Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Impact of Simulated Microgravity Environment on Bioprinted Tissue Constructs Cover

Impact of Simulated Microgravity Environment on Bioprinted Tissue Constructs

Open Access
|Sep 2025

Figures & Tables

Figure 1.

(A) Cellink BioX6 extrusion-based bioprinter; (B) Bioprinted vascular constructs.
(A) Cellink BioX6 extrusion-based bioprinter; (B) Bioprinted vascular constructs.

Figure 2.

Setup for simulated microgravity experiments. (A) Slide flask containing a bioprinted vascular construct; (B) RPM supporting bioprinted tissue constructs housed inside an incubator (NASA KSC Microgravity Simulation Facility).
Setup for simulated microgravity experiments. (A) Slide flask containing a bioprinted vascular construct; (B) RPM supporting bioprinted tissue constructs housed inside an incubator (NASA KSC Microgravity Simulation Facility).

Figure 3.

Cellular viability of bioprinted vascular tissue constructs from 1 to 9 days after bioprinting.
Cellular viability of bioprinted vascular tissue constructs from 1 to 9 days after bioprinting.

Figure 4.

Confocal microscopy imaging for visualizing live (green) and dead (red) cells in bioprinted constructs after bioprinting. (A) Day 1; (B) Day 3; (C) Day 5; (D) Day 7; (E) Day 9; (F) Z-stack fluorescent images corresponding to day 9.
Confocal microscopy imaging for visualizing live (green) and dead (red) cells in bioprinted constructs after bioprinting. (A) Day 1; (B) Day 3; (C) Day 5; (D) Day 7; (E) Day 9; (F) Z-stack fluorescent images corresponding to day 9.

Figure 5.

Normalized fluorescent intensity profiles for detecting ROS levels in fibroblast cells exposed to simulated microgravity for 24, 48, and 72 h. (A) Bar plot of normalized fluorescence intensity values showing a time-dependent increase in ROS levels; (B) Box plot representing the distribution of normalized fluorescence intensity values across all samples for each condition.
Normalized fluorescent intensity profiles for detecting ROS levels in fibroblast cells exposed to simulated microgravity for 24, 48, and 72 h. (A) Bar plot of normalized fluorescence intensity values showing a time-dependent increase in ROS levels; (B) Box plot representing the distribution of normalized fluorescence intensity values across all samples for each condition.

Figure 6.

Confocal microscopy images showing oxidative stress in the samples: (A) Control; (B) Simulated microgravity exposure for 24 h; (C) 48 h; (D) 72 h.
Confocal microscopy images showing oxidative stress in the samples: (A) Control; (B) Simulated microgravity exposure for 24 h; (C) 48 h; (D) 72 h.

t-test results comparing ROS levels across time points_

Comparisont-statisticp-valuesInterpretation
Control vs. 24 h−20.740.0000319significant
Control vs. 48 h−59.200.0000005highly significant
Control vs. 72 h−4.400.0117significant

Bioprinting parameters_

ParameterRange of Values
Cell density1 × 105 cells/ml–3 × 106 cells/ml
Nozzle diameter22 gauge
Print speed7 mm/s
Printhead temperature23.5°C
Print bed temperature15°C
Layer height0.41 mm
Pressure40–75 kPa
Infill density40%
Cross-linking: frequencyAfter every layer
Cross-linking: time (per instance)10 s
Cross-linking: wavelength405 nm
Cross-linking: distance to center of build4 cm
Language: English
Page range: 65 - 74
Published on: Sep 9, 2025
Published by: American Society for Gravitational and Space Research
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 issues per year

© 2025 Sampada Koirala, Bela Perdomo, Brian Billings, Dylan Welch, Roshan Vijayakumar, Meghana Nelli, Caroline Moore, Caleb Phillips, Isscca Hall Burns, Kunal Mitra, published by American Society for Gravitational and Space Research
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.