Journal of the Indian Institute of Science

, Volume 99, Issue 3, pp 405–428 | Cite as

An Overview of Hydrogel-Based Bioinks for 3D Bioprinting of Soft Tissues

  • Soumitra Das
  • Bikramjit BasuEmail author
Review Article


It has been widely perceived that three-dimensional bioprinted synthetic tissues and organ can be a clinical treatment option for damaged or diseased tissue repair and replacement. Conventional tissue engineering approaches have limited control over the regeneration of scaffold geometries and cell distribution. With the advancement of new biomaterials and additive manufacturing techniques, it is possible to develop physiologically relevant functional tissues or organs with living cells, bioactive molecules and growth factors within predefined complex 3D geometries. In this perspective, this review discusses how hydrogel-based bioinks can be used to mimic native tissue-like extracellular matrix environment, with optimal mechanical and structural integrity for patient-specific tissue regeneration, in reference to advanced bioprinting technologies to bioprint multitude of multicomponent bioinks. This review also summarizes various bioprinting techniques, the gelation and biodegradation mechanisms of hydrogel-based bioinks, the properties required for ideal bioink, challenges to design bioinks, as well as reviews the fabrication of 3D printed cardiac tissue, cartilages, brain-like tissue, bionic ear, and urinary system.


3D bioprinting Bioink Hydrogels Tissue and organ fabrication 



  1. 1.
    Mironov V et al (2009) Biofabrication: a 21st century manufacturing paradigm. Biofabrication 1(2):022001Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Liu C, Xia Z, Czernuszka J (2007) Design and development of three-dimensional scaffolds for tissue engineering. Chem Eng Res Des 85(7):1051–1064Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chan B, Leong K (2008) Scaffolding in tissue engineering: general approaches and tissue-specific considerations. Eur Spine J 17(4):467–479Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bajaj P et al (2014) 3D biofabrication strategies for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 16:247–276Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fong ELS et al (2013) Modeling Ewing sarcoma tumors in vitro with 3D scaffolds. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110(16):6500–6505Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee MK et al (2015) A bio-inspired, microchanneled hydrogel with controlled spacing of cell adhesion ligands regulates 3D spatial organization of cells and tissue. Biomaterials 58:26–34Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Murphy SV, Atala A (2014) 3D bioprinting of tissues and organs. Nat Biotechnol 32(8):773Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ozbolat IT, Yu Y (2013) Bioprinting toward organ fabrication: challenges and future trends. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 60(3):691–699Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Malda J et al (2013) 25th anniversary article: engineering hydrogels for biofabrication. Adv Mater 25(36):5011–5028Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Melchels FP et al (2012) Additive manufacturing of tissues and organs. Prog Polym Sci 37(8):1079–1104Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Norotte C et al (2009) Scaffold-free vascular tissue engineering using bioprinting. Biomaterials 30(30):5910–5917Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jakab K et al (2010) Tissue engineering by self-assembly and bio-printing of living cells. Biofabrication 2(2):022001Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yu Y et al (2016) Three-dimensional bioprinting using self-assembling scalable scaffold-free “tissue strands” as a new bioink. Sci Rep 6:28714Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pourchet LJ et al (2017) Human skin 3D bioprinting using scaffold-free approach. Adv Healthc Mater 6(4):1601101Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yu Y, Ozbolat IT (2014) Tissue strands as “bioink” for scale-up organ printing. in 2014 36th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2014, IEEEGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wu Z et al (2016) Bioprinting three-dimensional cell-laden tissue constructs with controllable degradation. Sci Rep 6:24474Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chua CK, Yeong WY (2014) Bioprinting: principles and applications, vol 1. World Scientific, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schuurman W et al (2011) Bioprinting of hybrid tissue constructs with tailorable mechanical properties. Biofabrication 3(2):021001Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chimene D et al (2016) Advanced bioinks for 3D printing: a materials science perspective. Ann Biomed Eng 44(6):2090–2102Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Derby B (2012) Printing and prototyping of tissues and scaffolds. Science 338(6109):921–926Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chia HN, Wu BM (2015) Recent advances in 3D printing of biomaterials. J Biol Eng 9(1):4Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kumar A et al (2016) Low temperature additive manufacturing of three dimensional scaffolds for bone-tissue engineering applications: processing related challenges and property assessment. Mater Sci Eng 103:1–39Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Panwar A, Tan L (2016) Current status of bioinks for micro-extrusion-based 3D bioprinting. Molecules 21(6):685Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ozbolat IT, Hospodiuk M (2016) Current advances and future perspectives in extrusion-based bioprinting. Biomaterials 76:321–343Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Arai K et al (2011) Three-dimensional inkjet biofabrication based on designed images. Biofabrication 3(3):034113Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cui X et al (2012) Thermal inkjet printing in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Recent Pat Drug Deliv Formul 6(2):149–155Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Guillemot F et al (2010) Laser-assisted cell printing: principle, physical parameters versus cell fate and perspectives in tissue engineering. Nanomedicine 5(3):507–515Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hribar KC et al (2014) Light-assisted direct-write of 3D functional biomaterials. Lab Chip 14(2):268–275Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Aguado BA et al (2011) Improving viability of stem cells during syringe needle flow through the design of hydrogel cell carriers. Tissue Eng Part A 18(7–8):806–815Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chang R, Nam J, Sun W (2008) Effects of dispensing pressure and nozzle diameter on cell survival from solid freeform fabrication–based direct cell writing. Tissue Eng Part A 14(1):41–48Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kang K, Hockaday L, Butcher J (2013) Quantitative optimization of solid freeform deposition of aqueous hydrogels. Biofabrication 5(3):035001Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cui X et al (2010) Cell damage evaluation of thermal inkjet printed Chinese hamster ovary cells. Biotechnol Bioeng 106(6):963–969Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gurkan UA et al (2014) Engineering anisotropic biomimetic fibrocartilage microenvironment by bioprinting mesenchymal stem cells in nanoliter gel droplets. Mol Pharm 11(7):2151–2159Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gudapati H, Dey M, Ozbolat I (2016) A comprehensive review on droplet-based bioprinting: past, present and future. Biomaterials 102:20–42Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ferris CJ et al (2013) Bio-ink for on-demand printing of living cells. Biomater Sci 1(2):224–230Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Arslan-Yildiz A et al (2016) Towards artificial tissue models: past, present, and future of 3D bioprinting. Biofabrication 8(1):014103Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Guillotin B, Guillemot F (2011) Cell patterning technologies for organotypic tissue fabrication. Trends Biotechnol 29(4):183–190Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Koch L et al (2012) Skin tissue generation by laser cell printing. Biotechnol Bioeng 109(7):1855–1863Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Skardal A, Atala A (2015) Biomaterials for integration with 3-D bioprinting. Ann Biomed Eng 43(3):730–746Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schiele NR et al (2010) Laser-based direct-write techniques for cell printing. Biofabrication 2(3):032001Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ahmed EM (2015) Hydrogel: preparation, characterization, and applications: a review. J Adv Res 6(2):105–121Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Seliktar D (2012) Designing cell-compatible hydrogels for biomedical applications. Science 336(6085):1124–1128Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Gungor-Ozkerim PS et al (2018) Bioinks for 3D bioprinting: an overview. Biomater Sci 6(5):915–946Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gasperini L, Mano JF, Reis RL (2014) Natural polymers for the microencapsulation of cells. J R Soc Interface 11(100):20140817Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tan H, Marra KG (2010) Injectable, biodegradable hydrogels for tissue engineering applications. Materials 3(3):1746–1767Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hennink WE, van Nostrum CF (2012) Novel crosslinking methods to design hydrogels. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 64:223–236Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Jungst T et al (2015) Strategies and molecular design criteria for 3D printable hydrogels. Chem Rev 116(3):1496–1539Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Chenite A et al (2000) Novel injectable neutral solutions of chitosan form biodegradable gels in situ. Biomaterials 21(21):2155–2161Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ikada Y et al (1987) Stereocomplex formation between enantiomeric poly (lactides). Macromolecules 20(4):904–906Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Lim DW, Park TG (2000) Stereocomplex formation between enantiomeric PLA–PEG–PLA triblock copolymers: characterization and use as protein-delivery microparticulate carriers. J Appl Polym Sci 75(13):1615–1623Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Na K et al (2018) Effect of solution viscosity on retardation of cell sedimentation in DLP 3D printing of gelatin methacrylate/silk fibroin bioink. J Ind Eng Chem 61:340–347Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Stratesteffen H et al (2017) GelMA-collagen blends enable drop-on-demand 3D printablility and promote angiogenesis. Biofabrication 9(4):045002Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kessler L et al (2017) Methacrylated gelatin/hyaluronan-based hydrogels for soft tissue engineering. J Tissue Eng 8:2041731417744157Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Billiet T et al (2014) The 3D printing of gelatin methacrylamide cell-laden tissue-engineered constructs with high cell viability. Biomaterials 35(1):49–62Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Pawar AA et al (2016) High-performance 3D printing of hydrogels by water-dispersible photoinitiator nanoparticles. Sci Adv 2(4):e1501381Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Fairbanks BD et al (2009) Photoinitiated polymerization of PEG-diacrylate with lithium phenyl-2, 4, 6-trimethylbenzoylphosphinate: polymerization rate and cytocompatibility. Biomaterials 30(35):6702–6707Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Martinez PR et al (2017) Fabrication of drug-loaded hydrogels with stereolithographic 3D printing. Int J Pharm 532(1):313–317Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Wang Z, et al. (2017) Visible light-based stereolithography bioprinting of cell-adhesive gelatin hydrogels in 2017 39th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), 2017, IEEEGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Wang Z et al (2015) A simple and high-resolution stereolithography-based 3D bioprinting system using visible light crosslinkable bioinks. Biofabrication 7(4):045009Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Ehsan SM et al (2014) A three-dimensional in vitro model of tumor cell intravasation. Integr Biol 6(6):603–610Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Sperinde JJ, Griffith LG (1997) Synthesis and characterization of enzymatically-cross-linked poly (ethylene glycol) hydrogels. Macromolecules 30(18):5255–5264Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Yang C et al (2015) Hyaluronic acid nanogels with enzyme-sensitive cross-linking group for drug delivery. J Control Release 205:206–217Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Lee F, Chung JE, Kurisawa M (2008) An injectable enzymatically crosslinked hyaluronic acid–tyramine hydrogel system with independent tuning of mechanical strength and gelation rate. Soft Matter 4(4):880–887Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Jin R et al (2010) Enzymatically-crosslinked injectable hydrogels based on biomimetic dextran–hyaluronic acid conjugates for cartilage tissue engineering. Biomaterials 31(11):3103–3113Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Raia NR et al (2017) Enzymatically crosslinked silk-hyaluronic acid hydrogels. Biomaterials 131:58–67Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Bakota EL et al (2010) Enzymatic cross-linking of a nanofibrous peptide hydrogel. Biomacromolecules 12(1):82–87Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Das S et al (2015) Bioprintable, cell-laden silk fibroin–gelatin hydrogel supporting multilineage differentiation of stem cells for fabrication of three-dimensional tissue constructs. Acta Biomater 11:233–246Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Bouhadir KH et al (2001) Degradation of partially oxidized alginate and its potential application for tissue engineering. Biotechnol Prog 17(5):945–950Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Jia J et al (2014) Engineering alginate as bioink for bioprinting. Acta Biomater 10(10):4323–4331Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Grigore A et al (2014) Behavior of encapsulated MG-63 cells in RGD and gelatine-modified alginate hydrogels. Tissue Eng Part A 20(15–16):2140–2150Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Schloßmacher U et al (2013) Alginate/silica composite hydrogel as a potential morphogenetically active scaffold for three-dimensional tissue engineering. RSC Adv 3(28):11185–11194Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Lee JM, Yeong WY (2016) Design and printing strategies in 3D bioprinting of cell-hydrogels: a review. Adv Healthc Mater 5(22):2856–2865Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Busilacchi A et al (2013) Chitosan stabilizes platelet growth factors and modulates stem cell differentiation toward tissue regeneration. Carbohydr Polym 98(1):665–676Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Kim P et al (2014) Fabrication of poly (ethylene glycol): gelatin methacrylate composite nanostructures with tunable stiffness and degradation for vascular tissue engineering. Biofabrication 6(2):024112Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Miri AK et al (2019) Effective bioprinting resolution in tissue model fabrication. Lab Chip 19(11):2019–2037Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Tirella A et al (2009) A phase diagram for microfabrication of geometrically controlled hydrogel scaffolds. Biofabrication 1(4):045002Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Pepelanova I et al (2018) Gelatin-methacryloyl (GelMA) hydrogels with defined degree of functionalization as a versatile toolkit for 3D cell culture and extrusion bioprinting. Bioengineering 5(3):55Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Kirschner CM, Anseth KS (2013) Hydrogels in healthcare: from static to dynamic material microenvironments. Acta Mater 61(3):931–944Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Ahearne M (2014) Introduction to cell–hydrogel mechanosensing. Interface Focus 4(2):20130038Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Kyle S et al (2017) Printability of candidate biomaterials for extrusion based 3D printing: state-of-the-art. Adv Healthc Mater 6(16):1700264Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Ramon-Azcon J et al (2012) Gelatin methacrylate as a promising hydrogel for 3D microscale organization and proliferation of dielectrophoretically patterned cells. Lab Chip 12(16):2959–2969Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Hutson CB et al (2011) Synthesis and characterization of tunable poly (ethylene glycol): gelatin methacrylate composite hydrogels. Tissue Eng Part A 17(13–14):1713–1723Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Rutz AL et al (2015) A multimaterial bioink method for 3D printing tunable, cell-compatible hydrogels. Adv Mater 27(9):1607–1614Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Xiao W et al (2011) Synthesis and characterization of photocrosslinkable gelatin and silk fibroin interpenetrating polymer network hydrogels. Acta Biomater 7(6):2384–2393Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Xavier JR et al (2015) Bioactive nanoengineered hydrogels for bone tissue engineering: a growth-factor-free approach. ACS Nano 9(3):3109–3118Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Shin SR et al (2011) Carbon nanotube reinforced hybrid microgels as scaffold materials for cell encapsulation. ACS Nano 6(1):362–372Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Modaresifar K, Hadjizadeh A, Niknejad H (2018) Design and fabrication of GelMA/chitosan nanoparticles composite hydrogel for angiogenic growth factor delivery. Artif Cells Nanomedicine Biotechnol 46(8):1799–1808Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Pekkanen AM et al (2017) 3D printing polymers with supramolecular functionality for biological applications. Biomacromolecular 18(9):2669–2687Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Highley CB, Rodell CB, Burdick JA (2015) Direct 3D printing of shear-thinning hydrogels into self-healing hydrogels. Adv Mater 27(34):5075–5079Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Li H et al (2018) A highly tough and stiff supramolecular polymer double network hydrogel. Polymer 153:193–200Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Hospodiuk M et al (2017) The bioink: a comprehensive review on bioprintable materials. Biotechnol Adv 35(2):217–239Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Levato R et al (2014) Biofabrication of tissue constructs by 3D bioprinting of cell-laden microcarriers. Biofabrication 6(3):035020Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Ashammakhi N et al (2019) Bioinks and bioprinting technologies to make heterogeneous and biomimetic tissue constructs. Mater Today Bio 1:100008Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Liu W et al (2018) Coaxial extrusion bioprinting of 3D microfibrous constructs with cell-favorable gelatin methacryloyl microenvironments. Biofabrication 10(2):024102Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Gao Q et al (2015) Coaxial nozzle-assisted 3D bioprinting with built-in microchannels for nutrients delivery. Biomaterials 61:203–215Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Mistry P et al (2017) Bioprinting using mechanically robust core–shell cell-laden hydrogel strands. Macromol Biosci 17(6):1600472Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Liu W et al (2017) Rapid continuous multimaterial extrusion bioprinting. Adv Mater 29(3):1604630Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Colosi C et al (2016) Microfluidic bioprinting of heterogeneous 3D tissue constructs using low-viscosity bioink. Adv Mater 28(4):677–684Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Miri AK et al (2018) Microfluidics-enabled multimaterial maskless stereolithographic bioprinting. Adv Mater 30(27):1800242Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Gaebel R et al (2011) Patterning human stem cells and endothelial cells with laser printing for cardiac regeneration. Biomaterials 32(35):9218–9230Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Gaetani R et al (2015) Epicardial application of cardiac progenitor cells in a 3D-printed gelatin/hyaluronic acid patch preserves cardiac function after myocardial infarction. Biomaterials 61:339–348Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Schuurman W et al (2013) Gelatin-methacrylamide hydrogels as potential biomaterials for fabrication of tissue-engineered cartilage constructs. Macromol Biosci 13(5):551–561Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Apelgren P et al (2017) Chondrocytes and stem cells in 3D-bioprinted structures create human cartilage in vivo. PLoS One 12(12):e0189428Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Shi W et al (2017) Structurally and functionally optimized silk-fibroin–gelatin scaffold using 3D printing to repair cartilage injury in vitro and in vivo. Adv Mater 29(29):1701089Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Mannoor MS et al (2013) 3D printed bionic ears. Nano Lett 13(6):2634–2639Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Pati F et al (2013) 3D printing of cell-laden constructs for heterogeneous tissue regeneration. Manuf Lett 1(1):49–53Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Lee J-S et al (2014) 3D printing of composite tissue with complex shape applied to ear regeneration. Biofabrication 6(2):024103Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Kang H-W et al (2016) A 3D bioprinting system to produce human-scale tissue constructs with structural integrity. Nat Biotechnol 34(3):312Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Markstedt K et al (2015) 3D bioprinting human chondrocytes with nanocellulose–alginate bioink for cartilage tissue engineering applications. Biomacromolecules 16(5):1489–1496Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Lozano R et al (2015) 3D printing of layered brain-like structures using peptide modified gellan gum substrates. Biomaterials 67:264–273Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Lozano R et al (2016) Brain on a bench top. Mater Today 19(2):124–125Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Heinrich MA et al (2019) 3D-bioprinted mini-brain: a glioblastoma model to study cellular interactions and therapeutics. Adv Mater 31(14):1806590Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Pi Q et al (2018) Digitally tunable microfluidic bioprinting of multilayered cannular tissues. Adv Mater 30(43):1706913Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Zhang K et al (2017) 3D bioprinting of urethra with PCL/PLCL blend and dual autologous cells in fibrin hydrogel: an in vitro evaluation of biomimetic mechanical property and cell growth environment. Acta Biomater 50:154–164Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Imamura T et al (2018) Biofabricated structures reconstruct functional urinary bladders in radiation-injured rat bladders. Tissue Eng Part A 24(21–22):1574–1587Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Gopinathan J, Noh I (2018) Recent trends in bioinks for 3D printing. Biomater Res 22(1):11Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Hong S et al (2015) 3D printing of highly stretchable and tough hydrogels into complex, cellularized structures. Adv Mater 27(27):4035–4040Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Pati F et al (2014) Printing three-dimensional tissue analogues with decellularized extracellular matrix bioink. Nat Commun 5:3935Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Duan B et al (2014) Three-dimensional printed trileaflet valve conduits using biological hydrogels and human valve interstitial cells. Acta Biomater 10(5):1836–1846Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Visser J et al (2015) Reinforcement of hydrogels using three-dimensionally printed microfibres. Nat Commun 6:6933Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Kaemmerer E et al (2014) Gelatine methacrylamide-based hydrogels: an alternative three-dimensional cancer cell culture system. Acta Biomater 10(6):2551–2562Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Wang Y et al (2018) Development of a photo-crosslinking, biodegradable GelMA/PEGDA hydrogel for guided bone regeneration materials. Materials 11(8):1345Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Shin H, Olsen BD, Khademhosseini A (2012) The mechanical properties and cytotoxicity of cell-laden double-network hydrogels based on photocrosslinkable gelatin and gellan gum biomacromolecules. Biomaterials 33(11):3143–3152Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Berger AJ et al (2017) Decoupling the effects of stiffness and fiber density on cellular behaviors via an interpenetrating network of gelatin-methacrylate and collagen. Biomaterials 141:125–135Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Shin SR et al (2013) Cell-laden microengineered and mechanically tunable hybrid hydrogels of gelatin and graphene oxide. Adv Mater 25(44):6385–6391Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Navaei A et al (2016) Gold nanorod-incorporated gelatin-based conductive hydrogels for engineering cardiac tissue constructs. Acta Biomater 41:133–146Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    Shin SR et al (2013) Carbon-nanotube-embedded hydrogel sheets for engineering cardiac constructs and bioactuators. ACS Nano 7(3):2369–2380Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Shin SR et al (2016) Reduced graphene oxide-gelMA hybrid hydrogels as scaffolds for cardiac tissue engineering. Small 12(27):3677–3689Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Institute of Science 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Materials Research CentreIndian Institute of ScienceBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations