BioBots Reagent Guide

Wikis > BioBots Reagent Guide

Want some guidance on what BioBots reagents to use with your BioBot 1 bioprinter? Check out the information below to learn more about available reagents to purchase for use with your BioBot 1.

Each of these reagents has a bioreport (our testing results) and protocol for suggested use with the BioBot 1 bioprinter. Many in the community use these reagents to test applications or as controls when developing their own custom reagents! Still have more questions after reading this guide? Contact us at

Reagent Categories

Materials used for bioprinting present a diverse selection, from hard acellular thermoplastics to cell suspensions completely void of extra material.  These materials can be split into three main categories: Matrix, sacrificial and support. The goal of all of these materials is to fabricate viable constructs with high physiological relevance.


The main bioink categories: matrix, sacrificial and support. Learn more about all bioink categories here.) For a comprehensive review of all bioinks for extrusion bioprinting, check out this paper! 
Matrix Reagents
Reagent Source Cell Distribution Resolution (mm) Sacrificial Support Needed? Curing Reagent Documentation References
Alginate Natural Good 0.58 ± 0.06 Pluronic F127 Calcium Chloride (CaCl2) Bioreport Protocol (6 912)
Alginate Natural Good 0.15 ± 0.03 FRESH Calcium Chloride (CaCl2) Bioreport Protocol (6 912)
Collagen Natural Good 0.32 ± 0.03 FRESH None Bioreport Protocol (1315)
Gelatin Methacrylate (GelMA) Natural Good 0.40 ± 0.03 none BioKey (LAP) Bioreport  Protocol (1622)
Gelatin/Fibrin Mixture Natural Good 0.35 ± 0.03 none Thrombin/Transglutaminase/Calcium Chloride  Bioreport Protocol
Poly (ethylene glycol) diacrylate (PEGDA) Synthetic Poor (Try Percoll) > 0.60 Pluronic F127 BioKey (LAP)  Biopreport Protocol (17)
Table 1: Matrix reagents, the cell-encapsulating materials in bioprinting, are the key player in the biofabrication process (Learn more about matrix bioinks here). Most matrix bioinks currently developed offer strengths and weaknesses, often meeting some but not all requirements necessary for bioprinting. Reagents in other categories can help combat these weaknesses.
Sacrificial Reagents
Reagent Method for Removal Matrix Bioink Compatibility Documentation References
Pluronic F127 Cool (4 °C) GelMA PEGDA Alginate Bioreport   (20 2526 29)
FRESH Heat (37 °C) Alginate Collagen Type I Bioreport Protocol (6 912)
Table 2: Sacrificial bioinks are useful for materials with poor shape fidelity, as well as to create complex negative geometries such as vasculature networks, within a structure. Sacrificial materials, which can be washed away after printing, provide temporary support during the fabrication process.
Support Reagents
Reagent Melt Temperature Resolution Documentation References
Polycaprolactone (PCL) 60 °C  0.16 ± 0.04 mm Bioreport Protocol  (11 3031)
Poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) 72 – 77 °C  0.15 ± 0.01 mm Bioreport Protocol  (3233)
Table 3: Support bioinks play a more permanent role in 3D printed constructs and are often used to adjust construct mechanical properties.



Z. Wang et. al, “A Simple and High-Resolution Stereolithography-Based 3D Bioprinting System Using Visible Light Crosslinkable Bioinks,” Biofabrication, vol. 7, 2015.
S. Jana and A. Lerman, “Bioprinting a Cardiac Valve,” Biotech Adv, vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 1503-1521, December 2015.
R. F. Pereira and P. J. Bartolo, “3D Bioprinting of Photocrosslinkable Hydrogel Constructs,” J. Appl. Polym. Sci., vol. 132, no. 48, 2015.
C. C. Hribar, P. Soman, J. Warner, P. Chung and S. Chen, “Light-assisted Direct-Write of 3D Functional Biomaterials,” Lab Chip, vol. 14, pp. 268-275, 2014.
T. Q. Huang et al, “3D Printing of Biomimetic Microstructures for Cancer Cell Migration,Biomed Microdevices., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 127-132, Feb 2014.
G. D. Nicodemus and S. J. Bryant, “Cell Encapsulation in Biodegradable Hydrogels for Tissue Engineering Applications,” Engineering: Part B, vol. 14, no. 2, 2008.
P. Soman et al, “Cancer Cell Migration within 3D Layer-by-Layer Microfabricated Photocrosslinked PEG Scaffolds with Tunable Stiffness,” Biomaterials, vol. 33, pp. 7064-7070, 2012.
M. Kesti et al, “A Versatile Bioink for Three-Dimensional Printing of Cellular Scaffolds Based on Thermally and Photo-triggered Tandem Gelation,” Acta Biomaterialia, vol. 11, pp. 162-172, 2015.
B. Duan et al, “3D Bioprinting of Heterogeneous Aortic Valve Conduits with Alginate/Gelatin Hydrogels,” J Biomed Mater Res A., vol. 101, no. 5, pp. 1255-1264, June 2013.
S. Khalil et al., “Bioprinting Endothelial Cells with Alginate for 3D Tissue Constructs,J Biomech Eng, vol. 131, no. 11, October 2009.
J. Kundu and e. al, “An Additive Manufacturing-Based PCL-Alginate-Chondrocyte Bioprinted Scaffold for Cartilage Tissue Engineering,Tissue Engineering: Part B, vol. 14, no. 2, 2008.
M. T. e. a. Poldervaart, “Sustained Release of BMP-2 in Bioprinted Alginate for Osteogenicity in Mice and Rats,Plos one, vol. 8, no. 8, August 2013.
A. D. Nocera et al., “Printing Collagen 3D Structures,” in VI Latin American Congress on Biomedical Engineering CLAIB 2014 (Vol 49), Parana, Argentina, IFMBE Proceedings, 2014, pp. 136-139.
J. Y. Park et al, “A Comparative Study on Collagen Type I and Hyaluronic Acid Dependent Cell Behavior for Osteochondral Tissue Bioprinting,” Biofabrication, vol. 6, 2014.
V. Lee et al, “Design and Fabrication of Human Skin by Three-Dimensional Bioprinting,” Tissue Engineering: Part C, vol. 20, no. 6, 2014.
H. Aubin et al, “Directed 3D Cell Alignment and Elongation in Microengineered Hydrogels,Biomaterials, vol. 31, no. 27, pp. 6941-6951, September 2010.
J. W. Nichol and e. al, “Cell-laden Microengineered Gelatin Methacrylate Hydrogels,Biomaterials, vol. 31, pp. 5536-5544, 2010.
M. Nikkhah et al, “Directed Endothelial Cell Morphogenesis in Micropatterned Gelatin Methacrylate Hydrogels,” Biomaterials, vol. 33, no. 35, pp. 9009-9018, December 2012.
Direct-write Bioprinting of Cell-laden Methacrylated Gelatin Hydrogels,” Biofabrication, vol. 6, 2014.
L. E. Bertassoni et al, “Hydrogel Bioprinted Microchannel Networks for Vascularization of Tissue Engineering Constructs,Lab Chip, vol. 14, 2014.
B. T. et al., “The 3D Printing of Gelatin Methacrylamide Cell-laden Tissue-engineered Constructs with High Cell Viability.,” Biomaterials, vol. 35, pp. 49-62, 2014.
M. Du et al, “3D Bioprinting of BMSC-laden Methacrylamide Gelatin Scaffolds with CBD-BMP2-collagen Microfibers,” Biofabrication, vol. 7, 2015.
B. D. Fairbanks et. al, “Photoinitiated Polymerization of PEG-diacrylate with lithium phenyl-2,4,6-trimethylbenzoylphosphinate: polymerization rate and cytocompatibility,Biomaterials, vol. 30, no. 35, pp. 6702-6707, Dec 2009.
X.-H. Qin et al, “Additive Manufacturing of Photosensitive Hydrogels for Tissue Engineering Applications,” BioNanoMat, vol. 15, no. 3-4, pp. 49-70, 2014.
D. B. Kolesky et al, “3D Bioprinting of Vascularized, Heterogeneous Cell-laden Tissue Constructs,” Adv. Mater., vol. 26, pp. 3124-3130, 2014.
R. L. e. a. Reis, “Natural Polymers for the Microencapsulation of Cells.,J.R.Soc. Interface, vol. 11, 2014.
W. Lee et al, “On-Demand Three-Dimensional Freeform Fabrication of Multi-Layered Hydrogel Scaffold with Fluidic Channels,” Biotechnology and Bioengineering, vol. 105, no. 6, pp. 1178-1186, 2010.
 J. Kundu et al, “An Additive Manufacturing-based PCL-alginate-chondrocyte Bioprinted Scaffold for Cartilage Tissue Engineering.,” J Tissue Eng Regen Med, 2013.
J.-H. Shim et al, “Bioprinting of a Mechanically Enhanced Three-Dimensional Dual Cell-laden Construct for Osteochondral Tissue Engineering Using a Multi-head Tissue/Organ Building System,Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering, vol. 22, no. 8, July 2012.
Sawkins et al, “Bioprinting as a Tool for Osteochondral Tissue Engineering,” European Cells & Materials, vol. 22, no. 3, December 2010.
Zang, Xiao-long et al.”3D-bioprinting manufacturing polylactic-co-glycolic acid/nano-hydroxyapatite scaffold/bone morphogenetic protein-2 sustained release composite” Journal of Clinical Rehabilitative Tissue Engineering Research; 20(16): 2405-2411, 2016.