Repurposing biomedical muscle tissue engineering for cellular agriculture: challenges and opportunities
Samandari M., Saeedinejad F., Quint J., Chuah SXY., Farzad R., Tamayol A.
Narrative Review, published in Trends Biotechnol (2023) — 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
- Trends Biotechnol (2023)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 36914431
- PMCID
- PMC11412388
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.tibtech.2023.02.002
- Citations
- 18
Abstract (original English)
Cellular agriculture is an emerging field rooted in engineering meat-mimicking cell-laden structures using tissue engineering practices that have been developed for biomedical applications, including regenerative medicine. Research and industrial efforts are focused on reducing the cost and improving the throughput of cultivated meat (CM) production using these conventional practices. Due to key differences in the goals of muscle tissue engineering for biomedical versus food applications, conventional strategies may not be economically and technologically viable or socially acceptable. In this review, these two fields are critically compared, and the limitations of biomedical tissue engineering practices in achieving the important requirements of food production are discussed. Additionally, the possible solutions and the most promising biomanufacturing strategies for cellular agriculture are highlighted.
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.