MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379390879 · doi:10.1101/2023.06.01.543245

Environmental life cycle assessment of recombinant growth factor production for cultivated meat applications

2023· preprint· en· W4379390879 on OpenAlexaff
Kirsten Trinidad, Reina Ashizawa, Amin Nikkhah, Cameron Semper, Christian Casolaro, David L. Kaplan, Alexei Savchenko, Nicole Tichenor Blackstone

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute of Food and AgricultureU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsLife-cycle assessmentProduction (economics)SustainabilityBiotechnologyEnvironmental impact assessmentEnvironmental scienceBusinessBiologyEcologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Growth factors are critical components of current serum-supplemented and serum-free media formulations for cultivated meat production. However, growth factors have been excluded, estimated using proxies, or modeled using proprietary data in existing environmental assessments of cultivated meat products. Cell culture media has been identified as a hotspot in such studies, therefore it is important to accurately quantify the environmental impacts of growth factor supplementation. To address this gap, this study applied life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology to comparatively assess the environmental impacts of recombinant growth factor production for cultivated meat applications. Life cycle inventories were developed for four recombinant growth factors (IGF-1, FGF, TGF-ß, and PDGF) produced using a novel bench- scale process. The functional unit of the product output was selected as 1 mg of produced growth factor. The results indicate that recombinant growth factors can have significant environmental impacts within cultivated meat systems, despite being used in very small quantities. For example, the global warming potential of production of 1 mg of IGF-1, FGF, TGF-ß, and PDGF was estimated to be 0.1, 0.04, 0.2 and 0.2 kg CO 2 eq, respectively. Future research should explore the sustainability of producing these growth factors at scale to meet the needs of the expanding cultivated meat industry or identifying alternatives to these growth factors that have a lower impact on the environment. Nomenclature

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactFrench-language works237,207