Exploring ethical, sustainable and effective foetal bovine serum alternatives for <i>in vitro</i> mammalian cell culture
Meng H., Day PJR.
Narrative Review, published in Front Toxicol (2026) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Narrative Review
- Journal
- Front Toxicol (2026)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 41878012
- PMCID
- PMC13008496
- DOI
- 10.3389/ftox.2026.1776815
- Citations
- 1
Abstract (original English)
Foetal bovine serum (FBS) has been widely used as a nutrient-rich supplement in mammalian cell culture for over 6 decades; however, its usage has increasingly raised various concerns and challenges related to quality variations, unethical collection practices, supply-demand imbalance and regulatory challenges. In recent years, alternatives have been investigated to reduce or replace FBS in mammalian cell culture. Starting from a comprehensive analysis of components of FBS and their functions in cell growth, this review compares the main types of FBS alternatives, i.e., human and animal-derived, plant-based alternatives and serum free media. Future perspectives discussed include the development of application-specific FBS alternatives, improvements in the quality and specialized formulation of FBS, optimization of existing alternatives and the establishment of databases and incentive mechanisms to facilitate the transition away from FBS. Lastly, the guidance for selecting appropriate FBS alternatives is also discussed.
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.
Evidence level
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.