Application of cell culture technology and genetic engineering for production of future foods and crop improvement to strengthen food security

References

• FAO. Global agriculture towards 2050 [Internet]. 2009; Available from: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/Issues_papers/HLEF2050_Global_Agriculture.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Lenaerts B, Collard BCY, Demont M. Plant Science review: improving global food security through accelerated plant breeding. Plant Sci. 2019;287:110207.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fao IFAD, Unicef WFP,WHHO. The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2021. Rome, Italy; 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Shen Y, Sui P, Huang J, et al. Global warming potential from maize and maize-soybean as affected by nitrogen fertilizer and cropping practices in the North China Plain. F Crop Res. 2018;225:117–127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rai MK, Shekhawat NS. Recent advances in genetic engineering for improvement of fruit crops. Plant Cell, Tissue Organ Cult. 2014;116:1–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang X, Chang S, Lu J, et al. Plant genetic engineering and genetically modified crop breeding: history and current status. Front Agric Sci Eng. 2017;4:5–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun L, Ke F, Nie Z, et al. Citrus genetic engineering for disease resistance: past, present and future. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20:5256.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shrawat AK, Armstrong CL. Development and application of genetic engineering for wheat improvement. CRC Crit Rev Plant Sci. 2018;37:335–421.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mittler R, Blumwald E. Genetic engineering for modern agriculture: challenges and perspectives. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2010;61:443–462.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Day PR. Crop improvement: breeding and genetic engineering. Philos Trans R Soc London B, Biol Sci. 1985;310:193–200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gasser CS, Fraley RT. Genetically engineering plants for crop improvement. Science. 1989;244:1293–1299.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ranjekar PK, Patankar A, Gupta V, et al. Genetic engineering of crop plants for insect resistance. Curr Sci. 2003;84:321–329.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Post MJ. Cultured meat from stem cells: challenges and prospects. Meat Sci. 2012;92:297–301.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choudhury D, Tseng TW, Swartz E. The business of cultured meat. Trends Biotechnol. 2020;38:573–577.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finnigan TJA, Wall BT, Wilde PJ, et al. Mycoprotein: the future of nutritious nonmeat protein, a symposium review. Curr Dev Nutr. 2019;3:nzz021.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verbeke W, Sans P, Van Loo EJ. Challenges and prospects for consumer acceptance of cultured meat. J Integr Agric. 2015;14:285–294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rischer H, Szilvay GR, Oksman-Caldentey K-M. Cellular agriculture—industrial biotechnology for food and materials. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2020;61:128–134.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang G, Zhao X, Li X, et al. Challenges and possibilities for bio-manufacturing cultured meat. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2020;97:443–450.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stephens N, Di Silvio L, Dunsford I, et al. Bringing cultured meat to market: technical, socio-political, and regulatory challenges in cellular agriculture. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2018;78:155–166.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryant C, Barnett J. Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: a systematic review. Meat Sci. 2018;143:8–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartung T. Food for thought … on cell culture. ALTEX 2007;:143–147.
   Google Scholar
• Stafford A. The manufacture of food ingredients using plant cell and tissue cultures. Trends Food Sci Technol. 1991;2:116–122.
   Google Scholar
• Jairath G, Mal G, Gopinath D, et al. An holistic approach to access the viability of cultured meat: a review. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2021;110:700–710.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hashempour-Baltork F, Khosravi-Darani K, Hosseini H, et al. Mycoproteins as safe meat substitutes. J Clean Prod. 2020;253:119958.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonny SPF, Gardner GE, Pethick DW, et al. What is artificial meat and what does it mean for the future of the meat industry? J Integr Agric. 2015;14:255–263.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ningrum A, Anggrahini S, Anggraeni Z. In silico approach for identification of bioactive peptides in jack bean. Qual Assur Saf Crop Foods. 2018;10:20.
   Google Scholar
• Ningrum A, Anggrahini S, WidiastutiSetyaningsih, et al. Physicochemical characterization of Jack Bean (Canavaliaensiformis) Tempeh. Food Res.
   Google Scholar
• Nordlund E, Lille M, Silventoinen P, et al. Plant cells as food – a concept taking shape. Food Res Int. 2018;107:297–305.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Häkkinen ST, Nygren H, Nohynek L, et al. Plant cell cultures as food—aspects of sustainability and safety. Plant Cell Rep. 2020;39:1655–1668.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiala N. Meeting the demand: an estimation of potential future greenhouse gas emissions from meat production. Ecol Econ. 2008;67:412–419.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ismail I, Hwang YH, Joo ST. Meat analog as future food: a review. J Anim Sci Technol. 2020;62:111–120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Datar I, Betti M. Possibilities for an in vitro meat production system. Innovative Food Sci Emerg Technol. 2010;11:13–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuomisto HL, Teixeira De Mattos MJ. Environmental impacts of cultured meat production. Environ Sci Technol. 2011;45:6117–6123.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong TK, Shin DM, Choi J, et al. Current issues and technical advances in cultured meat production: a review. Food Sci Anim Resour. 2021;41:335–372.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mattick CS, Landis AE, Allenby BR, et al. Anticipatory life cycle analysis of in vitro biomass cultivation for cultured meat production in the United States. Environ Sci Technol. 2015;49:11941–11949.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chriki S, Hocquette JF. The myth of cultured meat: a review. Front Nutr. 2020;7:1–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Post MJ, Levenberg S, Kaplan DL, et al. Scientific, sustainability and regulatory challenges of cultured meat. Nat Food. 2020;1:403–415.
   Google Scholar
• Haldane BJBS, William S, Reader D. Daedalus of science and the future. 1923;
   Google Scholar
• Smith FE. The World in 2030 A.D. Hodder and Stoughton printed by C. Tinling & Co. Ltd; 1930.
   Google Scholar
• Bhat ZF, Bhat H. Tissue engineered meat- Future meat. J Stored Prod Postharvest Res. 2011;2:1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Ross R. The smooth muscle cell: II. Growth of smooth muscle in culture and formation of elastic fibers. J Cell Biol. 1971;50:172–186.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benjaminson MA, Gilchriest JA, Lorenz M. In vitro edible muscle protein production system (MPPS): stage 1, fish. Acta Astronaut. 2002;51:879–889.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vein J. Method for producing tissue engineered meat for consumption. 2004;
   Google Scholar
• Rubio NR, Xiang N, Kaplan DL. Plant-based and cell-based approaches to meat production. Nat Commun. 2020;11:1–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraeye I, Kratka M, Vandenburgh H, et al. Sensorial and nutritional aspects of cultured meat in comparison to traditional meat: much to be inferred. Front Nutr. 2020;7:7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lab DF. No In 2040, clean meat will be the size of conventional meat. 2020;
   Google Scholar
• Faustman C, Hamernik D, Looper M, et al. Cell-based meat: the need to assess holistically. J Anim Sci. 2020;98:1–7.
   Google Scholar
• Dolgin E. Sizzling interest in lab-grown meat belies lack of basic research. Nature. 2019;566:161–162.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Keefe LM. FakeMeat: how big a deal will animal meat analogs ultimately be? 2018; 8.
   Google Scholar
• Lee HJ, Yong HI, Kim M, et al. Status of meat alternatives and their potential role in the future meat market — a review. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2020;33(10):1533–1543.
   Google Scholar
• Catts O, Zurr I. Growing semi-living sculptures: the tissue culture & art project. Leonardo. 2002;35:365–370.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seah JSH, Singh S, Tan LP, et al. Scaffolds for the manufacture of cultured meat. Crit Rev Biotechnol. 2021:1–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kadim IT, Mahgoub O, Baqir S, et al. Cultured meat from muscle stem cells: a review of challenges and prospects. J Integr Agric. 2015;14:222–233.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arshad MS, Javed M, Sohaib M, et al. Tissue engineering approaches to develop cultured meat from cells: a mini review. Cogent Food Agric. 2017;3:1320814.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charwat V, Egger D. The third dimension in cell culture: from 2D to 3D culture formats. In: Kasper C, Charwat V, Lavrentieva A, editors. Cell culture technology. Cham, Switzerland; 2018. p. 75–90.
   Google Scholar
• Sj A, De BPA, Mj E. Bioprocess design considerations for cultured meat production with a focus on the expansion bioreactor. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2019;3.
   Google Scholar
• Westerhof VEW, Van KWJ,W. Industrial scale production of meat from in vitro cell cultures. 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Wu G. Important roles of dietary taurine, creatine, carnosine, anserine and 4-hydroxyproline in human nutrition and health. Springer Vienna; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Wójcik OP, Koenig KL, Zeleniuch-Jacquotte A, et al. The potential protective effects of taurine on coronary heart disease. Atherosclerosis. 2010;208:19–25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ripps H, Shen W. Review: Taurine: A “very essential” amino acid. Mol Vis. 2012;18:2673–2686.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gualano B, Rawson ES, Candow DG, et al. Creatine supplementation in the aging population: effects on skeletal muscle, bone and brain. Amino Acids. 2016;48:1793–1805.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood JD, Enser M, Fisher AV, et al. Fat deposition, fatty acid composition and meat quality: a review. Meat Sci. 2008;78:343–358.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saeki K, Matsumoto K, Kinoshita M, et al. Functional expression of a Δ12 fatty acid desaturase gene from spinach in transgenic pigs. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004;101:6361–6366.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watanabe F, Vitamin BT. B12 sources and microbial interaction. Exp Biol Med. 2018;243:148–158.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thorrez L, Vandenburgh H. Challenges in the quest for ‘clean meat. Nat Biotechnol. 2019;37:215–216.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• West AR, Oates PS. Mechanisms of heme iron absorption: current questions and controversies. World J Gastroenterol. 2008;14:4101–4110.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weller RF, Marley CL, Moorby JM. Effects of organic and conventional feeding regimes and husbandry methods on the quality of milk and dairy products. Handb Org Food Saf Qual. 2007;97–116.
   Google Scholar
• Lorenzo JM, Pateiro M, Franco D. Influence of muscle type on physicochemical and sensory properties of foal meat. Meat Sci. 2013;94:77–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laestadius LI, Caldwell MA. Is the future of meat palatable? Perceptions of in vitro meat as evidenced by online news comments. Public Health Nutr. 2015;18:2457–2467.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilks M, Phillips CJC, Romanach SS. Attitudes to in vitro meat: a survey of potential consumers in the United States. PLoS One. 2017;12:1–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siegrist M, Sütterlin B. Importance of perceived naturalness for acceptance of food additives and cultured meat. Appetite. 2017;113:320–326.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hadi J, Brightwell G. Safety of alternative proteins: technological, environmental and regulatory aspects of cultured meat, plant-based meat, insect protein and single-cell protein. Foods. 2021;10:1226.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alexandratos N, Bruinsma J. World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision. Rome; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Najafpour GD, Protein S-C. In: biochemical engineering and biotechnology. 2007. 332–341.
   Google Scholar
• Research and Markets. Mycoprotein - Global market trajectory & analytics [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 Sep 16]; Available from: https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5302087/mycoprotein-global-market-trajectory-and
   Google Scholar
• Rudravaram R, Chandel AK, Rao LV, et al. (Single Cell) protein: issues of production, toxins and commercialisation status. In: Ashworth GS, Azevedo P, editors. Agric wastes. (New York, NY Hauppage); 2009. p. 129–153.
   Google Scholar
• Wiebe MG. QuornTM myco-protein - Overview of a successful fungal product. Mycologist. 2004;18:17–20.
   Google Scholar
• Trinci APJ. Quorn mycoprotein. Mycol. 1991;5:106–109.
   Google Scholar
• Ward PN. Production of food. Pat. No. US57390301998;
   Google Scholar
• Reed G, Nagodawithana TW. BAKER ’ S YEAST PRODUCTION. In: Yeast Technology. Dordrecht: Springer; 1991.
   Google Scholar
• Fenster K, Freeburg B, Hollard C, et al. The production and delivery of probiotics: a review of a practical approach. 2019;:1–17.
   Google Scholar
• Anandharaj M, Rani RP. Production of high ‐ quality probiotics by fermentation production of high ‐ quality probiotics by fermentation - introduction. 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Edward D, Jh C. The protein quality of mycoprotein. In: Proceedings of the Nutrition Society. Cambridge University Press; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Finnigan TJA. Mycoprotein: origins, production and properties. Woodhead Publishing Limited; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Sadler MJ. Fungal protein. In: Hudson BJF, editor. New and developing sources of food proteins. Boston: Springer; 1994. p. 343–362.
   Google Scholar
• Denny A, Aisbitt B, Lunn J. Mycoprotein and health. Nutr Bull. 2008;33:298–310.
   Google Scholar
• Homma Y, Nakamura H, Kumagai Y, et al. Effects of eight week ingestion of mycoprotein on plasma levels of lipids and Apo (Lipo) proteins. Prog Med. 1995;15:183–195.
   Google Scholar
• Turnbull WH, Ward T. Mycoprotein reduces glycemia and insulinemia when taken with an oral-glucose-tolerance test. Am J Clin Nutr. 1995;61:135–140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lonchamp J, Euston PSCSR, Euston SR. Foaming, emulsifying and rheological properties of extracts from a co ‑ product of the Quorn fermentation process. Eur Food Res Technol. 2019;245:1825–1839.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elzerman JE, Hoek AC, Van Boekel MAJS, et al. Consumer acceptance and appropriateness of meat substitutes in a meal context. Food Qual Prefer. 2011;22:233–240.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoek AC, Elzerman JE, Hageman R, et al. Are meat substitutes liked better over time? A repeated in-home use test with meat substitutes or meat in meals. Food Qual Prefer. 2013;28:253–263.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Donnell K, Cigelnik E, Casper HH. Molecular phylogenetic, morphological, and mycotoxin dam veneta support reidentification of the quorn mycoprotein fungus as Fusariunatum. Fungal Genet Biol. 1998;23:57–67.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finnigan T, Needham L, Abbott C. Mycoprotein: a healthy new protein with a low environmental impact. In: Sustainable protein sources. Elsevier; 2017. p. 305–325.
   Google Scholar
• Miller SA, Dwyer JT. Evaluating the safety and nutritional value of mycoprotein. Food Technol. 2001;55:42–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobson MF, DePorter J. Self-reported adverse reactions associated with mycoprotein (Quorn-brand) containing foods. Ann Allergy, Asthma Immunol. 2018;120:626–630.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rotz CA, Asem-hiablie S, Place S, et al. Environmental footprints of beef cattle production in the United States. Agric Syst. 2019;169:1–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quorn Introduces AL. Carbon footprint labels [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2021 Mar 13]; Available from: https://www.treehugger.com/quorn-introduces-carbon-footprint-labels-4853587
   Google Scholar
• Gmoser R, Fristedt R, Larsson K, et al. From stale bread and brewers spent grain to a new food source using edible filamentous fungi. Bioengineered. 2020;11:582–598.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Filho PFS, Nair RB, Andersson D, et al. Vegan ‑ mycoprotein concentrate from pea ‑ processing industry byproduct using edible filamentous fungi. Fungal Biol Biotechnol. 2018;5:1–10.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Carotenoids NA. Norisoprenoids and partial purification of CCDs in Aonori (Enteromorpha sp). 2010;
   Google Scholar
• Kuwano K, Sakurai R, Motozu Y, et al. Diurnal cell division regulated by gating the G1/S transition in Enteromorpha sp. J Phycol. 2008;44:364–373.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sousa AI, Martins I, Lillebø AI, et al. Influence of salinity, nutrients and light on the germination and growth of Enteromorpha sp. spores. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol. 2007;341:142–150.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mamatha BS, Namitha KK, Senthil A, et al. Studies on use of Enteromorpha in snack food. Food Chem. 2007;101:1707–1713.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cardozo KHM, Guaratini T, Barros MP, et al. Metabolites from algae with economical impact. Comp Biochem Physiol - C Toxicol Pharmacol. 2007;146:60–78.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson SB. Cyanobacterial and eukaryotic algal odour compounds: signals or by-products? A review of their biological activity. Phycologia. 2003;42:332–350.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fink P, Von Elert E, Jüttner F. Volatile foraging kairomones in the littoral zone: attraction of an herbivorous freshwater gastropod to algal odors. J Chem Ecol. 2006;32:1867–1881.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Höckelmann C, Moens T, Jüttner F. Odor compounds from cyanobacterial biofilms acting as attractants and repellents for free-living nematodes. Limnol Oceanogr. 2004;49:1809–1819.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ibitoye DO, Akin-Idowu PE. Marker-assisted-selection (MAS): a fast track to increase genetic gain in horticultural crop breeding. Afr J Biotechnol. 2011;10:11333–11339.
   Google Scholar
• Cunningham FJ, Goh NS, Demirer GS, et al. Nanoparticle-mediated delivery towards advancing plant genetic engineering. Trends Biotechnol. 2018;36:882–897.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darbani B, Eimanifar A, Stewart CN, et al. Methods to produce marker-free transgenic plants. Biotechnol J. 2007;2:83–90.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zhao Y, Qian Q, Wang H. Co-transformation of gene expression cassettes via particle bombardment to generate safe transgenic plant without any unwanted DNA. Biotechnology. 2007;43:328–334.
   Google Scholar
• Altpeter F, Baisakh N, Beachy R, et al. Particle bombardment and the genetic enhancement of crops: myths and realities. 2005;:305–327.
   Google Scholar
• Kamthan A, Chaudhuri A, Kamthan M, et al. Genetically modified (GM) crops: milestones and new advances in crop improvement. Theor Appl Genet. 2016;129:1639–1655.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nyaboga E, Tripathi JN, Manoharan R, et al. Agrobacterium-mediated genetic transformation of yam (Dioscorea rotundata): an important tool for functional study of genes and crop improvement [Internet]. Front Plant Sci. 2014;5:463. Available from:: https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpls.2014.00463
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gupta SK, Shukla P. Gene editing for cell engineering: trends and applications. Crit Rev Biotechnol. 2017;37:672–684.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weeks DP, Spalding MH, Yang B. Use of designer nucleases for targeted gene and genome editing in plants. Plant Biotechnol J. 2016;14:483–495.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li H, Yang Y, Hong W, et al. Applications of genome editing technology in the targeted therapy of human diseases: mechanisms, advances and prospects. Signal Transduction Target Ther. 2020;5:1–23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaur RK, Verma RK, Khurana SMP. Genetic engineering of horticultural crops: present and future. In: Genetic Engineering of Horticultural Crops. Elsevier. 2018. p. 23–46.
   Google Scholar
• Doudna JA, Charpentier E. The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9. Science. 2014;346. DOI:10.1126/science.1258096
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johns T, Eyzaguirre PB. Biofortification, biodiversity and diet: a search for complementary applications against poverty and malnutrition. Food Policy. 2007;32:1–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu C, Sanahuja G, Yuan D, et al. Biofortification of plants with altered antioxidant content and composition: genetic engineering strategies. Plant Biotechnol J. 2013;11:129–141.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stein AJ, Nestel P, Meenakshi JV, et al. Plant breeding to control zinc deficiency in India: how cost-effective is biofortification? Public Health Nutrition. 2007;10:492–501.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meenakshi JV, Johnson NL, Manyong VM, et al. How cost-effective is biofortification in combating micronutrient malnutrition? An ex ante assessment. World Dev. 2010;38:64–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tiozon RJN, Fernie AR, Sreenivasulu N. Trends in food science & technology meeting human dietary vitamin requirements in the staple rice via strategies of biofortification and post-harvest fortification. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2021;109:65–82.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Valença AW, Bake A, Brouwer ID, et al. Agronomic biofortification of crops to fight hidden hunger in sub-Saharan Africa. Glob Food Sec. 2017;12:8–14.
   Google Scholar
• Burkhardt PK, Beyer P, Wünn J, et al. Transgenic rice (Oryza sativa) endosperm expressing daffodil (Narcissus pseudonarcissus) phytoene synthase accumulates phytoene, a key intermediate of provitamin A biosynthesis. Plant J. 1997;11:1071–1078.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paine JA, Shipton CA, Chaggar S, et al. Improving the nutritional value of Golden Rice through increased pro-vitamin A content. Nat Biotechnol. 2005;23:482–487.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmermann R, Qaim M. Potential health benefits of golden rice: a Philippine case study. Food Policy. 2004;29:147–168.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia-Casal MN, Peña-Rosas JP, Giyose B, et al. Staple crops biofortified with increased vitamins and minerals: considerations for a public health strategy. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2017;1390:3–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rengel Z, Batten GD, Crowley DE. Agronomic approaches for improving the micronutrient density in edible portions of field crops. F Crop Res. 1999;60:27–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adeyeye SAO, Idowu-Adebayo F. Genetically modified and biofortified crops and food security in developing countries: a review. Nutr Food Sci. 2019;49:978–986.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bisht DS, Bhatia V, Bhattacharya R. Improving plant-resistance to insect-pests and pathogens: the new opportunities through targeted genome editing. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2019;96:65–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christou P, Capell T, Kohli A, et al. Recent developments and future prospects in insect pest control in transgenic crops. Trends Plant Sci. 2006;11:302–308.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gartland KMA, Gartland JS. Contributions of biotechnology to meeting future food and environmental security needs. EuroBiotech J. 2018;2:2–9.
   Google Scholar
• Kosova K, Vitamvas P, Urban MO, et al. Breeding for enhanced drought resistance in barley and wheat-drought-associated traits, genetic resources and their potential utilization in breeding programmes. Czech J Genet Plant Breed. 2014;50:247–261.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marschner H. Mineral nutrition of higher plants. 2nd ed. London: Academic Press; 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Eimer M. Transgenic drought and salt tolerant plants. Genet Eng Newsletter, Spec Issue. 2004;15:1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Wu S, Bates B, Zbigniew KAW, et al. Climate change and water. Geneva; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Ashraf M, Athar HR, Harris PJC, et al. Some prospective strategies for improving crop salt tolerance. Adv Agron. 2008;97:2–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashraf M. Induced variability for salinity and aluminium tolerance by N-Methyl N-Nitrosourea treatment of fertilized egg cell of rice. 1984;
   Google Scholar
• Peng Z, He S, Sun J, et al. + compartmentalization related to salinity stress tolerance in upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) seedlings. Nat Publ Gr. 2016;1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Apse MP, Aharon GS, Snedden WA, et al. Salt tolerance conferred by overexpression of a vacuolar Na+/H+ antiport in Arabidopsis. Science. 1999;285:1256–1258.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang H-X BE. Transgenic salt-tolerant tomato plants accumulate salt in foliage but not in fruit. Nat Biotechnol. 2001;19:765–768.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang H-X, Hodson JN, Williams JP, et al. Engineering salt-tolerant Brassica plants: characterization of yield and seed oil quality in transgenic plants with increased vacuolar sodium accumulation. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2001;98:12832–12836.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He C, Yan J, Shen G, et al. Expression of an Arabidopsis vacuolar sodium/proton antiporter gene in cotton improves photosynthetic performance under salt conditions and increases fiber yield in the field. Plant Cell Physiol. 2005;46:1848–1854.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li TY, Zhang Y, Liu H, et al. Stable expression of Arabidopsis vacuolar Na+/H+ antiporter gene AtNHX1, and salt tolerance in transgenic soybean for over six generations. Chinese Sci Bull. 2010;55:1127–1134.
   Google Scholar
• Sun L, Hu R, Shen G, et al. Genetic engineering peanut for higher drought-and salt-tolerance. Food Nutr Sci. 2013;4:1–7.
   Google Scholar
• Banjara M, Zhu L, Shen G, et al. Expression of an Arabidopsis sodium/proton antiporter gene (AtNHX1) in peanut to improve salt tolerance. Plant Biotechnol Rep. 2012;6:59–67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blumwald E. Salt transport and salt resistance in plants and other organisms. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2000;12:431–434.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li B, Li N, Duan X, et al. Generation of marker-free transgenic maize with improved salt tolerance using the FLP/FRT recombination system. J Biotechnol. 2010;145:206–213.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar P, Verma S, Deo R, et al. CC-type glutaredoxin, OsGrx _ C7 plays a crucial role in enhancing protection against salt stress in rice. J Biotechnol. 2021;329:192–203.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nguyen QH, Thi L, Pham T, et al. Overexpression of the GmDREB6 gene enhances proline accumulation and salt tolerance in genetically modified soybean plants. Sci Rep. 2019;9:1–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lou D, Wang H, Yu D. The sucrose non-fermenting-1-related protein kinases SAPK1 and SAPK2 function collaboratively as positive regulators of salt stress tolerance in rice. BMC Plant Biol. 2018;18:1–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Endo M, Nishizawa-Yokoi A, Toki S. Targeted mutagenesis in rice using TALENs and the CRISPR/Cas9 system. In: Chromosome and genomic engineering in plants. Springer; 2016. p. 123–135.
   Google Scholar
• Farhat S, Jain N, Singh N, et al. CRISPR-Cas9 directed genome engineering for enhancing salt stress tolerance in rice. In: Seminars in cell & developmental biology. Elsevier; 2019. 91–99.
   Google Scholar
• Anjanappa RB, Gruissem W. Current progress and challenges in crop genetic transformation. J Plant Physiol. 2021;261:153411.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khatodia S, Bhatotia K, Tuteja N. Development of CRISPR/Cas9 mediated virus resistance in agriculturally important crops. Bioengineered. 2017;8:274–279.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gubser G, Vollenweider S, Eibl D, et al. Food ingredients and food made with plant cell and tissue cultures: state-of-the art and future trends. Eng Life Sci. 2021;21:87–98. Internet]: Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/elsc.202000077
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matsuda R, Spector DH, Strohman RC. Regenerating adult chicken skeletal muscle and satellite cell cultures express embryonic patterns of myosin and tropomyosin isoforms. Dev Biol. 1983;100:478–488.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yablonka-Reuveni Z, Quinn LBS, Nameroff M. Isolation and clonal analysis of satellite cells from chicken pectoralis muscle. Dev Biol. 1987;119:252–259.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Furuhashi M, Morimoto Y. Formation of contractile 3D bovine muscle tissue for construction of millimetre-thick cultured steak. Npj Sci Food. 2021;1–8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mau M, Oksbjerg N, Rehfeldt C. Establishment and conditions for growth and differentiation of a myoblast cell line derived from the semimembranosus muscle of newborn piglets. Vitr Cell Dev Biol - Anim. 2008;44:1–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ross SE, Hemati N, Longo KA, et al. Inhibition of adipogenesis by Wnt signaling. Science. 2000;289:950–953.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metzger K, Tuchscherer A, Palin MF, et al. Establishment and validation of cell pools using primary muscle cells derived from satellite cells of pig skeletal muscle. Vitr Cell Dev Biol - Anim. 2020;56:193–199.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ben-Arye T, Levenberg S. Cultured meat composition. 2018;:1–38.
   Google Scholar
• Quorn. Quorn [Internet]. [ cited 2021 Sep 21]; Available from: https://www.quorn.co.uk/
   Google Scholar
• Mycorena. Swedish mycoprotein-based ingredient: promyc [Internet]. [ cited 2021 Sep 21]; Available from: https://mycorena.com/promyc#:~:text=Promycisaprotein-rich,intaste%2Csustainabilityornutrition.
   Google Scholar
• Meat B. Beyond meat [Internet]. [ cited 2021 Sep 21]; Available from: https://www.beyondmeat.com/
   Google Scholar
• Zackai S. Beyond meat® announces major retail expansions throughout Europe [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 Sep 21]; Available from: https://investors.beyondmeat.com/news-releases/news-release-details/beyond-meatr-announces-major-retail-expansions-throughout-europe
   Google Scholar
• Enough Food. Enough food: delicious, nutritious, sustainable [Internet]. [ cited 2021 Sep 21]; Available from: https://www.enough-food.com/
   Google Scholar
• Mycoiq. Leveraging mushroom fermentation to discover transformative plant-based ingredients [Internet]. [ cited 2021 Sep 21]; Available from: https://www.mycoiq.com/
   Google Scholar
• Raised and Rooted. Raised & rootedTM: plant based products [Internet]. [ cited 2021 Sep 21]; Available from: https://www.raisedandrooted.com/products/
   Google Scholar
• Foods I. Impossible Foods: meat made from plants [Internet]. [ cited 2021 Sep 21]; Available from: https://impossiblefoods.com/
   Google Scholar
• Impossible M-HR. Foods eyes Asia, Europe after $300m celebrity whopper [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2021 Sep 21]; Available from: https://agfundernews.com/impossibles-whopper-300m-round-opens-doors-to-asia-europe.html
   Google Scholar
• Good Catch Foods. Seafood, evolvedTM [Internet]. [ cited 2021 Sep 21]; Available from: https://goodcatchfoods.com/
   Google Scholar
• Horizon B. General Mills invests in plant-based seafood company Good Catch’s $32M series B [Internet]. [ cited 2021 Sep 21]; Available from: https://www.bluehorizon.com/general-mills-invests-in-plant-based-seafood-company-good-catchs-32m-series-b/
   Google Scholar