Researchers Develop Promising Cultivated Meat Prototype Using Decellularised Asparagus Scaffold

Researchers from Singapore have successfully developed a promising cultivated meat prototype by co-culturing porcine muscle and fat cells in a decellularised asparagus scaffold.

The prototype development was part of a study aiming to expand the use of decellularized plant scaffolds beyond regenerative medicine, specifically for cultivated meat production. According to the researchers, this prototype closely mimics conventional meat in texture and flavor and could pave the way for large-scale cultivated meat biomanufacturing.

“Structured CM product scalability relies on four key elements: cells, medium, scaffold, and bioprocessing”

Plant-based edible scaffolds offer essential physical and biological support for tissue development, enabling more complex cultivated meat products with structure and volume. Still, the plant cells of these scaffolds need to be removed in a lengthy process called decellularisation to preserve only the microstructure that mimics the extracellular matrix (the natural structure of animal tissue).

The scientists say decellularisation enables scaffold functionality and enhances muscle cell alignment, cell adhesion, and proliferation, resulting in cultivated products that more closely resemble traditional cuts. In addition, decellularized scaffold biomaterials provide higher biocompatibility, biodegradation, biological safety, and various bioactivities, an advantage over synthetic scaffold materials.

Asparagus scaffolds

The scientists utilized a decision matrix to select suitable plant and fungi materials for decellularisation, focusing on edibility, digestibility, and cell alignment features.

Asparagus was chosen for its unique vascular bundle arrangement, which provides the rigidity and cell alignment required for muscle and fat cell growth.

The researchers made two prototypes combining cells and the decellularised asparagus scaffold. One used a C2C12 mouse myoblast cell line (ATCC) as a model to assess the DPS’s efficacy in supporting cell proliferation and muscle differentiation, given its prevalent use in muscle studies and established reliability.

The other was a cultivated red meat prototype featuring porcine adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (pADMSCs) following previous research that has shown the viability of various cell types on decellularised asparagus scaffolds.

Critical for scaling

According to the authors, the results show the potential for sustained growth and differentiation of primary pADMSCs on decellularised asparagus scaffolds. The cells could attach and align efficiently by cutting asparagus stems longitudinally to create scaffolds with specific and porous structures that allow for nutrient and oxygen flow, which is crucial for muscle tissue growth. Moreover, the study found minimal cytotoxic effects, which could keep these cells alive and healthy for a long time.

The researchers also tested the cultivated meat prototype under dry and moist conditions to see how it would perform in a commercial setting. They experimented with different sizes and structures to ensure the meat would look and feel like traditional meat, making it easier to produce on a larger scale.

Viability and scalability

However, further investigation is needed to determine the potential for media perfusion (continuous flow) in scale up production. The decellularised asparagus scaffold demonstrated consistent structural integrity and mechanical support for myotube formation, unlike previous studies using textured soy protein scaffolds, which showed degradation and decreased strength.

“Structured CM product scalability relies on four key elements: cells, medium, scaffold, and bioprocessing. The scaffold is critical for scaling up CM production by providing a platform for cultured cells to grow. Macro-porous scaffolds support cellular proliferation and offer essential mechanical support. There is therefore a need to develop unique macro-porous scaffolds that may resemble meat in terms of texture, flavour, and nutritional value,” the authors state.

The research received support from Singapore’s National Research Foundation and the Agency for Science, Technology, and Research (A*STAR) under the Singapore Food Story R&D Programme. It has been published in the journal Science of Food.

Source: Vegconomist

 

 

 

 

Scientists Use Blue-green Algae As a Surrogate Mother for “Meat-like” Proteins

We all know that we ought to eat less meat and cheese and dig into more plant-based foods. But whilst perusing the supermarket cold display and having to choose between animal-based foods and more climate-friendly alternative proteins, our voices of reason don’t always win. And even though flavour has been mastered in many plant-based products, textures with the ‘right’ mouthfeel have often been lacking.

Furthermore, some plant-based protein alternatives are not as sustainable anyway, due to the resources consumed by their processing.

But what if it was possible to make sustainable, protein-rich foods that also have the right texture? New research from the University of Copenhagen is fueling that vision. The key? Blue-green algae. Not the infamous type known for being a poisonous broth in the sea come summertime, but non-toxic ones.

“Cyanobacteria, also known as blue-green algae, are living organisms that we have been able to get to produce a protein that they don’t naturally produce. The particularly exciting thing here is that the protein is formed in fibrous strands which somewhat resemble meat fibers. And, it might be possible to use these fibres in plant-based meat, cheese or some other new type of food for which we are after a particular texture,” says Professor Poul Erik Jensen of the Department of Food Science.

In a new study, Jensen and fellow researchers from the University of Copenhagen, among other institutions, have shown that cyanobacteria can serve as host organisms for the new protein by inserting foreign genes into a cyanobacterium. Within the cyanobacterium, the protein organizes itself as tiny threads or nanofibers.

Minimal processing – maximum sustainability

Scientists around the world have zoomed in on cyanobacteria and other microalgae as potential alternative foods. In part because, like plants, they grow by means of photosynthesis, and partly because they themselves contain both a large amount of protein and healthy polyunsaturated fatty acids.

“I’m a humble guy from the country side who rarely throws his arms into the air, but being able to manipulate a living organism to produce a new kind of protein which organizes itself into threads is rarely seen to this extent – and it is very promising. Also, because it is an organism that can easily be grown sustainably, as it survives on water, atmospheric CO2 and solar rays. This result gives cyanobacteria even greater potential as a sustainable ingredient,” says an enthusiastic Poul Erik Jensen, who heads a research group specializing in plant-based food and plant biochemistry.

Many researchers around the world are working to develop protein-rich texture enhancers for plant-based foods – e.g., in the form of peas and soybeans. However, these require a significant amount of processing, as the seeds need to be ground up and the protein extracted from them, so as to achieve high enough protein concentrations.

“If we can utilize the entire cyanobacterium in foodstuffs, and not just the protein fibers, it will minimize the amount of processing needed. In food research, we seek to avoid too much processing as it compromises the nutritional value of an ingredient and also uses an awful lot of energy,” says Jensen.

Tomorrow’s cattle

The professor emphasizes that it will be quite some time before the production of protein strands from cyanobacteria begins. First, the researchers need to figure out how to optimize the cyanobacteria’s production of protein fibers. But Jensen is optimistic:

“We need to refine these organisms to produce more protein fibres, and in doing so, ‘hijack’ the cyanobacteria to work for us. It’s a bit like dairy cows, which we’ve hijacked to produce an insane amount of milk for us. Except here, we avoid any ethical considerations regarding animal welfare. We won’t reach our goal tomorrow because of a few metabolic challenges in the organism that we must learn to tackle. But we’re already in the process and I am certain that we can succeed,” says Poul Erik Jensen, adding:

“If so, this is the ultimate way to make protein.”

Cyanobacteria such as spirulina are already grown industrially in several countries – mostly for health foods. Production typically occurs in so-called raceway ponds beneath the open sky or in photobioreactors chambers, where the organisms grow in glass tubes.

According to Jensen, Denmark is an obvious place to establish “microalgae factories” to produce processed cyanobacteria. The country has biotech companies with the right skills and an efficient agricultural sector.

“Danish agriculture could, in principle, produce cyanobacteria and other microalgae, just as they produce dairy products today. It would be possible to harvest, or milk, a proportion of the cells as fresh biomass on a daily basis. By concentrating cyanobacteria cells, you get something that looks like a pesto, but with protein strands. And with minimal processing, it could be incorporated directly into a food.”

Source: UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN

 

 

 

 

Cultivated Meat

See large image . . . . . .

Densie Webb wrote . . . . . . . . .

Ready or not, meat grown from animal cells is here—well, almost.

Meat production that doesn’t involve the use of land to raise and feed animals and sidesteps the slaughterhouse has been talked about as something to look forward to in the distant future. But, it’s already here—at least on an extremely small scale.

Earlier this year, the FDA and USDA jointly granted their first-ever approval for chicken derived from animal cell cultures from two companies, GOOD Meat and Upside Foods (formerly known as Memphis Meats).

A 2023 report by the Food Marketing Institute and the Foundation for Meat & Poultry Education & Research found that 78% of the US population are meat eaters.1 Any change in the way meat is produced and consumed could have huge ripple effects on people’s diets, the environment, and any number of meat-producing industries, from farmers to processing plants. What isn’t yet known is how to weigh the potential benefits vs the potential risks of this new way to grow meat. Here’s where the industry’s prospects stand right now and what it may mean for the diets of Americans and the animal-grown meat industry.

What Is Meat Derived From Animal-Cell Cultures?

Sometimes referred to as “lab-grown meat,” “cultivated meat,” “in vitro meat,” or “cultured meat” (consistent terminology is still under discussion, even whether “meat” can legally be used as part of the name), cell-based chicken—the only meat that currently has full approval—starts with cells from a fertilized egg.2 Once the embryonic fibroblast cells are obtained, they’re grown in a nutrient-rich medium for two or three weeks. When the multiplied cells begin to stick together, creating meat, it’s harvested from a cell culture tank (known as a bioreactor) and texturized by mixing, heating, or extruding into a meatlike shape. In this case, most likely a nugget or a cutlet. Cells also can come from a cell bank or from fresh meat. USDA approval is based on the use of a specific cell line. Any changes in the type of cells used require a separate approval process. Some companies are focusing on culturing fat cells with the intention of adding 5% of these cells to their products to give them more of the texture and flavor of conventionally produced meat.2

On a recent show on NPR, Josh Tetrick, cofounder and CEO of GOOD Meat, and Uma Valeti, CEO of Upside Foods, spoke extensively about the current state of cultivated meat and the long process of researching and submission to the FDA and USDA for approval, which has taken the companies at least seven years to achieve.

Safety of Cultivated Meats

The FDA and the Food Safety Inspection Service of the USDA jointly oversee the production of cultivated meat and poultry food products and share the information necessary to carry out their respective oversight responsibilities.3 Cultivated meat and poultry food products are subject to the same Food Safety Inspection Service regulatory requirements and oversight authority as meat and poultry food products derived from the slaughter of animals. The oversight process begins with the FDA and then moves to the USDA.

For both companies, early research started about seven years ago, and GOOD Meat was the first company in the world to get approval in another country and start providing its cultivated chicken in Singapore in late 2020.

“The process for making beef, which we are working on, or pork, or any other type of meat, is essentially the same as it is for chicken,” Tetrick says. “Beef is a bit more complicated to perfect because of the richness of flavor and textures, the ratio of fat to muscle, etc. So, we don’t have an exact timeframe for launching our beef product, but we’re making progress.”

While cultivated meat often is presented as a possible solution to feeding a growing population, which is expected to double the demand for meat products by 2050, there’s disagreement on whether it’s logistically and financially feasible on a large scale.4,5 Cultivated meat currently is being produced in extremely small quantities.

Environmental Impact

On NPR, Tetrick emphasized that about one-third of the planet today is used to feed the animals consumed. A recent assessment of cultivated meat’s potential benefit on the environment concluded that cultivated meat has the potential to have a lower environmental impact than conventional meat for most environmental indicators, especially agricultural land use, air pollution, and nitrogen-related emissions.6

While cultivated meats may not be for everyone, Liz Specht, senior vice president of science and technology at the Good Food Institute, says that today, animal agriculture causes about 20% of all global greenhouse emissions. “That’s equivalent to all the planes, trucks, and ships on earth.” She says that if only 50% of meat eaters switched to cultivated meat, the benefit to the environment would be huge.

Valeti says that while it takes only about two weeks to produce cultivated meat, it takes 21/2 months to raise a chicken, nine months to raise a pig, and two years for a cow, so all that time that the animals are producing methane and carbon dioxide is eliminated. Less input for the animals means less environmental impact from raising livestock. However, Tetrick says, “We won’t have the environmental data we want until we’re producing millions of pounds of meat.” Still, he says his company fully expects it to be significantly better from a land, water, and carbon emissions perspective.

Availability, Acceptance, and Cost

While GOOD Meat’s chicken was first introduced in Singapore in 2020, to date, the cultivated chicken is available in the United States at only two restaurants: Bar Crenn in San Francisco and China Chilcano in Washington, D.C.; GOOD Meat and Upside Foods have no immediate plans to expand beyond that anytime soon. The chicken products come to the restaurants precooked, and dishes are prepared in the kitchens. The two companies, which provide the chicken to the restaurants, say that while they’re not making a profit right now, they just want the two upscale restaurants to serve as an introduction to cultivated meat.

On NPR, the topic of cultivated meats prompted listeners to call in and give their opinions on the concept. The callers’ opinions ranged from “can’t wait” to “repugnant.” Washington, D.C., vegetarian chef Rob Rubba said on the show that he felt that cultured meat detaches us from our food sources in the natural world. However, others emphasized that there’s nothing natural about the way chickens are raised and slaughtered today.

Although cultured meat is sometimes referred to as “lab meat,” both CEOs say the term is inaccurate and has a negative connotation. Valeti says, “It’s not made in labs at all. It’s made in clean production facilities that are a far cry from a slaughterhouse.”

Tetrick added, “The USDA does not inspect and issue grants of inspection to ‘labs.’ Our meat is made in a USDA-approved food manufacturing facility similar to many other facilities that make various types of food.”

Even though the meat is made in a food manufacturing facility, it will take time for production to scale up because of high production costs and regulatory hurdles. Even if mass production of cultivated meat becomes feasible and affordable, there’s still the question of whether consumers will accept it. An online survey, published in PLOS One in 2017, found that while most respondents were willing to try cultivated meat, only one-third were definitely or probably willing to eat it regularly or as a replacement for conventionally produced meat.7 A review of the international literature found that most people surveyed were at least willing to give cultivated meat a try.8 Tetrick and Valeti’s companies currently producing cultivated chicken recognize that they may have a long way to go to reach widespread acceptance.

Tetrick says he’s a vegan because he wants to avoid harming animals. “But I do eat our chicken because it doesn’t involve causing harm to an animal.” Cultivated meat may provide an option for people who are vegan or vegetarian because of the same concerns for animal welfare.

There’s some disagreement on whether cultivated meat can be kosher or halal, since it doesn’t involve animal slaughter. As of this writing, both GOOD Meat and Upside Foods cultivated chicken starts from stem cells obtained from a fertilized chicken egg. However, it could come from cells from a recently slaughtered animal, which raises another set of questions, since both halal and kosher certification depends on how an animal is slaughtered. However, Aleph Farms in Israel has received kosher approval from the chief rabbi for a cultivated thin-cut beef steak.9

As mentioned, however, there’s the question of cost, which neither company is talking specifics right now and which isn’t known for large-scale production of cultured meat. Tetrick says the current costs are “many, many times higher than the conventional cost of chicken, beef, and pork.” But Tetrick is anticipating that when production is scaled up, costs will drop dramatically. He’s hoping to produce tens of millions of pounds of cultivated meat by the end of the decade. Still, he says there are some significant technical and engineering hurdles inherent in large-scale production of cultivated meat that his company is working to overcome.

Valeti predicts Upside Foods will get to large-scale production in five to 15 years. He says eventually the company will beat conventional pricing, but initially it will be priced above organic. The company, he says, is currently making only a few hundred pounds of meat—compare that with the current 750 billion pounds of meat being produced in the world right now.

Nutrition

The current nutrition profile of GOOD Meat’s chicken is similar to conventional chicken. “Because we are able to control the entire process from cell line selection to scale-up, we will be able to optimize the composition and nutrition profile for future versions of whatever we manufacture,” Tetrick says, adding that the chicken contains essential amino acids, is high in B vitamins, and is produced in an antibiotic-free environment, unlike most chicken on the market.

While a direct comparison isn’t possible, because the cells used to make cultivated chicken come from the embryo, not a particular part of a chicken, the table on page 36 shows a comparison of conventional chicken breast and thigh vs GOOD Meat cultivated chicken. Their nutrient profile is somewhat similar, but the biggest difference is in the sodium content, which is comparable to rotisserie chicken. The cultivated chicken also contains a few grams of carbohydrates and fiber, which conventionally grown chicken does not. The differences are due to plant-based ingredients that are added once the cells have been harvested to help with texture and structure.

Bottom Line

The consensus of the experts who spoke on NPR was that it’s hard to predict where the market for cultivated meat will go or how long it will take to get there. “We’re just getting started,” Valeti says. “This is the starting bell for Upside as well as GOOD Meat.”

Clearly, GOOD Meat’s Tetrick and Upside Foods’ Valeti are optimistic, because they’re currently investing in research, development, and promotion with no return on their investment. There are hundreds of companies currently interested in developing cultivated meat for the consumer market. But it’s a good-news/bad-news scenario. If cultured meats become readily available in supermarkets and restaurants, and consumers accept it as an everyday choice, it could be good for the environment, but bad for ranchers who raise animals and bad for the farmers who produce the food the animals consume. Ranchers, farmers, and consumers will have to wait and see how that balance of good vs bad works out in the future.

Source : Today’s Dietitian

China’s Jimi Biotech Develops “World’s First” Deer Antler Stem Cell Line

Chinese cellular agriculture company Jimi Biotech has developed what it claims is the first ever deer antler stem cell line. So far, the line has undergone over 60 passages, with a doubling time of under 24 hours.

Deer antlers are widely used in China for dietary and medicinal purposes, and the market exceeds 3 billion RMB (about $412 million). They have been extensively studied for their ability to completely regenerate under natural conditions, with some researchers believing they could have anti-aging properties. The stem cells, which make up less than 1% of the antler structure, play a key role in this ability.

The cells used by Jimi Biotech were derived from the tip of the first two-bar antler of a three-year-old Sika deer. Prime-aged deer are said to have the best-quality antlers, while regeneration is believed to be strongest at the tips.

Jimi Biotech is expected to submit a regulatory approval filing for its first cultivated deer antler products in 2024.

Source: Vegconomist

 

 

 

 

The Brain Science Behind Anxiety

The seat of worry is the amygdala, an almond-shaped structure beside the hippocampus that is associated with emotional responses such as fear and anxiety. “It’s the heart and soul of the [nervous] system—it detects a dangerous situation and causes you to react,” says Joseph LeDoux, PhD, an endowed professor of science at NYU, who has spent most of his career studying anxiety and the brain.

Two areas of the amygdala generate reactions. The lateral nucleus processes the sensory information associated with anxiety—hearing a strange sound, say, or not being able to see clearly—and the central nucleus (upon being activated by the stimulus) sends a signal to the motor system to “freeze.” It also triggers the release of stress hormones, affecting the autonomic nervous system, which regulates breathing, heart rate, and blood pressure. The result of all this activity is to feel anxious, says Dr. LeDoux, who is also director of the Emotional Brain Institute at NYU.

Some people get stuck in “freeze” mode, so anytime they encounter the same stimulus, they panic. “We saw that in animal studies. Most rats, when given an electric shock, react by moving elsewhere,” he says. “But some rats just took the shock over and over. They were frozen, or stuck.” Dr. LeDoux was ultimately able to alter the animals’ reaction by removing a part of their central nuclei.

Anti-anxiety drugs, says Dr. LeDoux, are a Band-Aid solution. “Drugs make people less responsive, which doesn’t really solve the problem,” he says. He compares it to dining at a restaurant where the music is too loud. “Medications can make you less reactive to the volume, but they won’t change the fact that it’s just too noisy.”

A better way to treat anxiety might be to reduce the overall state of arousal in the amygdala and the resulting behavioral reactions, says Dr. LeDoux. “One method for doing this is to flash a light in a person’s eye so fast they don’t even realize it’s there,” he explains. “This stimulus goes into the amygdala and activates it unconsciously. If you repeat it over and over, you train the amygdala to not react in the same way.”

Several studies have been conducted on the association between light and the amygdala, including one published in Frontiers in Psychology in 2021 that found the flash technique to be effective in reducing the vividness of and emotional reaction to disturbing memories. If the reaction of the amygdala can be tweaked, Dr. LeDoux says, people may be able to take the first steps toward conquering anxiety.

Source : Brain&Life