Characterization of a Bioink Combining Extracellular Matrix-like Hydrogel with Osteosarcoma Cells: Preliminary Results
, Gaia Stucchi 2, Franca Scocozza 1, Laura Cansolino 2, Francesca Cadamuro 3, Elena Delgrosso 2, Federica Riva 4, Cinzia Ferrari 2,5, Laura Russo 3,6,† and Michele Conti 1,†Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript presents some preliminary results on the characterization of a bioink able to produce an extracellular matrix- like hydrogel with appropriate properties for osteosarcoma cells combination. The technical and experimental details are clearly discussed and illustrated with convenient figures. All sections are correctly presented, and the most important details are rightly discussed in a clear format.
I have no scientific comments, but one possible concern is related to the commercial aspect of the manuscript. Everything is referred to the use of 3D bioprinter Cellink INKREDIBLE+®. Authors declare no conflict of interest, but legal requirements would be satisfied concerning the exclusive use of that bioprinter. I have no expertise in the legal aspect, but I have some complain experience as reviewer. I also declare that I have no conflict of interest. I would su, but at lest some comment about the use of this bioprinter in comparison to similar equipment would be added to the limitation section. Figure 8 would be eliminated to ameliorate the commercial trend detectable in the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This research is interesting. However, there are many papers on ECM-based biomaterial for 4D tumor models. The authors should introduce the concept in detail and explain each material. Without the section, the strength of this study is not clear. Taken together, major revision should be made. This manuscript would be de-considered only when all the comments were responded.
1. Introduction or Discussion
What is the novelty of this study? The authors should introduce the concept and discuss the novelty by comparing research papers using representative biomaterial to claim it. The reviewer suggests the references be added.
Review (for concept)
Cancers 2020, 12(10), 2754
Tissue Engineering Part B: Reviews.Jun 2010.351-359.http://doi.org/10.1089/ten.teb.2009.0676
Research papers
Chitosan doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.03.062
Gelatin Tissue Eng. Part C Methods 2019, 25, 711–720. https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.tec.2019.0189
Collagen doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2020.119853
Alginate Tissue Engineering Part C: Methods.Jul 2016.708-715.http://doi.org/10.1089/ten.tec.2015.0452
HA doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.10.095
2. Biological functions should be investigated.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper of Loi et al. investigates the 3D bioprinting of a hydrogel based on functionalized gelatin and chitosan as a template for cell's growing.
The paper is clear, well written and the conclusions are supported by the results. The authors have very well highlighted the originality of their study in the introduction. The materials and the methods are well described and their previous study is cited. In the results section, the authors discussed their obtained results comparing with the literature data. Maybe a FTIR analysis would have been necessary in order to assess the composition of the hydrogel after the fragmentation induced by the cells. Nevertheless, the paper can be published as it is.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
