Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Protocol
  • Published:

Bioink design for organ-scale projection-based 3D bioprinting

Nature Protocols (2025)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Projection-based three-dimensional bioprinting offers an approach for manufacturing biomimetic tissues with complex spatial structures and bioactivity, presenting potential for creating implantable organs or organoids to test drug response. Nevertheless, the extended printing times required for organ-scale manufacturing represents a challenge. Here we provide step-by-step instructions to manufacture organ-scale structures using bioinks while preserving high bioactivity. This approach incorporates Ficoll 400 to mitigate the heterogeneity of bioink with respect to refractive index and density, while 4-(2-aminoethyl)benzenesulfonyl fluoride and oil-sealing ensure the stability of the bioink components, thereby allowing extended printing times. This procedure also enables high-cell-viability printing via the calibration of the pH value of the bioink. This Protocol is appropriate for users with basic laboratory skills and fundamental knowledge in biotechnology to manufacture organ-scale structures for utilization in a wide variety of experimental designs. The approach is generalizable, as demonstrated by the successful printing of corpora cavernosa structures with a cell density of 10 million per milliliter, measuring 10 mm × 10 mm × 10 mm. After 7 d of culture, the cell viability was measured at 82.5%, highlighting the potential applicability in tissue engineering. All bioink preparation and printing steps are expected to take 5 h, while the development of printed structures requires 7 d of continuous culture.

Key points

  • We provide a versatile process for the fabrication of organ-scale structures with complex spatial architectures and high bioactivity using bioinks. We use Ficoll 400 to reduce bioink heterogeneity, while 4-(2-aminoethyl)benzenesulfonyl fluoride and oil-sealing ensure the components’ stability, enabling extended printing time.

  • This Protocol permits organ-scale printing without the need to modify existing 3D bioprinting equipment. It makes this Protocol an economical, stable and easily scalable 3D bioprinting solution.

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Schematic diagram of organ-scale PBBP research framework.
Fig. 2: Schematic diagram of the procedure for the organ-scale PBBP process.
Fig. 3: Schematic diagram of DBC testing.
Fig. 4: Photo-response properties of bioink.
Fig. 5: Stability of bioink.
Fig. 6: Oil-seal printing process reduces bioink evaporation.
Fig. 7: Impact of Bioink pH on encapsulated cell viability.
Fig. 8: Biocompatibility analyses of bioink.
Fig. 9: 3D bioprinting of organ-scale corpora cavernosa structures.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All remaining data generated or analyzed during this protocol are included in this published article and its supplementary files.

References

  1. Zandrini, T., Florczak, S., Levato, R. & Ovsianikov, A. Breaking the resolution limits of 3D bioprinting: future opportunities and present challenges. Trends Biotechnol. 41, 604–614 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Zhu, W. et al. 3D printing of functional biomaterials for tissue engineering. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 40, 103–112 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Murphy, S. V. & Atala, A. 3D bioprinting of tissues and organs. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 773–785 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Yu, C. et al. Photopolymerizable biomaterials and light-based 3D printing strategies for biomedical applications. Chem. Rev. 120, 10695–10743 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Matai, I., Kaur, G., Seyedsalehi, A., McClinton, A. & Laurencin, C. T. Progress in 3D bioprinting technology for tissue/organ regenerative engineering. Biomaterials 226, 119536 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Zhang, Y. S. et al. 3D bioprinting for tissue and organ fabrication. Ann. Biomed. Engin. 45, 148–163 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. He, C. et al. 3D printing for tissue/organ regeneration in China. Bio-Des. Manuf. 8, 169–242 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gardin, J. M. et al. Echocardiographic measurements in normal subjects: evaluation of an adult population without clinically apparent heart disease. J. Clin. Ultrasound 7, 439–447 (1979).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Silva, R. M., Pereira, R. B. & Siqueira, M. V. Correlation between clinical evaluation of liver size versus ultrasonography evaluation according to body mass index (BMI) and biotypes. Rev. Med. Chil. 138, 1495–1501 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Frank, K., Linhart, P., Kortsik, C. & Wohlenberg, H. Sonographic determination of spleen size—standard dimensions in the healthy adult. Ultraschall Med. 7, 134–137 (1986).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dinkel, E. et al. Kidney size in childhood sonographical growth charts for kidney length and volume. Pediatr. Radiol. 15, 38–43 (1985).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Yu, C. et al. Scanningless and continuous 3D bioprinting of human tissues with decellularized extracellular matrix. Biomaterials 194, 1–13 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wang, Z., Lee, S. J., Cheng, H.-J., Yoo, J. J. & Atala, A. 3D bioprinted functional and contractile cardiac tissue constructs. Acta Biomaterialia 70, 48–56 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Wang, J. et al. Engineering large-scale self-mineralizing bone organoids with bone matrix-inspired hydroxyapatite hybrid bioinks. Adv. Mater. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.202309875 (2024).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Jorgensen, A. M., Yoo, J. J. & Atala, A. Solid organ bioprinting: strategies to achieve organ function. Chem. Rev. 120, 11093–11127 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Leberfinger, A. N. et al. Bioprinting functional tissues. Acta Biomater. 95, 32–49 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Torrent-Guasp, F. et al. The structure and function of the helical heart and its buttress wrapping. I. The normal macroscopic structure of the heart. Semin. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 13, 301–319 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Moroni, L. et al. Biofabrication: a guide to technology and terminology. Trends Biotechnol. 36, 384–402 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gu, Z., Fu, J., Lin, H. & He, Y. Development of 3D bioprinting: from printing methods to biomedical applications. Asian J. Pharm. Sci. 15, 529–557 (2020).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. You, S. T. et al. High cell density and high-resolution 3D bioprinting for fabricating vascularized tissues. Sci. Adv. 9, eade7923 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. He, C.-F., Qiao, T.-H., Wang, G.-H., Sun, Y. & He, Y. High-resolution projection-based 3D bioprinting. Nat. Rev. Bioeng. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44222-024-00218-w (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Yu, K. et al. Printability during projection-based 3D bioprinting. Bioact. Mater. 11, 254–267 (2022).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Almeida-Pinto, J., Moura, B. S., Gaspar, V. M. & Mano, J. F. Advances in cell-rich inks for biofabricating living architectures. Adv. Mater. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.202313776 (2024).

  24. He, C.-F. et al. Formation theory and printability of photocurable hydrogel for 3D bioprinting. Adv. Funct. Mater. https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.202301209 (2023).

  25. He, C.-F. et al. Printability in multi-material projection-based 3-dimensional bioprinting. Research https://doi.org/10.34133/research.0613 (2025).

  26. Sun, Y. et al. Modeling the printability of photocuring and strength adjustable hydrogel bioink during projection-based 3D bioprinting. Biofabrication https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/aba413 (2021).

  27. Zhao, L. et al. Single-cell transcriptome atlas of the human corpus cavernosum. Nat. Commun. 13, 4302 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Jahangir, S. et al. Cell-laden 3D printed gelMA/HAp and THA hydrogel bioinks: development of osteochondral tissue-like bioinks. Materials https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16227214 (2023).

  29. Lee, J. S. et al. 3D-printable photocurable bioink for cartilage regeneration of tonsil-derived mesenchymal stem cells. Addit. Manuf. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2020.101136 (2020).

  30. Zhang, L. et al. Fabrication of multi-channel nerve guidance conduits containing schwann cells based on multi-material 3D bioprinting. 3D Print. Addit. Manuf. 10, 1046–1054 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Bernal, P. N. et al. Volumetric bioprinting of organoids and optically tuned hydrogels to build liver-like metabolic biofactories. Adv. Mater. 34, e2110054 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Tanadchangsaeng, N. et al. 3D bioprinting of fish skin-based gelatin methacryloyl (GelMA) bio-ink for use as a potential skin substitute. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-73774-1 (2024).

  33. Wang, P., Wang, T., Xu, Y., Song, N. & Zhang, X. 3D-bioprinted cell-laden hydrogel with anti-inflammatory and anti-bacterial activities for tracheal cartilage regeneration and restoration. Int. J. Bioprint. https://doi.org/10.36922/ijb.0146 (2023).

  34. Tang, H. et al. A bioengineered trachea-like structure improves survival in a rabbit tracheal defect model. Sci. Transl. Med. 15, eabo4272 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Shao, L. et al. Directly coaxial 3D bioprinting of large-scale vascularized tissue constructs. Biofabrication 12, https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/ab7e76 (2020).

  36. Xu, L. et al. Bioprinting small diameter blood vessel constructs with an endothelial and smooth muscle cell bilayer in a single step. Biofabrication 12, https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/aba2b6 (2020).

  37. Wang, Z. et al. 3D printing-electrospinning hybrid nanofibrous scaffold as LEGO-like bricks for modular assembling skeletal muscle-on-a-chip functional platform. Adv. Fiber Mater. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42765-024-00433-5 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Li, T. et al. Bioprinted anisotropic scaffolds with fast stress relaxation bioink for engineering 3D skeletal muscle and repairing volumetric muscle loss. Acta Biomater. 156, 21–36 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Su, H. et al. Development of digital light processing-based multi-material bioprinting for fabrication of heterogeneous tissue constructs. Biomater. Sci. 11, 6663–6673 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Kumari, S., Mondal, P. & Chatterjee, K. Digital light processing-based 3D bioprinting of kappa-carrageenan hydrogels for engineering cell-loaded tissue scaffolds. Carbohydr. Polym. 290, 119508 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Rajput, M., Mondal, P., Yadav, P. & Chatterjee, K. Light-based 3D bioprinting of bone tissue scaffolds with tunable mechanical properties and architecture from photocurable silk fibroin. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 202, 644–656 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Wang, M. et al. Molecularly cleavable bioinks facilitate high-performance digital light processing-based bioprinting of functional volumetric soft tissues. Nat. Commun. 13, 3317 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Chen, S., Wang, Y., Lai, J., Tan, S. & Wang, M. Structure and properties of gelatin methacryloyl (GelMA) synthesized in different reaction systems. Biomacromolecules 24, 2928–2941 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Pepelanova, I., Kruppa, K., Scheper, T. & Lavrentieva, A. Gelatin-methacryloyl (GelMA) hydrogels with defined degree of functionalization as a versatile toolkit for 3D cell culture and extrusion bioprinting. Bioengineering https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering5030055 (2018).

  45. Nichol, J. W. et al. Cell-laden microengineered gelatin methacrylate hydrogels. Biomaterials 31, 5536–5544 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. He, J. et al. Gelatin methacryloyl hydrogel, from standardization, performance, to biomedical application. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 12, e2300395 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Hossain Rakin, R. et al. Tunable metacrylated hyaluronic acid-based hybrid bioinks for stereolithography 3D bioprinting. Biofabrication https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/ac25cb (2021).

  48. Arguchinskaya, N. V. et al. Properties and printability of the synthesized hydrogel based on GelMA. Int. J. Mol. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24032121 (2023).

  49. Grigoryan, B. et al. BIOMEDICINE multivascular networks and functional intravascular topologies within biocompatible hydrogels. Science 364, 458–464 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. He, N. et al. Photoinhibiting via simultaneous photoabsorption and free-radical reaction for high-fidelity light-based bioprinting. Nat. Commun. 14, 3063 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Yang, M. et al. Multi-material digital light processing (DLP) bioprinting of heterogeneous hydrogel constructs with perfusable networks. Adv. Funct. Mater. https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.202316456 (2024).

  52. Fang, H. et al. Clay sculpture-inspired 3D printed microcage module using bioadhesion assembly for specific-shaped tissue vascularization and regeneration. Adv. Sci. 11, e2308381 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Kunwar, P. et al. Droplet bioprinting of acellular and cell-laden structures at high-resolutions. Biofabrication https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/ad4c09 (2024).

  54. Highland, H. N., Rishika, A. S., Almira, S. S. & Kanthi, P. B. Ficoll-400 density gradient method as an effective sperm preparation technique for assisted reproductive techniques. J. Hum. Reprod. Sci. 9, 194–199 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Jiang, Y.-h et al. Serine protease inhibitor 4-(2-aminoethyl)benzenesulfonyl fluoride hydrochloride (AEBSF) inhibits the rat embryo implantation in vivo and interferes with cell adhesion in vitro. Contraception 84, 642–648 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Misinzo, G., Delputte, P. L. & Nauwynck, H. J. Inhibition of endosome-lysosome system acidification enhances porcine circovirus 2 infection of porcine epithelial cells. J. Virol. 82, 1128–1135 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was sponsored by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant nos. 52235007, T2121004 and 52325504) and Key R&D Program of Zhejiang (grant no. 2024SSYS0027).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. State Key Laboratory of Fluid Power and Mechatronic Systems and Liangzhu Laboratory, School of Mechanical Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China

    Tianhong Qiao  (乔天鸿), Chaofan He  (何超凡), Guofeng Liu  (刘国峰), Yuan Sun  (孙元) & Yong He  (贺永)

  2. The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China

    Tianhong Qiao  (乔天鸿), Chaofan He  (何超凡), Guofeng Liu  (刘国峰), Yuan Sun  (孙元) & Yong He  (贺永)

  3. Key Laboratory of 3D Printing Process and Equipment of Zhejiang Province, College of Mechanical Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China

    Tianhong Qiao  (乔天鸿), Chaofan He  (何超凡), Guofeng Liu  (刘国峰), Yuan Sun  (孙元) & Yong He  (贺永)

  4. Department of General Clinical Research Center, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China

    Pengcheng Xia  (夏鹏程)

  5. The Affiliated Hospital of Stomatology, School of Stomatology, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China

    Miao Sun  (孙苗) & Mengfei Yu  (俞梦飞)

  6. Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedical Research of Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou, China

    Miao Sun  (孙苗) & Mengfei Yu  (俞梦飞)

  7. College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China

    Yi Wang  (王毅) & Yiyu Cheng  (程翼宇)

Authors
  1. Tianhong Qiao  (乔天鸿)
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chaofan He  (何超凡)
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pengcheng Xia  (夏鹏程)
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Guofeng Liu  (刘国峰)
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yuan Sun  (孙元)
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Miao Sun  (孙苗)
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yi Wang  (王毅)
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yiyu Cheng  (程翼宇)
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Mengfei Yu  (俞梦飞)
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Yong He  (贺永)
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

These authors contributed equally: T.Q. and C.H. T.Q., C.H., M.Y. and Y.H. designed the experiments. T.Q., C.H., P.X., G.L., Y.S., M.S. and Y.H. contributed to the experimental design. T.Q., P.X. and C.H. performed the experiments and analyzed the data. T.Q., C.H., M.Y., Y.C. and Y.H. wrote and reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yiyu Cheng  (程翼宇), Mengfei Yu  (俞梦飞) or Yong He  (贺永).

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Protocols thanks Hyungseok Lee, Yeong-Jin Choi, and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Key references

He, C. F. et al. Research 8, 0613 (2025): https://doi.org/10.34133/research.0613

He, C. F. et al. Adv. Funct. Mater. 33, 2301209 (2023): https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.202301209

Yu, K. et al. Bioact. Mater. 11, 254–267 (2022): https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioactmat.2021.09.021

Sun, Y. et al. Biofabrication 13, 035032 (2021): https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/aba413

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 The adaptability of bioink formulations.

a) Photographs of organ-scale 3D structures printed using SilMA (DS = 30%) as a substitute for GelMA. b) Photographs of organ-scale 3D structures printed using hydrogel precursor solutions within the acceptable DS range (4% GelMA + 5% PEGDA, with GelMA having a DS of 40%; the compressive modulus of bioink is 18.00 kPa). c) Photographs of organ-scale 3D structures printed using a higher concentration (7.5%) of hydrogel precursor solution. d) Photographs of organ-scale 3D structures printed using a higher (10%) concentration of hydrogel precursor solution. e) Compressive properties of bioinks with different concentrations. f) Compressive moduli of bioinks with different concentrations. Data are displayed as mean ± SD, n = 3.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Photographs of the vat after printing TPMS structure (18mm×18mm×18mm).

a) With utilizing oil-seal process. b) Without utilizing oil-seal process.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Cell viability among the layers of the printed structures.

a) Micrographs showing live (green)/dead (red) staining of cells encapsulated in the printed rectangular structures. b) Photographs of the printed rectangular structures. c) Results of the live/dead assays showing cell viability among the layers of the printed rectangular structures. d) Results of the live/dead assays showing cell viability of the printed rectangular structures. Data are displayed as mean ± SD, n = 4.

Extended Data Fig. 4

Immunofluorescence images showing staining for DAPI (blue), α-SMA (green), Phalloidin (red) of the cells encapsulated in the printed structures after 3 days of culture.

Extended Data Fig. 5

High-magnification Immunofluorescence images showing staining of the cells after 7 days of culture.

Extended Data Fig. 6

Immunofluorescence images showing HUVEC (red), USMC (green), and RS1 (blue) within the printed structures after 0, 2, 4, 6 days of culture.

Extended Data Fig. 7 Immunofluorescence images (cross section) showing staining for DAPI (blue), α-SMA (green), Phalloidin (red) of the cells encapsulated in the printed structures after 7 days of culture.

The encapsulated cells spread on the surface of structures and also exhibit a degree of proliferation within the hydrogels.

Extended Data Fig. 8

Low-magnification Immunofluorescence images showing staining of the cells after 7 days of culture.

Extended Data Fig. 9 Scale expansion of organ-scale bioprinting.

a) Photographs of printed structures (14mm×14mm×14mm) after culturing 7 days. b) Immunofluorescence images showing staining for DAPI (blue), α-SMA (green), Phalloidin (red) of the cells encapsulated in the printed structures (14mm×14mm×14mm) after 7 days of culture. c) Photographs of printed structures (18mm × 18mm × 18mm) after culturing 7 days.

Supplementary information

Reporting Summary

Supplementary Video 1

Preparation of the hydrogel precursor solution.

Supplementary Video 2

Adjustment of the pH of bioink.

Supplementary Video 3

Sterilize the bioink by filtration and add AEBSF.

Supplementary Video4

Oil-seal printing process (use PEGDA bioink without encapsulating cells to demonstrate the process).

Supplementary Video 5

Organ-scale bioprinting process.

Supplementary Video 6

Post-printing processing of organ-scale 3D structures.

Supplementary Video 7

Dynamic cultivation of organ-scale 3D structures.

Supplementary Data 1

TPMS model for organ-scale bioprinting (10 mm × 10 mm × 10 mm.

Supplementary Data 2

Curing depth test model serving as the base.

Supplementary Data 3

TPMS model for demonstrating the effectiveness of oil-seal process (18 mm × 18 mm × 18 mm).

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Qiao, T., He, C., Xia, P. et al. Bioink design for organ-scale projection-based 3D bioprinting. Nat Protoc (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41596-025-01221-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41596-025-01221-0

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing: Translational Research

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Translational Research newsletter — top stories in biotechnology, drug discovery and pharma.

Get what matters in translational research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Translational Research