Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29292759›Full record

ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2017

Edible Scaffolds Based on Non-Mammalian Biopolymers for Myoblast Growth.

Javier Enrione, Jonny J Blaker, Donald I Brown, Caroline R Weinstein-Oppenheimer, Marzena Pepczynska, Yusser Olguín, Elizabeth Sánchez, Cristian A Acevedo

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 92 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Edible Scaffolds for Cultivated Meat Production.Advances in biochemical engineering/biotechnology · 2026
    Review
  4. Bioreactor Design and Engineering for Cultivated Meat Manufacturing.Advances in biochemical engineering/biotechnology · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Javier EnrioneBiopolymer Research and Engineering Lab (BiopREL), Universidad de los Andes, Avenida Monseñor Alvaro del Portillo 12455, Las Condes, Santiago 7550000, Chile. jenrione@uandes.cl.
Jonny J BlakerBio-Active Materials Group, School of Materials, MSS Tower, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK. jonny.blaker@manchester.ac.uk.
Donald I BrownLaboratorio de Biología de la Reproducción y del Desarrollo, Instituto de Biología, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Valparaíso, Avenida Gran Bretaña 1111, Valparaíso 2340000, Chile. donald.brown@uv.cl.
Caroline R Weinstein-OppenheimerEscuela de Química y Farmacia, Facultad de Farmacia, Universidad de Valparaíso, Avenida Gran Bretaña 1093, Valparaíso 2340000, Chile. caroline.weinstein@uv.cl.
Marzena PepczynskaBiopolymer Research and Engineering Lab (BiopREL), Universidad de los Andes, Avenida Monseñor Alvaro del Portillo 12455, Las Condes, Santiago 7550000, Chile. mpepczynska@uandes.cl.
Yusser OlguínCenter for Integrative Medicine and Innovative Science (CIMIS), Universidad Andrés Bello, Echaurren 183, Santiago 8320000, Chile. yusser.olguin@unab.cl.
Elizabeth SánchezCentro de Biotecnología, Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María, Avenida España 1680, Valparaíso 2340000, Chile. elizabeth.sanchez@usm.cl.
Cristian A AcevedoCentro de Biotecnología, Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María, Avenida España 1680, Valparaíso 2340000, Chile. cristian.acevedo@usm.cl.
Federico Santa María Technical University · CLUniversidad de Los Andes, Chile · CLUniversity of Valparaíso · CLUniversidad Andrés Bello · CLUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In vitro meat has recently emerged as a new concept in food biotechnology. Methods to produce in vitro meat generally involve the growth of muscle cells that are cultured on scaffolds using bioreactors. Suitable scaffold design and manufacture are critical to downstream culture and meat production. Most current scaffolds are based on mammalian-derived biomaterials, the use of which is counter to the desire to obviate mammal slaughter in artificial meat production. Consequently, most of the knowledge is related to the design and control of scaffold properties based on these mammalian-sourced materials. To address this, four different scaffold materials were formulated using non-mammalian sources, namely, salmon gelatin, alginate, and additives including gelling agents and plasticizers. The scaffolds were produced using a freeze-drying process, and the physical, mechanical, and biological properties of the scaffolds were evaluated. The most promising scaffolds were produced from salmon gelatin, alginate, agarose, and glycerol, which exhibited relatively large pore sizes (~200 μm diameter) and biocompatibility, permitting myoblast cell adhesion (~40%) and growth (~24 h duplication time). The biodegradation profiles of the scaffolds were followed, and were observed to be less than 25% after 4 weeks. The scaffolds enabled suitable myogenic response, with high cell proliferation, viability, and adequate cell distribution throughout. This system composed of non-mammalian edible scaffold material and muscle-cells is promising for the production of in vitro meat.

Indexed as

biopolymeredible materialin vitro meatscaffold

Identifiers

PMID29292759
PMCPMC5744339
OpenAlexW2772579246

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.