6182 International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2023, 58, 6182–6191

Review
Review in edible materials for sustainable cultured meat:
scaffolds and microcarriers production

Nima Moslemy, Emad Sharifi, Mitra Asadi-Eydivand & Nabiollah Abolfathi*

Faculty of Biomedical Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnic), Tehran 15875-4413, Iran
(Received 20 June 2023; Accepted in revised form 5 September 2023)

Summary Cultured meat, also known as laboratory-grown or cell-based meat, is a promising concept in the food
industry that involves culturing animal cells in vitro to produce meat products, bypassing the need for tra-
ditional animal rearing and slaughter. This technology offers solutions to key challenges associated with
conventional meat production, including environmental sustainability, animal welfare and food security.
However, the cultured meat industry must overcome significant hurdles to achieve commercial viability.
Scaling up production to meet the increasing demand for meat is a considerable challenge, requiring a
scalable edible scaffold, eliminating the need for separate scaffold removal, and ensuring product safety.
Various edible materials, including polysaccharides and proteins, along with fabrication techniques like
electrospinning and 3D printing, are explored in this review article.
Keywords cultured meat, edible scaffold, microcarrier, tissue engineering.

Meat primarily comprises 90% muscle fibres and

Introduction
Cultured meat (CM) was first proposed by Winston
Churchill and made public in 2013 by Mark Post
(Post, 2012). CM involves growing muscle cells in the
laboratory, eliminating the need to kill animals and
reducing antibiotic use. The process starts by extracting
stem or mature cells from animals and culturing them
on a scaffold platform (Allan et al., 2019; Reiss et al.,
2021; Handral et al., 2022). Cell proliferation occurs
with the help of bioreactors and microcarriers (Fig. 1).
Meat remains a highly sought-after and nutrient-
dense protein source, despite the rise of protein substi-
tutes (Van der Weele et al., 2019). CM is particularly
important considering the growing global population,
increased meat demand and the susceptibility of
domesticated animals to diseases like zoonotic viruses
(Lanzoni et al., 2022; Pajin et al., 2022).
However, CM is still in its early stages and faces
challenges such as cell sourcing, scaffold development,
culture media, growth factors and large-scale produc-
tion (Allan et al., 2019) as shown in Figure 2. Further-
more, obtaining regulatory approval and gaining
consumer acceptance are also significant obstacles
(Djisalov et al., 2021). To address these challenges,
companies and laboratories in 19 countries worldwide
have been established since 2013 (Chen et al., 2022).
*Correspondent: E-mail: nabolfathi@aut.ac.ir
10% fat (Reiss et al., 2021), with the muscle being 75%
water and 20% protein, along with various minerals,
fats and carbohydrates (Frontera & Ochala, 2015). The
muscle’s shape is formed by coils of myotubes covered
by epimysium (Costantini et al., 2017; Ostrovidov et al.,
2019; Ianovici et al., 2022). To create structured meat
products like steaks or fillets, a scaffolding approach is
needed to achieve the desired appearance and texture
(Ong et al., 2020).
Scaffolds and microcarriers
Scaffolds are network-like structures that support the
substrate, facilitate nutrient transport and enable cell
respiration (Schtzlein & Blaeser, 2022). Cells attach to
and anchor on the scaffold, where they can proliferate
and differentiate with the appropriate culture medium
(Choi et al., 2016; Reiss et al., 2021). Tissue engineer-
ing plays a crucial role in developing suitable scaffolds
that are biocompatible, edible, biodegradable, afford-
able, scalable and compatible with fat cells and mus-
cles, while also possessing desirable sensory properties
(Post et al., 2020; Ahmad et al., 2021).
Microcarriers are micro-scaffolds that offer a solu-
tion for scaling up CM production and have advan-
tages over macroscopic scaffolds. Their high surface
area to mass ratio allows for high cell densities and
yields (Kong et al., 2022). Using edible materials in

doi:10.1111/ijfs.16703
Ó 2023 Institute of Food, Science and Technology (IFSTTF).

Figure 1 A schematic of process CM with microcarriers and scaffolds. Image created using BioRender and Flaticon Sources.
Figure 2 Challenges in front of CM.
the production process can improve sensory attributes
and eliminate the need for additional separation steps.
Instead of scaffolds and fixed bed bioreactors, they are
easier to control and monitor, resulting in improved
product quality, consistency and cost reduction. This
allows for convenient expansion of the growth surface
by adding new ones in the bioreactor, facilitating cell
migration and population of the newly introduced
microcarriers (Bodiou et al., 2020; Seah et al., 2022).
Ó 2023 Institute of Food, Science and Technology (IFSTTF).
13652621, 2023, 12, Downloaded from https://ifst.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijfs.16703 by UFRB - Universidade Federal do Reconcavo da Bahia, Wiley Online Library on [16/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Edible materials for sustainable cultured meat N. Moslemy et al. 6183
Requirements of scaffolds and microcarriers
To serve as an effective cell-extracellular matrix
(ECM) substitutes in vitro, scaffolds must fulfil specific
criteria, mimicking ECM components and the micro-
environment of target tissues (Choi et al., 2016).
Designing scaffolds and growth environments involves
considerations of mechanical and organoleptic proper-
ties, such as applying static strain to enhance myotube
International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2023

6184 Edible materials for sustainable cultured meat N. Moslemy et al.
alignment and muscle cell differentiation (Ben-Arye &
Levenberg, 2019). Despite advancements in CM,
challenges like large-scale production hinder commer-
cialisation (Kumar et al., 2023). Crucially needed are
cost-effective, scalable scaffolds meeting muscle cell
requirements. Edible scaffolds offer benefits by elimi-
nating the need for separation and enhancing produc-
tion efficiency (Ng & Kurisawa, 2021), albeit they
influence the final product’s taste, colour and texture
(Bodiou et al., 2020).
Traditional bioreactors used in the biopharmaceuti-
cal sector are employed in the CM industry, highlight-
ing the need for customised bioreactors for CM
production and high-density cell cultures. When scal-
ing up, considering bioreactor dimensions and types is
crucial. Exploring scale-out strategies with multiple
bioreactors and implementing single-use bioreactors
offer promising solutions to contamination risks and
cost reduction due to limited suitable systems. Scaling
up in bioprocessing involves addressing challenges like
slow growth rates, shear stress and catabolite inhibi-
tion. Strategic bioprocess designs, including specialised
scaffolds to minimise shear stress, are required. Future
bioprocessing aims for closed, continuous, automated
systems with real-time monitoring. However, there are
still unresolved gaps in optimising large-scale cell cul-
turing, differentiation, tissue maturation and harvest-
ing, with a focus on cost reduction and waste recycling
(Bhat et al., 2015; Bomkamp et al., 2022; Chen et al.,
2022).
Safety assessments are essential for scaffold, micro-
carrier and dissociation reagent evaluation (Stephens
et al., 2018). Preferably, safer cross-linking agents and
removal of toxic components ensure product safety
(Ong et al., 2021). Although organoleptic properties
are crucial, with studies showing CM products can
match commercial meat texture (Paredes et al., 2022).
The texture and taste of CM relate to component
alignment, including myofibrils, connective tissue and
fat distribution in the scaffold structure. Enhancement
methods encompass microstructured scaffolds, ECM
modifications, edible matrices and co-culturing (Fraeye
et al., 2020; Siddiqui et al., 2022). CM prototypes still
need proper alignment and essential proteins like actin
and myosin (Ng & Kurisawa, 2021). Scaffold design
improvements aid myofiber alignment and maturation
for desired textural qualities. Plant-based fibrous scaf-
folds enhance mechanical resilience and texture but
struggle to match traditional meat visually and senso-
rial. Innovative solutions like additives (red beet juice
and saffron) can enhance colour (Olenic & Thorrez,
2023). Also, co-culturing myocytes and adipocytes
is essential for desired texture and flavour, with tech-
niques like 3D bioprinting holding promise for addres-
sing muscle fibre alignment and heterogeneity
(Tomiyama et al., 2020; Siddiqui et al., 2022).
International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2023
13652621, 2023, 12, Downloaded from https://ifst.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijfs.16703 by UFRB - Universidade Federal do Reconcavo da Bahia, Wiley Online Library on [16/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
For scaffolds, the recommended porosity range is
30%–90%, with a pore size of 50–150 lm or larger for
myogenic cells. The scaffold thickness depends on the
process it undergoes. The optimal stiffness for myogenic
cells is around 12–21 kPa, while adipogenic cells can
tolerate lower stiffness of 2–3 kPa (Bomkamp et al.,
2022). Substrate stiffness of approximately 8–16 kPa
has been found optimal for myogenesis in certain cell
types (Engler et al., 2004). Microcarriers should have a
diameter of at least 100 lm, and larger microcarriers
promote better cell attachment, while smaller ones
result in higher growth rates due to increased shear
stress (Norris et al., 2022). The review article by Bom-
kamp et al. extensively examines the estimated require-
ments for suitable scaffolds in CM production. The
attachment rate of desired cells should be high, efficient
detachment methods are necessary, and the scaffold
should support high proliferation rates, efficient differ-
entiation and maturation. The scaffold’s production
cost should be minimal, and its degradation profile
should not produce harmful by-products. If scaffold
degradation is intended, it should be completed within a
specific timeframe (Bomkamp et al., 2022).
Methods of fabrication
Different methods, including self-assembling peptides,
solvent casting, lyophilisation, 3D bioprinting and
decellularised ECM, are used to create scaffolds with
optimal mechanical, biological and surface attributes
(Table 1).
Self-assembling peptides are short amino acid
sequences that can spontaneously form nanostructures
with unique physicochemical and biochemical proper-
ties. These structures are made up of monomers and
can vary in morphology, size and surface area (Lee
et al., 2019; Huo et al., 2023). Solvent casting and par-
ticle leaching is a scaffold fabrication technique that
relies on solvent evaporation and particle dissolution
to create porous scaffolds with tailor-made porosity
and pore size using particles in the polymer solution
(Jang et al., 2023). Lyophilisation, also known as
freeze-drying, is a process that involves dissolving a
polymer in a solvent and pouring it into a mould. The
solution is then frozen below its freezing point, and
the solidified solvent undergoes evaporation by subli-
mation, leaving behind a scaffold with countless inter-
connected pores (Suamte et al., 2023). Electrospinning,
in particular, is commonly used in tissue engineering
to create alignment or non-alignment scaffolds suitable
for cell attachment, growth and differentiation. Apply-
ing an electric charge to a polymer solution can pro-
duce high-porosity and 3D structure nanofibers (Lee
et al., 2023; Peranidze et al., 2023). 3D bioprinting
allows for creating complex and physiologically rele-
vant 3D structures (Raees et al., 2023). Bioink refers
Ó 2023 Institute of Food, Science and Technology (IFSTTF).
 13652621, 2023, 12, Downloaded from https://ifst.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijfs.16703 by UFRB - Universidade Federal do Reconcavo da Bahia, Wiley Online Library on [16/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Edible materials for sustainable cultured meat N. Moslemy et al. 6185

Table 1 Comparative fabrication methods of scaffolds with material used example

Method Advantages Disadvantages Edible materials References

Self- – Versatile structures and
assembling functions based on
peptides environmental factors
Solvent casting – Creates specific porosity and
and particle pore size in scaffolds
leaching and – Simple and cost-effective
casting
Lyophilisation – Adjustable pore sizes
without subjecting the
biological factors to high
temperatures
Electrospinning – Produces nanofibers with
high porosity and 3D
structure
– Simple procedure for
producing nano- and micro-
scale polymer fibres
3D Bioprinting – Complex and physiologically
relevant 3D structures
– Mass-scale process
– Cost effective
Plant-based – Utilises the structural
Decellularised organisation and surface
topographies of plants and
animal tissues
– ECM components like
collagen, glycosaminoglycans
and growth factors can be
used as bioink and scaffold
– Challenges in developing
peptide-based biomaterials
– Longer time required for
evaporating solvents
limiting the construction of
thicker scaffolds
– Potential toxicity of
solvents
– Irregular pore sizes
– Lengthy processes
– High-energy consumption
– Use of cytotoxic solvents
– Material limitations
– Limited fibre length
– Scaling-up challenges
– Significant challenges
remain. – Dependent on the
choice of bioink and
bioprinting methodology
– Commonly uses organic
solvents, high temperatures
or cross-linking agents
unsuitable for live cells
– Limited to plant or fungal
sources
– Large-scale preparation is
challenging
Buckwheat proteins
Salmon gelatin- Agarose-
Calcium alginate- glycerol,
Food-grade paraffin
Wheat Glutenin, Gelatin
Fibrin/Polyethylene oxide,
Gelatin
Gelatin, Alginate, Hyaluronic
Acid-Fibrin- Chitosan, Soy
lecithin, Pea and Soy protein
isolate, Synthetic biomaterials
Spinach, Broccoli florets, Grass
blades
Huo et al. (2023); Lee
et al. (2019)
Bckdahl et al. (2008); Bezjak
et al. (2023); Jang
et al. (2023); Orellana
et al. (2020)
Rao et al. (2023); Suamte
et al. (2023); Xiang
et al. (2022a, 2022b)
Guo et al. (2019); Lee
et al. (2023); MacQueen
et al. (2019); Peranidze
et al. (2023)
Ianovici et al. (2022);
Koranne et al. (2022); Ng &
Kurisawa, 2021; Pajin
et al. (2022); Raees
et al. (2023)
Allan et al. (2021); Jones
et al. (2021); Ng &
Kurisawa, 2021; Thyden
et al. (2022)

to biomaterials that contain cells and are used for the
3D printing scaffolds and tissues (Choi et al., 2016).
These bioinks can be made from natural or
synthetic biomaterials or a combination of both
(Gungor-Ozkerim et al., 2018). Decellularisation is a
method for designing biocompatible tissue scaffolds
and biomaterials from plants or might animals-derived
by removing nuclear material while retaining ECM as
3D scaffolds (Liu et al., 2023; Toker-Bayraktar et al.,
2023). Decellularised ECM, which contains ECM com-
ponents like collagen, glycosaminoglycans and growth
factors, is used as both a bioink and a scaffold (Choi
et al., 2016). Plant-based meats like soy or pea can
also be used as scaffolds (Singh et al., 2022).
Edible scaffolds and microcarriers
Edible scaffolds and microcarriers have gained
attention in the field of cellular agriculture due to
concerns about animal-derived materials used in tra-
ditional scaffolds like hyaluronic acid, fibrin and
collagen. While these animal-based options are
effective, there is a growing need for non-animal
alternatives. However, there is limited information
available about the construction and production of
edible scaffolds and microcarriers, and they have
yet to reach the sales market (Thyden et al., 2022;
Xiang et al., 2022a).
Edible materials can be used to produce scaffolds
and microcarriers (Bodiou et al., 2020). Bioreactors
use microcarriers to enable rapid and efficient growth
while still consuming minimal energy (Chen et al.,
2022). The use of edible materials offers advantages
such as reduced environmental pollution, improved
sustainability and decreased reliance on animal
sources. Table 2 provides four categories of edible
materials that could be used in edible scaffold com-
positions or their synthesis.

Ó 2023 Institute of Food, Science and Technology (IFSTTF). International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2023

6186 Edible materials for sustainable cultured meat N. Moslemy et al.
Table 2 The categories of materials that can be used as edible materials and approved as food additives (Bomkamp et al., 2022;
FAO/WHO, 2011)
Synthetics Lipids
PEG (Polyethylene glycol) Wax
PLA (Polylactic acid) Shellac
PGA (polyglycolic acid) Paraffin
PLGA (polylactic-co-glycolic acid) Oil
PAM (Polyacrylamide) Lecithin
PEGDA (Polyethylene glycol diacrylate)
PVA (Polyvinyl alcohol)
Polysaccharide
Polysaccharides, which are large carbohydrate mole-
cules consisting of multiple monosaccharide units con-
nected by glycosidic bonds, have shown promise as
tissue engineering materials due to their biocompatibil-
ity, mechanical properties and widespread availability
(Bacakova et al., 2014). However, some polysaccha-
rides like alginate, agarose and gums have limited cell
adhesion properties, although carboxymethyl cellulose
(CMC) is an exception (Yixue et al., 2013; Bacelar
et al., 2016; Zennifer et al., 2021). Cellulose, particu-
larly its derivative CMC, is abundant and possesses
desirable surface properties, mechanical strength, tune-
able hydrophilicity, viscosity and low-cost synthesis
process (Soheilmoghaddam et al., 2014; Rahman et al.,
2021) and it also has a physical cross-linking agent
(Hu et al., 2021). In a study by Park et al. (2021b), a
porous multilayer film composed of chitosan and
CMC was developed to deliver C-phycocyanin (C-PC)
to myoblast cells, resulting in enhanced proliferation.
Bacterial nanocellulose (BNC) scaffolds utilise nata de
coco cellulose as a 3D fibrous matrix, mimicking the
physical dimensions of collagen and providing success-
ful support for animal cell culture (Rybchyn et al.,
2021). Gellan gum, an anionic polysaccharide, can be
modified with short peptides to improve cell attach-
ment (Ferris et al., 2015). Fungal mycelium, composed
of chitin, is being explored as a scaffolding foundation
to mimic natural extracellular matrix polysaccharides
(Excell, 2023).
Alginate is commonly used for cell encapsulation in
bioprinting (Dohmen et al., 2022; Ianovici et al., 2022;
Zagury et al., 2022). For instance, salmon gelatin, alginate
and agar are non-animal materials investigated for tissue
engineering purposes (Enrione et al., 2017). Alginate coat-
ings have been used to enhance cell adhesion properties
of textured plant proteins (Lee et al., 2022). Seawith, a
International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2023
13652621, 2023, 12, Downloaded from https://ifst.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijfs.16703 by UFRB - Universidade Federal do Reconcavo da Bahia, Wiley Online Library on [16/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Proteins Polysaccharides
Plant-based Plant- and bacterial-derived polysaccharides
Zein Cellulose
Soy • CMC (Carboxymethyl cellulose)
Wheat • HPC (Hydroxypropyl cellulose)
Lectins Pectin
Pea Alginate, Agar
Animal-based Gums
Albumin • Xanthan
Gelatin Carrageenan
Collagen Starch
Gluten Plant-derived decellularised
Fibrin
Animal-derived decellularised
South Korean cell-cultured meat company, employs
algae-based scaffolds for its cultivation process (Seawith,
2023).
Chitosan is a biocompatible polysaccharide with
mucoadhesive properties, gel-forming ability, and
wide usage in tissue engineering. Carboxymethylation
improves the solubility of chitosan, such as Carboxy-
methyl Chitosan (Shariatinia, 2018; Islam et al., 2020).
Studies have shown successful application of chitosan-
sodium alginate-collagen/gelatin scaffolds for porcine
skeletal muscle differentiation (Li et al., 2022) and the
development of chitosan and collagen-based edible
hydrogel cell microcarriers for C2C12 (Zernov et al.,
2022).
Plant-derived decellularised scaffolds
Plant-derived decellularised scaffolds offer biocompati-
bility, biodegradability, safety and bioactivities, mak-
ing them attractive for tissue engineering (Lu et al.,
2022). Plant-derived decellularised tissues derived from
fruits and vegetables, such as spinach (Jones et al.,
2021), broccoli florets (Thyden et al., 2022) and grass
blades (Allan et al., 2021) (Fig. 3) which have been
natural, edible, abundant, accessible (Modulevsky
et al., 2014), vein-like structure and high area to retain
and transport nutrition (Adamski et al., 2018).
Proteins
Plant protein-based materials
Plant protein-based materials like soy, maize, hemp fibres,
soy and pea are viable options for edible scaffolds and
microcarriers (Krona et al., 2017; Gelatex, 2023). How-
ever, they require additional cross-linking and lack spe-
cific mechanical properties (Ostrovidov et al., 2019).
Xiang et al. used plant protein films with specific surface
patterns and induction of cell alignment enable induced
differentiation and tensile strength similar to native BSCs
Ó 2023 Institute of Food, Science and Technology (IFSTTF).

Figure 3 (a) Broccoli floret segmentation, decellularisation and cell-seeding with bovine satellite muscle cells (BSCs) (Thyden et al., 2022).
(b) C2C12 cell proliferation on decellularised grass after 3 days (Allan et al., 2021). (c) BSCs differentiation on decellularised spinach scaffold
after 14 days (Jones et al., 2021).
(Fig. 4a) (Xiang et al., 2022a). Pea and soy protein iso-
lates have been studied for their effects on hydrogel stabil-
ity and rheological properties of agarose, gellan gum and
xanthan-locust bean gum blend hydrogels and cytotoxic-
ity on C2C12 (Wollschlaeger et al., 2022). Also, Koranne
et al. (2022) used soy lecithin for the 3D printing of
hydrolysed collagen in order to prepare a printable edible
ink. Cereal prolamins have demonstrated compatibility
with muscle cells and have been used to create edible scaf-
folds (Su et al., 2023), and bread-derived scaffolds with
controllable porosity and mechanical properties have also
been developed (Holmes et al., 2022). In addition, DaNA-
green Protinet-P is an edible scaffolding product made
from isolated plant proteins that did not provide more
information (DaNAgreen, 2023).
Animal-based protein materials
Animal-based materials like collagen, gelatin and fibrin
offer higher cell attachment density and growth factors
for skeletal muscle engineering. Gelatin’s RGD sequence
promotes cell adhesion and is suitable for tissue engineer-
ing (Shi et al., 2017). Fish gelatin microspheres have been
used to enhance myoblast growth and produce cell sheets
with meat-like properties (Park et al., 2021a).
Grape seed extracts have been investigated for their
effects on gelatin-based hydrogels (Rao et al., 2023).
Yanheng Guo et al. developed a modified aqueous
solution-electrospinning technique to encapsulate
C2C12. They created fibrin/polyethylene oxide microfi-
ber bundles, resulting in a dramatic increase in cell via-
bility (Guo et al., 2019). Also, McQueen demonstrated
the ability to produce microfibrous gelatin, suitable for
culturing cow and rabbit muscle cells by using either
the immersion rotary jet spinning or the dry-jet wet
spinning methods, as shown in Fig. 4b; they produced
gelatin fibres with a diameter similar to the collagen
fibres’ diameter (MacQueen et al., 2019). Norris
et al. (2022) developed microcarriers by utilising water-
in-oil emulsions as templates for gelatin microparticles
Ó 2023 Institute of Food, Science and Technology (IFSTTF).
13652621, 2023, 12, Downloaded from https://ifst.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijfs.16703 by UFRB - Universidade Federal do Reconcavo da Bahia, Wiley Online Library on [16/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Edible materials for sustainable cultured meat N. Moslemy et al. 6187
by applying an embossing technique to create a
grooved surface texture on the microcarriers, which
showed that both smooth and grooved edible micro-
carriers effectively facilitated the growth and differenti-
ation of C2C12 in suspension culture. Additionally,
Liu et al. employed a 3D porous gelatin microcarrier
in two spinner flask bioreactors, one for muscle and
the other for fat. They bio-assembled mature micro-
tissues into meatballs at a centimetre scale using trans-
glutaminase and a mould (Liu et al., 2022).
Animal-derived decellularised tissue
Decellularised tissues lack cells and have distinct micro-
architectures and mechanical properties. They create a
supportive environment for cell growth. However, in cel-
lular agriculture, the scaffold must be separated or
degraded to ensure the meat’s edibility (Bodiou et al.,
2020). Despite limited research, relevant studies can guide
further investigation in cellular agriculture. Hanai
et al. (2020) explored the use of different porcine tissues
for culturing mesenchymal stem cells. Additionally, Choi
et al. (2016) utilised decellularised skeletal muscle ECM
as a bioink for 3D printing (Fig. 4c). While these sub-
stances can be consumed, they fall short of the primary
goal of eliminating animal derivatives.
Lipids
Lipids have been used in tissue engineering and scaf-
fold fabrication, but their specific application in mus-
cle cell scaffolds is unclear. Animal fat has a distinct
lipid profile that is difficult to mimic with plant-based
fats (Dohmen et al., 2022). Edible shellac solution can
be added to improve the mechanical properties of
materials (Triyono et al., 2015). Lecithin, composed
of phospholipids and neutral lipids, has shown higher
adhesion and proliferation of bone marrow stromal
cells compared to poly-l-lactic acid (PLLA) (Coverdale
et al., 2017; Xu et al., 2020).
International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2023
 13652621, 2023, 12, Downloaded from https://ifst.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijfs.16703 by UFRB - Universidade Federal do Reconcavo da Bahia, Wiley Online Library on [16/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
6188 Edible materials for sustainable cultured meat N. Moslemy et al.

Figure 4 (a) I. SEM images of protein- and polysaccharide-patterned films at 2 lm scale. II. BSCs differentiation with and without surface pat-
tern at 100 lm scale (Xiang et al., 2022a). (b) I. Schematic of fibrous gelatin production through immersion rotary jet spinning (iRJS). II.
Microfibrous gelatin seeded with cells and cultured using cell culture media (MacQueen et al., 2019). (c) I. 3D cell-printing for muscle con-
structs with controlled architecture. II. Confocal imaging of muscle constructs with C2C12 myoblasts on the fourth day of culturing at 500 lm
scale (Choi et al., 2016).

structural stability (Iravani & Varma, 2019). These

Synthetics
Synthetic materials offer controllable degradation rates
and mechanical characteristics in tissue engineering
(Chen et al., 2022). PLGA has been used as a platform
for inducing the differentiation and growth of myo-
blast cells (Chen et al., 2019). Porous PLGA and
PLLA scaffolds have been prepared using the salt
leaching method (Ben-Arye et al., 2020). PLA nanofi-
brous scaffolds promote aligned myotube
formation (Luo et al., 2018). Highly open porous
microspheres (HOPMs) made of PLGA have shown
potential for in situ cell delivery (Kankala et al., 2019).
3D-printed PLGA scaffolds have been used to mimic
the extracellular matrix structure and support cell
growth and differentiation (Chen et al., 2019). Starch
combined with synthetic polymers and polyvinyl alco-
hol turmeric can enhance mechanical properties and
materials need more studies for consumption.
Conclusion
Polysaccharides are potential tissue engineering materials
due to their biocompatibility, mechanical properties and
availability. However, their limited nutritional value
and low cell adhesion properties pose challenges in their
use. Studies have combined polysaccharides with other
materials like chitosan, collagen and plant proteins to
enhance their properties. Plant-derived decellularised scaf-
folds offer a promising alternative to synthetic and
animal-derived scaffolds, being natural, edible, low cost
and biocompatible. These scaffolds provide an appropri-
ate microstructure and mechanical support.
Various materials are used for scaffold development
in CM production. Plant-based proteins are

International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2023 Ó 2023 Institute of Food, Science and Technology (IFSTTF).

biocompatible and nutritious but lack sustainability.
Animal-based proteins promote cell attachment and
growth, but raise ethical concerns. Decellularised
animal-derived tissues offer not only a supportive envi-
ronment but also have ethical considerations. Lipids
improve scaffold mechanical properties, but their use
in muscle cell scaffolds requires more information.
Synthetic materials offer controlled degradation and
mechanical characteristics, inducing cell growth.
Challenges include finding sustainable and scalable
scaffold materials, optimising production methods and
reducing costs. Consumer perceptions, environmental
sustainability and ethical considerations are also
important factors.
Future research should focus on optimising scaffold
design and materials for improved resource efficiency
and sustainability. Integrating edible scaffolds in 3D
printing technology also holds promise for creating
personalised and innovative food products. Overall,
edible scaffolds are integral to achieving the desired
qualities of CM while addressing environmental, ethi-
cal and consumer-related challenges.
Acknowledgments
There are no acknowledgments to include currently, and
ethics approval was not necessary for this research.
Author contributions
Nima Moslemy: Conceptualization (equal); formal anal-
ysis (lead); methodology (lead); writing – original draft
(lead); writing – review and editing (lead). Emad Sharifi:
Formal analysis (equal); resources (equal); writing –
review and editing (equal). Mitra Asadi-Eydivand: For-
mal analysis (equal); validation (equal); writing – review
and editing (equal). Nabiollah Abolfathi: Formal analysis
(equal); methodology (equal); writing – review and edit-
ing (equal).
Conflict of interest
The authors state no competing financial interests or
personal relationships that could have influenced
this work.
Peer review
The peer review history for this article is available at
https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer-
review/10.1111/ijfs.16703.
Data availability statement
This article does not involve data sharing, as no new
data were generated or analysed.
Ó 2023 Institute of Food, Science and Technology (IFSTTF).
13652621, 2023, 12, Downloaded from https://ifst.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijfs.16703 by UFRB - Universidade Federal do Reconcavo da Bahia, Wiley Online Library on [16/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Edible materials for sustainable cultured meat N. Moslemy et al. 6189
References
Adamski, M., Fontana, G., Gershlak, J.R., Gaudette, G.R., Le,
H.D. & Murphy, W.L. (2018). Two methods for decellularization
of plant tissues for tissue engineering applications. JoVE (Journal
of Visualized Experiments), 135, e57586.
Ahmad, K., Lim, J.H., Lee, E.J. et al. (2021). Extracellular matrix
and the production of cultured meat. Foods, 10, 3116.
Allan, S.J., De Bank, P.A. & Ellis, M.J. (2019). Bioprocess design
considerations for cultured meat production with a focus on the
expansion bioreactor. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 3, 44.
Allan, S.J., Ellis, M.J. & De Bank, P.A. (2021). Decellularized grass
as a sustainable scaffold for skeletal muscle tissue engineering.
Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A, 109, 2471–2482.
Bacakova, L., Novotn, K. & Parizek, M. (2014). Polysaccharides as
cell carriers for tissue engineering: the use of cellulose in vascular
wall reconstruction. Physiological Research, 63, S29.
Bacelar, A.H., Silva-Correia, J., Oliveira, J.M. & Reis, R.L.
(2016). Recent progress in gellan gum hydrogels provided by
functionalization strategies. Journal of Materials Chemistry B, 4,
6164–6174.
Bckdahl, H., Esguerra, M., Delbro, D., Risberg, B. & Gatenholm,
P. (2008). Engineering microporosity in bacterial cellulose scaffolds.
Journal of Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, 2, 320–
330.
Ben-Arye, T. & Levenberg, S. (2019). Tissue engineering for clean
meat production. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 3, 46.
Ben-Arye, T., Shandalov, Y., Ben-Shaul, S. et al. (2020). Textured
soy protein scaffolds enable the generation of three-dimensional
bovine skeletal muscle tissue for cell-based meat. Nature Food, 1,
210–220.
Bezjak, D., Orellana, N., Valdes, J.H., Corrales, T. & Acevedo, C.A.
(2023). Towards understanding the role of microstructured edible
scaffolds for cultured meat production. Food and Bioprocess Tech-
nology, 1–13.
Bhat, Z.F., Kumar, S. & Fayaz, H. (2015). In vitro meat production:
challenges and benefits over conventional meat production. Journal
of Integrative Agriculture, 14, 241–248.
Bodiou, V., Moutsatsou, P. & Post, M.J. (2020). Microcarriers for
upscaling cultured meat production. Frontiers in Nutrition, 7, 10.
Bomkamp, C., Skaalure, S.C., Fernando, G.F., Ben-Arye, T.,
Swartz, E.W. & Specht, E.A. (2022). Scaffolding biomaterials for
3D cultivated meat: prospects and challenges. Advanced Science, 9,
2102908.
Chen, H., Zhong, J., Wang, J. et al. (2019). Enhanced growth and
differentiation of myoblast cells grown on E-jet 3D printed plat-
forms. International Journal of Nanomedicine, 14, 937–950.
Chen, L., Guttieres, D., Koenigsberg, A., Barone, P.W., Sinskey,
A.J. & Springs, S.L. (2022). Large-scale cultured meat production:
trends, challenges and promising biomanufacturing technologies.
Biomaterials, 280, 121274.
Choi, Y.-J., Kim, T.G., Jeong, J. et al. (2016). 3D cell printing of
functional skeletal muscle constructs using skeletal muscle-derived
bioink. Advanced Healthcare Materials, 5, 2636–2645.
Costantini, M., Testa, S., Fornetti, E. et al. (2017). Engineering mus-
cle networks in 3D gelatin methacryloyl hydrogels: influence of
mechanical stiffness and geometrical confinement. Frontiers in Bio-
engineering and Biotechnology, 5, 22.
Coverdale, B.D.M., Gough, J.E., Sampson, W.W. & Hoyland, J.A.
(2017). Use of lecithin to control fiber morphology in electrospun
poly (ɛ-caprolactone) scaffolds for improved tissue engineering
applications. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A, 105,
2865–2874.
DaNAgreen. (2023). xn--4mkx348auwbg5cw6m. Available: http://
xn--ok0by47abvffwl.kr/ [Accessed 4/1/2023]
Djisalov, M., Knei, T., Podunavac, I. et al. (2021). Cultivating multi-
disciplinarity: manufacturing and sensing challenges in cultured
meat production. Biology, 10, 204.
International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2023

6190 Edible materials for sustainable cultured meat N. Moslemy et al.
Dohmen, R.G.J., Hubalek, S., Melke, J. et al. (2022). Muscle-
derived fibro-adipogenic progenitor cells for production of cultured
bovine adipose tissue. npj Science of Food, 6, 6.
Engler, A.J., Griffin, M.A., Sen, S., Bonnemann, C.G., Sweeney,
H.L. & Discher, D.E. (2004). Myotubes differentiate optimally on
substrates with tissue-like stiffness: pathological implications for
soft or stiff microenvironments. The Journal of Cell Biology, 166,
877–887.
Enrione, J., Blaker, J.J., Brown, D.I. et al. (2017). Edible scaffolds
based on non-mammalian biopolymers for myoblast growth. Mate-
rials, 10, 1404.
Excell. (2023). In. Available: https://www.excell.bio/ [accessed 4/1/
2023].
FAO/WHO. (2011). Codex Alimentarius: general standard for food
additives.
Ferris, C.J., Stevens, L.R., Gilmore, K.J. et al. (2015). Peptide modi-
fication of purified gellan gum. Journal of Materials Chemistry B,
3, 1106–1115.
Fraeye, I., Kratka, M., Vandenburgh, H. & Thorrez, L. (2020). Sen-
sorial and nutritional aspects of cultured meat in comparison to
traditional meat: much to be inferred. Frontiers in Nutrition, 7, 35.
Frontera, W.R. & Ochala, J. (2015). Skeletal muscle: a brief review of
structure and function. Calcified Tissue International, 96, 183–195.
Gelatex Materials of tomorrow made available today. (2023). In.
Available: https://www.gelatex.com/ [accessed 4/1/2023].
Gungor-Ozkerim, P.S., Inci, I., Zhang, Y.S., Khademhosseini, A. &
Dokmeci, M.R. (2018). Bioinks for 3D bioprinting: an overview.
Biomaterials Science, 6, 915–946.
Guo, Y., Gilbert-Honick, J., Somers, S.M., Mao, H.-Q. & Grayson,
W.L. (2019). Modified cell-electrospinning for 3D myogenesis of
C2C12s in aligned fibrin microfiber bundles. Biochemical and Bio-
physical Research Communications, 516, 558–564.
Hanai, H., Jacob, G., Nakagawa, S., Tuan, R.S., Nakamura, N. &
Shimomura, K. (2020). Potential of soluble decellularized extracel-
lular matrix for musculoskeletal tissue engineering–comparison of
various mesenchymal tissues. Frontiers in Cell and Developmental
Biology, 8, 581972.
Handral, H.K., Hua Tay, S., Wan Chan, W. & Choudhury, D.
(2022). 3D printing of cultured meat products. Critical Reviews in
Food Science and Nutrition, 62, 272–281.
Holmes, J.T., Jaberansari, Z., Collins, W., Latour, M.L., Modu-
levsky, D.J. & Pelling, A.E. (2022). Homemade bread: repurposing
an ancient technology for in vitro tissue engineering. Biomaterials,
280, 121267.
Hu, Y., Hu, S., Zhang, S. et al. (2021). A double-layer hydrogel
based on alginate-carboxymethyl cellulose and synthetic polymer
as sustained drug delivery system. Scientific Reports, 11, 9142.
Huo, Y., Hu, J., Yin, Y., Liu, P., Cai, K. & Ji, W. (2023). Self-
assembling peptide-based functional biomaterials. Chembiochem,
24, e202200582.
Ianovici, I., Zagury, Y., Redenski, I., Lavon, N. & Levenberg, S.
(2022). 3D-printable plant protein-enriched scaffolds for cultivated
meat development. Biomaterials, 284, 121487.
Iravani, S. & Varma, R.S. (2019). Plants and plant-based polymers
as scaffolds for tissue engineering. Green Chemistry, 21, 4839–4867.
Islam, M.M., Shahruzzaman, M., Biswas, S., Sakib, M.N. & Rashid,
T.U. (2020). Chitosan based bioactive materials in tissue engineer-
ing applications-a review. Bioactive Materials, 5, 164–183.
Jang, J.-W., Min, K.-E., Kim, C., Shin, J., Lee, J. & Yi, S. (2023).
Scaffold characteristics, fabrication methods, and biomaterials for
the bone tissue engineering. International Journal of Precision Engi-
neering and Manufacturing, 24, 511–529.
Jones, J.D., Rebello, A.S. & Gaudette, G.R. (2021). Decellularized
spinach: an edible scaffold for laboratory-grown meat. Food Biosci-
ence, 41, 100986.
Kankala, R.K., Zhao, J., Liu, C.-G. et al. (2019). Highly porous
microcarriers for minimally invasive in situ skeletal muscle cell
delivery. Small, 15, 1901397.
International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2023
13652621, 2023, 12, Downloaded from https://ifst.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijfs.16703 by UFRB - Universidade Federal do Reconcavo da Bahia, Wiley Online Library on [16/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Kong, Y., Jing, L. & Huang, D. (2022). Plant proteins as the functional
building block of edible microcarriers for cell-based meat culture appli-
cation. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 1–11.
Koranne, V., Jonas, O.L.C., Mitra, H. et al. (2022). Exploring prop-
erties of edible hydrolyzed collagen for 3D food printing of scaf-
fold for biomanufacturing cultivated meat. Procedia CIRP, 110,
186–191.
Krona, A., Klose, F.P., Gold, J., Kadar, R. & Standing, M. (2017).
Developing cultured meat scaffolds of extruded vegetable-based
proteins. Annual Transaction of the Nordic Rheology Society, 25,
311–313.
Kumar, A., Sood, A. & Han, S.S. (2023). Technological and struc-
tural aspects of scaffold manufacturing for cultured meat: recent
advances, challenges, and opportunities. Critical Reviews in Food
Science and Nutrition, 63, 585–612.
Lanzoni, D., Bracco, F., Cheli, F. et al. (2022). Biotechnological and
technical challenges related to cultured meat production. Applied
Sciences, 12, 6771.
Lee, S., Trinh, T.H.T., Yoo, M. et al. (2019). Self-assembling pep-
tides and their application in the treatment of diseases. Interna-
tional Journal of Molecular Sciences, 20, 5850.
Lee, M., Park, S., Choi, B. et al. (2022). Tailoring a gelatin/agar matrix
for the synergistic effect with cells to produce high-quality cultured
meat. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, 14, 38235–38245.
Lee, S.Y., Lee, D.Y., Jeong, J.W. et al. (2023). Studies on meat
alternatives with a focus on structuring technologies. Food and Bio-
process Technology, 16, 1389–1412.
Li, L., Chen, L., Chen, X. et al. (2022). Chitosan-sodium alginate-
collagen/gelatin three-dimensional edible scaffolds for building a
structured model for cell cultured meat. International Journal of
Biological Macromolecules, 209, 668–679.
Liu, Y., Wang, R., Ding, S. et al. (2022). Engineered meatballs via
scalable skeletal muscle cell expansion and modular micro-tissue
assembly using porous gelatin micro-carriers. Biomaterials, 287,
121615.
Liu, H., Gong, Y., Zhang, K. et al. (2023). Recent advances in decel-
lularized matrix-derived materials for bioink and 3D bioprinting.
Gels, 9, 195.
Lu, H., Ying, K., Shi, Y., Liu, D. & Chen, Q. (2022). Bioprocessing
by decellularized scaffold biomaterials in cultured meat: a review.
Bioengineering, 9, 787.
Luo, B., Tian, L., Chen, N., Ramakrishna, S., Thakor, N. & Yang,
I.H. (2018). Electrospun nanofibers facilitate better alignment, dif-
ferentiation, and long-term culture in an in vitro model of the neu-
romuscular junction (NMJ). Biomaterials Science, 6, 3262–3272.
MacQueen, L.A., Alver, C.G., Chantre, C.O. et al. (2019). Muscle
tissue engineering in fibrous gelatin: implications for meat analogs.
npj Science of Food, 3, 20.
Modulevsky, D.J., Lefebvre, C., Haase, K., Al-Rekabi, Z. & Pelling,
A.E. (2014). Apple derived cellulose scaffolds for 3D mammalian
cell culture. PLoS ONE, 9, e97835.
Ng, S. & Kurisawa, M. (2021). Integrating biomaterials and food
biopolymers for cultured meat production. Acta Biomaterialia, 124,
108–129.
Norris, S.C.P., Kawecki, N.S., Davis, A.R., Chen, K.K. & Rowat,
A.C. (2022). Emulsion-templated microparticles with tunable stiff-
ness and topology: applications as edible microcarriers for cultured
meat. Biomaterials, 287, 121669.
Olenic, M. & Thorrez, L. (2023). Cultured meat production: what
we know, what we don’t know and what we should know. Italian
Journal of Animal Science, 22, 749–753.
Ong, S., Choudhury, D. & Naing, M.W. (2020). Cell-based meat:
current ambiguities with nomenclature. Trends in Food Science &
Technology, 102, 223–231.
Ong, K.J., Johnston, J., Datar, I., Sewalt, V., Holmes, D. & Shatkin,
J.A. (2021). Food safety considerations and research priorities for
the cultured meat and seafood industry. Comprehensive Reviews in
Food Science and Food Safety, 20, 5421–5448.
Ó 2023 Institute of Food, Science and Technology (IFSTTF).

Orellana, N., Snchez, E., Benavente, D., Prieto, P., Enrione, J. &
Acevedo, C.A. (2020). A new edible film to produce in vitro meat.
Food, 9, 185.
Ostrovidov, S., Salehi, S., Costantini, M. et al. (2019). 3D bioprint-
ing in skeletal muscle tissue engineering. Small, 15, 1805530.
Pajin, I., Knei, T., Savic Azoulay, I. et al. (2022). Bioengineering
outlook on cultivated meat production. Micromachines, 13, 402.
Paredes, J., Cortizo-Lacalle, D., Imaz, A.M., Aldazabal, J. & Vila,
M. (2022). Application of texture analysis methods for the charac-
terization of cultured meat. Scientific Reports, 12, 3898.
Park, S., Jung, S., Choi, M. et al. (2021a). Gelatin MAGIC powder
as nutrient-delivering 3D spacer for growing cell sheets into cost-
effective cultured meat. Biomaterials, 278, 121155.
Park, S., Jung, S., Heo, J., Koh, W.-G., Lee, S. & Hong, J. (2021b).
Chitosan/cellulose-based porous nanofilm delivering c-phycocyanin:
a novel platform for the production of cost-effective cultured meat.
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, 13, 32193–32204.
Peranidze, K., Safronova, T.V. & Kildeeva, N.R. (2023). Electro-
spun nanomaterials based on cellulose and its derivatives for cell
cultures: recent developments and challenges. Polymers, 15, 1174.
Post, M.J. (2012). Cultured meat from stem cells: challenges and
prospects. Meat Science, 92, 297–301.
Post, M.J., Levenberg, S., Kaplan, D.L. et al. (2020). Scientific, sus-
tainability and regulatory challenges of cultured meat. Nature
Food, 1, 403–415.
Raees, S., Ullah, F., Javed, F. et al. (2023). Classification, proces-
sing, and applications of bioink and 3D bioprinting: a detailed
review. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, 232,
123476.
Rahman, M.S., Hasan, M.S., Nitai, A.S. et al. (2021). Recent devel-
opments of carboxymethyl cellulose. Polymers, 13, 1345.
Rao, K.M., Kim, H.J., Won, S., Choi, S.M. & Han, S.S. (2023).
Effect of grape seed extract on gelatin-based edible 3D-hydrogels
for cultured meat application. Gels, 9, 65.
Reiss, J., Robertson, S. & Suzuki, M. (2021). Cell sources for culti-
vated meat: applications and considerations throughout the pro-
duction workflow. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 22,
7513.
Rybchyn, M.S., Biazik, J.M., Charlesworth, J. & le Coutre, J.
(2021). Nanocellulose from Nata de coco as a bioscaffold for cell-
based meat. ACS Omega, 6, 33923–33931.
Schtzlein, E. & Blaeser, A. (2022). Recent trends in bioartificial mus-
cle engineering and their applications in cultured meat, biorobotic
systems and biohybrid implants. Communications Biology, 5, 737.
Seah, J.S.H., Singh, S., Tan, L.P. & Choudhury, D. (2022). Scaffolds
for the manufacture of cultured meat. Critical Reviews in Biotech-
nology, 42, 311–323.
Seawith. (2023). In. Available: http://seawith.net/en/.2023 [accessed
4/1/2023].
Shariatinia, Z. (2018). Carboxymethyl chitosan: properties and bio-
medical applications. International Journal of Biological Macromol-
ecules, 120, 1406–1419.
Shi, W., Sun, M., Hu, X. et al. (2017). Structurally and functionally
optimized silk-fibroin–gelatin scaffold using 3D printing to repair
cartilage injury in vitro and in vivo. Advanced Materials, 29,
1701089.
Siddiqui, S.A., Bahmid, N.A., Karim, I. et al. (2022). Cultured meat:
processing, packaging, shelf life, and consumer acceptance. LWT,
172, 114192.
Ó 2023 Institute of Food, Science and Technology (IFSTTF).
13652621, 2023, 12, Downloaded from https://ifst.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijfs.16703 by UFRB - Universidade Federal do Reconcavo da Bahia, Wiley Online Library on [16/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Edible materials for sustainable cultured meat N. Moslemy et al. 6191
Singh, A., Verma, V., Kumar, M. et al. (2022). Stem cells-derived in
vitro meat: from petri dish to dinner plate. Critical Reviews in Food
Science and Nutrition, 62, 2641–2654.
Soheilmoghaddam, M., Sharifzadeh, G., Pour, R.H., Wahit, M.U.,
Whye, W.T. & Lee, X.Y. (2014). Regenerated cellulose/$$-
cyclodextrin scaffold prepared using ionic liquid. Materials Letters,
135, 210–213.
Stephens, N., Di Silvio, L., Dunsford, I., Ellis, M., Glencross, A. &
Sexton, A. (2018). Bringing cultured meat to market: technical,
socio-political, and regulatory challenges in cellular agriculture.
Trends in Food Science & Technology, 78, 155–166.
Su, L., Jing, L., Zeng, X. et al. (2023). 3D-printed prolamin scaffolds
for cell-based meat culture. Advanced Materials, 35, 2207397.
Suamte, L., Tirkey, A., Barman, J. & Babu, P.J. (2023). Various
manufacturing methods and ideal properties of scaffolds for tissue
engineering applications. Smart Materials in Manufacturing, 1,
100011.
Thyden, R., Perreault, L.R., Jones, J.D. et al. (2022). An edible,
decellularized plant derived cell carrier for lab grown meat. Applied
Sciences, 12, 5155.
Toker-Bayraktar, M., Erenay, B., Altun, B., Odaba, S. & Garipcan,
B. (2023). Plant-derived biomaterials and scaffolds. Cellulose, 30,
2731–2751.
Tomiyama, A.J., Kawecki, N.S., Rosenfeld, D.L., Jay, J.A., Rajago-
pal, D. & Rowat, A.C. (2020). Bridging the gap between the sci-
ence of cultured meat and public perceptions. Trends in Food
Science & Technology, 104, 144–152.
Triyono, J., Susmartini, S., Susilowati, E. & Murdiyantara, S.A.
(2015). Shellac coated hydroxyapatite (HA) scaffold for increasing
compression strength. Advanced Materials Research, 1123, 378–
382.
Van der Weele, C., Feindt, P., van der Goot, A.J., van Mierlo, B. &
van Boekel, M. (2019). Meat alternatives: an integrative compari-
son. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 88, 505–512.
Wollschlaeger, J.O., Maatz, R., Albrecht, F.B. et al. (2022). Scaffolds
for cultured meat on the basis of polysaccharide hydrogels
enriched with plant-based proteins. Gels, 8, 94.
Xiang, N., Yao, Y., Yuen, J.S.K., Jr. et al. (2022a). Edible films for
cultivated meat production. Biomaterials, 287, 121659.
Xiang, N., Yuen, J.S.K., Jr., Stout, A.J., Rubio, N.R., Chen, Y. &
Kaplan, D.L. (2022b). 3D porous scaffolds from wheat glutenin
for cultured meat applications. Biomaterials, 285, 121543.
Xu, Z., Liu, P., Li, H., Zhang, M. & Wu, Q. (2020). In vitro study
on electrospun lecithin-based poly (L-lactic acid) scaffolds and
their biocompatibility. Journal of Biomaterials Science, Polymer
Edition, 31, 2285–2298.
Yixue, S., Bin, C., Yuan, G. et al. (2013). Modification of agarose
with carboxylation and grafting dopamine for promotion of its
cell-adhesiveness. Carbohydrate Polymers, 92, 2245–2251.
Zagury, Y., Ianovici, I., Landau, S., Lavon, N. & Levenberg, S.
(2022). Engineered marble-like bovine fat tissue for cultured meat.
Communications Biology, 5, 927.
Zennifer, A., Senthilvelan, P., Sethuraman, S. & Sundaramurthi, D.
(2021). Key advances of carboxymethyl cellulose in tissue engineer-
ing & 3D bioprinting applications. Carbohydrate Polymers, 256,
117561.
Zernov, A., Baruch, L. & Machluf, M. (2022). Chitosan-collagen
hydrogel microparticles as edible cell microcarriers for cultured
meat. Food Hydrocolloids, 129, 107632.
International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2023