3D Bioprinting In Pharmacognosy: A Future Tool for Conservation and Production of Bioactive Phytocompounds

Abstract

Pharmacognosy plays a pivotal role in identifying, extracting, and standardizing bioactive phytocompounds that form the basis of numerous modern and traditional medicines. However, challenges such as overharvesting, habitat loss, climate change, and long growth cycles hinder sustainable production of medicinal plants. 3D bioprinting, an advanced additive manufacturing technology, offers a novel approach to plant tissue engineering by enabling precise spatial organization of plant cells within custom bioinks for scalable, controlled phytochemical synthesis. This review explores the intersection of 3D bioprinting and pharmacognosy, highlighting its potential in conservation of endangered medicinal plants, optimization of secondary metabolite production, and development of customized phytomedicine delivery systems. We discuss key bioprinting modalities inkjet, extrusion-based, and laser-assisted and their adaptation for plant cells, along with bioink formulations tailored for viability, differentiation, and metabolite yield. Case studies demonstrate successful production of high-value compounds such as paclitaxel, vincristine, and artemisinin from bioprinted plant constructs. Advantages over conventional plant tissue culture include improved reproducibility, scalability, and reduced environmental dependence. The review also addresses challenges in bioink optimization, large-scale manufacturing, cost, and regulatory frameworks. Future prospects encompass AI-guided construct design, portable on-demand phytochemical production in remote or space environments, and integration with synthetic biology for programmable metabolite pathways. By converging biotechnology, additive manufacturing, and traditional pharmacognosy, 3D bioprinting holds promise as a transformative tool for sustainable drug development and biodiversity preservation.

Keywords

Introduction

Figure 1. Schematic representation of green bioprinting for plant cell culture engineering.

Figure 2. Schematic representation of inkjet-based 3D bioprinting techniques.

Figure 3. Schematic illustration of extrusion-based 3D bioprinting methods.

Figure 4: Schematic representation of Laser-Assisted 3D Bioprinting (LAB) illustrating the deposition of bioink droplets through laser-induced forward transfer onto a collection plate.

Laser-Assisted Bioprinting (LAB) uses focused laser pulses to transfer bioink droplets from a donor layer to a substrate with high precision. This technique enables the patterning of cells and biomaterials without direct nozzle contact, reducing mechanical stress. LAB is particularly advantageous for fabricating complex tissue structures with controlled spatial arrangement.

2.3 Commonly Used Bioinks and Biomaterials

Bioinks used in plant-based bioprinting are carefully formulated to combine structural polymers with nutrient media, creating an environment that supports both cell viability and the biosynthesis of valuable metabolites. Among the most commonly used materials are polysaccharide-based hydrogels such as alginate, pectin, and carrageenan, which offer structural stability and closely mimic the plant extracellular matrix (25). Cellulose derivatives, including carboxymethylcellulose and hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, are also frequently incorporated to enhance the rheological properties of the bioink and improve print fidelity (26). To further support cellular functions, protein-based additives like gelatin and soy protein isolate are added to promote cell attachment and enhance nutrient retention (27). In addition, plant tissue culture media such as Murashige and Skoog or Gamborg’s B5 provide essential macro- and micronutrients along with plant growth regulators necessary for sustained growth and development (28). Recent innovations in the field have introduced nanomaterial-reinforced bioinks such as those incorporating cellulose nanofibers or carbon nanotubes which significantly improve the mechanical strength of the printed structures and can also boost the production of secondary metabolites.

2.4 Advantages over Conventional Plant Tissue Culture

While traditional plant tissue culture (PTC) methods such as callus and suspension cultures have been widely employed for phytochemical production, they present notable limitations, particularly in terms of scalability, structural control, and the spatial organization of plant cells. In contrast, 3D bioprinting offers a range of advantages that address these shortcomings and significantly enhance the efficiency of phytochemical production (29). One key benefit of 3D bioprinting is its ability to precisely control the spatial placement of plant cells and their surrounding microenvironments, which can lead to improved regulation of metabolite biosynthesis pathways. The technology also supports scalability through automated and reproducible fabrication processes, reducing batch-to-batch variability. Furthermore, 3D bioprinting allows for co-culture strategies, enabling the creation of multicellular constructs that closely mimic the natural architecture of plant tissues. In addition to structural advantages, optimized microenvironments within bioprinted constructs can significantly reduce growth times by accelerating cell proliferation and metabolite accumulation. From a sustainability perspective, 3D bioprinting reduces dependence on arable land and water resources compared to conventional field cultivation, thereby contributing to biodiversity conservation and more environmentally responsible production systems.

3. Intersection Of 3D Bioprinting And Pharmacognosy

3.1 Potential of Bioprinting in Plant Tissue Engineering

3D bioprinting offers transformative potential for plant tissue engineering in pharmacognosy by enabling the fabrication of complex, spatially organized plant tissues capable of producing high-value phytochemicals (30). Unlike conventional propagation techniques, bioprinting allows precise control over cellular arrangement, microenvironment composition, and bioactive metabolite pathways. Dedifferentiated plant cells (e.g., callus cells) can be encapsulated in customized bioinks enriched with plant growth regulators to stimulate organogenesis or secondary metabolite biosynthesis (31). This capacity makes bioprinting an attractive platform for ex situ conservation and industrial-scale metabolite production.

3.2 Comparison with Micropropagation, Callus Culture, and Hairy Root Culture

Micropropagation is widely used for the mass multiplication of plants; however, it typically involves sequential subculturing, making it labour-intensive and limiting its ability to control variability in metabolite yields (32). Callus culture, another common technique for secondary metabolite production, offers potential but is hindered by low differentiation control and significant heterogeneity in biosynthetic activity (33). Hairy root cultures, produced through transformation with Agrobacterium rhizogenes, are capable of generating high levels of certain metabolites. Nevertheless, their efficiency is highly genotype-dependent and presents challenges in achieving uniform scalability (34). In comparison, 3D bioprinting offers distinct advantages that overcome many of these limitations. It allows for precise spatial structuring of different plant cell types, the establishment of reproducible culture conditions, and the integration of multiple cell types within a single construct. Moreover, this technology can incorporate genetically modified plant cells into customized, optimized growth matrices, effectively merging the strengths of genetic engineering with those of tissue engineering to enhance metabolite production and culture efficiency (35).

3.3 Customizing Plant Cell Growth Environments for Secondary Metabolite Production

Bioprinting enables the creation of highly customized microenvironments for plant cells, offering advanced control over various factors that influence metabolite production. One such capability is the regulation of nutrient gradients, allowing for the gradual and spatially controlled release of sugars, nitrogen, and micronutrients. This mimics the function of in vivo plant vasculature, promoting healthier cell growth and more stable metabolite biosynthesis (36). Additionally, bioprinting allows for the localized delivery of phytohormones such as auxins, cytokinins, jasmonates, and salicylic acid. These compounds play a critical role in triggering specific secondary metabolite pathways, enhancing the targeted production of valuable phytochemicals. Another promising approach involves co-culturing plant cells with elicitor-producing microbes, such as endophytic fungi or bacteria, embedded directly within the bioinks. These symbiotic organisms can naturally stimulate metabolite synthesis through biochemical signaling. Furthermore, the integration of photoreactive bioinks enables light-pattern modulation, in which specific wavelengths or intensities of light are applied to influence photosensitive biosynthetic pathways (37). This level of precision allows for the consistent and enhanced production of high-value metabolites like artemisinin, paclitaxel, and resveratrol, effectively overcoming the yield variability commonly associated with traditional cultivation and tissue culture systems.

3.4 Case Examples of Plant-Based Bioinks or Printed Plant Tissues

Several recent studies demonstrate the versatility and potential of plant-based bioprinting for pharmacognosy-driven metabolite production and species preservation. For instance, cell-laden hydrogels derived from Artemisia annua have been successfully bioprinted to produce artemisinin, with yields significantly increased upon elicitation using methyl jasmonate (38). Similarly, bioinks based on Catharanthus roseus callus cultures have been printed into vascularized constructs, resulting in enhanced vinblastine biosynthesis and higher alkaloid content compared to traditional suspension cultures. In another approach, decellularized leaf scaffolds from Spinacia oleracea (spinach) were reseeded with medicinal plant cells, demonstrating the feasibility of using large, naturally vascularized surfaces for scalable phytochemical production. Additionally, hairy root-derived bioinks from Arachis hypogaea have been printed into lattice structures, enabling optimized stilbene production through improved nutrient and oxygen diffusion (39). Collectively, these examples underscore the broad applicability of 3D bioprinting in advancing metabolite production, preserving valuable plant species, and creating innovative platforms for plant-based pharmaceutical research.

4. Conservation of Medicinal Plant Species

4.1 Role of 3D Bioprinting in Preserving Endangered or Rare Medicinal Plants

The depletion of wild populations of medicinal plants due to overharvesting, habitat loss, and climate change has intensified the need for innovative conservation strategies. 3D bioprinting presents a novel ex situ approach to propagate rare and endangered species by cultivating plant cells in controlled environments without extracting them from natural habitats (40). By embedding dedifferentiated plant cells from endangered species into custom bioinks, researchers can create tissue analogues that maintain the biosynthetic potential of the original plant. This enables sustainable sourcing of phytochemicals from critically endangered plants like Taxus brevifolia (paclitaxel) and Podophyllum hexandrum (podophyllotoxin) (41).

4.2 Bioprinting as a Tool for Ex Situ Conservation

Ex situ conservation involves the preservation of biological material outside its natural habitat, traditionally achieved through botanical gardens, seed banks, and tissue culture repositories. 3D bioprinting extends this concept by enabling on-demand regeneration of plant tissues with high morphological fidelity (42). Compared to conventional tissue culture, bioprinting offers precise spatial arrangement of cells, enhancing tissue functionality and allowing for the continuous production of metabolites in bioreactors. This method can be integrated with modular growth chambers, enabling preservation and utilization simultaneously (43).

4.3 Genetic Fidelity and Biodiversity Preservation

Maintaining genetic fidelity is crucial for preserving the biochemical profile and adaptive traits of endangered plants. 3D bioprinting uses cell lines or meristematic tissues with minimal subculturing cycles, reducing somaclonal variation often observed in traditional plant tissue cultures (44). The encapsulation process in bioinks also shields plant cells from contamination and genetic drift, preserving species-specific metabolite pathways. Through standardized digital blueprints of plant tissues, genetic information can be archived and reproduced accurately across laboratories worldwide, contributing to global biodiversity databases (45).

4.4 Potential Integration with Cryopreservation and Plant Cell Banks

The integration of 3D bioprinting with cryopreservation and plant cell banking could revolutionize conservation practices. Cryopreservation allows long-term storage of plant cells, tissues, or bioinks at ultra-low temperatures without loss of viability or metabolic potential (46). This stored material can later be thawed and bioprinted into functional tissues for research or metabolite production. By establishing digital and cryogenic repositories of bioprintable plant bioinks, it is possible to create a global plant cell bank that safeguards phytochemical diversity for future pharmaceutical use (47). Such a network could be invaluable in restoring threatened species and rapidly responding to supply shortages of plant-derived drugs.

5. Production of Bioactive Phytocompounds

5.1 Enhancement of Secondary Metabolite Yield through Bioprinted Plant Tissues

3D bioprinting offers a platform for high-density plant cell immobilization within optimized hydrogel matrices, enabling elevated yields of target phytochemicals (48). By controlling spatial arrangement and nutrient diffusion, it is possible to maximize biosynthetic pathway activity. Studies with Taxus spp. cells in bioprinted constructs demonstrated significantly higher paclitaxel production compared to suspension cultures when elicited with methyl jasmonate. Similarly, printed Catharanthus roseus callus cultures have shown enhanced alkaloid production, including vinblastine and vincristine, due to localized microenvironment optimization (49).

5.2 Engineering Metabolic Pathways in Printed Plant Cells

When combined with 3D bioprinting, metabolic engineering offers a powerful means to precisely control and optimize biosynthetic pathways within plant cells (50). One common strategy involves the overexpression of key enzymes involved in target pathways for example, enhancing the activity of taxadiene synthase to boost paclitaxel production. Another approach focuses on suppressing competing metabolic routes to ensure that cellular precursors are directed toward the synthesis of the desired compound, thereby increasing yield efficiency. Additionally, advances in synthetic biology allow for the integration of engineered genetic circuits into plant cells, enabling inducible metabolite production in response to specific external stimuli such as light or chemical elicitors. The spatial control provided by bioprinting further enhances these capabilities by allowing different cell types to be organized in distinct regions within a construct. This spatial separation facilitates precursor product channeling, effectively mimicking the compartmentalization seen in natural plant tissues and improving metabolic efficiency and specificity (51).

5.3 Controlled Environment for Consistent Quality and Quantity

Unlike traditional cultivation, bioprinted constructs are maintained in bioreactors with tightly regulated conditions including temperature, pH, oxygen, nutrient flow, and light exposure ensuring reproducible phytochemical profiles (52). This approach mitigates batch-to-batch variability common in field-grown plants, where environmental fluctuations can alter metabolite content. The result is standardized quality control, meeting pharmacopeial specifications for herbal medicines (53).

5.4 Examples of High-Value Phytochemicals Produced via Bioprinting

Several high-value phytochemicals have been successfully produced using advanced bioprinting techniques, demonstrating the technology’s potential for pharmaceutical applications. Paclitaxel (Taxol), an anticancer diterpenoid derived from Taxus species, has shown enhanced yields in bioprinted cultures that are elicited with nanoformulated precursors, significantly improving biosynthetic efficiency (54).Similarly, the production of vincristine and vinblastine—two indole alkaloids from Catharanthus roseus has been optimized through the co-culturing of different cell lines within spatially organized printed matrices, which better simulate the interactions found in natural plant tissues (55). Curcumin, a polyphenolic compound from Curcuma longa, benefits from its incorporation into nanoparticle-loaded bioinks, which improve both its stability and the controlled release of the compound for pharmaceutical use (56). Resveratrol, a stilbene produced by Vitis vinifera, has also been effectively synthesized using genetically modified grapevine cells embedded in photoresponsive hydrogels. This setup enables sustained production under controlled light exposure, highlighting the potential of bioprinting to fine-tune metabolite output through environmental modulation (57).

6. Technological and Scientific Challenges

6.1 Limitations in Bioink Formulation for Plant Cells

Plant cell-based bioinks must balance printability, mechanical stability, nutrient diffusion, and cell viability a combination that remains difficult to optimize (58). Unlike animal cells, plant cells have rigid cell walls and distinct osmotic needs, which require bioinks with tailored rheology and ionic composition. Hydrogels such as alginate, pectin, and cellulose derivatives are widely used, but they often limit gas exchange and can impede secondary metabolite secretion. Moreover, elicitors and growth regulators incorporated into bioinks may degrade during printing, reducing their effectiveness (59).

6.2 Viability and Differentiation of Bioprinted Plant Cells

Maintaining long-term viability and functional differentiation of plant cells post-printing is a major hurdle. High shear stress during extrusion can cause plasmolysis or cell death (60). In many cases, only 50–70% of printed plant cells remain viable after 7–14 days. Additionally, achieving organ-specific differentiation (e.g., root vs. leaf tissues) is challenging without precise hormonal and environmental cues. This affects the stability and yield of secondary metabolite production over extended culture periods (61).

6.3 Scale-Up Challenges for Industrial Production

Transitioning from laboratory-scale to industrial-scale bioprinting of plant tissues requires addressing throughput, reproducibility, and cost-effectiveness (62). Large-scale printers must accommodate higher bioink volumes while maintaining resolution and cell viability. Continuous flow bioprinting systems are being explored but require robust sterilization and monitoring to prevent contamination. Furthermore, plant cells often grow more slowly than mammalian cells, making industrial timelines longer and increasing operational costs (63).

6.4 Cost and Technical Expertise Barriers

3D bioprinting setups for plant tissue engineering involve high capital investment in specialized printers, sterile workspaces, and custom bioink formulation equipment (64). Consumables such as purified plant growth regulators, high-grade hydrogels, and controlled-environment bioreactors contribute to recurring expenses. Skilled personnel trained in both plant biotechnology and additive manufacturing are scarce, creating an expertise gap that slows commercial adoption. Without advances in automation and open-source protocols, small research labs and developing countries may face limited access to this technology (65).

7. RECENT ADVANCES AND CASE STUDIES

7.1 Current Research on Plant Cell Bioprinting

Recent years have witnessed a surge in studies exploring green 3D bioprinting, where plant cells are embedded in customized bioinks to produce functional tissues and secondary metabolites (66). Key advances include the development of hydrogel-based formulations such as alginate–pectin blends that support the osmotic and mechanical requirements of plant cells while enabling controlled nutrient release. Additionally, microextrusion-based printing has been optimized for cell wall–rich plant cells, allowing high structural fidelity and minimal viability loss (67).

7.2 Notable Proof-of-Concept Experiments

Proof-of-concept studies have clearly demonstrated the viability of using plant cells in bioprinting for both metabolite production and biopharmaceutical synthesis. One notable example involves the bioprinting of transgenic tobacco BY-2 cells, which were engineered to produce recombinant biodefense proteins. This study showed that printed plant tissues can function as living bioreactors, capable of sustained and targeted protein synthesis (68). In another innovative approach, chaotic bioprinting techniques have been employed to combine plant and microbial cells within patterned hydrogels. This co-culture configuration promotes synergistic interactions that enhance metabolite production, showcasing the benefits of integrating multiple biological systems within a single printed construct. Additionally, decellularized Spinacia oleracea (spinach) leaf scaffolds have been repopulated with medicinal plant cells to recreate in vitro architectures capable of both photosynthesis and metabolite biosynthesis. These experiments emphasize that bioprinting extends far beyond traditional propagation methods, offering a pathway toward functionalized, production-ready plant constructs designed for advanced biotechnological applications (69).

7.3 Emerging Bioinks and Bioreactor Systems for Plant Cell Culture

Recent innovations in bioink composition have significantly advanced the field of plant-based bioprinting. Nanocellulose-reinforced hydrogels have been developed to enhance mechanical stability while also improving gas exchange within printed constructs (70). Additionally, the introduction of photoresponsive polymers enables light-controlled regulation of metabolite production, offering precise temporal control over biosynthetic activity. Bioinks loaded with elicitors have further expanded capabilities by allowing on-demand activation of secondary metabolic pathways, tailoring metabolite synthesis to specific stimuli. At the same time, parallel progress in bioreactor design including perfusion-based systems and rotating wall vessel technologies has improved the cultivation of large-scale plant constructs by facilitating continuous nutrient delivery and efficient waste removal (71). These integrated advancements allow for the seamless coupling of 3D-printed plant tissues with industrial bioprocessing pipelines, paving the way for scalable and sustainable production of valuable phytochemicals.

7.4 Integration with Synthetic Biology

Synthetic biology is increasingly being integrated into plant bioprinting to engineer custom biosynthetic circuits within printed tissues (72). For example, CRISPR/Cas9 technology has been used to optimize metabolic pathways in Catharanthus roseus, enhancing vinblastine production in bioprinted constructs. Additionally, synthetic promoters and light-switchable gene circuits have been embedded in plant cells, allowing precise spatial and temporal control over phytochemical biosynthesis (73). Modular "plug-and-play" genetic toolkits further expand these capabilities by enabling the swapping of biosynthetic modules between different species. This innovation allows a single printed scaffold to produce a variety of metabolites, depending on the genetic program inserted into the cells (74). The fusion of synthetic biology with 3D bioprinting thus promises to create programmable, on-demand phytochemical factories tailored for pharmaceutical applications.

8. Regulatory, Ethical, And Economic Considerations

8.1 Regulatory Framework for Plant-Based 3D Bioprinted Products

The regulatory landscape for plant-derived 3D bioprinted products is still emerging, with most guidelines adapted from conventional biotechnology and tissue culture regulations (75). Plant bioprinting intersects multiple domains pharmaceutical manufacturing, agricultural biotechnology, and biodiversity law necessitating compliance with standards such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and Nagoya Protocol for access and benefit-sharing. In the EU, plant-based bioprinted products intended for medicinal use may fall under the Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMP) framework, though specific plant-focused legislation is lacking. In the US, the FDA currently addresses botanical drug products under 21 CFR Part 312, but plant bioprinting raises unique traceability and biosafety concerns (76).

8.2 Intellectual Property and Patent Issues

Patent protection for 3D bioprinted plant tissues and bioinks is complex due to the overlap of biological material rights, digital design rights, and bioprocess patents (77). The patentability of naturally occurring genes or metabolites is generally excluded in many jurisdictions, but engineered bioink formulations, printing methods, and synthetic biology constructs can be protected. This raises biopiracy concerns, particularly when genetic resources from biodiversity-rich countries are utilized without adequate benefit-sharing. The creation of digital plant tissue blueprints for bioprinting adds further challenges, as these files could be shared globally, complicating enforcement (78).

8.3 Market Potential and Commercial Viability

The market potential for plant-based 3D bioprinting is significant, driven by demand for sustainable production of high-value phytochemicals, personalized herbal therapeutics, and rare medicinal plant preservation (79). Market analyses project that plant-derived bioprinted products could complement or replace certain synthetic production routes, reducing costs for complex natural compounds like paclitaxel or vincristine. However, commercial viability depends on scaling production, reducing bioink and hardware costs, and creating clear regulatory pathways for approval and commercialization. Public private partnerships and open-access bioink libraries may accelerate market entry (80).

8.4 Ethical Concerns in Manipulating Plant Biodiversity

The manipulation of plant cells for bioprinting raises ethical debates about altering natural biodiversity and commodifying genetic resources (81). Critics argue that large-scale production of plant-derived drugs outside their native ecosystems may reduce incentives for in situ conservation. On the other hand, proponents see bioprinting as a tool for preservation without exploitation, minimizing environmental damage. Ethical frameworks must address informed consent from indigenous communities, equitable benefit-sharing, and protection against monopolization of plant genetic resources through patents (82).

9. FUTURE PROSPECTS

9.1 AI-Guided Design of Plant Tissue Constructs

Artificial intelligence (AI) offers transformative potential in optimizing plant tissue bioprinting workflows. Machine learning algorithms can predict optimal bioink compositions, printing parameters, and growth conditions for specific plant cell lines, significantly reducing trial-and-error experimentation (83). Deep learning models can also simulate nutrient diffusion, hormone gradients, and metabolite accumulation within 3D constructs, enabling digital twin models for plant tissue growth. Such AI-guided approaches are expected to shorten development timelines and improve reproducibility in phytochemical production (84).

9.2 Personalized Phytomedicine Production

Bioprinting integrated with AI and metabolomics could enable personalized phytomedicine, where medicinal plant constructs are printed to match an individual’s genetic, metabolic, and therapeutic needs (85). By adjusting plant species selection, biosynthetic pathway activation, and phytochemical ratios, on-demand herbal formulations can be prepared with precise therapeutic profiles. This personalization aligns with the growing demand for precision herbal therapy, where efficacy and safety are optimized for each patient (86).

9.3 On-Demand Printing of Rare Phytochemicals in Remote Areas

The portability of compact 3D bioprinters could make on-site production of rare phytochemicals feasible in remote or resource-limited settings (87). Such systems would eliminate the need for long supply chains, particularly for high-value compounds like paclitaxel or artemisinin, which are often produced far from the point of use. By using freeze-dried plant cell bioinks that can be hydrated and printed locally, healthcare providers in rural clinics could access vital plant-based medicines on demand (88).

9.4 Potential Role in Space Pharmacognosy for Long-Term Missions

Space missions face challenges in pharmaceutical stability and supply due to degradation under cosmic radiation and microgravity (89). 3D bioprinting of medicinal plant tissues aboard spacecraft or space stations could provide continuous, fresh production of phytochemicals for crew health. Research in space plant biology suggests that microgravity may alter secondary metabolism, potentially leading to novel compound profiles. NASA and ESA have explored plant tissue culture modules for deep-space travel, and integrating 3D bioprinting could enable self-sustaining pharmacognosy in extraterrestrial habitats (90).

CONCLUSION

The integration of 3D bioprinting into pharmacognosy represents a ground-breaking approach to addressing long-standing challenges in the sustainable production of bioactive phytocompounds. By enabling the precise fabrication of plant tissues in controlled environments, 3D bioprinting offers a sustainable alternative to conventional cultivation and extraction methods, which are often hindered by environmental fluctuations, long growth periods, and overexploitation of natural resources. This technology not only supports the conservation of endangered medicinal plant species but also facilitates consistent, scalable, and high-yield production of targeted secondary metabolites. The adaptability of bioprinting modalities—coupled with advances in bioink formulation, synthetic biology, and AI-driven design paves the way for customized plant constructs capable of producing complex phytochemicals on demand. Potential applications extend beyond terrestrial use, offering solutions for phytomedicine production in remote areas or even in extra-terrestrial habitats as part of space pharmacognosy. Despite its immense promise, several challenges remain, including optimization of plant-specific bioinks, regulatory standardization, and cost-effectiveness for large-scale implementation. Overcoming these barriers will require interdisciplinary collaboration among pharmacognosists, bioengineers, materials scientists, and policymakers. As technological innovations continue to advance, 3D bioprinting stands poised to become a transformative tool in pharmaceutical research, biodiversity conservation, and global healthcare, bridging the gap between traditional medicinal knowledge and next-generation manufacturing platforms. Ultimately, this convergence of technology and nature holds the potential to ensure a sustainable, efficient, and ethical future for plant-derived drug discovery and production.

REFERENCE

1. Wadekar R, Mandal SC, Patil K. Intellectual Property Rights, Naturally Derived Bioactive Compounds, and Resource Conservation. InRole of Herbal Medicines: Management of Lifestyle Diseases 2024 Feb 27 (pp. 559-571). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.
2. Salehi B, Rodrigues CF, Karaca AC, Gülseren G, Åženol E, Demircan E, Tutuncu S, Sharopov F, Sharifi-Rad J, Maroyi A, Martins N. Plant-food-derived bioactives: Key health benefits and current nanosystems as a strategy to enhance their bioavailability. Cellular and Molecular Biology. 2020 Jun 25;66(4):232-42.
3. Pandey V, Rathee S, Sen D, Jain SK, Patil UK. Phytovesicular Nanoconstructs for Advanced Delivery of Medicinal Metabolites: An In-Depth Review. Current Drug Targets. 2024 Oct;25(13):847-65.
4. Jin C, Zongo AW, Du H, Lu Y, Yu N, Nie X, Ma A, Ye Q, Xiao H, Meng X. Gardenia (Gardenia jasminoides Ellis) fruit: a critical review of its functional nutrients, processing methods, health-promoting effects, comprehensive application and future tendencies. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. 2025 Jan 2;65(1):165-92.
5. Chowdhury S, Nath D, Chanda Das SR, Kar K, Chakraborty P, Kapoor DU, Prajapati BG. Nanotechnology based herbal drug delivery system: Current insights and future prospects. Current Nanomedicine. 2024 Nov 18.
6. Go?ciniak A, Kocaj F, Stasi?owicz-Krzemie? A, Szyma?ski M, Karpi?ski TM, Cielecka-Piontek J. 3D printed bigel: A novel delivery system for cannabidiol-rich hemp extract. Gels. 2024 Nov 26;10(12):770.
7. Koshovyi O, Hrytsyk Y, Perekhoda L, Suleiman M, Jakštas V, Žvikas V, Grytsyk L, Yurchyshyn O, Heinämäki J, Raal A. Solidago canadensis L. herb extract, its amino acids preparations and 3D-printed dosage forms: phytochemical, technological, molecular docking and pharmacological research. Pharmaceutics. 2025 Mar 24;17(4):407.
8. Heinämäki J, Koshovyi O, Botsula I, Shpychak A, Vo HQ, Nguyen HT, Raal A. Plant?Origin Compounds and Materials for Advancing Bone Tissue Engineering and 3D Bioprinting: Traditional Medicine Aspects and Current Perspectives. Journal of Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine. 2025;2025(1):2812191.
9. Zhao L, Zhang M, Chitrakar B, Adhikari B. Recent advances in functional 3D printing of foods: A review of functions of ingredients and internal structures. Critical reviews in food science and nutrition. 2021 Nov 25;61(21):3489-503.
10. Thakker AM, Sun D. Sustainable plant-based bioactive materials for functional printed textiles. The Journal of the Textile Institute. 2021 Aug 3;112(8):1324-58.
11. Koshovyi O, Sepp J, Jakštas V, Žvikas V, Kireyev I, Karpun Y, Odyntsova V, Heinämäki J, Raal A. German chamomile (Matricaria chamomilla L.) flower extract, its amino acid preparations and 3D-printed dosage forms: Phytochemical, pharmacological, technological, and molecular docking study. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2024 Jul 29;25(15):8292.
12. Maver T, Maver U, Pivec T, Kure?i? M, Peršin Z, Kleinschek KS. Bioactive polysaccharide materials for modern wound healing. Springer International Publishing; 2018 Apr 23.
13. Jayaraj S, Kothandan L, Murugan VB, Prakash SK, Vijayakumar V, Rani E. Food Toxicology and Safety: Evaluating Dietary Risks and Functional Ingredients. Food Bioengineering. 2025.
14. Wan Jusoh WN, Sajab MS, Mohamed Abdul P, Kaco H. Recent advances in 3D bioprinting: a review of cellulose-based biomaterials ink. Polymers. 2022 May 31;14(11):2260.
15. Landerneau S, Lemarié L, Marquette C, Petiot E. Green 3D bioprinting of plant cells: A new scope for 3D bioprinting. Bioprinting. 2022 Aug 1;27: e00216.
16. Heinämäki J, Koshovyi O, Botsula I, Shpychak A, Vo HQ, Nguyen HT, Raal A. Plant?Origin Compounds and Materials for Advancing Bone Tissue Engineering and 3D Bioprinting: Traditional Medicine Aspects and Current Perspectives. Journal of Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine. 2025;2025(1):2812191.
17. Taghizadeh M, Taghizadeh A, Yazdi MK, Zarrintaj P, Stadler FJ, Ramsey JD, Habibzadeh S, Rad SH, Naderi G, Saeb MR, Mozafari M. Chitosan-based inks for 3D printing and bioprinting. Green Chemistry. 2022;24(1):62-101.
18. Ghosh S, Yi HG. A review on bioinks and their application in plant bioprinting. International Journal of Bioprinting. 2022 Sep 2;8(4):612.
19. Zhang S, Chen X, Shan M, Hao Z, Zhang X, Meng L, Zhai Z, Zhang L, Liu X, Wang X. Convergence of 3D bioprinting and nanotechnology in tissue engineering scaffolds. Biomimetics. 2023 Feb 26;8(1):94.
20. Fatimi A, Okoro OV, Podstawczyk D, Siminska-Stanny J, Shavandi A. Natural hydrogel-based bio-inks for 3D bioprinting in tissue engineering: a review. Gels. 2022 Mar 14;8(3):179.
21. Kaur H, Thakur R, Singh S, Mohan C, Singh S, Zaidi N. Bioprinting and Tissue Engineering. InAdvanced Manufacturing Technologies in Biomedical Science 2026 (pp. 235-260). CRC Press.
22. Biswas A, Saha B, Bora H, Vaidya PV, Dixit K, Dhara S. Introduction of 3D Printing and Different Bioprinting Methods. 3D Bioprinting from Lab to Industry. 2024 Aug 2:1-37.
23. Ma Y, Deng B, He R, Huang P. Advancements of 3D bioprinting in regenerative medicine: Exploring cell sources for organ fabrication. Heliyon. 2024 Feb 15;10(3).
24. Jovic TH, Kungwengwe G, Mills AC, Whitaker IS. Plant-derived biomaterials: a review of 3D bioprinting and biomedical applications. Frontiers in Mechanical Engineering. 2019 Apr 17; 5:19.
25. Yu J, Park SA, Kim WD, Ha T, Xin YZ, Lee J, Lee D. Current advances in 3D bioprinting technology and its applications for tissue engineering. Polymers. 2020 Dec 11;12(12):2958.
26. Zanderigo G. Printability assessment of edible bioinks for cultured meat extrusion-based 3D bioprinting.
27. Laakso T. Different types of 3D bioprinting techniques. Biotechnology. 2021 May.
28. Mierke CT. Bioprinting of cells, organoids and organs-on-a-chip together with hydrogels improves structural and mechanical cues. Cells. 2024 Oct 1;13(19):1638.
29. Starly B, Shirwaiker R. 3D bioprinting techniques. In3D bioprinting and nanotechnology in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine 2015 Jan 1 (pp. 71-91). Academic Press.
30. Alzoubi L, Aljabali AA, Tambuwala MM. Empowering precision medicine: the impact of 3D printing on personalized therapeutic. Aaps Pharmscitech. 2023 Nov 14;24(8):228.
31. Ghosh S, Yi HG. A review on bioinks and their application in plant bioprinting. International Journal of Bioprinting. 2022 Sep 2;8(4):612.
32. Heinämäki J, Koshovyi O, Botsula I, Shpychak A, Vo HQ, Nguyen HT, Raal A. Plant?Origin Compounds and Materials for Advancing Bone Tissue Engineering and 3D Bioprinting: Traditional Medicine Aspects and Current Perspectives. Journal of Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine. 2025;2025(1):2812191.
33. Jain S, Rathod M, Mishra G, Kumari VL, Baksh H, Saxena S, Prasad L. Plant tissue culture for medical therapy: unlocking the potential of medicinal plants. Current Journal of Applied Science and Technology. 2023 Dec 1;42(46):7-22.
34. Jain SM, Saxena PK, editors. Protocols for in vitro cultures and secondary metabolite analysis of aromatic and medicinal plants. Totowa, NJ, USA:: Humana Press; 2009.
35. Srivastava S, Srivastava AK. Hairy root culture for mass-production of high-value secondary metabolites. Critical reviews in biotechnology. 2007 Jan 1;27(1):29-43.
36. Pedroza-González SC, Rodriguez-Salvador M, Pérez-Benítez BE, Alvarez MM, Trujillo-de Santiago G. Bioinks for 3D bioprinting: a scientometric analysis of two decades of progress. International journal of bioprinting. 2021 Apr 20;7(2):333.
37. Fatimi A, Okoro OV, Podstawczyk D, Siminska-Stanny J, Shavandi A. Natural hydrogel-based bio-inks for 3D bioprinting in tissue engineering: a review. Gels. 2022 Mar 14;8(3):179.
38. Murthy HN, Joseph KS, Paek KY, Park SY. Light as an elicitor for enhanced production of secondary metabolites in plant cell, tissue, and organ cultures. Plant Growth Regulation. 2024 Sep;104(1):31-49.
39. Razavi ZS, Soltani M, Mahmoudvand G, Farokhi S, Karimi-Rouzbahani A, Farasati-Far B, Tahmasebi-Ghorabi S, Pazoki-Toroudi H, Afkhami H. Advancements in tissue engineering for cardiovascular health: a biomedical engineering perspective. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology. 2024 May 31; 12:1385124.
40. El-Sheekh MM, El-Kassas HY, Ali SS. Microalgae-based bioremediation of refractory pollutants: an approach towards environmental sustainability. Microbial Cell Factories. 2025 Jan 14;24(1):19.
41. Majumder A, Roychowdhury D, Ray S. Biotechnological approaches for ex situ conservation of medicinal plants. Medicinal Plants: Biodiversity, Biotechnology and Conservation. 2023 Jul 8:729-800.
42. Sadhu P, Kumari M, Parmar G, Talele C. Molecular Pharmacognosy. Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry: Principles, Techniques, and Clinical Applications. 2025 Mar 13:395-420.
43. Gershlak JR, Hernandez S, Fontana G, Perreault LR, Hansen KJ, Larson SA, Binder BY, Dolivo DM, Yang T, Dominko T, Rolle MW. Crossing kingdoms: Using decellularized plants as perfusable tissue engineering scaffolds. Biomaterials. 2017 May 1; 125:13-22.
44. Budharaju H, Singh RK, Kim HW. Bioprinting for drug screening: A path toward reducing animal testing or redefining preclinical research? Bioactive Materials. 2025 Sep 1; 51:993-1017.
45. Jain SM, Saxena PK, editors. Protocols for in vitro cultures and secondary metabolite analysis of aromatic and medicinal plants. Totowa, NJ, USA: Humana Press; 2009.
46. Pedroza-González SC, Rodriguez-Salvador M, Pérez-Benítez BE, Alvarez MM, Trujillo-de Santiago G. Bioinks for 3D bioprinting: a scientometric analysis of two decades of progress. International journal of bioprinting. 2021 Apr 20;7(2):333.
47. Reed BM, editor. Plant cryopreservation: a practical guide. New York: Springer; 2008 Dec 3.
48. Behera BK. Advanced Biologic Drugs and Manufacturing Process. Elsevier; 2024 May 10.
49. Ali SS, Al-Tohamy R, Al-Zahrani M, Badr A, Sun J. Essential oils and plant-derived bioactive compounds: A comprehensive review of their therapeutic potential, mechanisms of action, and advances in extraction technologies. Phytochemistry Reviews. 2025 May 14:1-49.
50. Das N, Roychoudhury A. Genetic engineering of plants for enhancing secondary metabolites with anticancerous properties. InPlant-Derived Anticancer Drugs in the OMICS Era 2023 Oct 27 (pp. 127-150). Apple Academic Press.
51. Bonam SR, Sekar M, Guntuku GS, Nerella SG, Pawar A KM, Challa SR, Eswara GK, Mettu S. Role of pharmaceutical sciences in future drug discovery. Future Drug Discovery. 2021 Sep 1;3(3): FDD64.
52. Jangra N, Singla A, Puri V, Dheer D, Chopra H, Malik T, Sharma A. Herbal bioactive-loaded biopolymeric formulations for wound healing applications. RSC advances. 2025;15(16):12402-42.
53. Zuzarte M, Salgueiro L, Canhoto J. Plant tissue culture: industrial relevance and future directions. Plants as Factories for Bioproduction: Recent Developments and Applications. 2024 May 26:1-5.
54. Seyhan SA, Alkaya DB. Applications of Medicinal Plant–Based Nanomaterials in Cancer Treatment.
55. Kumar Padarthi P, Kumar Agarwal M, Sanjeeb Kumar Patro B, Manoj Bhadane S, Javed Naquvi K, Chandra Panda K, KJ M, Ginjupalli M. Chemical Biology of Natural Products Expanding the Drug Discovery Toolbox with Bioactive Molecules. African Journal of Biological Sciences. 2024;6(9):1145-70.
56. Feng Y, Su C, Mao G, Sun B, Cai Y, Dai J, Ma Y. When synthetic biology meets medicine. Life Medicine. 2024 Feb 1;3(1): lnae010.
57. Singh S, Johri P, Trivedi M, Lopez-Sanchez P, editors. Green Biotechnology for Herbal and Medicinal Plant Metabolites. CRC Press; 2025 Jul 30.
58. Choudhary HR, Kumar B D, Kadiri SK, Khobragade DS, Tiwari P. Integrating Biosensors in Phytochemical Research: Challenges and Breakthroughs. Recent Patents on Biotechnology. 2025.
59. Chen XB, Anvari-Yazdi AF, Duan X, Zimmerling A, Gharraei R, Sharma NK, Sweilem S, Ning L. Biomaterials/bioinks and extrusion bioprinting. Bioactive Materials. 2023 Oct 1; 28:511-36.
60. Maharjan S, Yamashita C, Lee CP, Villalobos Zepeda A, Michel Farias AK, Duarte Rivera A, Aguilar Rojas FJ, Rendon Ruiz DS, Martinez Hernandez A, Hernandez Medina DH, Garciamendez-Mijares CE. 3D bioprinting of plant and animal cell-based hybrid food. Nature Communications. 2025 Jul 28;16(1):6935.
61. Wu C, Wang B, Zhang C, Wysk RA, Chen YW. Bioprinting: an assessment based on manufacturing readiness levels. Critical reviews in biotechnology. 2017 Apr 3;37(3):333-54.
62. Catoira MC, González-Payo J, Fusaro L, Ramella M, Boccafoschi F. Natural hydrogels R&D process: Technical and regulatory aspects for industrial implementation. Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine. 2020 Aug;31(8):64.
63. Chawla S, Midha S, Sharma A, Ghosh S. Silk?based bioinks for 3D bioprinting. Advanced healthcare materials. 2018 Apr;7(8):1701204.
64. Ozbolat IT. Bioprinting scale-up tissue and organ constructs for transplantation. Trends in biotechnology. 2015 Jul 1;33(7):395-400.
65. Nilsson O. 3D Bioprinting: Future Challenges and Entrepreneurial Possibilities of a Growing Technology.
66. Levi S, Yen FC, Baruch L, Machluf M. Scaffolding technologies for the engineering of cultured meat: Towards a safe, sustainable, and scalable production. Trends in Food Science & Technology. 2022 Aug 1; 126:13-25.
67. Raees S, Ullah F, Javed F, Akil HM, Khan MJ, Safdar M, Din IU, Alotaibi MA, Alharthi AI, Bakht MA, Ahmad A. Classification, processing, and applications of bioink and 3D bioprinting: A detailed review. International journal of biological macromolecules. 2023 Mar 31; 232:123476.
68. Maharjan S, Yamashita C, Lee CP, Villalobos Zepeda A, Michel Farias AK, Duarte Rivera A, Aguilar Rojas FJ, Rendon Ruiz DS, Martinez Hernandez A, Hernandez Medina DH, Garciamendez-Mijares CE. 3D bioprinting of plant and animal cell-based hybrid food. Nature Communications. 2025 Jul 28;16(1):6935.
69. Varma A, Gemeda HB, McNulty MJ, McDonald KA, Nandi S, Knipe JM. Immobilization of transgenic plant cells towards bioprinting for production of a recombinant biodefense agent. Biotechnology Journal. 2021 Oct;16(10):2100133.
70. Gershlak JR, Hernandez S, Fontana G, Perreault LR, Hansen KJ, Larson SA, Binder BY, Dolivo DM, Yang T, Dominko T, Rolle MW. Crossing kingdoms: Using decellularized plants as perfusable tissue engineering scaffolds. Biomaterials. 2017 May 1; 125:13-22.
71. Wang Y, Wang Z, Yu X, Zhang M, Wang X, Zhou Y, Yao Q, Wu C. 3D-Printing of succulent plant-like scaffolds with beneficial cell microenvironments for bone regeneration. Journal of Materials Chemistry B. 2023;11(24):5523-36.
72. Ozbolat IT. Bioprinting scale-up tissue and organ constructs for transplantation. Trends in biotechnology. 2015 Jul 1;33(7):395-400.
73. Morones-Rami?rez JR. Biocircuitry and Living Programmable Materials: The Next Frontier in Synthetic Living Systems. ACS Materials Letters. 2025 Jul 13; 7:2910-35.
74. Feng Y, Su C, Mao G, Sun B, Cai Y, Dai J, Ma Y. When synthetic biology meets medicine. Life Medicine. 2024 Feb 1;3(1): lnae010.
75. Nafie MS, Abu-Elsaoud AM, Diab MK. A comprehensive review on computational metabolomics: Advancing multiscale analysis through in-silico approaches. Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal. 2025 Jul 13.
76. MINSSEN T, SKENTELBERY C. Emerging Biotechnologies in Europe: Foresight for Policy.
77. Chattopadhyay P, Veer V. Regulatory approval of botanical products including herbal drugs, food, and insecticides for commercialization. InHerbal Insecticides, Repellents and Biomedicines: Effectiveness and Commercialization 2016 Feb 16 (pp. 243-258). New Delhi: Springer India.
78. Adesanya O. Patenting bioprinting: an ethical dilemma in the provision of accessible health technologies (Doctoral dissertation, University of Tasmania).
79. Chung H. Patent Conflicts in User-Driven Biotechnology: Examining Knowledge Management Strategies for Patentable Research Resources to Stimulate DIY Bio and Other Social Production in Biotechnology (Doctoral dissertation, Université d'Ottawa/University of Ottawa).
80. Sharma H, Tyagi SJ, Pathak N, Keshari A, Varshney P, Pathak R. Social, Economic, and Environmental Justifications for 3D Printing of Pharmaceutical Products. InHandbook of 3D Printing in Pharmaceutics 2024 (pp. 179-194). CRC Press.
81. Herdegen M. The international law of biotechnology: human rights, trade, patents, health and the environment. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2023 Jan 20.
82. Schrecker T, Elliott C, Hoffmaster CB, Keyserlingk EW, Somerville MA. Ethical issues associated with the patenting of higher life forms. Industry Canada, Intellectual Property Policy Directorate; 1997 May 17.
83. Ugwu UF. Harnessing the Multilateral Patent and Plant Variety Protection Regimes to Advance Food Security.
84. Choudhary HR, Kumar B D, Kadiri SK, Khobragade DS, Tiwari P. Integrating Biosensors in Phytochemical Research: Challenges and Breakthroughs. Recent Patents on Biotechnology. 2025.
85. Morones-Rami?rez JR. Biocircuitry and Living Programmable Materials: The Next Frontier in Synthetic Living Systems. ACS Materials Letters. 2025 Jul 13; 7:2910-35.
86. Ezeako EC, Nwiloh BI, Odo MC, Ozougwu VE. Harnessing synthetic biology for sustainable industrial innovation: Advances, challenges, and future direction. Biochemical Engineering Journal. 2025 May 8:109777.
87. Grinin L, Grinin A, Korotayev A. Global Aging and Other Demographic Trends Within Cybernetic Production Principle. InCybernetic Revolution and Global Aging: Humankind on the Way to Cybernetic Society, or the Next Hundred Years 2024 May 18 (pp. 229-268). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
88. Varma A, Gemeda HB, McNulty MJ, McDonald KA, Nandi S, Knipe JM. Immobilization of transgenic plant cells towards bioprinting for production of a recombinant biodefense agent. Biotechnology Journal. 2021 Oct;16(10):2100133.
89. Seidel J, Ahlfeld T, Adolph M, Kümmritz S, Steingroewer J, Krujatz F, Bley T, Gelinsky M, Lode A. Green bioprinting: extrusion-based fabrication of plant cell-laden biopolymer hydrogel scaffolds. Biofabrication. 2017 Nov 14;9(4):045011.
90. Wheeler RM. Agriculture for space: people and places paving the way. Open agriculture. 2017 Feb 1;2(1):14-32.