Global 3D Bioprinting Market: Industry Size, Share and Segments Analysis to 2015 – 2021
Reported by: Irina Robu, PhD
“3D bioprinting is a process of creating spatially-controlled cell patterns in 3D, where viability and cell function are conserved within printed construct. The 3D bioprinting industry that is currently at the embryonic stage of generating replacement human tissue has been forecast to be worth billion dollars by 2019. 3D bioprinting at present largely involves the creation of simple tissue structures in lab settings, but is estimated to be scaled up to involve the creation of complete organs for transplants. This technology is expected to be used for more speedy and accurate drug testing, as potential drug compounds could be tested on bioprinted tissue before human trials commenced.
3D bioprinting is steadily emerging as an area that is gathering attention from a lot of academicians. Some of the researchers have recently opened start-up firms with aim of commercializing the technology in coming years. A number of start-ups have recently sprung up to build up products based on bioprinting. Some are spin outs from university research. The market at present has 14 industry sponsored bioprinters, focused on variety of commercial applications. The widen supply-demand gap for organ transplants is an unmet need; the ultimate goal of researchers is to be able to create bioprinted organs for organ transplants. The focus of this market is expected to shift from research to commercialization. At this stage, the applications such as tissue engineering (skin and cartilage) and drug testing (skin and cartilage) are expected to be popular.
In coming years, 3D bioprinting to be a multi-billion dollar industry owning to early success of bioprinted organ transplants is expected to offer additional boost in subsequent years. The next generation of bioprinters is to offer additional features such as multiple arms and is expected to be comparatively more affordable driving wider adoption. Aspect Biosystems would dramatically cut the cost and time it takes to develop and test the drugs leading to cures for presently incurable diseases and cheaper treatment options. The companies in bioprinting market include SkinPrint that is developing a replacement skin for the burns patients or for those suffering from skin disorders. Aspect Biosystems that is developing printed tissue for drug testing.
Some of the major players for 3D bioprinting market are Advanced Biomatrix, 3D Biotek, 3D Systems, Avita Medical, Bespoke Innovations, Autodesk, EnvisionTEC, Cyfuse Biomedical, CMC Microsystems, Digilab, United Therapeutics, TeVido BioDevices, DTM, Bio3D Technologies, Helisys Inc. CMC Microsystems, InSphero AG and BD Biosciences among others.”
Source
https://www.persistencemarketresearch.com/market-research/3d-bioprinting-market.asp
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.
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.