$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
Although 2D cell culture is widely used in cancer research, limitations exist as the cells are grown in a monolayer format with a uniform concentration of nutrients and oxygen. These cultures lack important cell-cell and cell-matrix interactions present in the native tumor microenvironment (TME). Consequently, these models poorly recapitulate physiological conditions, resulting in aberrant cell behaviors, including unnatural morphologies, irregular receptor organization, membrane polarization, and abnormal gene expression, among other conditions1,2,3,4. On the other hand, 3D cell culture, where cells are expanded in a volumetric space as aggregates, spheroids, or organoids, offers an alternative technique to create more accurate in vitro environments to study fundamental cell biology and physiology. 3D cell culture models can also encourage cell-ECM interactions that are critical physiological characteristics of the native TME in vitro1,4,5. The emerging 3D bioprinting technology provides possibilities to build models that mimic the heterogeneous TME.
3D bioprinting is derived from rapid prototyping and enables the fabrication of 3D microstructures that are capable of mimicking some of the complexities of living tissue samples6,7. The current bioprinting methods include inkjet, extrusion, and laser-assisted printing8. Among them, the extrusion method allows the heterogeneity to be controlled within the printed matrices by precisely positioning distinct types of materials at different initial locations. Therefore, it is the best approach to fabricate heterogeneous in vitro models involving multiple types of cells or matrices. Extrusion bioprinting has been successfully used to build auricular shaped scaffolds9, vascular structures10,11,12, and skin tissues13, resulting in high printing fidelity and cell viability. The technology also features versatile material selections, the ability to deposit materials with cells embedded with a known density, and high reproducibility14,15,16,17. Natural and synthetic hydrogels are frequently used as bioinks for 3D bioprinting due to their biocompatibility, bioactivity, and their hydrophilic networks that can be engineered to structurally resemble the ECM7,18,19,20,21,22,23.Hydrogels are also advantageous since they can include adhesive sites for cells, structural elements, permeability for nutrients and gases, and the appropriate mechanical properties to encourage cell development24. For instance, collagen hydrogels offer integrin anchorage sites that cells can use to attach to the matrix. Gelatin, denatured collagen, retains similar cell adhesion sites. In contrast, alginate is bioinert but provides mechanical integrity by forming crosslinks with divalent ions25,26,27,28.
In this work, we developed a composite hydrogel as a bioink, comprised of alginate and gelatin, with similarities to the microscopic architecture of a native tumor stroma. Breast cancer cells and fibroblasts were embedded in the hydrogels and printed via an extrusion-based bioprinter to create a 3D model that mimics the in vivo microenvironment. The engineered 3D environment allows cancer cells to form multicellular tumor spheroids (MCTS) with a high viability for long periods of cell culture (> 30 days). This protocol demonstrates the methodologies of synthesizing composite hydrogels, characterizing the materials' microstructure and printability, bioprinting cellular heterogeneous models, and observing the formation of MCTS. These methodologies can be applied to other bioinks in extrusion bioprinting as well as to different designs of heterogeneous tissue models with potential applications in drug screening, cell migration assays, and studies that focus on fundamental cell physiological functions.