Biofabrication: a guide to technology and terminology

Lorenzo Moroni, Thomas Boland, Jason A. Burdick, Carmelo De Maria, Brian Derby, Gabor Forgacs, Jürgen Groll, Qing Li, Jos Malda, Vladimir A. Mironov, Carlos Mota, Makoto Nakamura, Wenmiao Shu, Shoji Takeuchi, Tim B.F. Woodfield, Tao Xu, James J. Yoo, Giovanni Vozzi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

64 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Biofabrication holds the potential to generate constructs that more closely recapitulate the complexity and heterogeneity of tissues and organs than do currently available regenerative medicine therapies. Such constructs can be applied for tissue regeneration or as in vitro 3D models. Biofabrication is maturing and growing, and scientists with different backgrounds are joining this field, underscoring the need for unity regarding the use of terminology. We therefore believe that there is a compelling need to clarify the relationship between the different concepts, technologies, and descriptions of biofabrication that are often used interchangeably or inconsistently in the current literature. Our objective is to provide a guide to the terminology for different technologies in the field which may serve as a reference for the biofabrication community. Biofabrication holds great potential in the fields of regenerative medicine and physiological 3D in vitro models by allowing the manufacture of complex tissue constructs with a higher degree of biomimicry to native tissues than do current biomedical solutions.As the number of biofabrication technologies being developed continues to expand, it is of paramount importance to adopt a concerted terminology framework and avoid generalizations.The ratio between the spatial resolution and the timescale of manufacture could be considered as a reliable measure to aid in the selection of an appropriate biofabrication technology for a desired application.

LanguageEnglish
Pages1-19
Number of pages19
JournalTrends in Biotechnology
Early online date11 Nov 2017
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 11 Nov 2017

Fingerprint

Terminology
Technology
Regenerative Medicine
Tissue
Tissue regeneration
Joining
Regeneration
In Vitro Techniques
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • biofabrication
  • medicine therapies
  • tissue regeneration

Cite this

Moroni, L., Boland, T., Burdick, J. A., De Maria, C., Derby, B., Forgacs, G., ... Vozzi, G. (2017). Biofabrication: a guide to technology and terminology. Trends in Biotechnology, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2017.10.015
Moroni, Lorenzo ; Boland, Thomas ; Burdick, Jason A. ; De Maria, Carmelo ; Derby, Brian ; Forgacs, Gabor ; Groll, Jürgen ; Li, Qing ; Malda, Jos ; Mironov, Vladimir A. ; Mota, Carlos ; Nakamura, Makoto ; Shu, Wenmiao ; Takeuchi, Shoji ; Woodfield, Tim B.F. ; Xu, Tao ; Yoo, James J. ; Vozzi, Giovanni. / Biofabrication : a guide to technology and terminology. In: Trends in Biotechnology. 2017 ; pp. 1-19.
@article{dba1ae38b1604c33a2d68c4f72aa7d1b,
title = "Biofabrication: a guide to technology and terminology",
abstract = "Biofabrication holds the potential to generate constructs that more closely recapitulate the complexity and heterogeneity of tissues and organs than do currently available regenerative medicine therapies. Such constructs can be applied for tissue regeneration or as in vitro 3D models. Biofabrication is maturing and growing, and scientists with different backgrounds are joining this field, underscoring the need for unity regarding the use of terminology. We therefore believe that there is a compelling need to clarify the relationship between the different concepts, technologies, and descriptions of biofabrication that are often used interchangeably or inconsistently in the current literature. Our objective is to provide a guide to the terminology for different technologies in the field which may serve as a reference for the biofabrication community. Biofabrication holds great potential in the fields of regenerative medicine and physiological 3D in vitro models by allowing the manufacture of complex tissue constructs with a higher degree of biomimicry to native tissues than do current biomedical solutions.As the number of biofabrication technologies being developed continues to expand, it is of paramount importance to adopt a concerted terminology framework and avoid generalizations.The ratio between the spatial resolution and the timescale of manufacture could be considered as a reliable measure to aid in the selection of an appropriate biofabrication technology for a desired application.",
keywords = "biofabrication, medicine therapies, tissue regeneration",
author = "Lorenzo Moroni and Thomas Boland and Burdick, {Jason A.} and {De Maria}, Carmelo and Brian Derby and Gabor Forgacs and J{\"u}rgen Groll and Qing Li and Jos Malda and Mironov, {Vladimir A.} and Carlos Mota and Makoto Nakamura and Wenmiao Shu and Shoji Takeuchi and Woodfield, {Tim B.F.} and Tao Xu and Yoo, {James J.} and Giovanni Vozzi",
year = "2017",
month = "11",
day = "11",
doi = "10.1016/j.tibtech.2017.10.015",
language = "English",
pages = "1--19",
journal = "Trends in Biotechnology",
issn = "0167-7799",

}

Moroni, L, Boland, T, Burdick, JA, De Maria, C, Derby, B, Forgacs, G, Groll, J, Li, Q, Malda, J, Mironov, VA, Mota, C, Nakamura, M, Shu, W, Takeuchi, S, Woodfield, TBF, Xu, T, Yoo, JJ & Vozzi, G 2017, 'Biofabrication: a guide to technology and terminology' Trends in Biotechnology, pp. 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2017.10.015

Biofabrication : a guide to technology and terminology. / Moroni, Lorenzo; Boland, Thomas; Burdick, Jason A.; De Maria, Carmelo; Derby, Brian; Forgacs, Gabor; Groll, Jürgen; Li, Qing; Malda, Jos; Mironov, Vladimir A.; Mota, Carlos; Nakamura, Makoto; Shu, Wenmiao; Takeuchi, Shoji; Woodfield, Tim B.F.; Xu, Tao; Yoo, James J.; Vozzi, Giovanni.

In: Trends in Biotechnology, 11.11.2017, p. 1-19.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Biofabrication

T2 - Trends in Biotechnology

AU - Moroni, Lorenzo

AU - Boland, Thomas

AU - Burdick, Jason A.

AU - De Maria, Carmelo

AU - Derby, Brian

AU - Forgacs, Gabor

AU - Groll, Jürgen

AU - Li, Qing

AU - Malda, Jos

AU - Mironov, Vladimir A.

AU - Mota, Carlos

AU - Nakamura, Makoto

AU - Shu, Wenmiao

AU - Takeuchi, Shoji

AU - Woodfield, Tim B.F.

AU - Xu, Tao

AU - Yoo, James J.

AU - Vozzi, Giovanni

PY - 2017/11/11

Y1 - 2017/11/11

N2 - Biofabrication holds the potential to generate constructs that more closely recapitulate the complexity and heterogeneity of tissues and organs than do currently available regenerative medicine therapies. Such constructs can be applied for tissue regeneration or as in vitro 3D models. Biofabrication is maturing and growing, and scientists with different backgrounds are joining this field, underscoring the need for unity regarding the use of terminology. We therefore believe that there is a compelling need to clarify the relationship between the different concepts, technologies, and descriptions of biofabrication that are often used interchangeably or inconsistently in the current literature. Our objective is to provide a guide to the terminology for different technologies in the field which may serve as a reference for the biofabrication community. Biofabrication holds great potential in the fields of regenerative medicine and physiological 3D in vitro models by allowing the manufacture of complex tissue constructs with a higher degree of biomimicry to native tissues than do current biomedical solutions.As the number of biofabrication technologies being developed continues to expand, it is of paramount importance to adopt a concerted terminology framework and avoid generalizations.The ratio between the spatial resolution and the timescale of manufacture could be considered as a reliable measure to aid in the selection of an appropriate biofabrication technology for a desired application.

AB - Biofabrication holds the potential to generate constructs that more closely recapitulate the complexity and heterogeneity of tissues and organs than do currently available regenerative medicine therapies. Such constructs can be applied for tissue regeneration or as in vitro 3D models. Biofabrication is maturing and growing, and scientists with different backgrounds are joining this field, underscoring the need for unity regarding the use of terminology. We therefore believe that there is a compelling need to clarify the relationship between the different concepts, technologies, and descriptions of biofabrication that are often used interchangeably or inconsistently in the current literature. Our objective is to provide a guide to the terminology for different technologies in the field which may serve as a reference for the biofabrication community. Biofabrication holds great potential in the fields of regenerative medicine and physiological 3D in vitro models by allowing the manufacture of complex tissue constructs with a higher degree of biomimicry to native tissues than do current biomedical solutions.As the number of biofabrication technologies being developed continues to expand, it is of paramount importance to adopt a concerted terminology framework and avoid generalizations.The ratio between the spatial resolution and the timescale of manufacture could be considered as a reliable measure to aid in the selection of an appropriate biofabrication technology for a desired application.

KW - biofabrication

KW - medicine therapies

KW - tissue regeneration

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85033578879&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01677799

U2 - 10.1016/j.tibtech.2017.10.015

DO - 10.1016/j.tibtech.2017.10.015

M3 - Article

SP - 1

EP - 19

JO - Trends in Biotechnology

JF - Trends in Biotechnology

SN - 0167-7799

ER -

Moroni L, Boland T, Burdick JA, De Maria C, Derby B, Forgacs G et al. Biofabrication: a guide to technology and terminology. Trends in Biotechnology. 2017 Nov 11;1-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2017.10.015