Advantages and limitations of using cell viability assays for 3D bioprinted constructs

Abstract

Bioprinting shows promise for bioengineered scaffolds and three-dimensional (3D) disease models, but assessing the viability of embedded cells is challenging. Conventional assays are limited by the technical problems that derive from using multi-layered bioink matrices dispersing cells in three dimensions. In this study, we tested bioprinted osteogenic bioinks as a model system. Alginate- or gelatin-based bioinks were loaded with/without ceramic microparticles and osteogenic cells (bone tumor cells, with or without normal bone cells). Despite demonstrating 80%–90% viability through manual counting and live/dead staining, this was time-consuming and operator-dependent. Moreover, for the alginate-bioprinted scaffold, cell spheroids could not be distinguished from single cells. The indirect assay (alamarBlue), was faster but less accurate than live/dead staining due to dependence on hydrogel permeability. Automated confocal microscope acquisition and cell counting of live/dead staining was more reproducible, reliable, faster, efficient, and avoided overestimates compared to manual cell counting by optical microscopy. Finally, for 1.2 mm thick 3D bioprints, dual-photon confocal scanning with vital staining greatly improved the precision of the evaluation of cell distribution and viability and cell–cell interactions through the z-axis. In summary, automated confocal microscopy and cell counting provided superior accuracy for the assessment of cell viability and interactions in 3D bioprinted models compared to most commonly and currently used techniques.