Application of 3D-bioprinted nanocellulose and cellulose derivative-based bio-inks in bone and cartilage tissue engineering
Three-dimensional (3D) printing is a modern, computer-aided, design-based technology that allows the layer-by-layer deposition of 3D structures. Bioprinting, a 3D printing technology, has attracted increasing attention because of its capacity to produce scaffolds for living cells with extreme precision. Along with the rapid development of 3D bioprinting technology, the innovation of bio-inks, which is recognized as the most challenging aspect of this technology, has demonstrated tremendous promise for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Cellulose is the most abundant polymer in nature. Various forms of cellulose, nanocellulose, and cellulose derivatives, including cellulose ethers and cellulose esters, are common bioprintable materials used to develop bio-inks in recent years, owing to their biocompatibility, biodegradability, low cost, and printability. Although various cellulose-based bio-inks have been investigated, the potential applications of nanocellulose and cellulose derivative-based bio-inks have not been fully explored. This review focuses on the physicochemical properties of nanocellulose and cellulose derivatives as well as the recent advances in bio-ink design for 3D bioprinting of bone and cartilage. In addition, the current advantages and disadvantages of these bioinks and their prospects in 3D printing-based tissue engineering are comprehensively discussed. We hope to offer helpful information for the logical design of innovative cellulose-based materials for use in this sector in the future.
1. Zhang YS, Yue K, Aleman J, et al., 2017, 3D bioprinting for tissue and organ fabrication. Ann Biomed Eng, 45: 148–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-016-1612-8
2. Mota C, Camarero-Espinosa S, Baker MB, et al., 2020, Bioprinting: from tissue and organ development to in vitro models. Chem Rev, 120: 10547–10607. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.9b00789
3. Tarassoli SP, Jessop ZM, Al-Sabah A, et al., 2018, Skin tissue engineering using 3D bioprinting: An evolving research field. J Plast Reconst Aesthet Surg, 71: 615–623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2017.12.006
4. Alonzo M, AnilKumar S, Roman B, et al., 2019, 3D Bioprinting of cardiac tissue and cardiac stem cell therapy. Transl Res, 211: 64–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trsl.2019.04.004
5. Mei Q, Rao J, Bei HP, et al., 2021, 3D bioprinting photo crosslinkable hydrogels for bone and cartilage repair. Int J Bioprinting, 7: 367. https://doi.org/10.18063/ijb.v7i3.367
6. Heinrich MA, Liu W, Jimenez A, et al., 2019, 3D Bioprinting: from benches to translational applications. Small, 15: e1805510. https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.201805510
7. Thomas P, Duolikun T, Rumjit NP, et al., 2020, Comprehensive review on nanocellulose: Recent developments, challenges and future prospects. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 110: 103884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2020.103884
8. Piras CC, Fernández-Prieto S, De Borggraeve WM, 2017, Nanocellulosic materials as bioinks for 3D bioprinting. Biomater Sci, 5: 1988–1992. https://doi.org/10.1039/c7bm00510e
9. Banvillet G, Depres G, Belgacem N, et al., 2021, Alkaline treatment combined with enzymatic hydrolysis for efficient cellulose nanofibrils production. Carbohydr Polym, 255: 117383. \https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2020.117383
10. Isogai A, Saito T, Fukuzumi H, 2011, TEMPO-oxidized cellulose nanofibers. Nanoscale, 3: 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1039/c0nr00583e
11. Piras CC, Fernandez-Prieto S, De Borggraeve WM, 2017, Nanocellulosic materials as bioinks for 3D bioprinting. Biomater Sci, 5: 1988–1992. https://doi.org/10.1039/c7bm00510e
12. Starborg T, Kalson NS, Lu Y, et al., 2013, Using transmission electron microscopy and 3View to determine collagen fibril size and three-dimensional organization. Nat Protoc, 8: 1433–1448. https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2013.086
13. Rouillard AD, Berglund CM, Lee JY, et al., 2011, Methods for photocrosslinking alginate hydrogel scaffolds with high cell viability. Tissue Eng C: Methods, 17: 173–179. https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.TEC.2009.0582
14. Markstedt K, Mantas A, Tournier I, et al., 2015, 3D bioprinting human chondrocytes with nanocellulosealginate bioink for cartilage tissue engineering applications. Biomacromolecules, 16: 1489–1496. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.biomac.5b00188
15. Trachsel L, Johnbosco C, Lang T, et al., 2019, Double network hydrogels including enzymatically crosslinked Poly-(2-alkyl-2-oxazoline)s for 3D bioprinting of cartilage engineering constructs. Biomacromolecules, 20: 4502–4511. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.biomac.9b01266
16. Yasuda K, Ping Gong J, Katsuyama Y, et al., 2005, Biomechanical properties of high-toughness double network hydrogels. Biomaterials, 26: 4468–4475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.11.021
17. Öztürk E, Arlov Ø, Aksel S, et al., 2016, Sulfated hydrogel matrices direct mitogenicity and maintenance of chondrocyte phenotype through activation of FGF signaling. Adv Funct Mater, 26: 3649–3662. https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.201600092
18. Müller M, Öztürk E, Arlov Ø, et al., 2017, Alginate Sulfate nanocellulose bioinks for cartilage bioprinting applications. Ann Biomed Eng, 45: 210–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-016-1704-5
19. Apelgren P, Amoroso M, Lindahl A, et al., 2017, Chondrocytes and stem cells in 3D-bioprinted structures create human cartilage in vivo. PloS One, 12: e0189428. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189428
20. Morimune-Moriya S, Kondo S, Sugawara-Narutaki A, et al., 2014, Hydroxyapatite formation on oxidized cellulose nanofibers in a solution mimicking body fluid. Polym J, 47: 158–163. https://doi.org/10.1038/pj.2014.127
21. Abouzeid RE, Khiari R, Beneventi D, et al., 2018, Biomimetic mineralization of three-dimensional printed Alginate/TEMPO-Oxidized cellulose nanofibril scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomacromolecules, 19: 4442–4452. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.biomac.8b01325
22. Im S, Choe G, Seok JM, et al., 2022, An osteogenic bioink composed of alginate, cellulose nanofibrils, and polydopamine nanoparticles for 3D bioprinting and bone tissue engineering. Int J Biol Macromol, 205: 520–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2022.02.012
23. Ojansivu M, Vanhatupa S, Björkvik L, et al., 2015, Bioactive glass ions as strong enhancers of osteogenic differentiation in human adipose stem cells. Acta Biomater, 21: 190–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2015.04.017
24. Ojansivu M, Rashad A, Ahlinder A, et al., 2019, Wood-based nanocellulose and bioactive glass modified gelatin-alginate bioinks for 3D bioprinting of bone cells. Biofabrication, 11: 035010. https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/ab0692
25. Monfared M, Mawad D, Rnjak-Kovacina J, et al., 2021,3D bioprinting of dual-crosslinked nanocellulose hydrogels for tissue engineering applications. J Mater Chem B, 9: 6163–6175. https://doi.org/10.1039/d1tb00624j
26. Mtibe A, Linganiso LZ, Mathew AP, et al., 2015, A comparative study on properties of micro and nanopapers produced from cellulose and cellulose nanofibres. Carbohydr Polym, 118: 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2014.10.007
27. Karimian A, Parsian H, Majidinia M, et al., 2019, Nanocrystalline cellulose: Preparation, physicochemical properties, and applications in drug delivery systems. Int J Biol Macromol, 133: 850–859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.04.117
28. Murizan NIS, Mustafa NS, Ngadiman NHA, et al., 2020, Review on nanocrystalline cellulose in bone tissue engineering applications. Polymers, 12: 2818. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12122818
29. Osorio DA, Lee BEJ, Kwiecien JM, et al., 2019, Cross-linked cellulose nanocrystal aerogels as viable bone tissue scaffolds. Acta Biomater, 87: 152–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2019.01.049
30. Wang K, Nune KC, Misra RD, 2016, The functional response of alginate-gelatin-nanocrystalline cellulose injectable hydrogels toward delivery of cells and bioactive molecules. Acta Biomater, 36: 143–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2016.03.016
31. Maturavongsadit P, Narayanan LK, Chansoria P, et al., 2021, Cell-laden nanocellulose/chitosan-based bioinks for 3D bioprinting and enhanced osteogenic cell differentiation. ACS Appl Bio Mater, 4: 2342–2353. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsabm.0c01108
32. Murphy WL, McDevitt TC, Engler AJ, 2014, Materials as stem cell regulators. Nat Mater, 13: 547–557. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat3937
33. Dutta SD, Hexiu J, Patel DK, et al., 2021, 3D-printed bioactive and biodegradable hydrogel scaffolds of alginate/gelatin/cellulose nanocrystals for tissue engineering. Int J Biol Macromol, 167: 644–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.12.011
34. Patel DK, Dutta SD, Shin WC, et al., 2021, Fabrication and characterization of 3D printable nanocellulose-based hydrogels for tissue engineering. RSC Adv, 11: 7466–7478. https://doi.org/10.1039/d0ra09620b
35. Hosseinidoust Z, Alam MN, Sim G, et al., 2015, Cellulose nanocrystals with tunable surface charge for nanomedicine. Nanoscale, 7: 16647–16657. https://doi.org/10.1039/c5nr02506k
36. Nelson KIM, Retsina T, 2014, Innovative nanocellulose process breaks the cost barrier. TAPPI J, 13: 19–23. https://doi.org/10.32964/tj13.5.19
37. Jessop ZM, Al-Sabah A, Gao N, et al., 2019, Printability of pulp derived crystal, fibril and blend nanocellulose-alginate bioinks for extrusion 3D bioprinting. Biofabrication, 11: 045006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/ab0631
38. Barna M, Niswander L, 2007, Visualization of cartilage formation: insight into cellular properties of skeletal progenitors and chondrodysplasia syndromes. Dev Cell, 12: 931–941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2007.04.016
39. Williams WS, Cannon RE, 1989, Alternative environmental roles for cellulose produced by acetobacter xylinum. Appl Environ Microbiol, 55: 2448–2452. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.55.10.2448-2452.1989
40. Dugan JM, Gough JE, Eichhorn SJ, 2013, Bacterial cellulose scaffolds and cellulose nano whiskers for tissue engineering. Nanomedicine Lond, 8: 287–298. https://doi.org/10.2217/nnm.12.211
41. Swingler S, Gupta A, Gibson H, et al., 2021, Recent advances and applications of bacterial cellulose in biomedicine. Polymers, 13: 412. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13030412
42. Salgado L, Blank S, Esfahani RAM, et al., 2019, Missense mutations in a transmembrane domain of the Komagataeibacter xylinus BcsA lead to changes in cellulose synthesis. BMC Microbiol, 19: 216. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-019-1577-5
43. Ishikawa A, Matsuoka M, Tsuchida T, et al., 2014, Increase in cellulose production by sulfaguanidine-resistant mutants derived fromacetobacter xylinumsubsp.sucrofermentans. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem, 59: 2259–2262. https://doi.org/10.1271/bbb.59.2259
44. Stumpf TR, Yang X, Zhang J, et al., 2018, In situ and ex situ modifications of bacterial cellulose for applications in tissue engineering. Mat Sci Eng C, Mater biol Appl, 82: 372–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2016.11.121
45. Zaborowska M, Bodin A, Bäckdahl H, et al., 2010, Microporous bacterial cellulose as a potential scaffold for bone regeneration. Acta Biomater, 6: 2540–2547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2010.01.004
46. Fang B, Wan YZ, Tang TT, et al., 2009, Proliferation and osteoblastic differentiation of human bone marrow stromal cells on hydroxyapatite/bacterial cellulose nanocomposite scaffolds. Tissue Eng Part A, 15: 1091–1098. https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.tea.2008.0110
47. Krontiras P, Gatenholm P, Hägg DA, 2015, Adipogenic differentiation of stem cells in three-dimensional porous bacterial nanocellulose scaffolds. J Biomed Mater Res Part B, Appl biomater, 103: 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.33198
48. Bian H, Chen L, Dai H, et al., 2017, Integrated production of lignin containing cellulose nanocrystals (LCNC) and nanofibrils (LCNF) using an easily recyclable di-carboxylic acid. Carbohydr Polym, 167: 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2017.03.050
49. Wang X, Tang S, Chai S, et al., 2021, Preparing printable bacterial cellulose based gelatin gel to promote in vivo bone regeneration. Carbohydr Polym, 270: 118342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2021.118342
50. Kondo T, Kose R, Naito H, et al., 2014, Aqueous counter collision using paired water jets as a novel means of preparing bio-nanofibers. Carbohydr Polym, 112: 284–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2014.05.064
51. Apelgren P, Karabulut E, Amoroso M, et al., 2019, In vivo human cartilage formation in three-dimensional bioprinted constructs with a novel bacterial nanocellulose bioink. ACS Biomater Sci Eng, 5: 2482–2490. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsbiomaterials.9b00157
52. Huang L, Du X, Fan S, et al., 2019, Bacterial cellulose nanofibers promote stress and fidelity of 3D-printed silk based hydrogel scaffold with hierarchical pores. Carbohydr polym, 221: 146–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2019.05.080
53. Matsiko A, Gleeson JP, O’Brien FJ, 2015, Scaffold mean pore size influences mesenchymal stem cell chondrogenic differentiation and matrix deposition. Tissue Eng Part A, 21: 486–497. https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.TEA.2013.0545
54. Arca HC, Mosquera-Giraldo LI, Bi V, et al., 2018, Pharmaceutical Applications of Cellulose Ethers and Cellulose Ether Esters. Biomacromolecules, 19: 2351–2376. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.biomac.8b00517
55. Ratanakamnuan U, Atong D, Aht-Ong D, 2012, Cellulose esters from waste cotton fabric via conventional and microwave heating. Carbohydr Polym, 87: 84–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2011.07.016
56. Yang J, An X, Liu L, et al., 2020, Cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, and their derivatives as multi-components of bio-based feedstocks for 3D printing. Carbohydr Polym, 250: 116881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2020.116881
57. Ahlfeld T, Guduric V, Duin S, et al., 2020, Methylcellulose – a versatile printing material that enables biofabrication of tissue equivalents with high shape fidelity. Biomater Sci, 8: 2102–2110. https://doi.org/10.1039/d0bm00027b
58. Bonetti L, De Nardo L, Farè S, 2021, Thermo-responsive methylcellulose hydrogels: from design to applications as smart biomaterials. Tissue Eng Part B, Rev, 27: 486–513. https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.TEB.2020.0202
59. Nasatto P, Pignon F, Silveira J, et al., 2015, Methylcellulose, a cellulose derivative with original physical properties and extended applications. Polymers, 7: 777–803. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym7050777
60. Kim MH, Kim BS, Park H, et al., 2018, Injectable methylcellulose hydrogel containing calcium phosphate nanoparticles for bone regeneration. Int J Biol Macromol, 109: 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.12.068
61. Altomare L, Bonetti L, Campiglio CE, et al., 2018, Biopolymer-based strategies in the design of smart medical devices and artificial organs. Int J Artif Organs, 41: 337–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/0391398818765323
62. Ahlfeld T, Köhler T, Czichy C, et al., 2018, A methylcellulose hydrogel as support for 3D plotting of complex shaped calcium phosphate scaffolds. Gels (Basel, Switzerland), 4: 68. https://doi.org/10.3390/gels4030068
63. Hodder E, Duin S, Kilian D, et al., 2019, Investigating the effect of sterilisation methods on the physical properties and cytocompatibility of methyl cellulose used in combination with alginate for 3D-bioplotting of chondrocytes. J Mater Scimater Med, 30: 10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-018-6211-9
64. Ke H, Zhou J, Zhang L, 2006, Structure and physical properties of methylcellulose synthesized in NaOH/urea solution. Polym Bull, 56: 349–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00289-006-0507-5
65. de Carvalho Oliveira G, Filho GR, Vieira JG, et al., 2010, Synthesis and application of methylcellulose extracted from waste newspaper in CPV-ARI Portland cement mortars. J Appl Poly Sci, 118: 1380–1385. https://doi.org/10.1002/app.32477
66. Schütz K, Placht AM, Paul B, et al., 2017, Three-dimensional plotting of a cell-laden alginate/methylcellulose blend: towards biofabrication of tissue engineering constructs with clinically relevant dimensions. J Tissue Engregen Med, 11: 1574–1587. https://doi.org/10.1002/term.2058
67. Ahlfeld T, Doberenz F, Kilian D, et al., 2018, Bioprinting of mineralized constructs utilizing multichannel plotting of a self-setting calcium phosphate cement and a cell-laden bioink. Biofabrication, 10: 045002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/aad36d
68. Bernhardt A, Schumacher M, Gelinsky M, 2015, Formation of osteoclasts on calcium phosphate bone cements and polystyrene depends on monocyte isolation conditions. Tissue Eng Part C, Methods, 21: 160–170. https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.TEC.2014.0187
69. Kilian D, Ahlfeld T, Akkineni AR et al, 2020, 3D Bioprinting of osteochondral tissue substitutes – in vitro-chondrogenesis in multi-layered mineralized constructs. Sci Rep, 10: 8277. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-65050-9
70. Ahlfeld T, Cubo-Mateo N, Cometta S, et al., 2020, A novel plasma-based bioink stimulates cell proliferation and differentiation in bioprinted, mineralized constructs. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces, 12: 12557–12572. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.0c00710
71. Gonzalez-Fernandez T, Rathan S, Hobbs C, et al., 2019, Pore-forming bioinks to enable spatio-temporally defined gene delivery in bioprinted tissues. JCR, 301: 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconrel.2019.03.006
72. Rahman MS, Hasan MS, Nitai AS, et al., 2021, Recent developments of carboxymethyl cellulose. Polymers, 13: 1345. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13081345
73. Zennifer A, Senthilvelan P, Sethuraman S, et al., 2021, Key advances of carboxymethyl cellulose in tissue engineering & 3D bioprinting applications. Carbohydr Poly, 256: 117561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2020.117561
74. Rachtanapun P, Jantrawut P, Klunklin W, et al., 2021, Carboxymethyl bacterial cellulose from nata de coco: effects of NaOH. Polymers, 13: 348. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13030348
75. Gaihre B, Jayasuriya AC, 2016, Fabrication and characterization of carboxymethyl cellulose novel microparticles for bone tissue engineering. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl, 69: 733–743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2016.07.060
76. Mallakpour S, Tukhani M, Hussain CM, 2021, Recent advancements in 3D bioprinting technology of carboxymethyl cellulose-based hydrogels: Utilization in tissue engineering. Adv Colloid Interface Sci, 292: 102415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cis.2021.102415
77. Singh BN, Panda NN, Mund R, et al., 2016, Carboxymethyl cellulose enables silk fibroin nanofibrous scaffold with enhanced biomimetic potential for bone tissue engineering application. Carbohydr Poly, 151: 335–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2016.05.088
78. Chen S, Shi Y, Zhang X, et al., 2019, 3D printed hydroxyapatite composite scaffolds with enhanced mechanical properties. Ceram Int, 45: 10991–10996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2019.02.182
79. Jiang H, Zuo Y, Zou Q, et al., 2013, Biomimetic spiral cylindrical scaffold based on hybrid chitosan/cellulose/nano-hydroxyapatite membrane for bone regeneration. ACS App Mater Interfaces, 5: 12036–12044. https://doi.org/10.1021/am4038432
80. Resmi R, Parvathy J, John A, et al., 2020, Injectable self crosslinking hydrogels for meniscal repair: A study with oxidized alginate and gelatin. Carbohydr Poly, 234: 115902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2020.115902
81. Janarthanan G, Tran HN, Cha E, et al., 2020,3D printable and injectable lactoferrin-loaded carboxymethyl cellulose glycol chitosan hydrogels for tissue engineering applications. Mat Sci Eng, 113: 111008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2020.111008
82. P BS, S G, J P, et al., 2022, Tricomposite gelatincarboxymethylcellulose-alginate bioink for direct and indirect 3D printing of human knee meniscal scaffold. Intbiol Macromol, 195: 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2021.11.184
83. Duhoranimana E, Karangwa E, Lai L, et al., 2017, Effect of sodium carboxymethyl cellulose on complex coacervates formation with gelatin: Coacervates characterization, stabilization and formation mechanism. Food Hydrocoll, 69: 111–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2017.01.035
84. Kobayashi H, Fujishiro T, Belkoff SM, et al., 2009, Long term evaluation of a calcium phosphate bone cement with carboxymethyl cellulose in a vertebral defect model. J Biomedmater Res A, 88: 880–888. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.31933
85. Montelongo SA, Chiou G, Ong JL, et al., 2021, Development of bioinks for 3D printing microporous, sintered calcium phosphate scaffolds. J Mater Sci Mater Med, 32: 94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-021-06569-9
86. Mohan T, Dobaj Štiglic A, Beaumont M, et al., 2020, Generic method for designing self-standing and dual porous 3d bioscaffolds from cellulosic nanomaterials for tissue engineering applications. ACS Appl Bio Mater, 3: 1197–1209. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsabm.9b01099
87. Al-Tabakha MM, 2010, HPMC capsules: current status and future prospects. JPPS, 13: 428–442. https://doi.org/10.18433/j3k881
88. Koehl NJ, Shah S, Tenekam ID, et al., 2021, Lipid based formulations in hard gelatin and hpmc capsules: a physical compatibility study. Pharm Res, 38: 1439–1454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-021-03088-8
89. Götz LM, Holeczek K, Groll J, et al., 2021, Extrusion-based 3D printing of calcium magnesium phosphate cement pastes for degradable bone implants. Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 14: 5197. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14185197
90. Ni T, Liu M, Zhang Y, et al., 2020, 3D Bioprinting of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cell-laden silk fibroin double network scaffolds for cartilage tissue repair. Bioconjug Chem, 31: 1938–1947. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.0c00298
91. Luo K, Yang Y, Shao Z, 2016, Physically crosslinked biocompatible silk-fibroin-based hydrogels with high mechanical performance. Adv Funct Mater, 26: 872–880. https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.201503450
92. Gong JP, 2010, Why are double network hydrogels so tough? Soft Matter, 6: 2583–2590. https://doi.org/10.1039/b924290b
93. Maestro A, González C, Gutiérrez JM, 2002, Shear thinning and thixotropy of HMHEC and HEC water solutions. J Rheol, 46: 1445–1457. https://doi.org/10.1122/1.1516789
94. Li X, Deng Q, Wang S, et al., 2021, Hydroxyethyl cellulose as a rheological additive for tuning the extrusion printability and scaffold properties. 3D Prin Add Man, 8: 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1089/3dp.2020.0167
95. Maturavongsadit P, Paravyan G, Shrivastava R, et al., 2020, Thermo-/pH-responsive chitosan-cellulose nanocrystals based hydrogel with tunable mechanical properties for tissue regeneration applications. Mater, 12: 100681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtla.2020.100681
96. Cakmak AM, Unal S, Sahin A, et al., 2020, 3D printed polycaprolactone/gelatin/bacterial cellulose/hydroxyapatite composite scaffold for bone tissue engineering. Poly, 12: 1962. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12091962
97. Aki D, Ulag S, Unal S, et al., 2020, 3D printing of PVA/hexagonal boron nitride/bacterial cellulose composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Mater Des, 196: 109094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2020.109094