3D skeletal muscle fascicle engineering is improved with TGF-β1 treatment of myogenic cells and their co-culture with myofibroblasts

Krieger, Jessica; Park, Byung-Wook; Lambert, Christopher; Malcuit, Christopher

doi:10.7717/peerj.4939

Cited by 23 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our histology and mechanical testing suggest that although cultured meats based on BAOSMC or RbSkMC show some similarities to natural meats, further work with improved skeletal myoblast differentiation are required to more closely recapitulate the mature contractile architecture observed in natural muscle. Prior work by our laboratory and others demonstrated that recapitulating natural muscle phenotypes in culture required biomimetic culture conditions 36,57–63 that account for substrate stiffness 57 and biochemistry, 58 anisotropic muscle alignment, 36,62 and chemical factors secreted by supporting cell types. 63 For these reasons, recapitulating the nutritional profiles of meat will likely require building on bioengineering strategies 64 that account for multiscale engineering of genetic and epigenetic factors, as well as cell–material and cell–cell interactions that contribute to tissue development.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Muscle tissue engineering in fibrous gelatin: implications for meat analogs

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bioprocessing applications that derive meat products from animal cell cultures require food-safe culture substrates that support volumetric expansion and maturation of adherent muscle cells. Here we demonstrate scalable production of microfibrous gelatin that supports cultured adherent muscle cells derived from cow and rabbit. As gelatin is a natural component of meat, resulting from collagen denaturation during processing and cooking, our extruded gelatin microfibers recapitulated structural and biochemical features of natural muscle tissues. Using immersion rotary jet spinning, a dry-jet wet-spinning process, we produced gelatin fibers at high rates (~ 100 g/h, dry weight) and, depending on process conditions, we tuned fiber diameters between ~ 1.3 ± 0.1 μm (mean ± SEM) and 8.7 ± 1.4 μm (mean ± SEM), which are comparable to natural collagen fibers. To inhibit fiber degradation during cell culture, we crosslinked them either chemically or by co-spinning gelatin with a microbial crosslinking enzyme. To produce meat analogs, we cultured bovine aortic smooth muscle cells and rabbit skeletal muscle myoblasts in gelatin fiber scaffolds, then used immunohistochemical staining to verify that both cell types attached to gelatin fibers and proliferated in scaffold volumes. Short-length gelatin fibers promoted cell aggregation, whereas long fibers promoted aligned muscle tissue formation. Histology, scanning electron microscopy, and mechanical testing demonstrated that cultured muscle lacked the mature contractile architecture observed in natural muscle but recapitulated some of the structural and mechanical features measured in meat products.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Muscle tissue engineering in fibrous gelatin: implications for meat analogs

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition to its central role in muscle development, TGF-β contributes to mature skeletal muscle mass, and is a key regulator of intramuscular fibrogenesis (Kollias and McDermott, 2008;Miao et al, 2016). In addition, it was shown that TGF-β1 suppressed myogenesis in 2D cultures, while enhancing myogenesis in 3D cultures, rendering it a valuable regulator of in-vitro muscle tissue development (Krieger et al, 2018). Myogenesis can be induced by substrate stiffness (Levy-Mishali et al, 2009;Syverud et al, 2014), IGFs and myogenic miRNA (Vitello et al, 2004;Yin et al, 2013), or by inhibition of anti-myogenic GFs produced by nearby cells (Christov et al, 2007;Yin et al, 2013).…”

Section: Satellite Cells and Myogenesismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fibroblast and myofibroblasts (Baum and Duffy, 2011) are simple to isolate and grow, and have a short cell cycle. They were shown to promote vascularization and muscle development in tissue engineered constructs (Shandalov et al, 2014;Ciccone, 2015;Mackey et al, 2017;Krieger et al, 2018), and are considered to have an important role in clean meat production (Pandurangan and Kim, 2015). However, isolated fibroblasts are usually not very well defined, and are often comprised of several subpopulations with few specific markers (Chapman et al, 2016).…”

Section: Fibroblasts and Ecmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tissue Engineering for Clean Meat Production

Ben-Arye

Levenberg

2019

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

188

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increasing public awareness of foodborne illnesses, factory farming, and the ecological footprint of the meat industry, has generated the need for animal-free meat alternatives. In the last decade, scientists have begun to leverage the knowledge and tools accumulated in the fields of stem cells and tissue engineering toward the development of cell-based meat (i.e., clean meat). In tissue engineering, the physical and biochemical features of the native tissue can be mimicked; cells and biomaterials are integrated under suitable culture conditions to form mature tissues. More specifically, in skeletal muscle tissue engineering, a plurality of cell types can be co-cultured on a 3D scaffold to generate muscle fibers, blood vessels and a dense extracellular matrix (ECM). This review focuses on tissue engineering of skeletal muscle and the adjustments needed for clean meat development. We discuss the skeletal muscle structure and composition, and elaborate on cell types from farm animals that have the potential to recapitulate the muscle ECM, blood vessels, muscle fibers and fat deposits. We also review relevant biomaterials, primarily for fabricating scaffolds that can mimic the intramuscular connective tissues, as well as gene expression studies on the biological pathways that influence meat quality.

show abstract

“…In the past 5 years, research focused on cell-based meats has accelerated from the tasting of the cell-cultured hamburger in 2013 (Zaraska, 2013) and early publications, including lifecycle assessments and basic research (Tuomisto and Teixeira de Mattos, 2011;Post, 2012Post, , 2014, to a growing start-up community, updated life cycle assessments, and publications focused on refining the technologies required to accelerate cellbased meat production (Tuomisto et al, 2014;Krieger et al, 2018;Rubio et al, 2019). To date, research decisions in cell-based meat production, such as selection of cell species and cell type have been largely driven by market size and environmental impact (Rodriguez-Fernandez, 2019), rather than suitability of cells species and types suitable for large scale bioreactor cultivation.…”

Section: Cell-based Seafood Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cell-Based Fish: A Novel Approach to Seafood Production and an Opportunity for Cellular Agriculture

Rubio

Datar

Stachura

et al. 2019

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cellular agriculture is defined as the production of agricultural products from cell cultures rather than from whole plants or animals. With growing interest in cellular agriculture as a means to address public health, environmental, and animal welfare challenges of animal agriculture, the concept of producing seafood from fish cell-and tissue-cultures is emerging as an approach to address similar challenges with industrial aquaculture systems and marine capture. Cell-based seafood-as opposed to animal-based seafood-can combine developments in biomedical engineering with modern aquaculture techniques. Biomedical engineering developments such as closed-system bioreactor production of land animal cells create a basis for the large scale production of marine animal cells. Aquaculture techniques such as genetic modification and closed system aquaculture have achieved significant gains in production that can pave the way for innovations in cell-based seafood production. Here, we present the current state of innovation relevant to the development of cell-based seafood across multiple species, as well as specific opportunities and challenges that exist for advancing this science. The authors find that the physiological properties of fish celland tissue-culture may be uniquely suited to cultivation in vitro. These physiological properties, including tolerance to hypoxia, high buffering capacity, and low-temperature growth conditions, make marine cell culture an attractive opportunity for scaled production of cell-based seafood; perhaps even more so than mammalian and avian cell cultures for cell-based meats. This opportunity, coupled with the unique capabilities of crustacean tissue-friendly scaffolding such as chitosan, a common seafood waste product and mushroom derivative, presents promise for cell-based seafood production via bioreactor cultivation. To become fully realized, cell-based seafood research will require more understanding of fish muscle cell and tissue cultivation; more investigation into serum-free media formulations optimized for fish cell culture; and bioreactor designs tuned to the needs of fish cells for large scale production.

show abstract

3D skeletal muscle fascicle engineering is improved with TGF-β1 treatment of myogenic cells and their co-culture with myofibroblasts

Cited by 23 publications

References 40 publications

Muscle tissue engineering in fibrous gelatin: implications for meat analogs

Muscle tissue engineering in fibrous gelatin: implications for meat analogs

Tissue Engineering for Clean Meat Production

Cell-Based Fish: A Novel Approach to Seafood Production and an Opportunity for Cellular Agriculture

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About