1. Sharma, S., Thind, S. S. & Kaur, A. In vitro meat production system: why and how?J. Food Sci. Technol.52, 7599–7607 (2015).

   PubMed PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

2. Macdiarmid, J. I., Douglas, F. & Campbell, J. Eating like there’s no tomorrow: public awareness of the environmental impact of food and reluctance to eat less meat as part of a sustainable diet.Appetite96, 487–493 (2016).

   PubMed  Google Scholar 

3. Mattick, C. S., Landis, A. E., Allenby, B. R. & Genovese, N. J. Anticipatory life cycle analysis of in vitro biomass cultivation for cultured meat production in the United States.Environ. Sci. Technol.49, 11941–11949 (2015).

   ADS CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

4. Tuomisto, H. L. & de Mattos, M. J. Environmental impacts of cultured meat production.Environ. Sci. Technol.45, 6117–6123 (2011).

   ADS CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

5. Tuomisto, H. L., Ellis, M. J. & Haastrup, P. inLCA Food 2014 (eds Schenck, R. & Huizenga, D.) 1360–1367 (Vashon, 2014).

6. Lynch, J. & Pierrehumbert, R. Climate impacts of cultured meat and beef cattle.Front. Sustain.Food Syst.https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00005 (2019).

   Article  Google Scholar 

7. Schaefer, G. O. & Savulescu, J. The ethics of producing in vitro meat.J. Appl. Philos.31, 188–202 (2014).

   PubMed PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

8. Census of Agriculture (USDA, 2012).

9. Painter, J. A. et al. Attribution of foodborne illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths to food commodities by using outbreak data, United States, 1998–2008.Emerg. Infect. Dis.19, 407–415 (2013).

   PubMed PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

10. Mathew, A. G., Cissell, R. & Liamthong, S. Antibiotic resistance in bacteria associated with food animals: a United States perspective of livestock production.Food.Pathog. Dis.4, 115–133 (2007).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

11. Oliver, S. P., Murinda, S. E. & Jayarao, M. Impact of antibiotic use in adult dairy cows on antimicrobial resistance of veterinary and human pathogens: a comprehensive review.Food. Pathog. Dis.8, 337–355 (2011).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

12. World Livestock 2011: Livestock in Food Security (FAO, 2011).

13. Young, P. The Victorians caused the meat eating crisis the world faces today – but they might help us solve it.The Conversation (21 January 2019).

14. Post, M. J. Cultured beef: medical technology to produce food.J. Sci. Food Agri.94, 1039–1041 (2014).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

15. Williams, L. A., Davis-Dusenbery, B. N. & Eggan, K. C. SnapShot: directed differentiation of pluripotent stem cells.Cell149, 1174 (2012).

    CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

16. Diaz-Flores, L.Jr et al. Adult stem and transit-amplifying cell location.Histol. Histopathol.21, 995–1027 (2006).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

17. Post, M. J. Cultured meat from stem cells: challenges and prospects.Meat Sci.92, 297–301 (2012).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

18. Stephens, N. et al. Bringing cultured meat to market: technical, socio-political, and regulatory challenges in cellular agriculture.Trends Food Sci. Tech.78, 155–166 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

19. Wosczyna, M. N. & Rando, T. A. A Muscle stem cell support group: coordinated cellular responses in muscle regeneration.Development. Cell46, 135–143 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

20. Post, M. J. & van der Weele, C. inPrinciples of Tissue Engineering (eds Lanza, R., Langer, R. & Vacanti, J. P.) 1647–1658 (Elsevier, 2014).

21. Zhu, H. et al. Porcine satellite cells are restricted to a phenotype resembling their muscle origin.J. Anim. Sci.91, 4684–4691 (2013).

    CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

22. Ding, S. et al. Maintaining bovine satellite cells stemness through p38 pathway.Sci. Rep.8, 11 (2018).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

23. Ding, S. et al. Characterization and isolation of highly purified porcine satellite cells.Cell Death Discov.3, 17003 (2017).

    CAS PubMed PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

24. Rouger, K. et al. Progenitor cell isolation from muscle-derived cells based on adhesion properties.J. Histochem. Cytochem.55, 607–618 (2007).

    CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

25. Wilschut, K. J., Jaksani, S., van den Dolder, J., Haagsman, H. P. & Roelen, B. A. J. Isolation and characterization of porcine adult muscle-derived progenitor cells.J. Cell. Biochem.105, 1228–1239 (2008).

    CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

26. Specht, E. A., Welch, D. R., Rees Clayton, E. M. & Lagally, C. D. Opportunities for applying biomedical production and manufacturing methods to the development of the clean meat industry.Biochem. Engineer.J.132, 161–168 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

27. van der Weele, C. & Tramper, J. Cultured meat: every village its own factory?Trends Biotechnol.32, 294–296 (2014).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

28. Hayflick, L. & Moorhead, P. S. The serial cultivation of human diploid cell strains.Exp. Cell Res.25, 36 (1961).

    Google Scholar 

29. Yaffe, D. Retention of differentiation potentialities during prolonged cultivation of myogenic cells.Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA61, 477–483 (1968).

    ADS CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

30. Yaffe, D. & Saxel, O. R. A. Serial passaging and differentiation of myogenic cells isolated from dystrophic mouse muscle.Nature270, 725–727 (1977).

    ADS CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

31. Antin, P. B. & Ordahl, C. P. Isolation and characterization of an avian myogenic cell line.Dev. Biol.143, 111–121 (1991).

    CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

32. Zhu, C.-H. et al. Cellular senescence in human myoblasts is overcome by human telomerase reverse transcriptase and cyclin-dependent kinase 4: consequences in aging muscle and therapeutic strategies for muscular dystrophies.Aging Cell6, 515–523 (2007).

    CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

33. Roberts, R. M., Yuan, Y., Genovese, N. & Ezashi, T. Livestock models for exploiting the promise of pluripotent stem cells.ILAR J.56, 74–82 (2015).

    CAS PubMed PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

34. Takahashi, K. & Yamanaka, S. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors.Cell126, 663–676 (2006).

    CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

35. Bogliotti, Y. S. et al. Efficient derivation of stable primed pluripotent embryonic stem cells from bovine blastocysts.Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA115, 2090–2095 (2018).

    CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

36. Choi, K.-H. et al. Chemically defined media can maintain pig pluripotency network in vitro.Stem Cell Rep.13, 221–234 (2019).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

37. Ezashi, T. et al. Derivation of induced pluripotent stem cells from pig somatic cells.Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA106, 10993–10998 (2009).

    ADS CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

38. Gao, X. et al. Establishment of porcine and human expanded potential stem cells.Nat. Cell Biol.21, 687–699 (2019).

    CAS PubMed PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

39. Pain, B., Kress, C. & Rival-Gervier, S. Pluripotency in avian species.Int. J. Dev. Biol.62, 245–255 (2018).

    CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

40. Chal, J. & Pourquié, O. Making muscle: skeletal myogenesis in vivo and in vitro.Development144, 2104–2122 (2017).

    CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

41. Rao, L., Qian, Y., Khodabukus, A., Ribar, T. & Bursac, N. Engineering human pluripotent stem cells into a functional skeletal muscle tissue.Nat. Commun.9, 126 (2018).

    ADS PubMed PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

42. Genovese, N. J., Domeier, T. L., Telugu, B. P. V. L. & Roberts, R. M. Enhanced development of skeletal myotubes from porcine induced pluripotent stem cells.Sci. Rep.7, 41833 (2017).

    ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

43. Ludwig, T. & Thomson, A. J. Defined, feeder-independent medium for human embryonic stem cell culture.Curr. Protoc. Stem Cell Biol.2, 1C.2.1–1C.2.16 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

44. Ying, Q.-L. et al. The ground state of embryonic stem cell self-renewal.Nature453, 519 (2008).

    ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

45. Chen, G. et al. Chemically defined conditions for human iPSC derivation and culture.Nat. Methods8, 424 (2011).

    CAS PubMed PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

46. Burrell, K. et al. Stirred suspension bioreactor culture of porcine induced pluripotent stem cells.Stem Cells Dev.28, 1264–1275 (2019).

    CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

47. Manstein, F., Halloin, C. & Zweigerdt, R. inCell-Based Assays Using iPSCs for Drug Development and Testing (eds Mandenius, C.-F. & Ross, J. A.) 79–91 (Springer, 2019).

48. Mizukami, A. & Swiech, K. Mesenchymal stromal cells: from discovery to manufacturing and commercialization.Stem Cell. Intl2018, 4083921 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

49. Amable, P. & Butler, M. inAnimal Cell Technology (eds Castilho, L. et al.) 36 (Taylor & Francis, 2008).

50. Altamirano, C., Illanes, A., Becerra, S., Cairo, J. J. & Godia, F. Considerations on the lactate consumption by CHO cells in the presence of galactose.J. Biotechnol.125, 547–556 (2006).

    CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

51. Europa, A. F., Gambhir, A., Fu, P.-C. & Hu, W.-S. Multiple steady states with distinct cellular metabolism in continuous culture of mammalian cells.Biotech. Bioengineer.67, 25–34 (2000).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

52. Bell, S. L. et al. Genetic engineering of hybridoma glutamine metabolism.Enzyme Microbial.Tech.17, 98–106 (1995).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

53. Bell, S. L. et al. inAnimal CellTechnology (eds Spier, R. E., Griffiths, J. B. & MacDonald, C.) 180–182 (Butterworth-Heinemann, 1992).

54. Weidemann, R., Ludwig, A. & Kretzmer, G. Low temperature cultivation — a step towards process optimisation.Cytotechnology15, 111–116 (1994).

    CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

55. Hulland, T. J. inPathology of Domestic Animals 4th edn (eds Jubb, K. V. F., Kennedy, P. C. & Palmer, N.) 183–265 (Academic Press, 1993).

56. Lindholm, A., Johansson, H. E. & Kjaersgaard, P. Acute rhabdomyolysis (“tying-up”) in standardbred horses: a morphological and biochemical study.Acta Vet. Scand.15, 14 (1974).

    Google Scholar 

57. McLean, J. G. Equine paralytic myoglobinuria (“azoturia”): a review.Austr. Vet. J.49, 41–43 (1973).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

58. Goedegebuure, S. A. Spontaneous primary myopathies in domestic mammals: a review.Vet. Quart.9, 16 (1987).

    Google Scholar 

59. Ryan, P. A., Maher, V. M. & McCormick, J. J. Modification of MCDB 110 medium to support prolonged growth and consistent high cloning efficiency of diploid human fibroblasts.Exp. Cell Res.172, 318–328 (1987).

    CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

60. Braga, M., Simmons, Z., Norris, K. C., Ferrini, M. G. & Artaza, J. N. Vitamin D induces myogenic differentiation in skeletal muscle derived stem cells.Endocr. Connect.6, 139–150 (2017).

    CAS PubMed PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

61. van der Valk, J. et al. Optimization of chemically defined cell culture media – replacing fetal bovine serum in mammalianin vitro methods.Toxicol. In Vitro24, 1053–1063 (2010).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

62. Goonoo, N. & Bhaw-Luximon, A. Mimicking growth factors: role of small molecule scaffold additives in promoting tissue regeneration and repair.RSC Adv.9, 22 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

63. Ikeda, M. & Nakagawa, S. TheCorynebacterium glutamicum genome: features and impacts on biotechnological processes.Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol.62, 99–109 (2003).

    CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

64. Vercalsteren, A. & Boonen, K.Life Cycle Assessment Study of Starch Products for the European Starch Industry Association (Starch Europe): Sector Study (European Starch Industry Association, 2015).

65. Kim, S.-K.Marine Proteins and Peptides: Biological Activities and Applications (Wiley Blackwell, 2013).

66. Matassa, S., Verstraete, W., Pikaar, I. & Boon, N. Autotrophic nitrogen assimilation and carbon capture for microbial protein production by a novel enrichment of hydrogen-oxidizing bacteria.Water Res.101, 137–146 (2016).

    CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

67. Nasseri, A. T., Rasoul-Amini, S., Morowvat, M. H. & Ghasemi, Y. Single cell protein: production and process.J. Food Tech.6, 13 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

68. Ramos Tercero, E. A., Sforza, E., Morandini, M. & Bertucco, A. Cultivation ofChlorella protothecoides with urban wastewater in continuous photobioreactor: biomass productivity and nutrient removal.Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol.172, 1470–1485 (2014).

    CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

69. Xu, H., Miao, X. & Wu, Q. High quality biodiesel production from a microalgaChlorella protothecoides by heterotrophic growth in fermenters.J. Biotechnol.126, 499–507 (2006).

    CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

70. Lowrey, J., Armenta, R. E. & Brooks, M. S. Nutrient and media recycling in heterotrophic microalgae cultures.Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol.100, 1061–1075 (2016).

    CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

71. Yang, L. et al. A novel low cost microalgal harvesting technique with coagulant recovery and recycling.Biores. Technol.266, 343–348 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

72. Zhu, C., Zhang, R., Cheng, L. & Chi, Z. A recycling culture ofNeochloris oleoabundans in a bicarbonate-based integrated carbon capture and algae production system with harvesting by auto-flocculation.Biotechnol. Biofuels11, 204 (2018).

    PubMed PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

73. Khodayari, A. & Maranas, C. D. A genome-scaleEscherichia coli kinetic metabolic model k-ecoli457 satisfying flux data for multiple mutant strains.Nat. Commun.7, 13806 (2016).

    ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

74. Mannan, A. A. et al. Integrating kinetic model ofE. coli with genome scale metabolic fluxes overcomes its open system problem and reveals bistability in central metabolism.PLoS ONE10, e0139507 (2015).

    PubMed PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

75. Reed, L. K., Baer, C. F. & Edison, A. S. Considerations when choosing a genetic model organism for metabolomics studies.Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol.36, 7–14 (2017).

    CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

76. Fuhrer, T., Zampieri, M., Sévin, D. C., Sauer, U. & Zamboni, N. Genomewide landscape of gene–metabolome associations inEscherichia coli.Molec.Syst. Biol.13, 907 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

77. Birch, E. W., Udell, M. & Covert, M. W. Incorporation of flexible objectives and time-linked simulation with flux balance analysis.J. Theor. Biol.345, 12–21 (2014).

    PubMed MATH  Google Scholar 

78. Feist, A. M. & Palsson, B. O. What do cells actually want?Genome Biol.17, 110 (2016).

    PubMed PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

79. Parker, G. A. & Smith, J. M. Optimality theory in evolutionary biology.Nature348, 27–33 (1990).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

80. Vijayakumar, S., Conway, M., Lió, P. & Angione, C. inMetabolicNetwork Reconstruction and Modeling: Methods and Protocols (ed. Marco Fondi) 389–408 (Springer, 2018).

81. Zakrzewski, P. et al. MultiMetEval: comparative and multi-objective analysis of genome-scale metabolic models.PLoS ONE7, e51511 (2012).

    ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

82. Heng, B. C. et al. Effect of cell-seeding density on the proliferation and gene expression profile of human umbilical vein endothelial cells within ex vivo culture.Cytotherapy13, 606–617 (2011).

    CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

83. Larson, B. L., Ylostalo, J. & Prockop, D. J. Human multipotent stromal cells undergo sharp transition from division to development in culture.Stem Cells26, 193–201 (2008).

84. Rafiq, Q. A., Brosnan, K. M., Coopman, K., Nienow, A. W. & Hewitt, C. J. Culture of human mesenchymal stem cells on microcarriers in a 5 l stirred-tank bioreactor.Biotechnol. Lett.35, 1233–1245 (2013).

    CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

85. Simaria, A. S. et al. Allogeneic cell therapy bioprocess economics and optimization: single-use cell expansion technologies. Biotechnol.Bioengineer.111, 69–83 (2014).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

86. Stephenson, M. & Grayson, W. Recent advances in bioreactors for cell-based therapies.F1000Res7, 517 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

87. Moritz, M. S. M., Verbruggen, S. E. L. & Post, M. J. Alternatives for large-scale production of cultured beef: a review.J. Intergrat. Agri.14, 208–216 (2015).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

88. Verbruggen, S., Luining, D., van Essen, A. & Post, M. J. Bovine myoblast cell production in a microcarriers-based system.Cytotechnology70, 503–512 (2018).

    CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

89. Lipsitz, Y. Y., Woodford, C., Yin, T., Hanna, J. H. & Zandstra, P. W. Modulating cell state to enhance suspension expansion of human pluripotent stem cells.Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA115, 6369 (2018).

    ADS CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

90. Fok, E. Y. & Zandstra, P. W. Shear-controlled single-step mouse embryonic stem cell expansion and embryoid body-based differentiation.Stem Cells23, 1333–1342 (2005).

    CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

91. Abbasalizadeh, S., Larijani, M. R., Samadian, A. & Baharvand, H. Bioprocess development for mass production of size-controlled human pluripotent stem cell aggregates in stirred suspension bioreactor.Tissue Engineer.Part C: Methods18, 831–851 (2012).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

92. Chen, V. C. et al. Scalable GMP compliant suspension culture system for human ES cells.Stem Cell Res.8, 388–402 (2012).

    CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

93. Tsai, A.-C., Liu, Y., Yuan, X., Chella, R. & Ma, T. Aggregation kinetics of human mesenchymal stem cells under wave motion.Biotechnol. J.12, 1600448 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

94. Aguanno, S. et al. A three-dimensional culture model of reversibly quiescent myogenic cells.Stem Cells Intl2019, 7548160 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

95. Schnitzler, A. C. et al. Bioprocessing of human mesenchymal stem/stromal cells for therapeutic use: current technologies and challenges.Biochem. Engineer.J.108, 3–13 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

96. Schönherr, O. T. inAdvanced Research on Animal Cell Technology (ed Milleri, A. O. A.) 107–117 (Springer, 1989).

97. Meyer, H.-P., Minas, W. & Schmidhalter, D.Industrial Biotechnology (Wiley‐VCH, 2016).

98. Wung, N., Acott, S. M., Tosh, D. & Ellis, M. J. Hollow fibre membrane bioreactors for tissue engineering applications.Biotechnol. Lett.36, 2357–2366 (2014).

    CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

99. Warnock, J. N., Bratch, K. & Al-Rubeai, M. inBioreactors for Tissue Engineering: Principles,Design and Operation (eds Chaudhuri, J. & Al-Rubeai, M.) 87–113 (Springer, 2005).

100. Morrow, D., Ussi, A. & Migliaccio, G. Addressing pressing needs in the development of advanced therapies.Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.5, 55 (2017).

     PubMed PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

101. Moutsatsou, P., Ochs, J., Schmitt, R. H., Hewitt, C. J. & Hanga, M. P. Automation in cell and gene therapy manufacturing: from past to future.Biotechnol. Lett.41, 1245–1253 (2019).

     CAS PubMed PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

102. Aamodt, J. M. & Grainger, D. W. Extracellular matrix-based biomaterial scaffolds and the host response.Biomaterials86, 68–82 (2016).

     CAS PubMed PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

103. Garg, T. & Goyal, A. K. Biomaterial-based scaffolds – current status and future directions.Expert Opin. Drug Deliv.11, 767–789 (2014).

     CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

104. Karageorgiou, V. & Kaplan, D. Porosity of 3D biomaterial scaffolds and osteogenesis.Biomaterials26, 5474–5491 (2005).

     CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

105. O’Brien, J. A. et al. Long-term histologic and mechanical results of a Permacol abdominal wall explant.Hernia15, 211–215 (2011).

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

106. Owen, S. C. & Shoichet, M. S. Design of three-dimensional biomimetic scaffolds.J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A94, 1321–1331 (2010).

     Google Scholar 

107. Cunha, A. G. & Gandini, A. Turning polysaccharides into hydrophobic materials: a critical review. Part 2: hemicelluloses, chitin/chitosan, starch, pectin and alginates.Cellulose17, 1045–1065 (2010).

     CAS  Google Scholar 

108. Ben-Arye, T. et al. Textured soy protein scaffolds enable the generation of three-dimensional bovine skeletal muscle tissue for cell-based meat.Nat. Food1, 210–220 (2020).

     Google Scholar 

109. Bugnicourt, E., Cinelli, P., Lazzeri, A. & Alvarez, V. A. Polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA): review of synthesis, characteristics, processing and potential applications in packaging.eXPRESS Polymer Lett.8, 17 (2014).

     Google Scholar 

110. Modulevsky, D. J., Lefebvre, C., Haase, K., Al-Rekabi, Z. & Pelling, A. E. Apple derived cellulose scaffolds for 3D mammalian cell culture.PLoS ONE9, e97835 (2014).

     ADS PubMed PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

111. Woodard, L. N. & Grunlan, M. A. Hydrolytic degradation and erosion of polyester biomaterials.ACS Macro Lett.7, 976–982 (2018).

     CAS PubMed PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

112. de Boer, A. & Bast, A. Demanding safe foods – safety testing under the novel food regulation (2015/2283).Trends Food. Sci. Tech.72, 125–133 (2018).

     Google Scholar 

113. Ben-Arye, T. & Levenberg, S. Tissue engineering for clean meat production.Front. Sustain. Food Syst.https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00046 (2019).

     Article  Google Scholar 

114. Koffler, J. et al. Improved vascular organization enhances functional integration of engineered skeletal muscle grafts.Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA108, 14789–14794 (2011).

     ADS CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

115. Perry, L., Flugelman, M. Y. & Levenberg, S. Elderly patient-derived endothelial cells for vascularization of engineered muscle.Molec. Ther.25, 935–948 (2017).

     CAS  Google Scholar 

116. Shandalov, Y. et al. An engineered muscle flap for reconstruction of large soft tissue defects.Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA111, 6010–6015 (2014).

     ADS CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

117. Christov, C. et al. Muscle satellite cells and endothelial cells: close neighbors and privileged partners.Molec. Biol. Cell18, 1397–1409 (2007).

     CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

118. Guo, B. et al. Transcriptome analysis of cattle muscle identifies potential markers for skeletal muscle growth rate and major cell types.BMC Genomics16, 177 (2015).

     PubMed PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

119. Cao, Y. Angiogenesis modulates adipogenesis and obesity.J. Clin. Invest.117, 2362–2368 (2007).

     CAS PubMed PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

120. Cao, Y. Angiogenesis and vascular functions in modulation of obesity, adipose metabolism, and insulin sensitivity.Cell Metab.18, 478–489 (2013).

     CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

121. Du, M., Wang, B., Fu, X., Yang, Q. & Zhu, M. J. Fetal programming in meat production.Meat Sci.109, 40–47 (2015).

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

122. Varzaneh, F. E., Shillabeer, G., Wong, K. L. & Lau, D. C. W. Extracellular matrix components secreted by microvascular endothelial cells stimulate preadipocyte differentiation in vitro.Metabolism43, 906–912 (1994).

     CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

123. Pullens, R. A., Stekelenburg, M., Baaijens, F. P. & Post, M. J. The influence of endothelial cells on the ECM composition of 3D engineered cardiovascular constructs.J. Tissue Engineer.Regen. Med.3, 11–18 (2009).

     CAS  Google Scholar 

124. Levy-Mishali, M., Zoldan, J. & Levenberg, S. Effect of scaffold stiffness on myoblast differentiation.Tissue Eng. Part A15, 935–944 (2009).

     CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

125. Comley, K. & Fleck, N. A. The toughness of adipose tissue: measurements and physical basis.J. Biomech.43, 1823–1826 (2010).

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

126. Swift, J. et al. Nuclear lamin-A scales with tissue stiffness and enhances matrix-directed differentiation.Science341, 1240104 (2013).

     PubMed PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

127. Boonen, K. J. et al. Effects of a combined mechanical stimulation protocol: value for skeletal muscle tissue engineering.J. Biomech.43, 1514–1521 (2010).

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

128. Powell, C. A., Smiley, B. L., Mills, J. & Vandenburgh, H. H. Mechanical stimulation improves tissue-engineered human skeletal muscle.Am. J. Physiol.283, 1557–1565 (2002).

     Google Scholar 

129. Suman, S. P. & Joseph, P. Myoglobin chemistry and meat color.Annu. Rev. Food Sci. Technol.4, 79–99 (2013).

     CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

130. Post, M. J., Rahimi, N. & Caolo, V. Update on vascularization in tissue engineering.Regen. Med.8, 759–770 (2013).

     CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

131. Rouwkema, J., Rivron, N. C. & van Blitterswijk, C. A. Vascularization in tissue engineering.Trends Biotechnol.26, 434–441 (2008).

     CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

132. Grigoryan, B. et al. Multivascular networks and functional intravascular topologies within biocompatible hydrogels.Science364, 458–464 (2019).

     ADS CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

133. Formal Agreement Between the US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration and US Department of Agriculture Office of Food Safety (USDA, 2019).

134. Gottlieb, S. Statement from USDA Secretary Perdue and FDA Commissioner Gottlieb on the regulation of cell-cultured food products from cell lines of livestock and poultry.FDAhttps://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/statement-usda-secretary-perdue-and-fda-commissioner-gottlieb-regulation-cell-cultured-food-products (2018).

135. Remarks Prepared for Delivery by Rosalyn Murphy-Jenkins, Director Labeling and Program Delivery Staff Office of Policy and Program Development USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service at the FDA Public Meeting for Horizontal Approaches to Food Standards of Identity Modernization September 27, 2019 (USDA, 2019).

136. Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the Council (European Commission, 2015).

137. Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the Deliberate Release into the Environment of Genetically Modified Organisms and Repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (European Commission, 2001).

138. Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on Genetically Modified Food and Feed (European Commission, 2013).

139. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2470 of 20 December 2017 Establishing the Union List of Novel Foods in Accordance with Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Novel Foods (European Commission, 2015).

140. Regulation (EU) 2019/1381 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on the Transparency and Sustainability of the EU Risk Assessment in the Food Chain (European Commission, 2019).

141. EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies et al. Guidance on the preparation and presentation of an application for authorisation of a novel food in the context of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283.EFSA J.https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4594 (2016).

142. European Food Safety Authority. Administrative guidance on the submission of applications for authorisation of a novel food pursuant to Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283.EFSA Support. Publ.https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2018.EN-1381 (2018).

143. Bryant, C. & Barnett, J. Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: a systematic review.Meat Sci.143, 8–17 (2018).

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

144. Bryant, C. & Dillard, C. The impact of framing on acceptance of cultured meat.Front. Nutr.6, 103 (2019).

     PubMed PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

145. Dutch People Wouldn’t Mind Trying the “Cultivated Burger” (Flycatcher, 2017);http://www.flycatcherpanel.nl/news/item/nwsA1697/media/images/Resultaten_onderzoek_kweekvlees.pdf

146. Wilks, M. & Phillips, C. J. Attitudes to in vitro meat: a survey of potential consumers in the United States.PLoS ONE12, e0171904 (2017).

     PubMed PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

147. Smith, A. U.S. views of technology and the future: science in the next 50 years.Pew Research Center (17 April 2014).

148. Tatum, M. Meat the future… and how to market it.The Grocer (6 January 2017).

149. Bekker, G. A., Fischer, A. R. H., Tobi, H. & van Trijp, H. C. M. Explicit and implicit attitude toward an emerging food technology: the case of cultured meat.Appetite108, 245–254 (2017).

150. Siegrist, M., Sütterlin, B. & Hartmann, C. Perceived naturalness and evoked disgust influence acceptance of cultured meat.Meat Sci.139, 213–219 (2018).

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

151. Slade, P. If you build it, will they eat it? Consumer preferences for plant-based and cultured meat burgers.Appetite125, 428–437 (2018).

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

152. Bryant, C., Szejda, K., Parekh, N., Desphande, V. & Tse, B. A Survey of consumer perceptions of plant-based and clean meat in the USA, India, and China.Front. Sustain.Food Syst.3, 11 (2019).

     Google Scholar 

153. Wilks, M., Phillips, C. J. C., Fielding, K. & Hornsey, M. J. Testing potential psychological predictors of attitudes towards cultured meat.Appetite136, 137–145 (2019).

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

154. Tucker, C. A. The significance of sensory appeal for reduced meat consumption.Appetite81, 168–179 (2014).

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

155. Verbeke, W., Sans, P. & Van Loo, E. J. Challenges and prospects for consumer acceptance of cultured meat.J. Integrat. Agri.14, 285–294 (2015).

     Google Scholar 

156. Goodwin, J. N. & Shoulders, C. W. The future of meat: a qualitative analysis of cultured meat media coverage.Meat Sci.95, 445–450 (2013).

     CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

157. McCrae, R. R. et al. Age differences in personality across the adult life span: parallels in five cultures.Dev. Psychol.35, 466–477 (1999).

     CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

158. Lea, E. & Worsley, A. Benefits and barriers to the consumption of a vegetarian diet in Australia.Public Health Nutr.6, 505–511 (2003).

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

159. Fessler, D. M. T., Arguello, A. P., Mekdara, J. M. & Macias, R. Disgust sensitivity and meat consumption: a test of an emotivist account of moral vegetarianism.Appetite41, 31–41 (2003).

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

160. Rozin, P., Markwith, M. & Stoess, C. Moralization and becoming a vegetarian: the transformation of preferences into values and the recruitment of disgust.Psychol. Sci.8, 67–73 (1997).

     Google Scholar 

161. Social Values, Science and Technology (European Commission, 2005).

162. Nearly One in Three Consumers Willing to Eat Lab-Grown Meat, According to New Research (Surveygoo, 2018);https://www.datasmoothie.com/@surveygoo/nearly-one-in-three-consumers-willing-to-eat-lab-g/

163. Marcu, A. et al. Analogies, metaphors, and wondering about the future: lay sense-making around synthetic meat.Public Understand. Sci.24, 547–562 (2015).

     Google Scholar 

164. Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 Laying Down Specific Hygiene Rules for Food of Animal Origin (European Commission, 2004).

165. Warenwetbesluit Hygiëne van Levensmiddelen (Overheid, 2019);https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0018823/2016-02-19

166. Warenwetbesluit Bereiding en Behandeling van Levensmiddelen (Overheid, 2019);https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005758/2016-10-06

167. Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council (European Commission, 2017).

168. Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council (European Commission, 2002).

169. Would You Eat Artificial Meat? (YouGov, 2012);https://yougov.co.uk/topics/consumer/articles-reports/2012/03/12/would-you-eat-artifical-meat

Download references