ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
Bioprinting of Synthetic Cell-like Lipid Vesicles to Augment the Functionality of Tissues after Manufacturing
My Activity

Figure 1Loading Img
  • Open Access
Research Article

Bioprinting of Synthetic Cell-like Lipid Vesicles to Augment the Functionality of Tissues after Manufacturing
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

  • Ole Thaden
    Ole Thaden
    Bioprinting & Tissue Engineering Group, Center for Molecular Biology of Heidelberg University (ZMBH), Heidelberg 69120, Germany
    More by Ole Thaden
  • Nicole Schneider
    Nicole Schneider
    Bioprinting & Tissue Engineering Group, Center for Molecular Biology of Heidelberg University (ZMBH), Heidelberg 69120, Germany
  • Tobias Walther
    Tobias Walther
    Biophysical Engineering of Life Group, Center for Molecular Biology of Heidelberg University (ZMBH), Heidelberg 69120, Germany
    Max Planck Institute for Medical Research, Heidelberg 69120, Germany
  • Erin Spiller
    Erin Spiller
    Bioprinting & Tissue Engineering Group, Center for Molecular Biology of Heidelberg University (ZMBH), Heidelberg 69120, Germany
    More by Erin Spiller
  • Alexandre Taoum
    Alexandre Taoum
    Bioprinting & Tissue Engineering Group, Center for Molecular Biology of Heidelberg University (ZMBH), Heidelberg 69120, Germany
  • Kerstin Göpfrich
    Kerstin Göpfrich
    Biophysical Engineering of Life Group, Center for Molecular Biology of Heidelberg University (ZMBH), Heidelberg 69120, Germany
    Max Planck Institute for Medical Research, Heidelberg 69120, Germany
  • Daniela Duarte Campos*
    Daniela Duarte Campos
    Bioprinting & Tissue Engineering Group, Center for Molecular Biology of Heidelberg University (ZMBH), Heidelberg 69120, Germany
    *E-mail: [email protected]
Open PDFSupporting Information (1)

ACS Synthetic Biology

Cite this: ACS Synth. Biol. 2024, 13, 8, 2436–2446
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acssynbio.4c00137
Published July 18, 2024

Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 .

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Bioprinting is an automated bioassembly method that enables the formation of human tissue-like constructs to restore or replace damaged tissues. Regardless of the employed bioprinting method, cells undergo mechanical stress that can impact their survival and function postprinting. In this study, we investigate the use of a synthetic cell-like unit, giant unilamellar vesicles (GUVs), as adjuvants of the cellular function of human cells postprinting, or in future as the complete replacement of human cells. We analyzed the impact of two nozzle-based bioprinting methods (drop-on-demand and extrusion bioprinting) on the structure, stability, and function of GUVs. We showed that over 65% of the GUVs remain intact when printing at 0.5 bar, demonstrating the potential of using GUVs as a synthetic cell source. We further increased the stability of GUVs in a cell culture medium by introducing polyethylene glycol (PEG) into the GUV lipid membrane. The presence of PEG, however, diminished the structural properties of GUVs postprinting, and reduced the interaction of GUVs with human cells. Although the design of PEG-GUVs can still be modified in future studies for better cell–GUV interactions, we demonstrated that GUVs are functional postprinting. Chlorin e6-PEG-GUVs loaded with a fluorescent dye were bioprinted, and they released the dye postprinting only upon illumination. This is a new strategy to deliver carriers, such as growth factors, drugs, nutrients, or gases, inside large bioprinted specimens on a millimeter to centimeter scale. Overall, we showed that printed GUVs can augment the functionality of manufactured human tissues.

This publication is licensed under

CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 .
  • cc licence
  • by licence
  • nc licence
  • nd licence
Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society

1. Introduction

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Tissue engineering aims to create functional tissues for the repair or replacement of damaged tissues. (1) A combination of cells, biocompatible materials, and bioactive molecules is used to fabricate such tissues. (2) Bioprinting is a common approach to fabricate tissues, where a combination of biocompatible materials and cells (bioinks) is deposited in a spatially defined manner. (2−4) Various bioprinting methods are currently available for generating tissue-like constructs, including drop-on-demand (DOD), (5) extrusion, (6) and laser-assisted bioprinting. (7) Hydrogels are often used as the basis of bioinks to provide an extracellular matrix-like environment for the cells and to render the bioinks printable. (8) Over the past years, not only bioinks loaded with dissociated cells (9) but also bioinks containing spheroids (10) and microgels (11) were bioprinted. In recent years, the idea of encapsulating liposomes in hydrogels has emerged to achieve defined drug delivery in the field of tissue engineering. (12−14) Liposomes are small vesicles composed of phospholipids that form a lipid bilayer in aqueous solutions. (15,16) Liposomes with a diameter larger than 1 μm are known as giant unilamellar vesicles (GUVs) and have been used in biophysics as a synthetic cell model. (15,17) GUVs can be produced by electroformation, (18) gentle hydration, (19) and gel-assisted swelling (20) or with a microfluidic setup. (21,22) GUVs can be loaded with hydrophilic carriers (encapsulated in an aqueous solution in the vesicle’s interior) or hydrophobic parts (located in the bilayer). (13) Generally speaking, GUVs are a versatile resource that can be tailored for different biomedical applications, for example, by functionalizing the surface with site-specific ligands or increasing the stability of biomolecule carriers that are physically separated from the surrounding environment by a lipid bilayer. (13,14) Past studies have shown that various trigger mechanisms can control the release of GUV cargos including temperature, (23) pH shift, (24) and light. (25) As a result of these findings, GUVs can be currently used in several applications, such as in the development of synthetic cells by bottom-up bioassembly, and as synthetic bioreactors when loaded with mammalian cells. (17,26) Compared to smaller liposomes, GUVs enable direct visualization by fluorescence microscopy and the encapsulation of larger amounts of carriers. For these multiple exciting reasons, GUVs have the potential to be used as synthetic adjuvants of human cells for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine applications, due to their ability to deliver biochemical and biophysical cues, as well as to become a potential synthetic surrogate for human cells in future.
In this study, we bioprinted GUVs to explore their interaction with human cells and the potential to aid cellular function postprinting. A bioprinting protocol has been established herein consisting of GUV production, filtration, and the bioprinting process itself. We investigated the stability of GUVs under physiological conditions and assessed the portion of intact GUVs after the bioprinting process. Furthermore, we modified the lipid membrane of GUVs with the addition of PEGylated lipids to improve the stability of GUVs in cell media and bioinks. Additionally, we demonstrated the printability of GUVs together with human cells in different bioinks and the stability of GUVs for up to 7 days postprinting. Finally, we synthesized the GUVs with a photosensitizer and used them for the delivery of a membrane impermeable dye postprinting by illuminating the bioprinted constructs.

2. Results and Discussion

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

2.1. Production of GUVs Compatible with Bioprinting

A new protocol was established to enable the use of GUVs in bioprinting, either as synthetic cell adjuvants or as a potential replacement for human cells. Our protocol for bioprinting GUVs using DOD and extrusion bioprinting methods was adapted from past bioprinting studies, which included mammalian cell expansion, encapsulation in hydrogels, and printing (Figure 1). (3,10,27−30) The first step is to produce GUVs composed of dipalmitoylphosphatidylcholine (DOPC) lipids using the electroformation method (Figure 1A). (18) The electroformation method is a simple and fast procedure used to generate a large number of GUVs (approximately 17 × 106 GUVs per production cycle) without the use of surfactants or mineral oils, which could potentially be harmful for human cells. (31) Given that GUVs are polydisperse, we needed to implement filtration and concentration steps (Figure 1B). (32) The GUV stock solution was filtered through a 10 μm filter membrane to exclude smaller GUVs and the remaining residues from the production process. The filtration process reduced the total number of GUVs with a diameter less than 8 μm by 90% (Figure S1). The average size of synthetic vesicles used in biomedical applications is about 1 μm, and even smaller vesicles can be designed for drug delivery to be taken up by cells. (33,34) In bioprinting, however, GUV sizes in the mammalian cell range are required (larger than 8 μm) to recapitulate the cellular architecture in natura and allow the loading of larger amounts of carriers to be delivered inside the bioprinted constructs. Moreover, GUV sizes above 8 μm allowed us to visualize them during different steps by fluorescence microscopy.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Bioprinting of giant unilamellar vesicles (GUVs). A) Production of GUVs with defined filling (Alexa Fluor 488 phalloidin, inset: scale bar of 10 μm) by electroformation. B) Filtration of GUVs by size with a 10 μm filter membrane to collect a stock solution with an average GUV diameter similar to human cells. C) Bioprinting GUVs by DOD or extrusion.

After the filtration step, GUVs were imaged by fluorescence microscopy, and the total number of GUVs was counted. Next, a working solution with a defined concentration of GUVs was prepared and transferred to a bioprinting cartridge (Figure 1C). Based on the range of cell densities used in previous bioprinting works with human cells (105–107 cells/mL), we chose a density of 5 × 105 GUVs/mL for bioprinting experiments. (3,5,35)

2.2. Stability of GUVs Postprinting

A key requirement in bioprinting with human cells is the warranty of cell survival during the printing process. Similarly, in this study, GUVs should remain intact during bioprinting to render a functional 3D construct postprinting. To investigate the impact of the printing process on GUVs, we diluted the GUV solution in sucrose to exclude the effect of cell media or bioinks in this experiment and bioprinted the vesicles by DOD and extrusion bioprinting at different pressures (more images of GUVs postprinting at different pressures are available Figure S2a). The number of GUVs larger than 8 μm was counted from fluorescence images before and after the printing process, and the percentage of intact GUVs was calculated (Figure 2A).

Figure 2

Figure 2. GUV stability during bioprinting. A) Comparison of GUV stability after drop-on-demand (DOD) and extrusion bioprinting in GUV solution (iso-osmolar sucrose solution). A higher GUV density of 2 × 106 GUVs/mL and was used to visually count GUVs more easily. B) Incubation of DOPC-GUVs in the cell medium for 1 h. Scale bars represent 50 μm.

The maximum percentage of intact GUVs was 65.7 ± 16.1% after DOD bioprinting and 50.2 ± 6.2% after extrusion bioprinting, both at 0.5 bar. This means that the number of GUVs larger than 8 μm was reduced by 34.3% and 49.8%, respectively, after DOD and extrusion bioprinting. During DOD bioprinting, the GUV solution was dispensed through a 300 μm nozzle, resulting in the formation of a shear force gradient in the kilopascal range, with the maximum force being detected at the edges of the nozzle. (36) This has been observed in our previous studies using human mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs), as well as in this study, where we observed MSC viability postprinting above 90% under the same conditions as those for printing GUVs (Figure S3). Therefore, the impact of the shear stress during the printing process needs to be controlled when bioprinting GUVs. The shear stress experienced by GUVs during bioprinting can stretch the lipid membrane and increase the membrane tension. When the critical lysis tension is reached, pores are formed and the lipid bilayer ruptures. (16) Liquid-phase GUVs, like the GUVs used in this study, tend to close the pores rather quickly due to the hydrophobic properties of acyl chains and a low intermembrane viscosity. (16) Whether GUVs that ruptured during the bioprinting process and close the pores to form smaller GUVs, or are dispersed throughout the sample, requires further investigation.
During extrusion bioprinting, the GUVs are pushed through an additional 12.7 mm long stainless-steel nozzle with a 330 μm diameter. This additional element created an increased shear stress experienced by GUVs, which resulted in a lower, but not statistically significant, percentage of intact GUVs compared to DOD bioprinting. (37)
After the bioprinting process, GUVs should be ideally not only intact but also remain stable in their surrounding environment. So far in our study, GUVs have been prepared and bioprinted in an isoosmolar solution. GUVs, which have been used previously as a membrane model, have a melting point less than 37 °C. (16,38) Given our interest to use GUVs in direct contact with human cells, with hydrogels, and in future, with other physiological liquids, we investigated their behavior when suspended in a cell culture medium at 37 °C. Thus, we incubated GUVs in a cell medium at 37 °C and 5% CO2, i.e., under the exact same culture conditions used for the human cell culture. After 3h of incubation, GUVs agglomerated at the bottom of the culture plate (Figure 2B). It is known that multivalent ions in solution can increase the hemifusion upon the contact of lipid bilayers. (39,40) As the cell medium contains multiple ions, there is a high probability that this leads to the agglomeration of GUVs. Interestingly, incubation in DPBS and glucose solution with CaCl2 (1.8 mM) showed the same effect of agglomeration (Figure S4). Overall, GUVs were mostly stable during bioprinting, with an average of 65.7% GUVs staying intact. However, the formulation of GUVs containing only DOPC could not be used further in cell culture experiments. For this reason, we aimed to reduce GUV agglomeration by introducing the polymer chains of polyethylene glycol (PEG) into GUV membranes for follow-up experiments, as described in the results given in the next section.

2.3. Effect of PEGylation on GUV Stability Postprinting

One strategy to improve the stability of GUVs in the cell culture medium at 37 °C is to incorporate long PEG chains into the membrane, so that stealthy GUVs can be formed. (41) In past studies, PEGylated lipids have been used to increase the half-life of liposomes in vivo by sterically increasing their physiological stability. (42−44) On the down side, it is known that the addition of PEGylated lipids can reduce the interaction of GUVs with cells. (45) In this study, we modified the membrane of GUVs with 5% PEGylated lipids (PEG5-GUVs, Mw of 2000 g mol–1), and examined the changes in stability postprinting in the cell medium at 37 °C. The overall percentage of intact PEG5-GUVs postprinting was lower, but not statistically significant, than that of pure GUVs (Figure 3A). A maximum percentage of intact PEG5-GUVs of 52.6 ± 15.4% was observed for DOD printing, and 54.4 ± 20.9% for extrusion printing, both at 1 bar. A possible explanation to the reduced number of intact PEG5-GUVs postprinting compared to nonmodified GUVs is that the addition of PEGylated lipids resulted in a more loosely packed bilayer with higher bending rigidity. (46) This may have caused a reduction of the critical lysis tension, which reduced the ability to close pores after rupture. (46) Interestingly, extrusion bioprinting did not decrease the percentage of intact PEG5-GUVs compared to DOD. Shear stress in DOD and extrusion bioprinting can vary between 5 and 50 kilopascals (when using controlled printing parameters and bioinks compatible with human cell encapsulation), whereas in vivo cells can experience increased shear stress (up to 10 Pa in human microvessels). (36,37,47,48) Therefore, if GUVs could withstand increased bending rigidity without losing the ability to close pores, this could be potentially beneficial for withstanding the printing process.

Figure 3

Figure 3. PEG5-GUV stability during bioprinting. A) Comparison of PEG5-GUV stability after DOD and extrusion bioprinting of PEG5 GUVs in an isoosmolar sucrose solution, and DOD printing of PEG5 GUVs with a 20% cholesterol proportion. A density of 2 × 106 PEG5-GUV/mL was used. B) Incubation of PEG5-GUVs in a cell medium for 1 h. C) Agglomeration of DOPC- and PEG5-GUVs in DMEM after 1 h incubation. Segmented outline of agglomerates and GUVs (left) with the average agglomeration area normalized to the GUV area (right). Scale bars represent 50 μm. *p < 0.05 and ****p < 0.0001.

The addition of cholesterol, one of the main components in mammalian cell membranes, could help increasing the bending rigidity and potentially help withstanding the shear stress during the printing process. (49−51) PEG5-GUVs with a cholesterol content of 20% were printed by DOD printing, and the percentage of intact GUVs postprinting was evaluated. There was no significant improvement in withstanding the shear stress during the printing process by the addition of 20% cholesterol to the vesicles.
Another strategy to increase the bending rigidity of GUVs is to fill their core with a hydrogel, for example, agarose hydrogel, which helps close the pores in the lipid bilayer. (16,52) Moreover, the agarose hydrogel present in the lumen of GUVs could diffuse slower out of the pores after rupture, giving the bilayer more time to close the pores. A further alternative to reduce shear stress during printing is to use a larger nozzle. (36)
The incubation of PEG5-GUVs in the cell medium at 37 °C showed a reduced number of agglomerations compared to nonmodified GUVs, and most of the PEG5-GUVs stayed intact for at least 1 h of incubation (Figure 3B). The evaluation of the average area of DOPC and PEG5-GUVs after 1 h incubation by image analysis showed a significantly increased normalized area per agglomerate for DOPC-GUVs compared to the PEGylated GUVs (Figures 3C, S5, and S6). Therefore, we demonstrated that the addition of PEGylated lipids is a suitable strategy to increase the stability of GUVs under physiological conditions. Next, PEG5-GUVs were filled with a cell membrane impermeable dye (Alexa Fluor 488) and seeded with HeLa cells for over a period of 48 h. We observed no fusion of PEG5-GUVs or absorption during this time. Moreover, PEG5-GUVs were secluded from human cells as it has been reported in the literature (Figure S7). (45)

2.4. Impact of Different PEG Concentrations on the GUV Size, Production Quality, and Physiological Stability

Following the previous findings, we analyzed the impact of PEG concentration on the production of GUVs. PEG-GUVs with different concentrations of PEGylated lipids were produced by electroformation, filtered, and analyzed by fluorescence microscopy (Figure 4A). Increasing concentrations of PEGylated lipids in the GUVs significantly reduced the mean diameter. PEG5-GUVs showed a 29.4% smaller mean diameter compared to the nonmodified GUVs (Figure 4B). A possible explanation for the observed GUV reduced sizes with higher PEG concentrations is a looser packing and change of curvature of the lipid bilayer, given that PEG chains occupy a larger space and interact repulsively. (44,53−55) Moreover, it has been reported that the maximum shielding effect of PEG chains occurs at concentrations between 8% and 10%. (44,56) It is also known that higher PEG concentrations (e.g., >60% PEG with a Mw of 2000 g mol–1) can lead to the formation of micelles, thus making them unsuitable for bioprinting applications. (44) In our work, using higher PEG concentrations in GUV production resulted in worse production quality by electroformation and overall a lower GUV yield. We conclude that the addition of PEGylated lipids is a trade-off among an increased stability under physiological conditions, GUV size, and the production quality.

Figure 4

Figure 4. GUVs with different concentrations of PEGylated lipids after filtration and encapsulation in 1% agarose hydrogel. A) GUVs with different concentrations of PEGylated lipids after filtration. Scale bar represents 150 μm, and in insets, it is 50 μm. B) Mean diameter of GUVs after filtration with different concentrations of PEGylated lipids. n = 3 with more than 175 GUVs per image. C) Projection images of z-stacks using the hydrogel containing GUVs with 0% (DOPC) and 5% (PEG5) PEGylated lipids 1 h and 72 h after encapsulation. Scale bars represent 50 μm. D) Effect of different PEG concentrations on the number of GUVs for 1 h, 24 h, and 72 h after encapsulation. n = 3. *p < 0.05 and **p < 0.001.

After accessing the stability of the GUVs in a 2D physiological environment, we investigated in a follow-up experiment the influence of PEGylation on the stability in a more realistic 3D environment. Therefore, we encapsulated PEG-GUVs with different PEG concentrations in 1% w/v agarose bioink and evaluated their stability over time. The hydrogel was incubated at 37 °C, and at different time points, the number of GUVs was counted by recording z-stacks (n = 3) using the hydrogel by fluorescence microscopy (Figure 4C). The projection images of the z-stacks were used to count the GUVs with a diameter of >8 μm over time (Figure 4D). No significant difference in the number of GUVs was observed in the sample 1 h after encapsulation. Note that in the DOPC sample, small agglomerations of GUVs were visible that had come into contact during mixing. After 24 h and 72 h of incubation, the number of GUVs in the DOPC sample was significantly lower than the number of GUVs in the PEG sample with 5% PEGylated lipids. More precisely, the GUV abundance decreased by 40% after 72 h of incubation. However, increasing the proportion of PEGylated lipids from 5% to 7% did not show an improved effect of steric stabilization during incubation. Additionally, after 72 h of incubation, more agglomeration and slight deformation of GUVs were observed. The hydrogel reduced the movement of GUVs preventing larger agglomerations as well as potential deformations due to high stiffness of the gel. (52) Deformation could have occurred during the encapsulation process due to shear forces while filling the hydrogel into the observation chambers. The encapsulation in a hydrogel showed that under physiological conditions the effect of agglomeration in the DOPC samples was reduced and single GUVs larger than 8 μm were visible. However, the addition of PEGylated lipids significantly increases the physiological stability of GUVs over time and is, therefore, beneficial for tissue engineering applications.

2.5. Bioprinting of PEG5-GUVs

PEG5-GUVs were encapsulated in two bioinks and bioprinted by DOD. The chosen bioinks, agarose-collagen (Ag–Col) and gelatin methacryloyl (GelMA), have been used previously in past studies and were chosen due to their compatibility with human cell bioprinting. (27−30,57) The printability of PEG5-GUVs in both bioinks was tested in three different geometrical shapes, including a ring, square, and triangle, as shown in Figure 5A,B. The Ag–Col and GelMA bioinks were mixed with PEG5-GUVs and printed at 0.2 and 0.3 bar, respectively. The shape and stability of PEG5-GUVs postprinting were evaluated by fluorescence microscopy. Several microscopic images were taken over a thickness of 290 μm, and a z-stack projection was made for each sample to visualize GUVs. GUVs with different sizes were observed in bioinks postprinting, which indicates that they were able to withstand not only DOD bioprinting but also the physical cross-linking of GelMA with UV-light.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Bioprinting of PEG5-GUVs in agarose–collagen (Ag–Col) and gelatin methacryloyl (GelMA) bioinks in different geometrical shapes. A) Photographs of bioprinted Ag–Col constructs, and microscopic z-stack projection of PEG5-GUVs in Ag–Col bioink postprinting. Scale bar represents 50 μm; in inserts, it is 10 μm;, in macroscopic images, it is 2 mm. B) Photographs of bioprinted GelMA constructs, and microscopic z-stack projection of PEG5-GUVs in GelMA bioinks postprinting. Scale bar represents 50 μm, in inserts, it is 10 μm, and in macroscopic images it is 2 mm. C) Normalized fluorescence intensity profile of FRAP measurements of PEG5-GUVs printed at 0.2 bar pressure in agarose hydrogels (right), and the diffusion coefficient of PEG5-GUVs postbioprinting (left). Scale bar represents 5 μm. D) Photographs of bioprinted Ag–Col bioink postprinting (insets, scale bar represents 2 mm), and microscopic z-stack projection of PEG5-GUVs (red) and MSCs (green, live cell cytoplasm staining) in the Ag–Col bioink after 72 h and 7 days of postprinting. Scale bar represents 50 μm; in macroscopic images, it is 2 mm.

Additionally, the FRAP measurements of PEG5-GUVs printed at different pressures in agarose hydrogels revealed that membrane fluidity was not impacted by the printing process (Figures 5C and S8). As such, no significant differences in the measured diffusion coefficients of the analyzed GUV membranes were detected across all tested printing conditions, confirming that the bilayer architecture remained intact after printing. Furthermore, the values measured for the diffusion coefficients were well comparable with those found in the literature for similar DOPC-based GUV membranes. (58,59)
In a follow-up experiment, PEG5-GUVs were encapsulated with MSCs in the Ag–Col bioink, bioprinted in circular 3D shapes, and cultured in supplemented DMEM for 7 days (Figure 5D). PEG5-GUVs remained intact during the 7 days of incubation, and we did not observe signs of interaction with MSCs, similar to what has been demonstrated with HeLa cells in our 2D experiments (Figure S7). This was an expected outcome based on the findings described in previous reports. (45,60) In sum, we conclude that PEG5-GUVs can be bioprinted to fabricate tissue-like 3D structures useful for multiple tissue engineering applications.

2.6. Spatiotemporal Release of a Carrier by Ce6-PEG5-GUVs after Bioprinting

One application of PEG5-GUVs in bioprinting is the controlled delivery of biomolecules or supplements inside bioinks postprinting. In order to show the capability of controlling the delivery of substances loaded into PEG5-GUVs, we equipped our synthetic system with a light-controlled release mechanism. The photosensitizer chlorin e6 (Ce6) was loaded into PEG5-GUVs during electroformation by adding 125 μM Ce6 to the production buffer. The release mechanism was activated by illumination (357 nm and for up to 5 min duration) of the Ce6-PEG5-GUVs, which resulted in the oxidation of unsaturated lipids and consequently triggered the formation of pores in the lipid bilayer. (61,62) After incorporating Ce6 into the membranes of PEG5-GUVs, we detected a fluorescent signal in the far-red channel, indicating a successful incorporation of Ce6 into the lipid bilayer (Figure 6A). Furthermore, Ce6-PEG5-GUVs were mixed into a glucose solution (onto a 2D surface) and illuminated for 5 min with an LED set at a wavelength of 357 nm. By bright field microscopy, we observed a decrease in the contrast between the lumen of the vesicles and their surroundings (Figure 6B). This indicates a functional pore-forming mechanism that enables the influx of the surrounding glucose solution into the vesicles, and the efflux of sucrose solution out of the vesicles.

Figure 6

Figure 6. Studying the release of a fluorescent dye from bioprinted Ce6-PEG5-GUVs upon illumination. A) Fluorescence image of Ce6-PEG5-GUVs. B) Ce6-PEG5-GUVs loaded with sucrose and cultured in glucose solution before and after illumination with an LED set at a wavelength of 357 nm for 5 min. C) Fluorescence images showing bioprinted 1% w/v agarose constructs encapsulated with Alexa Fluor 488-loaded Ce6-PEG-GUVs before (upper images) and after (lower images) the release of the dye by illumination with an LED set at a wavelength of 357 nm for 5 min. Scale bars represent 50 μm; in insets, they are 10 μm; in macroscopic images, they are 2 mm.

In a follow-up experiment, we loaded Ce6-PEG5-GUVs with a fluorescence dye (Alexa Fluor 488 phalloidin), encapsulated the vesicles in 1% w/v agarose bioinks, and bioprinted by DOD (Figure 6C). After illuminating the bioprinted constructs for 5 min at 357 nm, we observed the transformation of Ce6-PEG5-GUVs into smaller units, possibly due to vesicle rupture and reformation. In addition, there was no fluorescence signal detected within the lumen of Ce6-PEG5-GUVs postprinting, indicating the formation of pores in the lipid bilayer, and the release of Alexa Fluor 488 phalloidin into the surrounding bioink. Therefore, we herein show that PEG5-GUVs can be encapsulated and utilized in a 3D environment, such as inside of a bioprinted construct, and we can use such synthetic cell-like units to control the local delivery of biomolecules. Future studies may focus on the use of other molecules, such as growth factors, nutrients, or even gases, which can be released in close proximity to cells in bioprinted 3D constructs. Additionally, for achieving a precise controlled release, the kinetics of natural diffusion of biomolecules needs to be further characterized.

3. Conclusion

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

In this work, we report the first successful attempt to bioprint GUVs for tissue engineering applications. We established a new bioprinting protocol that includes the production, filtration, and bioprinting of GUVs, which allowed us to bioprint large amounts of cell-sized GUVs while maintaining the integrity of their membranes. The addition of PEGylated lipids to the GUVs increased their physiological stability in cell media, as well as supporting the stability in different bioinks up to 7 days postprinting. Using GUVs with 5% PEGylated lipids increased the stability over time by 40% compared to nonmodified GUVs. The addition of PEGylated lipids to the GUVs resulted in a trade-off between stability under physiological conditions (i.e., in cell culture medium), during interaction with cells, and during the bioprinting process. Upon loading the PEG5-GUVs with Ce6, we demonstrated that it is feasible to externally control the release of biomolecules from the GUVs in the surrounding environment. In sum, the combination of bioprinting technologies, multiple techniques available to functionalize the bilayer of synthetic vesicles, and the ability to precisely deliver biomolecules is a powerful interdisciplinary approach in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine.

4. Methods

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

4.1. Lipids

The lipids 1,2-di(9Z-octadecenoyl)-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine (18:1 DOPC), 1,2-dioleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphoethanolamine-N-(lissamine rhodamine B sulfonyl) (ammonium salt) (Liss Rhod PE), and 1,2-dioleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphoethanolamine-N-[methoxy(polyethylene glycol)-2000] (ammonium salt) (PEG2000 PE) were purchased from Avanti Polar Lipids, Alabaster, USA. All lipids were stored in chloroform (288306, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, USA) at −20 °C.

4.2. GUV Production

GUVs were produced by electroformation using a Vesicle Prep Pro (Nanion Technologies, Munich, Germany). (18) GUVs with different lipid proportions (MW-based) were produced. Nonmodified GUVs were prepared with 99% DOPC, and for fluorescence imaging 1% Liss Rhod PE. PEG-GUVs were produced with a variable concentration of PEG PE lipids among 1%, 5%, and 7%. Cholesterol containing GUVs were produced with 74% DOPC, 1% Liss Rhod PE, 20% cholesterol (C8667, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, USA), and 5% PEG PE. For the GUV production, the lipids were mixed (3 mM solution), and 50 μL spread onto an indium tin oxide (ITO)-coated glass slide using a coverslip. The coated glass slide was left in a fume hood for at least 30 min to allow chloroform to evaporate. Afterward, the slide was placed into the Vesicle Prep Pro with a rubber ring (18 mm diameter) on top, and filled with 270 μL of sucrose solution (300 mM, S0389, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, USA; osmolarity in the range of DMEM). A second ITO glass slide was used to seal the chamber, and an alternating electrical field (3 VPP, 5 Hz) at 37 °C was applied for 128 min. After the production step, the GUV solution was collected from the chamber and stored at 4 °C for up to 7 days.

4.3. Filtering of GUVs

After electroformation, the GUV solution was filtered using the membrane filtering method. (32) Briefly, a nuclepore polycarbonate filter membrane (25 μm diameter, 10 μm pore size, Whatman plc, Maidstone, UK) was placed into a swinnex filter holder (25 μm, Merck Millipore, Billerica, USA) and connected to polypropylene tubing components, a stopcock, and two 5 mL syringes (BBraun SE, Melsungen, Germany) forming an apparatus in the u-shape. The apparatus was filled with glucose solution (300 mM, G7021, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, USA), with all remaining air bubbles were removed, and it was connected to two peristaltic pumps (custom-made, consisting of two stepper motors). A flow rate of 1 mL min–1 was used to filter 50 μL GUV solution for 30 min at room temperature. After filtration, the supernatant was collected beneath the filter membrane and stopcock, and stored overnight at 4 °C. The GUVs in the remaining glucose solution settled down during storage.

4.4. Encapsulation of GUVs in Agarose

For the encapsulation of GUVs in 1% w/v agarose hydrogels, a stock GUV solution was first prepared by concentrating and mixing of three filtration runs. Then, 10 μL of the stock solution was filled into a cell counting slide (Logos Biosystems, Anyang, South Korea), three images were taken with a fluorescence microscope (EVOS M5000, RFP lightcube, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, USA), and the overall number of GUVs in the stock solution was determined with a program GUVdetector (University Cologne). (63) A stock solution of 3% w/v low-temperature gelling agarose (A9045, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, USA) was prepared by dissolving agarose powder in Milli-Q water and autoclaved at 120 °C for 2 h. The stock solution of GUVs was diluted with high glucose Dulbecco’s modified eagle medium (DMEM 11965092, Gibco, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, USA), supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS, F0679, SAFC, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany) and 1% sodium pyruvate (100 mM, 11530396, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, USA). For bioink encapsulation experiments, the GUV stock solution was mixed with 3% w/v agarose using wide orifice pipet tips to dilute it to a 1% w/v agarose hydrogel, having a final concentration of 5 × 105 GUVs/mL. For long-term investigation, 20 μL of 1% w/v agarose hydrogel was filled into 37 °C preheated observation chambers and sealed with silicone (Twinsil, Picodent, Wipperfürth, Germany). The observation chambers consist of a bovine serum albumin (BSA, 8076, Carl Roth, Karlsruhe Germany)-coated surface (covered for 2 h with 2.5% BSA, afterward phosphate buffered saline (PBS, A0956, AppliChem, Darmstadt, Germany), washed in DI water, and stored overnight), double-sided adhesive, and a coverslip. During the experiment, the observation chambers were stored in an incubator at 37 °C. For each sample, three z-stacks were taken at different positions by fluorescence microscopy, and the projection image was analyzed.

4.5. Agglomeration of GUVs

500 μL of DOPC and PEG5-GUVs at a concentration of 5 × 105 GUVs/mL in supplemented DMEM were seeded into 24-well plates and incubated for 1 h. Fluorescence images were taken after the incubation period, and the area per agglomerate in the sample was evaluated by image analysis using IMARIS (10.1.1, Oxford Instruments, Abingdon, UK). Agglomerates/GUVs in each image were segmented (a surface grain size of 1 μm, background elimination active, and a threshold of 50 (DOPC) and 35 (PEG5)), and the area was measured. Only aggregates with an area of above 10 μm2 were considered GUVs or agglomerates. The average area per agglomerate/GUV was normalized to the total GUV area per image.

4.6. Bioprinting of GUVs

A stock solution of GUVs was prepared by concentrating and mixing of the GUV solutions from three filtration runs. 10 μL of the stock solution was filled into a cell counting slide, three images were taken with a fluorescence microscope, and the overall number of GUVs in the stock solution was determined with the program GUVdetector. (63) The GUV stock solution was then diluted in an isoosmolar sucrose solution (300 mM) to a final GUV concentration of 2 × 106 GUVs/mL (higher concentration of GUVs was used for evaluation postprinting) using wide orifice pipet tips. The control sample was taken and stored in a reaction tube. The rest of the solution was transferred into the reservoir of the printhead. The printhead of the bioprinter (SuperFill with custom design, Black Drop Biodrucker GmbH, Aachen, Germany) consists of an electromagnetic microvalve with a 300 μm orifice (Fritz Gyger AG, Gwatt, Switzerland). For extrusion bioprinting, an additional stainless-steel nozzle (7018314, 0.33 mm inner diameter, Nordson Corporation, Westlake, Ohio, US) was mounted to the printhead. The printing step was conducted by ejecting single droplets (500 droplets, an opening time of 450 μs) at 0.2, 0.5, and 1 bar into a reaction tube from a distance of 10 mm. After printing, the samples were diluted 1:5 in an isoosmolar glucose solution (300 mM), and 10 μL was loaded into a cell counting slide. After 5 min, the GUVs settled at the bottom of the slide, and three fluorescence images were taken. The percentage of intact GUVs was calculated as the ratio of the number of GUVs after and before the printing process:
PercentageofintactGUVs=NumberofGUVsafterprintingNumberofGUVsbeforeprinting×100%

4.7. FRAP Measurements

FRAP experiments were conducted using an LSM 900 Zeiss confocal fluorescence microscope equipped with a Plan-Apochromat 20× 0.8 Air M27 objective (Carl Zeiss AG, Oberkochen, Germany). A circular area with a diameter of 5 μm was chosen at the top plane of the GUV following their encapsulation into an agarose gel either by bioprinting (0.2, 0.5, and 1 bar conditions) or simple mixing (0.0 bar conditions). The chosen area was bleached at 100% laser power (λex = 561 nm for LissRhod) at 297 ms frame rate using 15× digital zoom for 2 iterations. After bleaching, 100 images were acquired to follow the recovery track of the fluorescent signal, while four images were acquired as a baseline prior to the bleaching event. Per condition, triplicates were measured by analyzing three GUVs per triplicate. A custom-written MatLab script was used to calculate the diffusion coefficients in μm2 s–1 using MatLab R2020a – Update 6 (Mathworks, Inc., Natick, Massachusetts, USA). (64)

4.8. Bioprinting of GUVs with MSCs

For printing GUVs with cells into different geometrical constructs, 0.5% w/v agarose–0.2% w/v collagen and gelatin methacrylol (GelMA, monomer concentration not disclosed by the manufacturer, TissueFab 905429, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, USA) were used. The hydrogels were prepared as follows: first, a stock solution of agarose (3% w/v) and collagen (0.32 mg mL–1) hydrogels were prepared. For the collagen stock solution, 80% (v/v) of collagen type 1 (calf skin, 0.4% solution in HCl, L7213, Sigma-Aldrich) was mixed on ice with 10% (v/v) 10-fold DMEM (D2429, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, USA) and 5% (v/v) HEPES buffer (1 M, 12509079, Fisher Scientific, Hampton, USA) and neutralized with 5% (v/v) sodium hydroxide (0.7 M, 1310–73–2, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, USA).
Bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs, C-12975, PromoCell, Heidelberg, Germany) were expanded in DMEM, supplemented with 1% penicillin–streptomycin (Pen–Strep, P4333, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, USA), 1% sodium pyruvate (100 mM), and 10% FBS. The GelMA hydrogel was handled as described in the manufacturer’s protocol. Prior to encapsulation, MSCs were stained with a live-cell cytoplasmic dye (0.3 mM, Cytolight Rapid dye green, 4705, Sartorius, Göttingen) according to the manufacturer’s protocol.
The PEG5-GUV stock solution was prepared as described in the GUV production section. The final Ag–Col bioink consists of 0.5% agarose, 0.2% collagen, and a cell and GUV concentration of 5 × 105/mL, respectively. The bioinks were transferred to the reservoir and printed by DOD bioprinting (Ag–Col: 0.2 bar, printhead temperature at 30 °C, printing platform temperature at 1 °C, and 450 μs valve opening time; GelMA: 0.3 bar, printhead temperature at 25 °C, printing platform temperature at 10 °C, and 450 μs valve opening time). GelMA bioinks were cross-linked after bioprinting with a UV-LED (M365L3) connected to a lightguide (LLG05–4H) for 2 min with the LED driver (LEDD1B) limited to 0.7 A, and at a distance of 30 mm (all purchased from Thorlabs, Dachau, Germany). The constructs were imaged by fluorescence microscopy directly after the printing process by recording images with a thickness of 290 μm through the sample. The printed Ag–Col constructs with GUVs and cells were covered in DMEM (supplemented with 10% FBS, 1% sodium pyruvate (100 mM) and 1% Pen–Strep) after printing, incubated for over a period of 7 days, and imaged after 72 h and 7 days.

4.9. Viability Evaluation of MSCs Postbioprinting

MSCs were cultured as described above and printed at a concentration of 2 × 106 cells/mL in a supplemented DMEM solution at different pressures into a 96-well plate. In one well, 10 000 cells were seeded by printing the according number of droplets into each well. After printing, 100 μL of supplemented DMEM was added to every well, and the cells were incubated for 24 h. After the incubation period, the cells were stained with calcein-AM and ethidium homodimer-1 (LIVE/DEAD viability kit L3224, Invitrogen, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA) according to the manufacturer’s protocol to assess the viability postbioprinting. In short, samples were washed with PBS and incubated for 30 min with PBS containing the dyes. Afterward, fluorescence microscopy images were taken, and the number of living and dead cells were counted. Cell viability was calculated using the following formula:
Cellviability=NumberoflivingcellsTotalnumberofcells×100%

4.10. Counting of GUV Numbers per Sample

The counting of GUVs per image was done using the tool GUVdetector, where round GUVs larger than 8 μm were detected by the circular Hough transformation. (63) By combining the automated algorithm to detect the GUVs and manually compared with the original image, the number and size of the GUVs were evaluated. For 10× images, a minimum radius of 8 pixels, and for 20× images a minimum radius of 13 pixels were set in GUVdetector. To calculate the number of GUVs per milliliter, the dimensions of one image combined with the height of the cell counting slide chamber (100 μm) were used.

4.11. Spatiotemporal Release of Ce6 from GUVs after Bioprinting

PEG5-GUVs were produced with a buffer consisting of sucrose (300 mM), Ce6 (125 μM), and the cell-membrane impermeable dye Alexa Fluor 488 phalloidin (2 μM, A12379, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, USA). After the production, 5 × 105 GUVs were mixed in agarose bioinks and transferred to the bioprinter. The bioinks were printed by DOD (0.2 bar, printhead temperature at 30 °C, printing platform temperature at 1 °C, and 450 μs valve opening time), and afterward, the samples were illuminated with a 357 nm wavelength LED (100% intensity, EVOS light cube DAPI 2.0 AMEP4950, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, USA) for 5 min to initiate pore formation and biomolecule release. After illumination, GUVs in 3D gels were imaged by fluorescence microscopy, and GUVs in 2D were imaged by light microscopy. After imaging the GUVs printed in agarose bioinks, the projections of z-stacks were created with 290 μm and a step size of 5 μm.

4.12. Statistical Analysis

All results were presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD) with the corresponding sample size described in the respective figure captions. Comparisons between multiple experimental groups with two factors were conducted using a two-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc test (Prism 10.1.2, GraphPad Software, Boston, USA). Comparisons with multiple groups with one factor were conducted using a one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc test. For comparison between two groups, an unpaired, two-tailed student’́s t-test was conducted. Statistical significance was labeled as *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, and ****p < 0.000.1.

Data Availability

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon a reasonable request.

Supporting Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acssynbio.4c00137.

  • Efficiency of the GUV filtering process (Figure S1); GUV images after DOD and extrusion printing (Figure S2); MSC viability postbioprinting (Figure S3); effect of salts on the agglomeration of GUVs (Figure S4); agglomeration of DOPC-GUVs in DMEM (Figure S5); agglomeration of PEG5-GUVs in DMEM (Figure S6); interaction of PEGylated GUVs with cells (Figure S7); fluorescence intensity curves for FRAP measurements on printed PEG5-GUVs (Figure S8) (PDF)

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

  • Corresponding Author
  • Authors
    • Ole Thaden - Bioprinting & Tissue Engineering Group, Center for Molecular Biology of Heidelberg University (ZMBH), Heidelberg 69120, Germany
    • Nicole Schneider - Bioprinting & Tissue Engineering Group, Center for Molecular Biology of Heidelberg University (ZMBH), Heidelberg 69120, Germany
    • Tobias Walther - Biophysical Engineering of Life Group, Center for Molecular Biology of Heidelberg University (ZMBH), Heidelberg 69120, GermanyMax Planck Institute for Medical Research, Heidelberg 69120, Germany
    • Erin Spiller - Bioprinting & Tissue Engineering Group, Center for Molecular Biology of Heidelberg University (ZMBH), Heidelberg 69120, Germany
    • Alexandre Taoum - Bioprinting & Tissue Engineering Group, Center for Molecular Biology of Heidelberg University (ZMBH), Heidelberg 69120, Germany
    • Kerstin Göpfrich - Biophysical Engineering of Life Group, Center for Molecular Biology of Heidelberg University (ZMBH), Heidelberg 69120, GermanyMax Planck Institute for Medical Research, Heidelberg 69120, GermanyOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-2115-3551
  • Author Contributions

    O.T., K.G., and D.D.C conceived the study. O.T., N.S., and A.T. performed the experiments. T.W. performed FRAP measurements. O.T., E.S., and T.W. performed data analysis. O.T., K.G., and D.D.C wrote the manuscript with the input from all authors.

  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

O.T, K.G, and D.D.C acknowledge funding from Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under Germany’s Excellence Strategy via the Excellence Cluster 3D Matter Made to Order (EXC-2082/1–390761711). Additionally, T.W. thanks the Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes e.V.

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 64 other publications.

  1. 1
    Langer, R.; Vacanti, J. P. Tissue Engineering. Science 1993, 260 (5110), 920926,  DOI: 10.1126/science.8493529
  2. 2
    Freeman, F. E.; Kelly, D. J. Tuning alginate bioink stiffness and composition for controlled growth factor delivery and to spatially direct MSC Fate within bioprinted tissues. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7 (1), 17042,  DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-17286-1
  3. 3
    Murphy, S. V.; Atala, A. 3D bioprinting of tissues and organs. Nat. Biotechnol. 2014, 32 (8), 773785,  DOI: 10.1038/nbt.2958
  4. 4
    Blaeser, A.; Heilshorn, S. C.; Duarte Campos, D. F. Smart bioinks as de novo building blocks to bioengineer living tissues. Gels 2019, 5 (2), 29,  DOI: 10.3390/gels5020029
  5. 5
    Xu, T.; Jin, J.; Gregory, C.; Hickman, J. J.; Boland, T. Inkjet printing of viable mammalian cells. Biomaterials 2005, 26 (1), 9399,  DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.04.011
  6. 6
    Iwami, K.; Noda, T.; Ishida, K.; Morishima, K.; Nakamura, M.; Umeda, N. Bio rapid prototyping by extruding/aspirating/refilling thermoreversible hydrogel. Biofabrication 2010, 2 (1), 014108,  DOI: 10.1088/1758-5082/2/1/014108
  7. 7
    Guillemot, F.; Souquet, A.; Catros, S. High-throughput laser printing of cells and biomaterials for tissue engineering. Acta Biomater 2010, 6 (7), 24942500,  DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2009.09.029
  8. 8
    Morgan, F. L. C.; Moroni, L.; Baker, M. B. Dynamic Bioinks to Advance Bioprinting. Adv. Healthcare Mater. 2020, 9 (15), 1901798,  DOI: 10.1002/adhm.201901798
  9. 9
    Skylar-Scott, M. A.; Huang, J.; Lu, A. Orthogonally induced differentiation of stem cells for the programmatic patterning of vascularized organoids and bioprinted tissues. Nat. Biomed. Eng 2022, 6 (4), 449462,  DOI: 10.1038/s41551-022-00856-8
  10. 10
    Duarte Campos, D. F.; Lindsay, C.; Lindsay, C. D.; Roth, J.; Julien, G.; LeSavage, B. L.; Seymour, A. J.; Krajina, B. A.; Ribeiro, R.; Costa, P. F. Bioprinting Cell- and Spheroid-Laden Protein-Engineered Hydrogels as Tissue-on-Chip Platforms. Front Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2020, 8, 374,  DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.00374
  11. 11
    Wang, X.; Liu, X.; Liu, W.; Liu, Y.; Li, A.; Qiu, D.; Zheng, X.; Gu, Q. 3D bioprinting microgels to construct implantable vascular tissue. Cell Prolif 2023, 56 (5), e13456  DOI: 10.1111/cpr.13456
  12. 12
    Kulkarni, M.; Greiser, U.; O’Brien, T.; Pandit, A. Liposomal gene delivery mediated by tissue-engineered scaffolds. Trends Biotechnol 2010, 28 (1), 2836,  DOI: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2009.10.003
  13. 13
    Monteiro, N.; Martins, A.; Reis, R. L.; Neves, N. M. Liposomes in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. J. R. Soc., Interface 2014, 11 (101), 20140459,  DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2014.0459
  14. 14
    Cheng, R.; Liu, L.; Xiang, Y.; Lu, Y; Deng, L.; Zhang, H.; Santos, H. A.; Cui, W. Advanced liposome-loaded scaffolds for therapeutic and tissue engineering applications. Biomaterials 2020, 232, 119706,  DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2019.119706
  15. 15
    Jesorka, A.; Orwar, O. Liposomes: Technologies and analytical applications. Annu. Rev. Anal. Chem. 2008, 1 (1), 801832,  DOI: 10.1146/annurev.anchem.1.031207.112747
  16. 16
    Rideau, E.; Dimova, R.; Schwille, P.; Wurm, F. R.; Landfester, K. Liposomes and polymersomes: a comparative review towards cell mimicking. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2018, 47 (23), 85728610,  DOI: 10.1039/C8CS00162F
  17. 17
    Göpfrich, K.; Platzman, I.; Spatz, J. P. Mastering Complexity: Towards Bottom-up Construction of Multifunctional Eukaryotic Synthetic Cells. Trends Biotechnol. 2018, 36 (9), 938951,  DOI: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2018.03.008
  18. 18
    Angelova, M. I.; Dimitrov, D. S. Liposome electroformation. Faraday Discuss. Chem. Soc. 1986, 81, 303311,  DOI: 10.1039/dc9868100303
  19. 19
    Reeves, J. P.; Dowben, R. M. Formation and properties of thin-walled phospholipid vesicles. J. Cell. Physiol. 1969, 73 (1), 4960,  DOI: 10.1002/jcp.1040730108
  20. 20
    Weinberger, A.; Tsai, F.; Koenderink, G. Gel-Assisted Formation of Giant Unilamellar Vesicles. Biophys. J. 2013, 105 (1), 154164,  DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2013.05.024
  21. 21
    Weiss, M. Sequential bottom-up assembly of mechanically stabilized synthetic cells by microfluidics. Nat. Mater. 2018, 17 (1), 8995,  DOI: 10.1038/nmat5005
  22. 22
    Haller, B.; Göpfrich, K.; Schröter, M.; Janiesch, J.-W.; Platzman, I.; Spatz, J. P. Charge-controlled microfluidic formation of lipid-based single- and multicompartment systems. Lab Chip. 2018, 18 (17), 26652674,  DOI: 10.1039/C8LC00582F
  23. 23
    Karamdad, K. Engineering thermoresponsive phase separated vesicles formed: Via emulsion phase transfer as a content-release platform. Chem. Sci. 2018, 9 (21), 48514858,  DOI: 10.1039/C7SC04309K
  24. 24
    Zong, W.; Shao, X.; Chai, Y.; Wang, X.; Han, S.; Chu, H.; Zhu, C.; Zhang, X. Controllable drug release of pH-sensitive liposomes encapsulating artificial cytosol system. bioRxiv 2021, 202105,  DOI: 10.1101/2021.05.24.445400
  25. 25
    Dreher, Y.; Jahnke, K.; Schröter, M.; Göpfrich, K. Light-Triggered Cargo Loading and Division of DNA-Containing Giant Unilamellar Lipid Vesicles. Nano Lett. 2021, 21 (14), 59525957,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.1c00822
  26. 26
    Elani, Y. Constructing vesicle-based artificial cells with embedded living cells as organelle-like modules. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8 (1), 4564,  DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-22263-3
  27. 27
    Duarte Campos, D. F.; Blaeser, A.; Buellesbach, K. Bioprinting Organotypic Hydrogels with Improved Mesenchymal Stem Cell Remodeling and Mineralization Properties for Bone Tissue Engineering. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 2016, 5 (11), 13361345,  DOI: 10.1002/adhm.201501033
  28. 28
    Duarte Campos, D. F.; Blaeser, A.; Weber, M. Three-dimensional printing of stem cell-laden hydrogels submerged in a hydrophobic high-density fluid. Biofabrication 2013, 5 (1), 015003,  DOI: 10.1088/1758-5082/5/1/015003
  29. 29
    Betsch, M.; Cristian, C.; Liu, Y.; Blaeser, A.; Schöneberg, J.; Vogt, M.; Buhl, E. M.; Fischer, H.; Duarte Campos, D. F. Incorporating 4D into Bioprinting: Real-Time Magnetically Directed Collagen Fiber Alignment for Generating Complex Multilayered Tissues. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 2018, 7 (21), 1800894,  DOI: 10.1002/adhm.201800894
  30. 30
    Duarte Campos, D. F.; Rohde, M.; Ross, M. Corneal bioprinting utilizing collagen-based bioinks and primary human keratocytes. J. Biomed Mater. Res. A 2019, 107 (9), 19451953,  DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.36702
  31. 31
    Stein, H.; Spindler, S.; Bonakdar, N.; Wang, C.; Sandoghdar, V. Production of isolated giant unilamellar vesicles under high salt concentrations. Front. Physiol. 2017, 8, 63,  DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2017.00063
  32. 32
    Tamba, Y.; Terashima, H.; Yamazaki, M. A membrane filtering method for the purification of giant unilamellar vesicles. Chem. Phys. Lipids 2011, 164 (5), 351358,  DOI: 10.1016/j.chemphyslip.2011.04.003
  33. 33
    Banerjee, R. Liposomes: Applications in Medicine. J. Biomater Appl. 2001, 16 (1), 321,  DOI: 10.1106/RA7U-1V9C-RV7C-8QXL
  34. 34
    Walde, P.; Cosentino, K.; Engel, H.; Stano, P. Giant Vesicles: Preparations and Applications. ChemBiochem 2010, 11 (7), 848865,  DOI: 10.1002/cbic.201000010
  35. 35
    Lee, W.; Debasitis, J.; Lee, V. Multi-layered culture of human skin fibroblasts and keratinocytes through three-dimensional freeform fabrication. Biomaterials 2009, 30 (8), 15871595,  DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.12.009
  36. 36
    Blaeser, A.; Duarte Campos, D. F.; Puster, U.; Richtering, W.; Stevens, M. M.; Fischer, H. Controlling Shear Stress in 3D Bioprinting is a Key Factor to Balance Printing Resolution and Stem Cell Integrity. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 2016, 5 (3), 326333,  DOI: 10.1002/adhm.201500677
  37. 37
    Lucas, L.; Aravind, A.; Emma, P.; Marquette, M.; Courtial, C. Rheology, simulation and data analysis toward bioprinting cell viability awareness. Bioprinting 2021, 21, e00119  DOI: 10.1016/j.bprint.2020.e00119
  38. 38
    Bhatia, T.; Husen, P.; Brewer, J. Preparing giant unilamellar vesicles (GUVs) of complex lipid mixtures on demand: Mixing small unilamellar vesicles of compositionally heterogeneous mixtures. Biochim. Biophys. Acta, Biomembr. 2015, 1848 (12), 31753180,  DOI: 10.1016/j.bbamem.2015.09.020
  39. 39
    Lira, R. B.; Dimova, R. Fusion assays for model membranes: a critical review. Adv. Biomembr. Lipid Self-Assem. 2019, 30, 229270,  DOI: 10.1016/bs.abl.2019.09.003
  40. 40
    Banquy, X.; Kristiansen, K.; Lee, D. W.; Israelachvili, J. N. Adhesion and hemifusion of cytoplasmic myelin lipid membranes are highly dependent on the lipid composition. Biochim. Biophys. Acta, Biomembr. 2012, 1818 (3), 402410,  DOI: 10.1016/j.bbamem.2011.10.015
  41. 41
    Kowalska, M.; Broniatowski, M.; Płachta, Ł; Wydro, P.; Wydro, P. The effect of the polyethylene glycol chain length of a lipopolymer (DSPE-PEGn) on the properties of DPPC monolayers and bilayers. J. Mol. Liq. 2021, 335, 116529,  DOI: 10.1016/j.molliq.2021.116529
  42. 42
    Allen, T. M.; Hansen, C.; Martin, F.; Redemann, C.; Yau-Young, A. Liposomes containing synthetic lipid derivatives of poly(ethylene glycol) show prolonged circulation half-lives in vivo. Biochim. Biophys. Acta, Biomembr. 1991, 1066, 2936,  DOI: 10.1016/0005-2736(91)90246-5
  43. 43
    Allen, C.; Dos Santos, N.; Gallagher, R.; Chiu, G. N. C.; Shu, Y.; Li, W. M.; Johnstone, S. A.; Janoff, A. S.; Mayer, L. D.; Webb, M. S.; Bally, M. B. Controlling the Physical Behavior and Biological Performance of Liposome Formulations through Use of Surface Grafted Poly(ethylene Glycol). Biosci. Rep. 2002, 22, 225250,  DOI: 10.1023/A:1020186505848
  44. 44
    Kenworthy, A. K.; Simon, S. A.; McIntosh, T. J. Structure and phase behavior of lipid suspensions containing phospholipids with covalently attached poly(ethylene glycol). Biophys. J. 1995, 68 (5), 19031920,  DOI: 10.1016/S0006-3495(95)80368-1
  45. 45
    Staufer, O.; Antona, S.; Zhang, D. Microfluidic production and characterization of biofunctionalized giant unilamellar vesicles for targeted intracellular cargo delivery. Biomaterials 2021, 264, 120203,  DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2020.120203
  46. 46
    Mahendra, A.; James, H. P.; Jadhav, S. PEG-grafted phospholipids in vesicles: Effect of PEG chain length and concentration on mechanical properties. Chem. Phys. Lipids 2019, 218, 4756,  DOI: 10.1016/j.chemphyslip.2018.12.001
  47. 47
    Papaioannou, T. G.; Karatzis, E. N.; Vavuranakis, M.; Lekakis, J. P.; Stefanadis, C. Assessment of vascular wall shear stress and implications for atherosclerotic disease. Int. J. Cardiol. 2006, 113 (1), 1218,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2006.03.035
  48. 48
    Koutsiaris, A. G.; Tachmitzi, S.; Batis, N.; Kotoula, M. G.; Karabatsas, C. H.; Tsironi, E.; Chatzoulis, D. Z. Volume flow and wall shear stress quantification in the human conjunctival capillaries and post-capillary venules in vivo. Biorheology 2007, 44 (5–6), 375386
  49. 49
    Lorent, J. H.; Levental, K.; Ganesan, L. Plasma membranes are asymmetric in lipid unsaturation, packing and protein shape. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2020, 16 (6), 644652,  DOI: 10.1038/s41589-020-0529-6
  50. 50
    Doktorova, M.; LeVine, M. V.; Khelashvili, G.; Weinstein, H. A New Computational Method for Membrane Compressibility: Bilayer Mechanical Thickness Revisited. Biophys. J. 2019, 116 (3), 487502,  DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2018.12.016
  51. 51
    Karal, M. A. S.; Mokta, N.; Levadny, V. Effects of cholesterol on the size distribution and bending modulus of lipid vesicles. PLoS One 2022, 17 (1), e0263119  DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263119
  52. 52
    Lira, R. B.; Steinkühler, J.; Knorr, R. L.; Dimova, R.; Riske, K. A. Posing for a picture: Vesicle immobilization in agarose gel. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 25254,  DOI: 10.1038/srep25254
  53. 53
    Sandström, M. C.; Johansson, E.; Edwards, K. Structure of mixed micelles formed in PEG-lipid/lipid dispersions. Langmuir 2007, 23 (8), 41924198,  DOI: 10.1021/la063501s
  54. 54
    Garbuzenko, O.; Barenholz, Y.; Priev, A. Effect of grafted PEG on liposome size and on compressibility and packing of lipid bilayer. Chem. Phys. Lipids 2005, 135 (2), 117129,  DOI: 10.1016/j.chemphyslip.2005.02.003
  55. 55
    Holthuis, J. C. M. Regulating membrane curvature. In Regulatory mechanisms of intracellular membrane transport Springer: 2004, 39 64.  DOI: 10.1007/b98566 .
  56. 56
    Tirosh, O.; Barenholz, Y.; Katzhendler, J.; Priev, A. Hydration of polyethylene glycol-grafted liposomes. Biophys. J. 1998, 74 (3), 13711379,  DOI: 10.1016/S0006-3495(98)77849-X
  57. 57
    Pepelanova, I.; Kruppa, K.; Scheper, T.; Lavrentieva, A. Gelatin-methacryloyl (GelMA) hydrogels with defined degree of functionalization as a versatile toolkit for 3D cell culture and extrusion bioprinting. Bioengineering 2018, 5 (3), 55,  DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering5030055
  58. 58
    Guo, L.; Har, J. Y.; Sankaran, J.; Hong, Y.; Kannan, B.; Wohland, T. Molecular Diffusion Measurement in Lipid Bilayers over Wide Concentration Ranges: A Comparative Study. ChemPhyschem 2008, 9 (5), 721728,  DOI: 10.1002/cphc.200700611
  59. 59
    Pincet, F.; Adrien, V.; Yang, R. FRAP to Characterize Molecular Diffusion and Interaction in Various Membrane Environments. PLoS One 2016, 11 (7), e0158457  DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158457
  60. 60
    Hernandez Bücher, J. E.; Staufer, O.; Ostertag, L.; Mersdorf, U.; Platzman, I.; Spatz, J. P. Bottom-up assembly of target-specific cytotoxic synthetic cells. Biomaterials 2022, 285, 121522,  DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2022.121522
  61. 61
    Bour, A.; Kruglik, S. G.; Chabanon, M.; Rangamani, P.; Puff, N.; Bonneau, S. Lipid Unsaturation Properties Govern the Sensitivity of Membranes to Photoinduced Oxidative Stress. Biophys. J. 2019, 116 (5), 910920,  DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2019.01.033
  62. 62
    Heuvingh, J.; Bonneau, S. Asymmetric oxidation of giant vesicles triggers curvature-associated shape transition and permeabilization. Biophys. J. 2009, 97 (11), 29042912,  DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2009.08.056
  63. 63
    Hermann, E.; Bleicken, S.; Subburaj, Y.; García-Sáez, A. J. Automated analysis of giant unilamellar vesicles using circular Hough transformation. Bioinformatics 2014, 30 (12), 17471754,  DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu102
  64. 64
    Jahnke, K.; Weiss, M.; Frey, C.; Antona, S.; Janiesch, J.-W.; Platzman, I.; Göpfrich, K.; Spatz, J. P. Programmable Functionalization of Surfactant-Stabilized Microfluidic Droplets via DNA-Tags. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2019, 29 (23), 1808647,  DOI: 10.1002/adfm.201808647

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!
Citation Statements
Explore this article's citation statements on scite.ai

This article is cited by 2 publications.

  1. Anna Burgstaller, Sara Madureira, Oskar Staufer. Synthetic cells in tissue engineering. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 2025, 92 , 103252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2024.103252
  2. Alexis Cooper, Anand Bala Subramaniam. Ultrahigh yields of giant vesicles obtained through mesophase evolution and breakup. Soft Matter 2024, 20 (48) , 9547-9561. https://doi.org/10.1039/D4SM01109K

ACS Synthetic Biology

Cite this: ACS Synth. Biol. 2024, 13, 8, 2436–2446
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acssynbio.4c00137
Published July 18, 2024

Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 .

Article Views

2792

Altmetric

-

Citations

Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. Bioprinting of giant unilamellar vesicles (GUVs). A) Production of GUVs with defined filling (Alexa Fluor 488 phalloidin, inset: scale bar of 10 μm) by electroformation. B) Filtration of GUVs by size with a 10 μm filter membrane to collect a stock solution with an average GUV diameter similar to human cells. C) Bioprinting GUVs by DOD or extrusion.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. GUV stability during bioprinting. A) Comparison of GUV stability after drop-on-demand (DOD) and extrusion bioprinting in GUV solution (iso-osmolar sucrose solution). A higher GUV density of 2 × 106 GUVs/mL and was used to visually count GUVs more easily. B) Incubation of DOPC-GUVs in the cell medium for 1 h. Scale bars represent 50 μm.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. PEG5-GUV stability during bioprinting. A) Comparison of PEG5-GUV stability after DOD and extrusion bioprinting of PEG5 GUVs in an isoosmolar sucrose solution, and DOD printing of PEG5 GUVs with a 20% cholesterol proportion. A density of 2 × 106 PEG5-GUV/mL was used. B) Incubation of PEG5-GUVs in a cell medium for 1 h. C) Agglomeration of DOPC- and PEG5-GUVs in DMEM after 1 h incubation. Segmented outline of agglomerates and GUVs (left) with the average agglomeration area normalized to the GUV area (right). Scale bars represent 50 μm. *p < 0.05 and ****p < 0.0001.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. GUVs with different concentrations of PEGylated lipids after filtration and encapsulation in 1% agarose hydrogel. A) GUVs with different concentrations of PEGylated lipids after filtration. Scale bar represents 150 μm, and in insets, it is 50 μm. B) Mean diameter of GUVs after filtration with different concentrations of PEGylated lipids. n = 3 with more than 175 GUVs per image. C) Projection images of z-stacks using the hydrogel containing GUVs with 0% (DOPC) and 5% (PEG5) PEGylated lipids 1 h and 72 h after encapsulation. Scale bars represent 50 μm. D) Effect of different PEG concentrations on the number of GUVs for 1 h, 24 h, and 72 h after encapsulation. n = 3. *p < 0.05 and **p < 0.001.

    Figure 5

    Figure 5. Bioprinting of PEG5-GUVs in agarose–collagen (Ag–Col) and gelatin methacryloyl (GelMA) bioinks in different geometrical shapes. A) Photographs of bioprinted Ag–Col constructs, and microscopic z-stack projection of PEG5-GUVs in Ag–Col bioink postprinting. Scale bar represents 50 μm; in inserts, it is 10 μm;, in macroscopic images, it is 2 mm. B) Photographs of bioprinted GelMA constructs, and microscopic z-stack projection of PEG5-GUVs in GelMA bioinks postprinting. Scale bar represents 50 μm, in inserts, it is 10 μm, and in macroscopic images it is 2 mm. C) Normalized fluorescence intensity profile of FRAP measurements of PEG5-GUVs printed at 0.2 bar pressure in agarose hydrogels (right), and the diffusion coefficient of PEG5-GUVs postbioprinting (left). Scale bar represents 5 μm. D) Photographs of bioprinted Ag–Col bioink postprinting (insets, scale bar represents 2 mm), and microscopic z-stack projection of PEG5-GUVs (red) and MSCs (green, live cell cytoplasm staining) in the Ag–Col bioink after 72 h and 7 days of postprinting. Scale bar represents 50 μm; in macroscopic images, it is 2 mm.

    Figure 6

    Figure 6. Studying the release of a fluorescent dye from bioprinted Ce6-PEG5-GUVs upon illumination. A) Fluorescence image of Ce6-PEG5-GUVs. B) Ce6-PEG5-GUVs loaded with sucrose and cultured in glucose solution before and after illumination with an LED set at a wavelength of 357 nm for 5 min. C) Fluorescence images showing bioprinted 1% w/v agarose constructs encapsulated with Alexa Fluor 488-loaded Ce6-PEG-GUVs before (upper images) and after (lower images) the release of the dye by illumination with an LED set at a wavelength of 357 nm for 5 min. Scale bars represent 50 μm; in insets, they are 10 μm; in macroscopic images, they are 2 mm.

  • References


    This article references 64 other publications.

    1. 1
      Langer, R.; Vacanti, J. P. Tissue Engineering. Science 1993, 260 (5110), 920926,  DOI: 10.1126/science.8493529
    2. 2
      Freeman, F. E.; Kelly, D. J. Tuning alginate bioink stiffness and composition for controlled growth factor delivery and to spatially direct MSC Fate within bioprinted tissues. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7 (1), 17042,  DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-17286-1
    3. 3
      Murphy, S. V.; Atala, A. 3D bioprinting of tissues and organs. Nat. Biotechnol. 2014, 32 (8), 773785,  DOI: 10.1038/nbt.2958
    4. 4
      Blaeser, A.; Heilshorn, S. C.; Duarte Campos, D. F. Smart bioinks as de novo building blocks to bioengineer living tissues. Gels 2019, 5 (2), 29,  DOI: 10.3390/gels5020029
    5. 5
      Xu, T.; Jin, J.; Gregory, C.; Hickman, J. J.; Boland, T. Inkjet printing of viable mammalian cells. Biomaterials 2005, 26 (1), 9399,  DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.04.011
    6. 6
      Iwami, K.; Noda, T.; Ishida, K.; Morishima, K.; Nakamura, M.; Umeda, N. Bio rapid prototyping by extruding/aspirating/refilling thermoreversible hydrogel. Biofabrication 2010, 2 (1), 014108,  DOI: 10.1088/1758-5082/2/1/014108
    7. 7
      Guillemot, F.; Souquet, A.; Catros, S. High-throughput laser printing of cells and biomaterials for tissue engineering. Acta Biomater 2010, 6 (7), 24942500,  DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2009.09.029
    8. 8
      Morgan, F. L. C.; Moroni, L.; Baker, M. B. Dynamic Bioinks to Advance Bioprinting. Adv. Healthcare Mater. 2020, 9 (15), 1901798,  DOI: 10.1002/adhm.201901798
    9. 9
      Skylar-Scott, M. A.; Huang, J.; Lu, A. Orthogonally induced differentiation of stem cells for the programmatic patterning of vascularized organoids and bioprinted tissues. Nat. Biomed. Eng 2022, 6 (4), 449462,  DOI: 10.1038/s41551-022-00856-8
    10. 10
      Duarte Campos, D. F.; Lindsay, C.; Lindsay, C. D.; Roth, J.; Julien, G.; LeSavage, B. L.; Seymour, A. J.; Krajina, B. A.; Ribeiro, R.; Costa, P. F. Bioprinting Cell- and Spheroid-Laden Protein-Engineered Hydrogels as Tissue-on-Chip Platforms. Front Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2020, 8, 374,  DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.00374
    11. 11
      Wang, X.; Liu, X.; Liu, W.; Liu, Y.; Li, A.; Qiu, D.; Zheng, X.; Gu, Q. 3D bioprinting microgels to construct implantable vascular tissue. Cell Prolif 2023, 56 (5), e13456  DOI: 10.1111/cpr.13456
    12. 12
      Kulkarni, M.; Greiser, U.; O’Brien, T.; Pandit, A. Liposomal gene delivery mediated by tissue-engineered scaffolds. Trends Biotechnol 2010, 28 (1), 2836,  DOI: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2009.10.003
    13. 13
      Monteiro, N.; Martins, A.; Reis, R. L.; Neves, N. M. Liposomes in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. J. R. Soc., Interface 2014, 11 (101), 20140459,  DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2014.0459
    14. 14
      Cheng, R.; Liu, L.; Xiang, Y.; Lu, Y; Deng, L.; Zhang, H.; Santos, H. A.; Cui, W. Advanced liposome-loaded scaffolds for therapeutic and tissue engineering applications. Biomaterials 2020, 232, 119706,  DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2019.119706
    15. 15
      Jesorka, A.; Orwar, O. Liposomes: Technologies and analytical applications. Annu. Rev. Anal. Chem. 2008, 1 (1), 801832,  DOI: 10.1146/annurev.anchem.1.031207.112747
    16. 16
      Rideau, E.; Dimova, R.; Schwille, P.; Wurm, F. R.; Landfester, K. Liposomes and polymersomes: a comparative review towards cell mimicking. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2018, 47 (23), 85728610,  DOI: 10.1039/C8CS00162F
    17. 17
      Göpfrich, K.; Platzman, I.; Spatz, J. P. Mastering Complexity: Towards Bottom-up Construction of Multifunctional Eukaryotic Synthetic Cells. Trends Biotechnol. 2018, 36 (9), 938951,  DOI: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2018.03.008
    18. 18
      Angelova, M. I.; Dimitrov, D. S. Liposome electroformation. Faraday Discuss. Chem. Soc. 1986, 81, 303311,  DOI: 10.1039/dc9868100303
    19. 19
      Reeves, J. P.; Dowben, R. M. Formation and properties of thin-walled phospholipid vesicles. J. Cell. Physiol. 1969, 73 (1), 4960,  DOI: 10.1002/jcp.1040730108
    20. 20
      Weinberger, A.; Tsai, F.; Koenderink, G. Gel-Assisted Formation of Giant Unilamellar Vesicles. Biophys. J. 2013, 105 (1), 154164,  DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2013.05.024
    21. 21
      Weiss, M. Sequential bottom-up assembly of mechanically stabilized synthetic cells by microfluidics. Nat. Mater. 2018, 17 (1), 8995,  DOI: 10.1038/nmat5005
    22. 22
      Haller, B.; Göpfrich, K.; Schröter, M.; Janiesch, J.-W.; Platzman, I.; Spatz, J. P. Charge-controlled microfluidic formation of lipid-based single- and multicompartment systems. Lab Chip. 2018, 18 (17), 26652674,  DOI: 10.1039/C8LC00582F
    23. 23
      Karamdad, K. Engineering thermoresponsive phase separated vesicles formed: Via emulsion phase transfer as a content-release platform. Chem. Sci. 2018, 9 (21), 48514858,  DOI: 10.1039/C7SC04309K
    24. 24
      Zong, W.; Shao, X.; Chai, Y.; Wang, X.; Han, S.; Chu, H.; Zhu, C.; Zhang, X. Controllable drug release of pH-sensitive liposomes encapsulating artificial cytosol system. bioRxiv 2021, 202105,  DOI: 10.1101/2021.05.24.445400
    25. 25
      Dreher, Y.; Jahnke, K.; Schröter, M.; Göpfrich, K. Light-Triggered Cargo Loading and Division of DNA-Containing Giant Unilamellar Lipid Vesicles. Nano Lett. 2021, 21 (14), 59525957,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.1c00822
    26. 26
      Elani, Y. Constructing vesicle-based artificial cells with embedded living cells as organelle-like modules. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8 (1), 4564,  DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-22263-3
    27. 27
      Duarte Campos, D. F.; Blaeser, A.; Buellesbach, K. Bioprinting Organotypic Hydrogels with Improved Mesenchymal Stem Cell Remodeling and Mineralization Properties for Bone Tissue Engineering. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 2016, 5 (11), 13361345,  DOI: 10.1002/adhm.201501033
    28. 28
      Duarte Campos, D. F.; Blaeser, A.; Weber, M. Three-dimensional printing of stem cell-laden hydrogels submerged in a hydrophobic high-density fluid. Biofabrication 2013, 5 (1), 015003,  DOI: 10.1088/1758-5082/5/1/015003
    29. 29
      Betsch, M.; Cristian, C.; Liu, Y.; Blaeser, A.; Schöneberg, J.; Vogt, M.; Buhl, E. M.; Fischer, H.; Duarte Campos, D. F. Incorporating 4D into Bioprinting: Real-Time Magnetically Directed Collagen Fiber Alignment for Generating Complex Multilayered Tissues. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 2018, 7 (21), 1800894,  DOI: 10.1002/adhm.201800894
    30. 30
      Duarte Campos, D. F.; Rohde, M.; Ross, M. Corneal bioprinting utilizing collagen-based bioinks and primary human keratocytes. J. Biomed Mater. Res. A 2019, 107 (9), 19451953,  DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.36702
    31. 31
      Stein, H.; Spindler, S.; Bonakdar, N.; Wang, C.; Sandoghdar, V. Production of isolated giant unilamellar vesicles under high salt concentrations. Front. Physiol. 2017, 8, 63,  DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2017.00063
    32. 32
      Tamba, Y.; Terashima, H.; Yamazaki, M. A membrane filtering method for the purification of giant unilamellar vesicles. Chem. Phys. Lipids 2011, 164 (5), 351358,  DOI: 10.1016/j.chemphyslip.2011.04.003
    33. 33
      Banerjee, R. Liposomes: Applications in Medicine. J. Biomater Appl. 2001, 16 (1), 321,  DOI: 10.1106/RA7U-1V9C-RV7C-8QXL
    34. 34
      Walde, P.; Cosentino, K.; Engel, H.; Stano, P. Giant Vesicles: Preparations and Applications. ChemBiochem 2010, 11 (7), 848865,  DOI: 10.1002/cbic.201000010
    35. 35
      Lee, W.; Debasitis, J.; Lee, V. Multi-layered culture of human skin fibroblasts and keratinocytes through three-dimensional freeform fabrication. Biomaterials 2009, 30 (8), 15871595,  DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.12.009
    36. 36
      Blaeser, A.; Duarte Campos, D. F.; Puster, U.; Richtering, W.; Stevens, M. M.; Fischer, H. Controlling Shear Stress in 3D Bioprinting is a Key Factor to Balance Printing Resolution and Stem Cell Integrity. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 2016, 5 (3), 326333,  DOI: 10.1002/adhm.201500677
    37. 37
      Lucas, L.; Aravind, A.; Emma, P.; Marquette, M.; Courtial, C. Rheology, simulation and data analysis toward bioprinting cell viability awareness. Bioprinting 2021, 21, e00119  DOI: 10.1016/j.bprint.2020.e00119
    38. 38
      Bhatia, T.; Husen, P.; Brewer, J. Preparing giant unilamellar vesicles (GUVs) of complex lipid mixtures on demand: Mixing small unilamellar vesicles of compositionally heterogeneous mixtures. Biochim. Biophys. Acta, Biomembr. 2015, 1848 (12), 31753180,  DOI: 10.1016/j.bbamem.2015.09.020
    39. 39
      Lira, R. B.; Dimova, R. Fusion assays for model membranes: a critical review. Adv. Biomembr. Lipid Self-Assem. 2019, 30, 229270,  DOI: 10.1016/bs.abl.2019.09.003
    40. 40
      Banquy, X.; Kristiansen, K.; Lee, D. W.; Israelachvili, J. N. Adhesion and hemifusion of cytoplasmic myelin lipid membranes are highly dependent on the lipid composition. Biochim. Biophys. Acta, Biomembr. 2012, 1818 (3), 402410,  DOI: 10.1016/j.bbamem.2011.10.015
    41. 41
      Kowalska, M.; Broniatowski, M.; Płachta, Ł; Wydro, P.; Wydro, P. The effect of the polyethylene glycol chain length of a lipopolymer (DSPE-PEGn) on the properties of DPPC monolayers and bilayers. J. Mol. Liq. 2021, 335, 116529,  DOI: 10.1016/j.molliq.2021.116529
    42. 42
      Allen, T. M.; Hansen, C.; Martin, F.; Redemann, C.; Yau-Young, A. Liposomes containing synthetic lipid derivatives of poly(ethylene glycol) show prolonged circulation half-lives in vivo. Biochim. Biophys. Acta, Biomembr. 1991, 1066, 2936,  DOI: 10.1016/0005-2736(91)90246-5
    43. 43
      Allen, C.; Dos Santos, N.; Gallagher, R.; Chiu, G. N. C.; Shu, Y.; Li, W. M.; Johnstone, S. A.; Janoff, A. S.; Mayer, L. D.; Webb, M. S.; Bally, M. B. Controlling the Physical Behavior and Biological Performance of Liposome Formulations through Use of Surface Grafted Poly(ethylene Glycol). Biosci. Rep. 2002, 22, 225250,  DOI: 10.1023/A:1020186505848
    44. 44
      Kenworthy, A. K.; Simon, S. A.; McIntosh, T. J. Structure and phase behavior of lipid suspensions containing phospholipids with covalently attached poly(ethylene glycol). Biophys. J. 1995, 68 (5), 19031920,  DOI: 10.1016/S0006-3495(95)80368-1
    45. 45
      Staufer, O.; Antona, S.; Zhang, D. Microfluidic production and characterization of biofunctionalized giant unilamellar vesicles for targeted intracellular cargo delivery. Biomaterials 2021, 264, 120203,  DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2020.120203
    46. 46
      Mahendra, A.; James, H. P.; Jadhav, S. PEG-grafted phospholipids in vesicles: Effect of PEG chain length and concentration on mechanical properties. Chem. Phys. Lipids 2019, 218, 4756,  DOI: 10.1016/j.chemphyslip.2018.12.001
    47. 47
      Papaioannou, T. G.; Karatzis, E. N.; Vavuranakis, M.; Lekakis, J. P.; Stefanadis, C. Assessment of vascular wall shear stress and implications for atherosclerotic disease. Int. J. Cardiol. 2006, 113 (1), 1218,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2006.03.035
    48. 48
      Koutsiaris, A. G.; Tachmitzi, S.; Batis, N.; Kotoula, M. G.; Karabatsas, C. H.; Tsironi, E.; Chatzoulis, D. Z. Volume flow and wall shear stress quantification in the human conjunctival capillaries and post-capillary venules in vivo. Biorheology 2007, 44 (5–6), 375386
    49. 49
      Lorent, J. H.; Levental, K.; Ganesan, L. Plasma membranes are asymmetric in lipid unsaturation, packing and protein shape. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2020, 16 (6), 644652,  DOI: 10.1038/s41589-020-0529-6
    50. 50
      Doktorova, M.; LeVine, M. V.; Khelashvili, G.; Weinstein, H. A New Computational Method for Membrane Compressibility: Bilayer Mechanical Thickness Revisited. Biophys. J. 2019, 116 (3), 487502,  DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2018.12.016
    51. 51
      Karal, M. A. S.; Mokta, N.; Levadny, V. Effects of cholesterol on the size distribution and bending modulus of lipid vesicles. PLoS One 2022, 17 (1), e0263119  DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263119
    52. 52
      Lira, R. B.; Steinkühler, J.; Knorr, R. L.; Dimova, R.; Riske, K. A. Posing for a picture: Vesicle immobilization in agarose gel. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 25254,  DOI: 10.1038/srep25254
    53. 53
      Sandström, M. C.; Johansson, E.; Edwards, K. Structure of mixed micelles formed in PEG-lipid/lipid dispersions. Langmuir 2007, 23 (8), 41924198,  DOI: 10.1021/la063501s
    54. 54
      Garbuzenko, O.; Barenholz, Y.; Priev, A. Effect of grafted PEG on liposome size and on compressibility and packing of lipid bilayer. Chem. Phys. Lipids 2005, 135 (2), 117129,  DOI: 10.1016/j.chemphyslip.2005.02.003
    55. 55
      Holthuis, J. C. M. Regulating membrane curvature. In Regulatory mechanisms of intracellular membrane transport Springer: 2004, 39 64.  DOI: 10.1007/b98566 .
    56. 56
      Tirosh, O.; Barenholz, Y.; Katzhendler, J.; Priev, A. Hydration of polyethylene glycol-grafted liposomes. Biophys. J. 1998, 74 (3), 13711379,  DOI: 10.1016/S0006-3495(98)77849-X
    57. 57
      Pepelanova, I.; Kruppa, K.; Scheper, T.; Lavrentieva, A. Gelatin-methacryloyl (GelMA) hydrogels with defined degree of functionalization as a versatile toolkit for 3D cell culture and extrusion bioprinting. Bioengineering 2018, 5 (3), 55,  DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering5030055
    58. 58
      Guo, L.; Har, J. Y.; Sankaran, J.; Hong, Y.; Kannan, B.; Wohland, T. Molecular Diffusion Measurement in Lipid Bilayers over Wide Concentration Ranges: A Comparative Study. ChemPhyschem 2008, 9 (5), 721728,  DOI: 10.1002/cphc.200700611
    59. 59
      Pincet, F.; Adrien, V.; Yang, R. FRAP to Characterize Molecular Diffusion and Interaction in Various Membrane Environments. PLoS One 2016, 11 (7), e0158457  DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158457
    60. 60
      Hernandez Bücher, J. E.; Staufer, O.; Ostertag, L.; Mersdorf, U.; Platzman, I.; Spatz, J. P. Bottom-up assembly of target-specific cytotoxic synthetic cells. Biomaterials 2022, 285, 121522,  DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2022.121522
    61. 61
      Bour, A.; Kruglik, S. G.; Chabanon, M.; Rangamani, P.; Puff, N.; Bonneau, S. Lipid Unsaturation Properties Govern the Sensitivity of Membranes to Photoinduced Oxidative Stress. Biophys. J. 2019, 116 (5), 910920,  DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2019.01.033
    62. 62
      Heuvingh, J.; Bonneau, S. Asymmetric oxidation of giant vesicles triggers curvature-associated shape transition and permeabilization. Biophys. J. 2009, 97 (11), 29042912,  DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2009.08.056
    63. 63
      Hermann, E.; Bleicken, S.; Subburaj, Y.; García-Sáez, A. J. Automated analysis of giant unilamellar vesicles using circular Hough transformation. Bioinformatics 2014, 30 (12), 17471754,  DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu102
    64. 64
      Jahnke, K.; Weiss, M.; Frey, C.; Antona, S.; Janiesch, J.-W.; Platzman, I.; Göpfrich, K.; Spatz, J. P. Programmable Functionalization of Surfactant-Stabilized Microfluidic Droplets via DNA-Tags. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2019, 29 (23), 1808647,  DOI: 10.1002/adfm.201808647
  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information


    The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acssynbio.4c00137.

    • Efficiency of the GUV filtering process (Figure S1); GUV images after DOD and extrusion printing (Figure S2); MSC viability postbioprinting (Figure S3); effect of salts on the agglomeration of GUVs (Figure S4); agglomeration of DOPC-GUVs in DMEM (Figure S5); agglomeration of PEG5-GUVs in DMEM (Figure S6); interaction of PEGylated GUVs with cells (Figure S7); fluorescence intensity curves for FRAP measurements on printed PEG5-GUVs (Figure S8) (PDF)


    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.