Peer review process
Not revised: This Reviewed Preprint includes the authors’ original preprint (without revision), an eLife assessment, and public reviews.
Read more about eLife’s peer review process.Editors
- Reviewing EditorXiaojun LianPennsylvania State University
- Senior EditorCarlos IsalesAugusta University, Augusta, United States of America
Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
Summary:
The authors presented here a novel 3D fibroblast culture and transdifferentiation approach for potential meat production with GelMA hydrogel.
Strengths:
1. Reduced serum concentration for 3D chicken fibroblast culture and transdifferentiation is optimized.
2. Efficient myogenic transdifferentiation and lipogenesis as well as controlled fat deposition are achieved in the 3D GelMA.
Weaknesses:
1. While the authors stated the rationale of using fibroblasts instead of myogenic/adipogenic stem cells for meat production, the authors did not comment on the drawbacks/disadvantages of genetic engineering (e.g., forced expression of MyoD) in meat production.
2. While the authors cited one paper to state the properties and applications of GelMA hydrogel in tissue engineering and food processing, concerns/examples of the food safety with GelMA hydrogel are not discussed thoroughly.
3. In Fig. 4C, there seems no significant difference in the Vimentin expression between Fibroblast_MyoD and Myofibroblast. The conclusion of "greatly reduced in the myogenic transdifferentiated cells" is overstated.
4. The presented cell culture platform is only applied to chicken fibroblasts and should be tested in other species such as pigs and fish.
Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
The manuscript by Ma et al. tries to develop a protocol for cell-based meat production using chicken fibroblasts as three-dimensional (3D) muscle tissues with fat accumulation. The authors used genetically modified fibroblasts which can be forced to differentiate into muscle cells and formulated 3D tissues with these cells and a biphasic material (hydrogel). The degrees of muscle differentiation and lipid deposition in culture were determined by immunohistochemical, biochemical, and molecular biological evaluations. Notably, the protocol successfully achieved the process of myogenic and lipogenic stimulation in the 3D tissues.
Overall, the study is reasonably designed and performed including adequate analysis. The manuscript is clearly written with well-supported figures. While it presents valuable results in the field of cultivated meat science and skeletal muscle biology, some critical concerns were identified. First, it is unclear whether some technical approaches were really the best choice for cell-based meat production. Next, more careful evaluations and justifications would be required to properly explain biological events in the results. These points include additional evaluations and considerations with regard to myocyte alignment and lipid accumulation in the differentiated 3D tissues. The present data are very suggestive in general, but further clarifications and arguments would properly support the findings and conclusions.