BioP3 technology could be an alternative to bioprinting organs
Reported by: Irina Robu,PhD
Even though its still in the development stages, BioP3 may be the future of bioprinting human organs. It is being developed by a a team led by Jeffrey Morgan, Brown University bioengineer and Dr. Andrew Blakely, a surgery fellow at Rhode Island Hospital. The concept of the technology is inspired by the same method in which electronic devices are manufactured, where different components are selected and then carefully put in place to form a whole. In this case, those components are “microtissues” – microscopic structures composed of living tissue. These are manufactured using a micromolding technique developed by Morgan, in which various types of living cells can be made to self-assemble into predetermined shapes such as spheres, rods or honeycomb slabs.
Within the BioP3 device, which looks like a small, clear plastic box, a selection of microtissues is stored in a central chamber. A nozzle, connected to various tubes and a microscope-like stage, is used to pick them up one at a time via suction. An operator can then move each component precisely to where it needs to be, gradually building up a 3D biological structure. The microtissues are enclosed in liquid, and the plumbing within the nozzle creates fluid suction, allowing the nozzle to pick up, carry, and release the living microtisues without doing any damage to them.
Source
2012pharmaceutical
Amandeep Kaur
Aashir Awan, Phd
Abhisar Anand
Adina Hazan
Alan F. Kaul, PharmD., MS, MBA, FCCP
alexcrystal6
anamikasarkar
apreconasia
aviralvatsa
David Orchard-Webb, PhD
danutdaagmailcom
Demet Sag, Ph.D., CRA, GCP
Dror Nir
dsmolyar
Ethan Coomber
evelinacohn
Gail S Thornton
Irina Robu
jayzmit48
jdpmd
jshertok
kellyperlman
Ed Kislauskis
larryhbern
Madison Davis
marzankhan
megbaker58
ofermar2020
Dr. Pati
pkandala
Rosalind Codrington, PhD
ritusaxena
Rick Mandahl
sjwilliamspa
Srinivas Sriram
stuartlpbi
Dr. Sudipta Saha
tildabarliya
vaishnavee24
zraviv06
zs22
This is very insightful. There is no doubt that there is the bias you refer to. 42 years ago, when I was postdocing in biochemistry/enzymology before completing my residency in pathology, I knew that there were very influential mambers of the faculty, who also had large programs, and attracted exceptional students. My mentor, it was said (although he was a great writer), could draft a project on toilet paper and call the NIH. It can’t be true, but it was a time in our history preceding a great explosion. It is bizarre for me to read now about eNOS and iNOS, and about CaMKII-á, â, ã, ä – isoenzymes. They were overlooked during the search for the genome, so intermediary metabolism took a back seat. But the work on protein conformation, and on the mechanism of action of enzymes and ligand and coenzyme was just out there, and became more important with the research on signaling pathways. The work on the mechanism of pyridine nucleotide isoenzymes preceded the work by Burton Sobel on the MB isoenzyme in heart. The Vietnam War cut into the funding, and it has actually declined linearly since.
A few years later, I was an Associate Professor at a new Medical School and I submitted a proposal that was reviewed by the Chairman of Pharmacology, who was a former Director of NSF. He thought it was good enough. I was a pathologist and it went to a Biochemistry Review Committee. It was approved, but not funded. The verdict was that I would not be able to carry out the studies needed, and they would have approached it differently. A thousand young investigators are out there now with similar letters. I was told that the Department Chairmen have to build up their faculty. It’s harder now than then. So I filed for and received 3 patents based on my work at the suggestion of my brother-in-law. When I took it to Boehringer-Mannheim, they were actually clueless.