclonal anti-human p63-α (#56687, Cell Signaling Technology, diluted 1:100) and FITC-conjugated mouse monoclonal anti-human CK14 (LS-C535410, LsBio, diluted 1:100) at 4\u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC overnight. Then, the samples were washed and incubated with secondary antibodies, including Alexa Fluor 568-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG (A11001, Invitrogen, diluted 1:5000) and Alexa Fluor 488-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG (A11036, Invitrogen, diluted 1:2500) at RT for 3 hours. To visualize the cytoskeleton of the cells, fixed cells were stained with phalloidin (A12379, Invitrogen) for 40 minutes. After washing, Hoechst solution (1 ul/ml) (H1399, Invitrogen) was used for nuclei staining. The stained cells were observed on a fluorescent microscope (AxioZoom, AxioObserver, Zeiss). The p63α -positive cells were identified by the red fluorescent signals in the cell nuclei, and the CK14-positive cells were identified by the green fluorescent signals in the cell cytoplasm.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor each sample, 100 fields of 100x100 \u0026micro;m evenly distributed throughout the sample area were generated using the software (ZenBlue). Then, the p63-positive cells, CK14-positive cells, and the total number of cells in Hoechst staining from each field were counted.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.13. Statistical analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eStatistical analysis was performed using the Statistica (v14.0 StatSoft). Results were presented as mean\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;SD or/and median with interquartile range. To check normality, the Shapiro-Wilk test was performed. The Mann-Whitney rank sum test or Student's t-test was used to evaluate the significance of the two groups. In order to compare more than two groups, in the case of normal distribution of results, one-way ANOVA with Tukey's or Newman-Keuls \u003cem\u003epost hoc\u003c/em\u003e test was performed; on the contrary, the nonparametric Kruskal\u0026ndash;Wallis test was used. P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05 was considered statistically significant.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch was a part of project \u0026ldquo;Scaffold for corneal reconstruction using 3D printing and bio-printing\u0026rdquo; as part of Priority Axis: I. Modern economy for the measure: 1.2 Research, development and innovation in enterprises of the Regional Operational Program of the Silesian Voivodeship for 2014\u0026ndash;2020 (European Regional Development Fund).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eKP, KJ conducted the primary experiment, analysed and interpreted the data, and played a significant role in writing the manuscript. RD contribute by moulding fibrin material for experiments. AK, JZD, RB, DD, EW consulted research concept, provided supervision, consulted results and reviewed the final version of the manuscript. All authors carefully reviewed and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHu, J. C. W. \u0026amp; Trief, D. A narrative review of limbal stem cell deficiency \u0026amp; severe ocular surface disease. Ann. Eye Sci. 8, 13\u0026ndash;13 (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLimbal stem cell deficiency - ORPHA:171673 https://www.orpha.net/en/disease/detail/171673.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYokoo, S., Yamagami, S., Usui, T., Amano, S. \u0026amp; Araie, M. Human Corneal Epithelial Equivalents for Ocular Surface Reconstruction in a Complete Serum-Free Culture System without Unknown Factors. Investig. Opthalmology Vis. Sci. 49, 2438 (2008).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHolland, E. J. \u0026amp; Schwartz, G. S. The evolution of epithelial transplantation for severe ocular surface disease and a proposed classification system. Cornea 15, (1996).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLang, S. J., B\u0026ouml;hringer, D., Geerling, G. \u0026amp; Reinhard, T. Long-term results of allogenic penetrating limbo-keratoplasty: 20 years of experience. Eye 31, 372\u0026ndash;378 (2017).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKolli, S., Ahmad, S., Lako, M. \u0026amp; Figueiredo, F. Successful Clinical Implementation of Corneal Epithelial Stem Cell Therapy for Treatment of Unilateral Limbal Stem Cell Deficiency. Stem Cells 28, 597\u0026ndash;610 (2010).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGu\u0026eacute;rin, L.-P. et al. Cultured Autologous Corneal Epithelia for the Treatment of Unilateral Limbal Stem Cell Deficiency: A Case Series of 15 Patients. Biomedicines 10, 1958 (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePellegrini, G. et al. Location and Clonal Analysis of Stem Cells and Their Differentiated Progeny in the Human Ocular Surface. J. Cell Biol. 145, 769\u0026ndash;782 (1999).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePellegrini, G. et al. Long-term restoration of damaged corneal surfaces with autologous cultivated corneal epithelium. The Lancet 349, 990\u0026ndash;993 (1997).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchwab, I. R., Reyes, M. \u0026amp; Isseroff, R. R. Successful Transplantation of Bioengineered Tissue Replacements in Patients with Ocular Surface Disease: Cornea 19, 421\u0026ndash;426 (2000).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTsai, R. J.-F., Li, L.-M. \u0026amp; Chen, J.-K. Reconstruction of Damaged Corneas by Transplantation of Autologous Limbal Epithelial Cells. N. Engl. J. Med. 343, 86\u0026ndash;93 (2000).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSangwan, V. S., Vemuganti, G. K., Singh, S. \u0026amp; Balasubramanian, D. Successful Reconstruction of Damaged Ocular Outer Surface in Humans Using Limbal and Conjuctival Stem Cell Culture Methods. Biosci. Rep. 23, 169\u0026ndash;174 (2003).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRamos, T., Scott, D. \u0026amp; Ahmad, S. An Update on Ocular Surface Epithelial Stem Cells: Cornea and Conjunctiva. Stem Cells Int. 2015, 1\u0026ndash;7 (2015).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDi Iorio, E. et al. Techniques for Culture and Assessment of Limbal stem Cell Grafts. Ocul. Surf. 8, 146\u0026ndash;153 (2010).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRama, P. et al. Limbal Stem-Cell Therapy and Long-Term Corneal Regeneration. N. Engl. J. Med. 363, 147\u0026ndash;155 (2010).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePellegrini, G. \u0026amp; De Luca, M. Eyes on the Prize: Limbal Stem Cells and Corneal Restoration. Cell Stem Cell 15, 121\u0026ndash;122 (2014).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePedrotti, E. et al. In Vivo Confocal Microscopy 1 Year after Autologous Cultured Limbal Stem Cell Grafts. Ophthalmology 122, 1660\u0026ndash;1668 (2015).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRama, P. et al. Autologous fibrin-cultured limbal stem cells permanently restore the corneal surface of patients with total limbal stem cell deficiency. Transplantation 72, 1478\u0026ndash;1485 (2001).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAhmed, T. A. E., Dare, E. V. \u0026amp; Hincke, M. Fibrin: A Versatile Scaffold for Tissue Engineering Applications. Tissue Eng. Part B Rev. 14, 199\u0026ndash;215 (2008).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSangwan, V. S. et al. Clinical outcomes of xeno-free autologous cultivated limbal epithelial transplantation: a 10-year study. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 95, 1525\u0026ndash;1529 (2011).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eForni, M. F. et al. Comparison Between Different Biomaterial Scaffolds for Limbal-Derived Stem Cells Growth and Enrichment. Curr. Eye Res. 38, 27\u0026ndash;34 (2013).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHe, N. et al. Extracellular Matrix can Recover the Downregulation of Adhesion Molecules after Cell Detachment and Enhance Endothelial Cell Engraftment. Sci. Rep. 5, 10902 (2015).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWright, B., Mi, S. \u0026amp; Connon, C. J. Towards the use of hydrogels in the treatment of limbal stem cell deficiency. Drug Discov. Today 18, 79\u0026ndash;86 (2013).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJeffries, G. D. M. et al. 3D micro-organisation printing of mammalian cells to generate biological tissues. Sci. Rep. 10, 19529 (2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePramotton, F. M. et al. Optimized Topological and Topographical Expansion of Epithelia. ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng. 5, 3922\u0026ndash;3934 (2019).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCubo, N., Garcia, M., Del Ca\u0026ntilde;izo, J. F., Velasco, D. \u0026amp; Jorcano, J. L. 3D bioprinting of functional human skin: production and in vivo analysis. Biofabrication 9, 015006 (2016).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDeniz Derman, I. et al. High-throughput bioprinting of the nasal epithelium using patient-derived nasal epithelial cells. Biofabrication 15, 044103 (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePellegrini, G. et al. From discovery to approval of an advanced therapy medicinal product-containing stem cells, in the EU. Regen. Med. 11, 407\u0026ndash;420 (2016).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePellegrini, G. et al. p63 identifies keratinocyte stem cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 98, 3156\u0026ndash;3161 (2001).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSharifi, A. M., Darabi, R. \u0026amp; Jadidi, K. Isolation, culture, characterization and optimization of human corneal stem cells. Biocell Off. J. Soc. Latinoam. Microsc. Electron. Al 34, 53\u0026ndash;55 (2010).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChen, Z. et al. Characterization of Putative Stem Cell Phenotype in Human Limbal Epithelia. STEM CELLS 22, 355\u0026ndash;366 (2004).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKurpakus, M. A., Maniaci, M. T. \u0026amp; Esco, M. Expression of keratins K12, K4 and K14 during development of ocular surface epithelium. Curr. Eye Res. 13, 805\u0026ndash;814 (1994).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchl\u0026ouml;tzer-Schrehardt, U. \u0026amp; Kruse, F. E. Identification and characterization of limbal stem cells. Exp. Eye Res. 81, 247\u0026ndash;264 (2005).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYang, A. et al. p63, a p53 Homolog at 3q27\u0026ndash;29, Encodes Multiple Products with Transactivating, Death-Inducing, and Dominant-Negative Activities. Mol. Cell 2, 305\u0026ndash;316 (1998).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDi Iorio, E. et al. Isoforms of \u0026Delta;Np63 and the migration of ocular limbal cells in human corneal regeneration. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 102, 9523\u0026ndash;9528 (2005).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarbaro, V. et al. C/EBP\u0026delta; regulates cell cycle and self-renewal of human limbal stem cells. J. Cell Biol. 177, 1037\u0026ndash;1049 (2007).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZakaria, N. et al. Results of a phase I/II clinical trial: standardized, non-xenogenic, cultivated limbal stem cell transplantation. J. Transl. Med. 12, 58 (2014).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEkpo, P. et al. Characterization of limbal explant sites: Optimization of stem cell outgrowth in in vitro culture. PLOS ONE 15, e0233075 (2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMalekpour, A. \u0026amp; Chen, X. Printability and Cell Viability in Extrusion-Based Bioprinting from Experimental, Computational, and Machine Learning Views. J. Funct. Biomater. 13, 40 (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLužnik, Z. et al. Towards xeno-free cultures of human limbal stem cells for ocular surface reconstruction. Cell Tissue Bank. 18, 461\u0026ndash;474 (2017).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFarooqui, R. \u0026amp; Fenteany, G. Multiple rows of cells behind an epithelial wound edge extend cryptic lamellipodia to collectively drive cell-sheet movement. J. Cell Sci. 118, 51\u0026ndash;63 (2005).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGreen, H. The birth of therapy with cultured cells. BioEssays 30, 897\u0026ndash;903 (2008).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDe Luca, M., Pellegrini, G. \u0026amp; Green, H. Regeneration of squamous epithelia from stem cells of cultured grafts. Regen. Med. 1, 45\u0026ndash;57 (2006).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSejpal, K. et al. Cultivated Limbal Epithelial Transplantation in Children With Ocular Surface Burns. JAMA Ophthalmol. 131, 731 (2013).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMladenovska, T., Choong, P. F., Wallace, G. G. \u0026amp; O\u0026rsquo;Connell, C. D. The regulatory challenge of 3D bioprinting. Regen. Med. 18, 659\u0026ndash;674 (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"scientific-reports","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"scirep","sideBox":"Learn more about [Scientific Reports](http://www.nature.com/srep/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Scientific Reports","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Scientific Reports","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"LESC, fibrin, cell culture, LSCD, bioprinting, epithelium, ocular regeneration","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4701489/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4701489/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eTreatment of Limbal Stem Cell Deficiency (LSCD), based on autologous transplantation of the patient's stem cells, is one of the few medical stem cell therapies approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). It relies on isolating and culturing in vivo Limbal Epithelial Stem Cells (LESC) and then populating them on the fibrin substrate, creating a scaffold for corneal epithelial regeneration. Such a solution is then implanted into the patient's eye. The epithelial cell culture process is specific, and its results strongly depend on the initial cell seeding density. Achieving control of the density and repeatability of the process is a desirable aim and can contribute to the success of the therapy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study aimed to test 3D printing as a potential technique to increase the control over LESCs seeding on a scaffold and improve process reproducibility. Cells were applied to 0.5 mm thick, flat, transparent fibrin substrates using extrusion bioprinting; the control was the traditional manual application of cells using a pipette. The 3D printing enabled uniform coverage of the scaffold surface, and LESCs density in printed lines was close to the targeted value. Moreover, printed cells had higher cell viability than those seeded traditionally (91.1\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;8.2% vs 82.6\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;12.8%). The growth rate of the epithelium was higher in 3D-printed samples. In both methods, the epithelium had favorable phenotypic features (p63\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;and CK14+).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3D printing constitutes a promising approach in LSCD therapy. It provides favorable conditions for LESCs growth and process reproducibility. Its application may lead to reduced cell requirements, thereby to using fewer cells on lower passages, which will contribute to preserving LESCs proliferative potential.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Bio-printing method as a novel approach to obtain a fibrin scaffold settled by limbal epithelial cells for corneal regeneration","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-08-10 12:06:57","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4701489/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2024-08-14T08:41:58+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-07-25T08:22:07+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-07-23T13:29:16+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"310675331102888811455291302373822859016","date":"2024-07-12T09:03:50+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"156108709920372989518317382553256009952","date":"2024-07-12T08:04:02+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"108624049740231495482540633989939566570","date":"2024-07-12T02:52:15+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2024-07-12T01:56:11+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2024-07-11T04:05:48+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2024-07-11T03:58:51+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2024-07-11T03:57:48+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Scientific Reports","date":"2024-07-07T19:37:12+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"scientific-reports","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"scirep","sideBox":"Learn more about [Scientific Reports](http://www.nature.com/srep/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Scientific Reports","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Scientific Reports","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"a4387e51-33e7-4df3-a03d-59be38e9bd93","owner":[],"postedDate":"August 10th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[{"id":35533473,"name":"Health sciences/Medical research/Pre clinical studies"},{"id":35533474,"name":"Health sciences/Medical research/Stem cell research"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-10-14T16:00:47+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-4701489","link":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-73383-y","journal":{"identity":"scientific-reports","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Scientific Reports"},"publishedOn":"2024-10-07 15:57:20","publishedOnDateReadable":"October 7th, 2024"},"versionCreatedAt":"2024-08-10 12:06:57","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1038/s41598-024-73383-y","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-73383-y","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-4701489","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-4701489","identity":"rs-4701489","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}