News

Nov 05, 2024

Recent advances and challenges in single cell protein (SCP) technologies for food and feed production | npj Science of Food

npj Science of Food volume 8, Article number: 66 (2024) Cite this article 4131 Accesses Metrics details The global population is increasing, with a predicted demand for 1250 million tonnes of

npj Science of Food volume 8, Article number: 66 (2024) Cite this article

4131 Accesses

Metrics details

The global population is increasing, with a predicted demand for 1250 million tonnes of animal-derived protein by 2050, which will be difficult to meet. Single-cell protein (SCP) offers a sustainable solution. This review covers SCP production mechanisms, microbial and substrate choices, and advancements in metabolic engineering and CRISPR-Cas. It emphasizes second-generation substrates and fermentation for a circular economy. Despite challenges like high nucleic acid content, SCP promises to solve the global nutrition problem.

This review provides an update on the novel developments in single-cell protein (SCP) for feed and food over the last 7 years, as it has picked up speed and dynamics.

In recent years, global concerns surrounding food security and sustainability have become increasingly prominent1. With projections indicating a potential global population increase to 9.3 billion by 2050, a pressing need arises to address the challenges posed by rising food demands2. Compounded by issues such as undernourishment affecting millions worldwide and the alarming food wastage rate, the quest for sustainable protein sources has garnered significant attention3. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) emphasizes the critical role of proteins as essential macromolecules in cellular structures and metabolic functions4. Compared to the other bulk ingredients in human diets—fats and carbohydrates—protein are most expensive. Amongst alternative proteins, plant-based solutions, insects, lab-grown meat, and SCP have been studied. In response to the pressing challenges of providing scalable protein at low cost and environmental impact, researchers have focused on single-cell protein production.

Single-cell protein is derived from cells of certain strains of microorganisms such as yeasts, fungi, algae, and bacteria, which are grown on various carbon sources for synthesis5. They can be used as a protein supplement for animal feed6, e.g., by replacing fishmeal in the fodder of aquatic species, particularly in aquaculture, and chicken rearing. As research in this field progresses, the potential for SCP to revolutionize the protein industry and alleviate pressure on conventional food production systems becomes increasingly evident. Single-cell proteins, derived from microorganisms with high-protein content, exhibit appealing features as a nutrient supplement, providing a balanced amino acid spectrum, low-fat content, and a higher protein-to-carbohydrate ratio than forages7. Table 1 shows the typical composition of the “classic” microorganisms useful for SCP production: fungi, algae, yeast (which belong to the fungus kingdom), and bacteria8. First-generation SCP primarily involves the utilization of microorganisms, such as bacteria, yeast, and fungi, to convert various organic substrates, such as sugar, into biomass, comparable to first-generation biofuels. These microorganisms are cultivated under controlled conditions, optimizing their growth and protein production. On the other hand, the second generation of SCP explores innovative approaches, including non-food feedstocks such as agricultural residues, into protein-rich biomass9, as well as deploying genetically modified microorganisms and novel bioreactor designs, to enhance protein yields and reduce production costs10. Also, the production of specialty proteins, e.g., bioactive peptides, is being investigated. By harnessing advancements in biotechnology and fermentation techniques, researchers aim to overcome limitations associated with first-generation SCP, such as substrate availability and process scalability. SCP is part of cellular agriculture, but different from lab-grown meat (cultured meat), where animal cells are grown in bioreactors. The focus of SCP is protein; While the inactivated cells can be fed to animals directly, SCP for food entails the further purification of the protein.

Single-cell proteins have emerged as a promising solution to address the growing demand for protein sustainably11, by allowing low-cost production with minimized demand for resources. They can be cultivated using a variety of substrates, including agricultural waste and industrial by-products, thus reducing pressure on traditional agricultural practices and mitigating issues related to land and water usage12. With ongoing advancements in biotechnology and fermentation processes, the commercial viability and scalability of SCP production are steadily improving, paving the way for their integration into mainstream food systems and contributing to global food security efforts13.

Single-cell proteins contain essential vitamins, amino acids, minerals, nucleic acids, and lipids, making them versatile for various applications, from food and feed production to additional applications in further industries such as the paper industry14. The primary sources for SCP include sugars/starch (comparable to first-generation biofuels), but also various side and waste streams, such as fruit waste, molasses, etc., as well as combustible waste and by-products like methane, methanol, and ethanol15. In this respect, SCP by gas fermentation is particularly interesting, as CO/H2 (syngas) and CH4 (biogas or obtained from CO2 via methanation) can be obtained from a broad range of waste biomass streams, and H2/CO2 allows for the recycling of carbon dioxide from (industrial) point sources or direct air capture. Utilizing waste for SCP production has numerous advantages, including converting low-cost organic materials into valuable products and reducing environmental burden11. In this manuscript, the term “waste” is used in a broad sense to encompass various types of biomass residuals. For “co-products” or “by-products” being permissible for use in food and feed production, the relevant legislation needs to be born in mind. In the EU, for instance, the key regulatory frameworks governing these aspects include the General Food Law Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, which establishes the principles of food and feed safety, and the Feed Hygiene Regulation (EC) No 183/2005, which sets the requirements for feed production. For example, Regulation (EU) No 68/2013 on the Catalog of Feed Materials specifies the conditions under which various materials, including co-products and by-products, can be used in feed. These materials must be safe, of good quality, and properly labeled. Therefore, while co-products and by-products can be used in food and feed production, they must comply with the relevant safety, quality, and traceability regulations.

Agricultural waste and side streams, such as waste wood with its components cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin, serve as excellent natural sources of SCP but require pretreatment through chemical (acid hydrolysis) or enzymatic (cellulases) methods to transform the raw materials into fermentable sugars16. Additionally, domestic sewage and waste from industrial processes, e.g., starch production and food processing, can be repurposed for SCP production17. Agricultural waste not only provides a cost-effective substrate for SCP production, producing protein-enriched materials suitable for animal feed but with further processing, it can also be consumed by humans18. While first-generation substrates focus on enhancing protein security in the face of a growing global population, from edible substrates, second-generation substrates contribute to the evolving circular economy and sustainability of the food system11. These substrates involve the renewable bioconversion of waste or underutilized co-products into high-value microbial protein products19. Various fermentation technologies, including solid, liquid, and semisolid methods, have been explored for cultivating diverse strains of yeast, bacteria, algae, and filamentous fungi, with process outcomes influenced by fermentation conditions, substrate characteristics, and microbial types20.

The consumption of SCP, especially those materials derived from algae, has garnered increasing interest due to their potential as a sustainable protein source with numerous nutritional benefits7. Table 2 highlights global algae consumption as a historical food source in various countries. Both macro- and microalgae have been on humans’ diets. Macroalgae contain varying levels of nutrients depending on species, season of harvest, geographic origin, and environmental conditions21. The protein and nutritionally essential amino acids content can be rather low and variable, especially in brown (Phaeophyta), green (Chlorophyta), and red (Rhodophyta) algae macroalgae, when considered against the amino acid requirement of most aquacultural and terrestrial animal species. It is reported that marine macroalgae are rich in protein content22. Recent research findings have revived interest in marine macroalgal biomass as a potentially sustainable feedstock for protein production. Comparing the protein content of macroalgae reported in different studies can be difficult owing to methodological differences23. However, the protein content of brown macroalgae is generally low (usually under 150 g kg−1 of dry matter (DM)), whereas green macroalgae, and especially red macroalgae, have a higher protein content on a DM basis. Some red macroalgae, such as Porphyra spp., contain protein levels comparable to soybean meal18, which is around 50% on a DM basis.

Nielsen et al.24 reported that species of green algae sea lettuces (Ulva genus) have been the subject of several animal experiments. Intact biomass from Ulva spp. is relatively rich in protein and has potential as an alternative protein source in animal feed. Seaweed-derived protein may offer a viable solution as seaweeds may be considered sustainable and highly nutritious, and they do not require land for cultivation25. Seaweeds have a reported protein content of between 8 and 47% dry weight, and the highest protein content is found in red and green seaweed species26. Red macroalgae of the genus Porphyra, e.g., P. purpurea, P. yezoensis, and P. dioca, have been studied as protein sources in diets. Previous research27 included P. purpurea meal containing 250 g kg−1 of protein at 165 and 330 g kg−1 in isonitrogenous and isoenergetic diets (i.e. same nitrogen and energy contents) for the omnivorous thick-lipped gray mullet (Chelon labrosus), replacing fishmeal. The results showed that body weight gain, specific growth rate, feed efficiency, and protein efficiency ratio as well as net protein utilization decreased with increasing P. purpurea inclusion levels. The protein content of macroalgae varies within seasonal cycles. One example is the protein content of the red seaweed Palmaria palmata collected on the French Atlantic coast, which showed fluctuations between 9 and 25% dry weight in protein content. The highest values occurred during winter and spring28. Macroalgae, rich in diverse nutrients and proteins, have gained attention as a potential sustainable alternative to conventional protein sources.

Microalgal biomass production has been long considered a promising way to close the predicted ‘protein gap’. Reported crude protein content of microalgal biomass varies between 30 and 80 mass percent: for example, Chlorella vulgaris, 51–58%; Arthrospira platensis 60–71%; Tetraselmischui 31–46%; Nannochloropsis oceanica 35–44%; Dunaliella salina, 50–80%; Galdieria sulphuraria, 62%29. As such, microalgal protein content generally is higher than that of dried skimmed milk (36%), soy flour (37%), chicken (24%), fish (24%), and peanuts (26%)30. Despite the high-protein content and the favorable amino acid composition, direct use of microalgal biomass as single-cell protein (SCP) is limited by its digestibility31. Galdieria sulphuraria is an extremophile red microalga that thrives in acidic environments with pH values from 0 to 4 and temperatures up to 56 °C32. It is reported that G. sulphuraria has great potential for the biotechnological production of pigmented proteins like phycocyanin33. There are proteins synthesized by G. sulphuraria of biotechnological interest, including phycobiliproteins (phycoerythrin, allophycocyanin, and phycocyanin).

However, practical barriers, such as the great difficulty of extracting proteins from microalgae, exist. The separation of microalgae proteins from cellular debris is mainly based on their dispersibility in water and the separation of the protein-rich aqueous phase from the solid phase34. Microalgae have complex cell wall structures that can be difficult to break down, making it challenging to access and extract proteins efficiently35. Traditional protein extraction methods can be expensive and energy-intensive, reducing the economic feasibility of large-scale protein production from microalgae36. It is reported that various extraction methods, including mechanical disruption, enzymatic digestion, and chemical treatments, are used for protein extraction from microalgae37. Each method has its advantages and drawbacks. Mechanical disruption, such as bead milling or ultrasonication, can break down the cell walls but may also damage the proteins and require additional purification steps. Enzymatic digestion can selectively target cell wall components but may be slow and costly. Chemical treatments may be efficient but raise concerns about residue removal and environmental impact38.

There was considerable interest in algae for biomass and biofuel production a long time ago, however much of the euphoria has subsided. There are several reasons why the initial enthusiasm for algae as a source of biomass and biofuel may have faded, such as technical challenges, economic viability, environmental concerns, and market dynamics39.

Cyanobacteria are also utilized for the production of single-cell proteins. These single cells are characterized by a low content of nucleic acids and a high amount of proteins. A cyanobacterium grows comparatively rapidly and produces good-quality proteins. It has been demonstrated that Spirulina maxima and Spirulina platensis are the most important cyanobacteria, which contain 60–70% protein content40. Due to the high quality and quantity of proteins obtained from Spirulina, it is very useful to human nutrition. Also lend themselves to the production of single-cell oil (SCO).

Table 3 outlines various substrates utilized for cultivating different organisms, as common practice in the production of single-cell proteins41. The choice of protein derived from diverse species is grounded in its chemical composition (e.g. protein and fat content) and its amino acid profile42. Fungi, particularly when cultivated for single-cell protein production, contain a substantial 30 to 50% protein content43. Their amino acid profiles adhere to the standards set by the FAO, generally characterized by richness in lysine and threonine but a deficiency in cysteine and methionine, which are sulfur-containing amino acids primarily derived from plant sources44. Noteworthy is the fungus K. fragilis, which demonstrates the ability to produce sulfur-containing amino acids when grown on whey45. Single-cell protein from fungi not only provides protein but also additional nutrients, including various B-complex vitamins such as riboflavin, niacin, thiamine, biotin, pantothenic acid, choline, pyridoxine, glutathione, pamino benzoic acid, streptogenin, and folic acid46. However, it is important to note that feeding on mycoprotein obtained from Fusarium venenatum has been reported to lead to a decrease in insulin and blood glucose levels47. Fungi also tend to have a relatively higher nucleic acid content, ranging from 7 to 10%, compared to algae48. Fusarium venenatum is used to produce the mycoprotein Quorn™, which was launched in 1985 by Marlow Foods.

Bacteria, with an exceptionally short generation time of 20 to 120 min, exhibit rapid multiplication and can grow on a diverse range of raw materials and edible (and also non-edible) substrates such as starches and sugars49. Bacteria thrive on organic matter, petrochemical wastes (hydrocarbons), and other cheap substrates, including ethanol and methanol, as well as methane and carbon monoxide. Certain bacteria, like Methylophilus spp., exhibit an impressively short generation time of 2 h and are valuable components of animal feed, offering protein that is chemically superior to yeast or fungi50.

This paper extensively reviews the current landscape of single-cell protein (SCP) technology, grouped into eight main sections. The initial sections (first to third) focus on the production perspective, addressing production mechanisms, key steps, and the involvement of relevant microbes and substrates, with a focus on recent advancements in the field. The subsequent sections (fourth and fifth) shift the focus to genetic studies related to SCP production and an examination of its sustainability prospects. The sixth section provides an update on commercial activities in the realm of SCP, while the seventh section explores feed and food legislation. The final sections (eighth and ninth) delve into the progress of sustainability research, comparing results among different countries, and addressing SCP challenges. The article concludes by summarizing key findings and highlighting future research priorities.

A comprehensive literature search was undertaken utilizing multiple academic databases, including Web of Knowledge, Scopus, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and ResearchGate. The search spanned from 2016 to early 2024, focusing on various keywords related to single-cell protein, fermentation, microalgae, microbial protein, yeast, bacteria, solid-state fermentation, biomass production, wastes, and substrates. To refine the search and obtain precise results, operators like “OR” and “AND” were employed, and specific terms, such as “methane fermentation” or “gas fermentation,” were enclosed in quotation marks. References cited within the acquired publications were also collected to ensure a thorough literature review. The chosen keywords were consistently applied across all four databases to maximize search coverage and compile and analyze a comprehensive collection of literature on SCP. Bibliometrix™ was employed to identify trending keywords and topics in each specific review section. A total of 130 articles were screened and evaluated based on titles and abstracts, employing a stringent selection process that prioritized studies with quantitative information. The targeted studies addressed single-cell protein production mechanisms and sustainable production methods, challenges, and future perspectives. Following a thorough comparison and analysis of the remaining articles, they were categorized based on relevant keywords. The conducted research was summarized, and the content of the 130 studies was critically evaluated. Essential features were extracted, and key challenges warranting further investigations were identified. Through this rigorous methodology, the aim was to offer a comprehensive review that synthesizes the current state of knowledge, emphasizes significant findings, and pinpoints areas necessitating additional research attention within the context of single-cell protein mechanisms. Figure 1 summarizes the bibliometric analysis of the review sections and Fig. 2 shows the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram of this study.

The size of nodes shows the frequency of recurrence of the terms, and the connections between the different nodes show their simultaneous occurrence in a piece of literature.

This includes studies identified through other means, such as manual searches of reference lists, conference proceedings, or expert consultations.

Figure 3 offers a simplified visual representation illustrating the sequential process flow involved in SCP production. The production journey of SCP begins with substrate preparation, a pivotal step in converting substrates into a usable carbon source51. The approach to substrate preparation is contingent upon the type of substrate and the selected fermentation method52. Recent literature introduces second-generation substrates (SGS) prepared through diverse methods, including wet, direct, and dry preparation53. These methods are intricately linked with liquid-state fermentation, solid-state fermentation, and semisolid-state fermentation, respectively54. The wet preparation method is commonly applied to substrates with high moisture content, such as fresh fruit or vegetable waste55. It involves a sequence of water or acidic washes, pulverization, filtration, and sterilization to yield a sterile liquid medium56. For low-moisture substrates, the dry method is employed, utilizing a drying procedure to eliminate moisture. This is followed by a reduction and sifting process, producing a fine powder with defined particle sizes57. The fine powder is then combined with water, filtered, and sterilized, resulting in a sterile moist-solid medium with a significant aqueous phase58.

This flow chart provides a simplified overview of the production process of single-cell protein (SCP).

The direct method is chosen when adopting the solid-state fermentation (SSF) approach59. It encompasses water washing and hydrolytic processes, including acid, bio hydrolysis, or thermal treatment, to convert the substrate into a fermentation-ready medium60. Lignocellulosic materials, due to their low-moisture content and bulkiness, often undergo dry and direct preparation methods61. However, the grinding and digestion of the substrate remain vital in their preparation to enhance nutrient accessibility, considering the complex interaction in their chemical composition62. Sterilization of the resultant media is conventionally carried out using an autoclave at a temperature of 121 °C for ~15–60 min, with the autoclaving duration adapted based on the substrate and contamination levels63.

After the substrate preparation stage comes media enrichment, a process designed to enhance the nutritional content of the resulting medium64. When utilizing second-generation substrates for SCP production, there has been a reliance solely on the substrate as the nutrient source for the fermentation process, leading to optimal microbial doubling without additional enrichment65. This suggests the potential option of bypassing the media enrichment step66. The subsequent stage is the inoculation phase, which may involve isolating or cultivating microbial cells to attain a substantial load before introducing them to the prepared medium67. Alternatively, a viable inoculum can be acquired from suppliers and used directly, or the back-slopping procedure can be employed as necessary68. Following inoculation, the medium undergoes incubation (fermentation). Throughout this incubation period, the fermentation environment is intermittently regulated to optimize the multiplication of microbes69. The fermentation can be done with pure or mixed cultures.

Microorganisms efficiently utilize available wastes as a growth medium to augment their cell masses, constituting the SCP70. The main process responsible for SCP production is fermentation, which can take the form of either submerged or solid-state fermentation71. Upon the completion of the fermentation process, the resulting biomass is harvested, providing a valuable protein source72. Subsequently, this biomass undergoes further processing techniques such as purification, cell disruption, washing, and protein extraction73. These steps contribute to achieving, in general, high rates of production, improved yields, and better control over the production process, e.g., nucleic acid reduction.

This kind of fermentation entails the cultivation of microbes on a solid substrate without a free aqueous phase, employing various fermenter designs74. Microbes flourishing in SSF can thrive with minimal or no extra water, as the inherent moisture in the wet solid substrate provides sufficient conditions for their growth and metabolic activities. This characteristic makes SSF an efficient and resource-conserving process for microbial cultivation. This confines SSF to microorganisms well-suited for growth under low water activity, such as yeast75, and certain filamentous fungi that prefer pure solid substrates with ~60–65% moisture content76.

In SSF, microbes acquire nutrients through adsorption or penetration of the solid substrate, enabling them to multiply into protein-rich biomass77. A nutrient concentration gradient exists in SSF, necessitating nutrient diffusion for optimal access during microbial proliferation78. The fermentation process in SSF requires sufficient oxygen supply in the liquid phase, achieved through aeration and intermittent medium stirring, alongside maintaining optimal conditions for temperature, pH, ionic strength, and nutrients to ensure maximum yield79. This kind of fermentation offers advantages due to its relatively low capital investment and minimal waste generation, delivering economic and environmental benefits80. Consequently, contemporary fermentation-based research is increasingly favoring the SSF approach to enhance techno-economic and sustainability benefits81. However, SSF encounters substantial challenges requiring significant innovations to unlock its full commercial potential82. Key challenges include difficulties in scale-up, currently hindering large-scale production, and limitations in online monitoring and process control14. Moreover, addressing issues related to stirring and removing metabolic heat in SSF has been crucial for improving process efficiency, and recent developments hold promise for better system designs to overcome these limitations83. Figure 4 provides a schematic illustration of the processes that take place during SSF with fungi.

This scheme illustrates the micro-scale processes occurring during SSF involving fungi. The top images showcase the fermentation of wheat bran with Aspergillus oryzae. In SSF systems, the transfer of oxygen is limited by the liquid film on the substrate surface, with the primary source of oxygen coming from the gas phase14.

Solid-state fermentation indeed offers several advantages, including potentially higher product yields, lower water usage, and reduced energy requirements compared to traditional submerged fermentation methods. While solid-state fermentation shows promise as a sustainable and efficient bioprocessing method, its successful implementation at a large scale requires careful evaluation of technical, economic, and market factors. It is essential to acknowledge the challenges associated with scaling up such processes to industrial levels. Furthermore, it is crucial to conduct comprehensive techno-economic analyses (TEAs) to assess the production costs and competitiveness of products derived from solid-state fermentation compared to existing alternatives.

Unlike SS, LSF, also referred to as submerged fermentation, involves microbial cultivation in a continuous liquid-phase substrate with more than 95% water content84. Conducted in a closed bioreactor, typically in continuous mode, this submerged process ensures precise control over temperature, pH, nutrients, and oxygen supply85. It is widely adopted in industrial fermentation processes due to its advantages in comparatively easy scale-up, uniform distribution of nutrients and oxygen facilitated by the continuous liquid phase, and the ability to achieve high-protein yields86. Furthermore, submerged fermentation allows for the efficient removal of metabolic heat and online monitoring or control of the process87.

However, despite these advantages, the characteristic high capital demand and significant waste generation associated with submerged fermentation are gradually diminishing its appeal in an evolving sustainability-sensitive economy88. Although research and technological advancements are addressing these limitations to enhance system performance, the increasing emphasis on the SSF approach, driven by its sustainability prospects, raises the possibility that SSF may outpace LSF in future industrial adoption89. Yet, this potential transition may face challenges90.

Semisolid-state fermentation represents an intermediary approach between SSF and LSF91. In this method, the free-flowing liquid content is increased to enhance the distribution of nutrients and oxygen92. This positioning makes it a preferred intermediate method for microbes that require a slightly higher water activity but perform better on a solid substrate93. However, as an intermediate approach, its advantages and disadvantages fall between SSF and LSF94. For instance, while it offers moderate metabolic heat removal facilitated by its slightly higher liquid phase relative to SSF, it is characterized by a high capital investment compared to SSF and a lower protein yield compared to LSF (Table 4). Traditional fermentation. Traditional fermentation is a form of indigenous and spontaneous fermentation that involves the natural growth of microorganisms and their metabolites95. Lactic acid bacteria and yeasts are the major microorganisms involved in these spontaneous fermentations96. However, in the traditional condiments from alkaline fermentation, investigations have shown that microorganisms such as Bacillus sp. and Staphylococcus sp. were predominant97. Globally, during fermentation, microorganisms act on the available carbohydrates, converting them into organic acids, alcohols, carbon dioxide as well as bacteriocins98. Since traditional fermented foods regained great interest in the general public and scientific world, many other functional properties of these foods and the microorganisms involved in their fermentation have been revealed. The fermentation process is known to increase flavor, nutritional quality, preservative effects, detoxication, and medicinal properties99. Traditional fermentation improves the digestibility of raw products, eliminates useless compounds, and increases the bioavailability of proteins, lipids, carbohydrates, minerals, and vitamins as well100. It is reported that traditional fermented foods and beverages provide a significant source of nutrients depending on the substrate used for their production101. Fermented foods based on soybean and cabbage (chungkookjang, doenjang, meju, gochujang, natto, sauerkraut, tempeh) are a source of protein, essential fatty acids (linoleic and linolenic), soluble fiber, minerals such as iron and zinc, as well as vitamin K, vitamin B9, B1, and B6. Similarly, certain fermented foods made from milk (yogurt, kefir, dahi) contain mainly high-biological value proteins, calcium, and vitamins B2, B12, and B9102. In contrast, fermented foods made from cereals (pozol, red yeast rice) possess essential amino acids (threonine, valine, isoleucine, and leucine) and insoluble fiber, as shown in Fig. 5.

This classification scheme organizes conventional fermented foods and drinks according to their primary substrates and nutritional content99.

Furthermore, traditional fermented foods play a crucial role in promoting gut health by serving as probiotics, enhancing the gut microbiota’s diversity and balance103. This is particularly significant in today’s context, where gut health is increasingly recognized as central to overall well-being, with implications for immune function, mental health, and more104. Moreover, the fermentation process can lead to the production of bioactive compounds with potential health benefits, such as antimicrobial peptides, antioxidant compounds, and anti-inflammatory agents105. These bioactive compounds contribute to the functional properties of fermented foods, making them not only nutritious but also potentially therapeutic106. As consumers become more health-conscious and seek natural, minimally processed foods, the demand for traditional fermented products is likely to continue to grow, driven by both their cultural significance and their perceived health benefits107.

Biomass fermentation is pivotal in the alternative protein sector, particularly for the sustainable production of high-protein, fibrous microbial biomass108. This process leverages the rapid growth capabilities of specific microorganisms, such as filamentous fungi, yeast, and bacteria, to produce substantial quantities of protein-rich biomass109. These microorganisms are cultivated in controlled fermentation processes where their growth is maximized to yield biomass that is inherently rich in proteins and can be directly utilized as food ingredients110.

One of the primary applications of this technology is the production of “one-cut” meat substitutes, where the cultivated fungal biomass, due to its fibrous nature, serves as an excellent alternative to traditional meat111. The texture and nutritional profile of the produced biomass make it suitable for integration into various food products, offering a sustainable and environmentally friendly protein source that reduces reliance on conventional meat and dairy products112.

Furthermore, the versatility of biomass fermentation extends to the production of other valuable bioproducts such as enzymes and organic acids113. However, the focus in the context of alternative proteins remains on enhancing the scalability and efficiency of producing microbial biomass that meets the nutritional demands and culinary expectations of consumers worldwide114. This transformative approach not only aligns with sustainable development goals but also paves the way for a bio-based economy, where renewable biological resources are utilized efficiently to address nutritional needs and minimize environmental impacts115.

The various stages of this biomass fermentation process, including pretreatment, enzyme production, and the maximization of microbial growth, are detailed in Fig. 6. This figure illustrates the integration of bioprocessing steps, emphasizing the controlled conditions under which microbial biomass is cultivated for food applications.

This diagram presents a streamlined overview of the biomass-to-ethanol process, highlighting enzymatic hydrolysis and the combined steps of saccharification and fermentation114.

Gas fermentation is a promising bioprocess that involves the conversion of gaseous substrates, such as carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), or hydrogen (H2), into biomass products through microbial activity116. This innovative approach has gained traction as a means of utilizing waste gases from industrial processes or renewable resources for the production of biochemicals and other high-value compounds117. Gas fermentation represents a sustainable alternative to traditional fermentation processes reliant on agricultural feedstocks and offers opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate environmental impacts118. At the heart of gas fermentation lies a diverse array of microorganisms capable of metabolizing gaseous substrates and synthesizing target products119. One of the most extensively studied pathways in gas fermentation is the Wood–Ljungdahl pathway, also known as the reductive acetyl-CoA pathway, which enables the conversion of carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide into acetyl-CoA, a central metabolic intermediate120. Microorganisms equipped with this pathway, such as acetogens and homoacetogens, can produce a range of compounds, including ethanol, acetate, and butanol, from carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide as the sole carbon source121.

Hydrogenotrophic microorganisms, such as certain archaea and bacteria, specialize in utilizing molecular hydrogen as an energy source for growth and metabolism122. These microorganisms play vital roles in biogas fermentation processes, where hydrogen is generated through the anaerobic digestion of organic matter123. Methanogenic archaea further metabolize hydrogen and carbon dioxide to produce methane, the primary component of biogas124. Gas fermentation systems harness these microbial consortia to convert waste gases into methane-rich biogas for energy production125.

In addition to biomass production, gas fermentation holds promise for the synthesis of platform chemicals and specialty compounds with diverse industrial applications126. Microorganisms engineered to express specific enzymes or metabolic pathways can produce a wide range of products, including organic acids, alcohols, and hydrocarbons, from gaseous substrates127. These bioproducts serve as renewable alternatives to petrochemical-derived counterparts and contribute to the transition toward a bio-based economy128. Despite its potential, gas fermentation faces challenges related to process optimization, microbial strain development, and product recovery129. Efforts are underway to enhance the efficiency and scalability of gas fermentation technologies through advancements in microbial engineering, bioreactor design, and downstream processing techniques130. As research progresses and technological barriers are overcome, gas fermentation is poised to emerge as a key strategy for valorizing waste gases and enabling the sustainable production of fuels and chemicals131.

Bacteria fermenting CO2- and CO-rich gases have a range of natural products that are mainly of interest as biocommodities or biofuels, and some are already on their way to being commercialized132. Acetate is the typical product of acetogenic bacteria and advances have been made to improve the production of natural acetate producers by genetic modification133. The Wood–Ljungdahl pathway is shown in Fig. 7.

Wood–Ljungdahl pathway and products of acetogenic bacteria. ACK acetate kinase, ACS CO dehydrogenase/acetyl-CoAsynthase, ADC acetone decarboxylase, ADHE aldehyde/alcohol dehydrogenase, ALDC acetolactate decarboxylase, ALS acetolactate synthase, AOR aldehyde: ferredoxin oxidoreductase, BCD butyryl-CoA dehydrogenase, CoFeS-P corrinoid iron-sulfur protein, CRT crotonase, CTFA/B acetoacetyl-CoA: acetate/butyrate-CoA-transferase, FAK fatty acid kinase, Fd oxidized ferredoxin, Fd2− reduced ferredoxin, FDH formate dehydrogenase, FTS formyl-THF synthetase, HBD 3-hydroxy butyryl-CoA dehydrogenase, LDH lactate dehydrogenase, MTC methenyl-THF cyclohydrolase, MTD methylene-THF dehydrogenase, MTF methyltransferase, MTR methylene-THF reductase, PFOR pyruvate: ferredoxin oxidoreductase, PTA phosphotransacetylase, PTF phosphotransferase, RNF Rnfcomplex THF: tetrahydrofolate, THL thiolase, 2,3-BDH 2,3-butanediol dehydrogenase, 2 [H], reducing equivalents (e.q. NADH or NADPH) 1057 × 793 mm (72 × 72 DPI (dots per inch))12.

Metabolic engineering is pivotal in optimizing the biotechnological production of SCP from bacteria, fungi, and algae. This strategy involves deliberate modifications to microbial metabolic pathways to enhance protein synthesis. Specifically, researchers focus on genes related to amino acid biosynthesis, protein folding, and nitrogen assimilation134. The optimization of amino acid biosynthesis aims to bolster the cellular pool of essential amino acids crucial for robust protein construction134. Genetic interventions such as overexpressing key biosynthetic pathway genes ensure a surplus of specific amino acids, contributing to efficient protein synthesis135. Meanwhile, ensuring proper protein folding is paramount for functional and stable proteins. Metabolic engineering addresses this by targeting genes involved in protein folding mechanisms, potentially adjusting chaperone protein expression or other folding factors136. This optimization mitigates the formation of misfolded or aggregated proteins, enhancing overall protein quality137.

Moreover, nitrogen assimilation plays a fundamental role in amino acid and protein synthesis. Metabolic engineering intervenes in bacterial nitrogen assimilation pathways to optimize nitrogen utilization for protein production138. By manipulating genes related to nitrogen uptake and assimilation, researchers ensure readily available nitrogen, crucial for amino acid and subsequent protein formation139. Techniques such as recombinant DNA technology and CRISPR-Cas9 enable precise genome editing, facilitating targeted modifications in protein synthesis-related genes140. Additionally, synthetic biology approaches aid in designing novel metabolic pathways for optimal protein production141.

The metabolic engineering’s benefits in SCP production are multifaceted. Increased protein yield, achieved by enhancing specific pathways, and resource-efficient production processes are prominent outcomes142. Customizing microbial metabolism tailors growth conditions and protein content to meet specific SCP production requirements143. The benefits of metabolic engineering in SCP production are multifaceted. Increased protein yield is a prominent outcome, achieved by enhancing specific pathways crucial for protein synthesis144. The optimization of metabolic pathways ensures efficient nutrient utilization, making the production process more resource-effective145. Metabolic engineering allows the tailoring of the microorganisms’ metabolism to meet the specific requirements for SCP production, optimizing growth conditions and protein content146. Feed and food approval with genetically modified organisms (GMO) is more complex than with naturally occurring strains.

The approaches described here can indeed be applied to various sources of SCP, including bacteria, fungi, and algae, which are representative of both first and second-generation SCP sources147. Metabolic engineering techniques are versatile and can be adapted to different microbial species to enhance protein synthesis and optimize production processes148. Regarding the potential applications for food and feed uses, the versatility of metabolic engineering allows for customization based on the intended purpose149, also known as precision fermentation Whether the SCP is destined for human consumption or animal feed, the optimization of metabolic pathways can ensure the production of high-quality protein with efficient nutrient utilization150. Therefore, these approaches can be tailored to meet the specific requirements of both food and feed applications, contributing to sustainable protein production across various sectors.

RNA interference (RNAi) is a fundamental cellular process primarily observed in eukaryotic organisms, responsible for the selective regulation of gene expression by effectively silencing specific genes. This intricate mechanism plays a crucial role in maintaining cellular functions and responding to various biological processes in eukaryotes. In the context of SCP production, while RNAi may not be directly applicable in prokaryotes, similar mechanisms of gene regulation exist, such as CRISPR-Cas systems. These systems can be employed to downregulate genes associated with undesirable traits or to fine-tune the expression of genes involved in protein synthesis in prokaryotic hosts151.

This precision in gene regulation contributes to the optimization of microbial strains for enhanced SCP production. For instance, in prokaryotic hosts, CRISPR-Cas systems can be utilized to influence the composition of SCP by selectively enhancing the expression of genes responsible for desirable nutritional attributes. By targeting specific genes involved in amino acid synthesis or bioactive compound production, researchers can tailor SCP to meet specific nutritional requirements for various applications152. Additionally, CRISPR-Cas systems offer a powerful tool for mitigating stress responses encountered by microbes during SCP production. By modulating the expression of stress-related genes, microbial cells can maintain optimal protein production levels even under challenging growth conditions, ensuring consistent SCP yields153.

CRISPR-Cas and RNAi technologies play pivotal roles in advancing SCP production, albeit in different cellular contexts. They empower researchers to engineer microbial strains with precision, optimizing metabolic pathways and gene expression to meet the evolving demands for sustainable and high-quality protein sources154. The application of these technologies ensures that SCP remains a promising solution for addressing global protein challenges155.

The CRISPR/Cas systems, primarily prokaryotic and categorized into two classes and six major types, spotlight the class 2 type II CRISPR system (CRISPR/Cas9)156. This specific system is extensively researched and developed as a versatile toolbox for gene editing and other applications, as indicated by Fig. 8. As a eukaryotic model microorganism, S. cerevisiae was one of the earliest hosts for CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genome editing156. To improve genome editing efficiency in eukaryotic hosts, considerations such as codon usage and nuclear localization sequences become crucial (Fig. 8).

Guidelines for expressing Cas proteins and sgRNA within the CRISPR/Cas system. In the CRISPR/Cas9 system (A), the Cas9-sgRNA complex initiates a double-strand break (DSB) close to a protospacer adjacent motif (PAM), typically “NGG” for Cas9 from S. pyogenes. To efficiently target the nucleus in eukaryotes (B), it is recommended to fuse Cas9 with a nuclear localization sequence (NLS). The CRISPR/Cas12a (Cpf1) system (C) induces a DSB akin to Cas9 but relies on a different PAM (“NTTT”) and generates a sticky end. For sgRNA expression (D), the use of an RNA polymerase III (RNAP III) promoter and a well-designed 20 bp spacer is essential (E), Achieving multi-sgRNA expression can be done through either multiple cassettes I or a crRNA array and tracrRNA (F), GRNA multiplexing strategies (G) incorporate various elements like RNAP II and RNAP III promoters, endonucleases, ribozymes, and a polycistronic tRNA-gRNA architecture23.

The utilization of CRISPR-Cas systems in prokaryotic hosts for SCP production offers several advantages, including the ability to precisely target and modify specific genetic elements within microbial genomes. This targeted approach allows for the engineering of microbial strains with enhanced protein synthesis capabilities and improved nutritional profiles, ultimately leading to the production of SCP with higher yields and nutritional quality157,158. Moreover, CRISPR-Cas systems enable the manipulation of metabolic pathways involved in SCP production, facilitating the optimization of cellular processes to maximize protein output while minimizing resource utilization and waste production.

In contrast, the application of RNAi in eukaryotic organisms provides researchers with a powerful tool for fine-tuning gene expression and regulating cellular processes relevant to SCP production. By selectively silencing genes associated with undesirable traits or stress responses, RNAi allows for the development of microbial strains with improved protein synthesis capabilities and increased resilience to environmental challenges159. Furthermore, RNAi-mediated gene regulation can be used to enhance the nutritional quality of SCP by promoting the synthesis of specific amino acids or bioactive compounds essential for human nutrition. The integration of CRISPR-Cas and RNAi technologies into SCP production represents a significant advancement in biotechnology. These tools offer researchers unprecedented control over microbial genomes, enabling the development of tailored microbial strains optimized for SCP production. By harnessing the power of gene editing and gene regulation, scientists can address key challenges in protein production and contribute to the sustainable and efficient production of high-quality protein sources for various applications.

Microalgae metabolism encompasses biochemical mechanisms and nutrient transport, converting intake nutrients into vital components for growth, reproduction, and defense160. Distinguished by oxygen-evolving photosynthesis, microalgae exhibit specific reactions at the thylakoid membrane, occurring in the presence of light. The chemo-organotrophic metabolism in microalgae resembles bacteria, with anabolic processes possible in both light and darkness161. Photorespiration, catalyzed by specific enzymatic systems, plays a pivotal role. The synthesis of essential carbon skeletons involves sequential pathways that utilize various components, including photons, nitrogen, and compounds like ammonium nitrate, ammonium sulfate, ammonium dihydrogen phosphate, and carbon dioxide162. In the absence of light, microalgae rely on organic carbon for growth. Key metabolic pathways governing this process encompass photosynthesis, photorespiration, dark respiration, and overall algal growth. Within these classes, diverse families like Spirulina, Ulva, Fucus, and Porphyra are represented, as illustrated in Fig. 9.

Glyc glycolate, PCOC photorespiratory carbon-fixation cycle (or it is equivalent), PCRC photosynthetic carbon reduction cycle, PGA 3-phosphoglycerate, Pglyc phosphoglycerate, RuBP ribulose bisphosphate, Rubisco ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase–oxygenase)150.

The preceding sections have convincingly positioned SCP as a rapidly advancing biotechnological solution for converting biomass, providing insights into its production status and promising commercial viability due to the increasing demand for protein163. This section further explores the sustainability aspect of SCP production, specifically examining the application of sustainability metrics and insights for continuous enhancement164. A thorough bibliometric exploration across diverse databases reveals the prevalent use of life cycle assessment (LCA) and techno-economic assessment (TEA) in evaluating SCP sustainability, highlighting the relatively unexplored nature of other sustainability metrics like life cycle cost assessment (LCCA), social life cycle assessment (SLCA), and environmental nutrition165.

Structured into three segments, the initial subsection succinctly summarizes available LCA studies, delineating their methodologies, principal findings, and relevant recommendations, while also considering the microorganism-specific impacts on environmental sustainability166. For instance, algae-based SCP production may offer advantages in terms of water and land use efficiency compared to traditional protein sources, whereas fungal SCP production could have lower energy requirements and greenhouse gas emissions due to its efficient growth on various substrates. Furthermore, it investigates the sustainability potential introduced by an innovative power-to-food (PtF), aka power-to-protein (PtP), technology in SCP production167. The second part delves into pertinent TEA studies, with a focus on economic aspects, while considering the microorganism-specific economic feasibility and scalability. For example, bacteria like Methylococcus capsulatus have been explored for their ability to utilize methane as a substrate, potentially offering cost-effective and sustainable SCP production methods in regions with abundant methane resources168. The third part identifies existing research gaps and puts forth recommendations for future studies, aiming to further deepen the comprehension and sustainable development of SCP production, taking into account the unique characteristics and potential of different microorganisms/sources.

Table 5 furnishes a thorough summary of findings derived from various LCA studies on SCP, encapsulating their scope, methodologies, outcomes, gaps, and recommendations. Significantly, the table underscores the noteworthy environmental advantages associated with SCP, particularly in terms of global warming and land use. This underscores SCP’s potential as an eco-friendly substitute for animal-based proteins, especially within the dairy and beef sectors169. Nevertheless, the extent of these benefits hinges on factors like substitution levels, electricity usage, and the chosen assessment boundary conditions. Renewable energy emerges as a pivotal element in maximizing SCP’s environmental benefits, with recent studies indicating considerable offsets in global warming and land use5. Recommendations include embracing precision fermentation, leveraging virtual support systems, integrating multicriteria decision analysis, incorporating genetic engineering for microbial improvement, and expanding performance analysis to encompass nutrition, economic, and social dimensions170.

The study also probes into the application of innovative power-to-X (PtX) technology, specifically power-to-food (PtF) in SCP production. PtF-SCP, positioned as a self-sustaining alternative reliant on renewable energy, demonstrates a substantial 60% reduction in global warming compared to soybean production171. It holds promise in addressing the climate emergency and mitigating human health impacts, with substantial savings in land use, water use, and eutrophication compared to soybean production. The study underscores the significance of renewable electricity sources, such as wind and solar, in steering the environmental benefits of the PtF-SCP system. In summary, the analysis accentuates SCP’s considerable environmental benefits, especially in terms of land and global warming savings172. Energy modeling emerges as a critical element for advancing SCP sustainability, with a preference for renewable energy and waste heat recovery systems over electricity grids heavily reliant on fossil fuels173. The study recognizes SCP’s limitations in meeting absolute planetary boundaries, stressing the necessity for hotspot analysis and broadening impact categories to grasp trade-offs and necessary improvements for forthcoming SCP technological scenarios.

A recent study174 found that SCP from stranded methane can be produced below 1600 USD/ton. Previous research175 conducted a study on the production of SCP for food from straw, determining a minimum economically viable protein selling price between 5160–9007 €/ton dry mass of protein. Economies of scale can significantly reduce production costs, particularly those driven by fermentation and downstream processing. While specific studies on the TEA of SCP production remain limited, the integration of SCP production into existing industrial processes has shown promising economic advantages. For instance, in the context of bioethanol production, conventional methods involve converting whole stillage, a by-product, into distiller’s dried grains with solubles (DDGS) energy-intensive methods. However, alternative approaches have been proposed, such as one studied by previous research176, which integrates SCP production into the existing bioethanol production process. In this integrated approach, a portion of the stillage is diverted towards SCP production alongside ethanol manufacturing, resulting in the generation of both ethanol and protein-rich fungal biomass.

It is crucial to clarify that in this integrated process, the traditional production of DDGS is replaced by the production of SCP. Therefore, rather than solely producing DDGS from whole stillage, a portion of the stillage is utilized for SCP production, leading to the generation of valuable protein-rich biomass in addition to ethanol. This integration not only diversifies the product portfolio but also potentially enhances the overall economic viability of the process, as indicated by the rise in net present value (NPV) and profit margin observed in that study177. Such an integration not only enhanced technical efficiency but also demonstrated economic advantages, with increased NPV and profit margins. Another study explored the techno-economic viability of SCP production from grass silage using different techniques for biomass pretreatment, e.g. enzymatic hydrolysis, steam explosion, and alkaline pretreatment. The analysis considered CAPEX, OPEX (operational expenses), and protein quality. The study emphasized the needs such as enzyme costs, silage protein, and protein quality for commercial success178. These examples show the possible economic benefits of integrating SCP production into existing industrial processes, emphasizing the importance of considering both technical and economic aspects for sustainable and economically viable outcomes.

Commercial endeavors in the field of SCP have gained momentum as industries recognize the potential of this alternative protein source179. SCP derived from microbial biomass offers a sustainable and efficient solution to address the increasing global demand for protein180.

The fundamental condition of such use of SCP for feed and food is the demonstration of the absence of toxic compounds originating from substrates, biosynthesized by microorganisms, or formed during technological processes181. Different microorganisms may have varying capacities to metabolize substrates and produce specific compounds, influencing the safety and quality of the resulting SCP products. Furthermore, SCP preparations may vary in their potential to cause gastrointestinal disorders or allergic reactions, depending on the microorganism used and the composition of the final product182. Understanding the composition of microbiological cells, including their content of proteins, amino acids, lipids, vitamins, and minerals, is crucial for assessing the nutritional value and safety of SCP products183.

Currently, several multinational corporations and startups are involved and are starting new SCP-based industries, because human consumptive habits have changed and demand meets availability184. Global hotspots in the alternative protein space are Singapore and Israel, with commercial activities in Asia, the Americas, and Europe. Microorganisms like bacteria and fungi are commonly utilized by these industries for SCP production, with advancements in genetic engineering enabling the customization of strains to enhance productivity and nutritional content. The market players are diverse, and they follow several types of proteins for human and animal nutrition from different microorganisms, with significant variations in nutritional profiles and production methods185. Additionally, household industries are developed in villages with the support of the government and women’s empowerment groups (V–HGs - village self-help groups) for the production of mushrooms and yogurt, showcasing the versatility of microorganisms in SCP production186.

The expenses linked to single-cell protein depend on its designated use (whether for food or feed), the chosen quality of SCP, and competition from other protein products in terms of pricing24. SCP must be competitively priced compared to commercial animal and plant proteins, considering factors like price, nutritional value, and adherence to safety standards for both human and animal consumption187,188,189,190,191. In general, integrating microorganism/source-specific knowledge and features into the discussion of SCP production provides a more comprehensive understanding of the diverse applications and considerations associated with this promising protein source.

Precision fermentation has also emerged as a key area of innovation, to produce specific proteins with tailored functionalities192. These precision fermentation technologies hold promise for a wide range of applications spanning from food and pharmaceuticals to materials science, offering unprecedented opportunities for protein customization and optimization193.

Furthermore, the biofuel industry has seen significant advancements facilitated by genetically engineered yeasts194,195 capable of fermenting cellulose to produce second and higher-generation biofuels. This innovative approach not only offers a sustainable alternative to traditional bioethanol production but also contributes to mitigating the environmental impact of fossil fuels, marking a critical step towards a more sustainable energy future196. However, despite the promising developments in single-cell protein production, scaling up from lab and pilot studies to industrial levels presents formidable challenges197. Optimizing fermentation conditions, ensuring product purity and consistency, and addressing economic feasibility are among the key considerations in this endeavor. Moreover, the transition to commercial-scale production requires substantial investments in infrastructure, technology, and process optimization198. Addressing these challenges is essential to realizing the full potential of single-cell protein production and harnessing its benefits on a global scale199.

Single-cell proteins are growing as a revolutionary solution in the quest for sustainable protein sources, finding applications in both animal feed and direct human consumption200. The regulatory framework governing the production and utilization of SCP is pivotal to ensuring the safety, quality, and adherence to standards within the dynamic landscape of protein production201.

In the realm of animal feed, SCP is subjected to a comprehensive set of regulations. These encompass strict guidelines for composition and nutritional standards, including the requisite levels of essential nutrients and amino acids essential for animal health202. Compliance with these standards is crucial to ensuring that SCP-based feed formulations are nutritionally adequate and contribute positively to the well-being of livestock203. Safety considerations take precedence in feed regulations, with established limits on contaminants such as heavy metals, mycotoxins, and undesirable microorganisms204. Robust monitoring and testing protocols are mandated to consistently meet these safety standards, ensuring that SCP does not pose risks to either the animals consuming them or the consumers of animal products205.

Clear and accurate labeling practices are integral to feed regulations, informing consumers about the presence of SCP in animal products206. Additionally, traceability measures are enforced to identify and address potential issues promptly, facilitating recall procedures if necessary. These measures collectively contribute to the responsible integration of SCPs into animal feed, balancing innovation with safety and transparency207. Transitioning to the realm of direct human consumption, SCP encounters a distinct set of food regulations. Often categorized as novel foods, SCP undergoes rigorous regulatory approval processes involving comprehensive assessments of safety, nutritional value, and potential allergenicity208. To assess allergenicity, various experiments are typically conducted. These may include in vitro assays using serum from individuals with known allergies to assess immunoglobulin E (IgE) binding potential. Additionally, animal models such as mice or rats may be employed to evaluate immune responses upon exposure to the novel food. Human clinical trials are also crucial, involving controlled consumption studies with allergic individuals to monitor adverse reactions. Furthermore, bioinformatics analyses may be utilized to compare the amino acid sequences of proteins in the novel food to known allergens, providing insights into potential cross-reactivity209. It is important to consider regulatory frameworks such as EFSA’s Qualified Presumption of Safety (QPS). This framework evaluates the safety of microorganisms intentionally added to the food chain, including SCP. Criteria for QPS include factors such as lack of pathogenicity and absence of transferable antimicrobial resistance210. Understanding and adhering to such criteria are essential steps in ensuring the safety of SCP-containing foods for human consumption. The goal is to ensure that SCP introduced into the human food chain is not only safe but also nutritionally beneficial211. Allergen declarations become paramount in SCP-containing foods, ensuring that individuals with allergies are well-informed and protected.

This aligns with broader food safety standards, dictating stringent processing and hygiene practices to prevent contamination and guarantee the microbiological safety of the final food product212. Accurate and transparent labeling is a cornerstone of food regulations for SCP, providing consumers with information about SCP content, nutritional benefits, and allergen presence. This fosters informed consumer choices and contributes to the responsible marketing and consumption of SCP-based food products213.

The feed and food legislation for SCP plays a pivotal role in shaping the trajectory of these innovative protein sources214. Compliance with these regulations is not just a legal requirement but a cornerstone of responsible innovation, ensuring that SCPs contribute positively to the global protein supply chain in a safe, sustainable, and transparent manner215. As SCPs continue to evolve and gain prominence, ongoing regulatory scrutiny remains essential to address challenges and advancements in the field. In 2022, the company Solar Foods obtained Novel Food approval in Singapore, making it a pioneer in the modern SCP feed industry216. Several decades ago, before the rise of cheap imported soy, there was an SCP industry, organized under UNICELPE, the unicellular protein producers217.

The need for novel foods (NF) approval for SCP varies depending on their intended use and the regulatory requirements of the jurisdiction where they are marketed218. While SCPs intended for direct human consumption typically require NF approval due to their novel composition, production methods, or source materials, SCPs used exclusively in animal feed or industrial applications do not necessitate NF approval219. The approval process often involves a comprehensive safety assessment, including evaluations of allergenicity, toxicity, nutritional composition, and the presence of contaminants220. Companies and researchers developing SCP must navigate the regulatory landscape, providing robust scientific evidence to support safety and efficacy while complying with applicable regulations143. Understanding these regulatory nuances is essential for ensuring consumer safety, and regulatory compliance, and fostering innovation in sustainable protein production134. While novel food approval is required for many SCP when intended for direct human consumption, it may not be necessary for SCP used exclusively in animal feed or industrial applications153. The need for NF approval depends on the specific regulatory requirements of the jurisdiction where the SCPs are intended to be marketed160.

Besides novel food regulations, SCP are subject to various other regulations depending on their intended use162. For SCP intended for animal feed, regulations governing feed safety, composition, labeling, and contaminants apply169. For SCP intended for human consumption, additional regulations related to food safety, nutritional labeling, allergen declaration, and food additives may apply182. Legislation for traditional foods may apply to SCP depending on their composition, production methods, and history of human consumption. Single-cell proteins that meet the criteria for traditional foods may benefit from certain exemptions or streamlined regulatory pathways185. However, SCP are often considered novel foods due to their innovative production methods or novel sources, which may subject them to additional regulatory requirements190. There may be regulatory gaps in the oversight of SCP, particularly in emerging areas such as cellular agriculture and biotechnology192. These gaps may arise due to the rapid pace of technological advancements outpacing regulatory frameworks, differences in regulatory approaches between jurisdictions, and the complexity of assessing novel food safety and environmental impact125. Addressing these gaps requires continuous dialog between regulators, industry stakeholders, and scientific experts to develop adaptive and robust regulatory frameworks that ensure the safety, sustainability, and ethical use of SCP186.

The safety of SCP is ensured through a multifaceted approach encompassing stringent regulatory frameworks, comprehensive safety assessments, and robust monitoring and testing protocols131. In the realm of animal feed, SCP is subjected to strict regulations governing composition, nutritional standards, and safety considerations163. Compliance with these regulations is crucial to ensure that SCP-based feed formulations meet nutrition requirements and do not pose risks to the health of livestock or consumers of animal products174. Safety measures include limits on contaminants such as heavy metals, mycotoxins, and undesirable microorganisms, with monitoring and testing protocols mandated to consistently meet these safety standards186. Clear and accurate labeling practices inform consumers about the presence of SCP in animal products, while traceability measures facilitate prompt identification and recall procedures if necessary97.

Transitioning to direct human consumption, SCP undergoes rigorous regulatory approval processes, often categorized as novel foods152. Comprehensive safety assessments evaluate allergenicity, toxicity, nutritional value, and potential risks, including bioinformatics analyses to compare protein sequences with known allergens196. Regulatory frameworks such as EFSA’s qualified presumption of safety (QPS) evaluate the safety of microorganisms intentionally added to the food chain, including SCP, based on factors such as lack of pathogenicity and absence of transferable antimicrobial resistance207. Adherence to such criteria is essential in ensuring the safety of SCP-containing foods for human consumption88.

Furthermore, broader food safety standards dictate stringent processing and hygiene practices to prevent contamination and guarantee the microbiological safety of the final food product54. Accurate and transparent labeling is integral, providing consumers with information about SCP content, nutritional benefits, and allergen presence, fostering informed consumer choices, and responsible marketing and consumption of SCP-based food products56. Overall, compliance with regulatory requirements, adherence to safety standards, and ongoing monitoring and scrutiny contribute to ensuring the safety of SCP throughout their production and utilization154.

In addition to its positive attributes, SCP presents limitations for both human and animal consumption. Notably, the heightened concentration of nucleic acids in SCP, surpassing that of traditional protein sources, poses challenges44. This elevated nucleic acid (NA) content can lead to increased serum uric acid levels and the potential formation of kidney stones, as well as contribute to the development of gout, emphasizing the need for caution in direct SCP utilization206, or NA removal Increased serum uric acid levels resulting from the elevated nucleic acid content in SCP can also contribute to a condition called hyperuricemia107. Hyperuricemia is a medical term for high levels of uric acid in the blood, which can potentially lead to other health issues such as the deposition of urate crystals in tissues (tophi), joint inflammation (arthritis), and kidney damage over time113. Therefore, hyperuricemia presents another health concern associated with the consumption of SCP due to its nucleic acid content. Despite the majority of nitrogen in SCP being in the form of amino acids, the presence of nucleic acids, particularly prevalent in rapidly growing microorganisms, raises concerns and hinders the seamless integration of SCP as a widespread protein source123, necessitating NA removal

Regarding safety requirements for SCP production, it is important to consider regulatory frameworks such as EFSA’s QPS. This framework evaluates the safety of microorganisms intentionally added to the food chain, including those used in SCP production. Criteria for QPS include factors such as lack of pathogenicity, absence of transferable antimicrobial resistance, and generally recognized as safe (GRAS) status of the host organisms. To address concerns regarding SCP consumption, researchers can conduct analytical assays to quantify nucleic acid content, followed by animal feeding trials and clinical studies to assess SCP’s impact on kidney function, serum uric acid levels, and kidney stone formation. Additionally, in vitro experiments and epidemiological studies can provide further insights into SCP’s effects on cellular mechanisms and population health, aiding in understanding its overall safety profile and potential risks56. Understanding and adhering to such criteria are essential steps in ensuring the safety of SCP products for both human and animal consumption. Single-cell protein also contains a non-digestible cell wall, rendering it unsuitable for simple-stomach (monogastric) animals and birds76. Consumption of unprocessed SCP with active microbes may result in skin and gastrointestinal infections, causing nausea and vomiting. Filamentous fungi, with higher growth rates than yeasts, present contamination risks, while bacteria, with increased RNA content and contamination risks, pose limitations34.

Certain microorganisms utilized in SCP production can produce toxic substances, including mycotoxins and cyanotoxins106. Consequently, carefully selecting microorganisms becomes crucial in SCP production to mitigate potential risks134. The presence of these substances, both in the substrate and the final product, raises concerns about indigestion and the potential formation of carcinogenic compounds, particularly during processing-related mutations23. Therefore, a cautious approach is essential in selecting microorganisms and processing techniques to guarantee the safety and integrity of SCP for consumption. Algae, while toxin-free, have a slow growth rate76. Addressing these limitations in SCP production involves optimizing fermentation protocols, selecting suitable microorganisms and substrates, and applying physical and chemical treatments11.

Recently, the adoption of LCCA has surged in economic analysis, aligning with the established standards of LCA44. This approach expands the horizon of cost analysis by incorporating externalities, particularly greenhouse gas emissions. Social life cycle assessment (SLCA) assumes a pivotal role in sustainability decisions, scrutinizing the social burdens or benefits entwined with a system. Social life cycle assessment delves into diverse social indicators, offering a qualitative portrayal of the social implications on workers, communities, consumers, and various stakeholders along the value chain22. The nascent concept of “environmental nutrition,” integrated into food and nutrition assessments, seeks to harmonize sustainability by simultaneously considering environmental and nutritional benefits56. Life cycle sustainability assessment provides a holistic view by amalgamating all sustainability metrics and applying decision analysis for optimal solutions. Despite the evident significance of these concepts in sustainability assessment, their direct application in SCP production systems remains limited, presenting an avenue for refining the SCP process and product design and facilitating sustainable decision-making across different levels.

Sustainable food security implies physical and economic access to food for all. This requires greater efforts directed at food production and distribution as well as improving the living standards of the people. In the West, interest in healthy diets and novelty food is helping to drive a new interest in SCP. The forms in which SCP may be consumed are continuing to evolve. The chemical composition of any SCP product must be characterized clearly in terms of percentage protein, type of amino acids, nucleic acid, lipids, fats, toxins, and vitamins. A microbiological description indicating species, strains, and percentage of contaminants, if any, should be indicated. Final products for human consumption must be made to undergo rigorous testing during the pre-marketing stage and obtain novel food approval. Possible toxic compounds must be assayed for and removed. It is of primary importance that SCP products are safe to eat and also inexpensive to be popular among the masses. Further, genetically improved, high-yielding, and non-pathogenic microbes can be grown for SCP production. We should therefore look forward to extensive use of value-added SCP products in the new millennium and the eradication of chronic malnutrition globally by bridging the gap between demand and supply with SCP, which can also be a solution in a global agricultural crisis221,222, and having a broad range of food products that incorporate SCP should encourage further expansion of the market.

Data were available upon request from the corresponding author.

Jones, S. W. et al. Recent advances in single cell protein use as a feed ingredient in aquaculture. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 61, 189–197 (2020).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Junaid, F., Khawaja, L. A. & Ali, S. Single-cell proteins as a potential meat substitute: a critical review. World J. Pharm. Res. 9, 141–161 (2020).

CAS Google Scholar

Karimi, F. et al. Solid-state fermentation as an alternative technology for cost-effective production of bioethanol as useful renewable energy: a review. Biomass Convers. Bioref. 5, 1–17 (2021).

Google Scholar

Karlson, B., Bellavitis, C. & France, N. Commercializing LanzaTech, from waste to fuel: an effectuation case. J. Manag. Organ. 27, 175–196 (2021).

Article Google Scholar

Anupama, P. R. Value-added food: single cell protein. Biotechnol. Adv. 18, 459–479 (2000).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Kelechi, M. & Ukaegbu-Obi, K. M. Single cell protein: a resort to global protein challenge and waste management. J. Microbiol. Microb. Technol. 1, 5–16 (2016).

Google Scholar

Khan, M. K. I. et al. Sustainable food industrial waste management through single cell protein production and characterization of protein enriched bread. Food Biosci. 46, 101406 (2022).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Khoshnevisan, B. et al. Environmental life cycle assessment of different biorefinery platforms valorizing municipal solid waste to bioenergy, microbial protein, lactic and succinic acid. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 5, 117 (2020).

Google Scholar

Manan, M. A. & Webb, C. Design aspects of solid state fermentation as applied to microbial bioprocessing. J. Appl. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 4, 511–532 (2017).

Google Scholar

Khoshnevisan, B. et al. Urban biowaste valorization by coupling anaerobic digestion and single cell protein production. Bioresour. Technol. 290, 121743 (2019).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Kieliszek, M. Biotechnological use of Candida yeasts in the food industry: a review. Fungal Biol. Rev. 31, 185–198 (2017).

Article Google Scholar

El Sheikha, A. F. & Ray, R. C. Bioprocessing of horticultural wastes by solid-state fermentation into value-added/innovative bioproducts: a review. Food Rev. Int. 39, 3009–3065 (2023).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Dorman, C. J. & Bhriain, N. N. CRISPR-Cas, DNA supercoiling, and nucleoid-associated proteins. Trends Micro. 28, 19–27 (2020).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Ding, W., Zhang, Y. & Shi, S. Development and application of CRISPR/Cas in microbial biotechnology. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 8, 711 (2020).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

del Rosario Rodero, M. et al. Potential of enriched phototrophic purple bacteria for H2 bioconversion into single cell protein. Sci. Total Environ. 4, 168471 (2024).

Article Google Scholar

Kim, K. et al. Engineering biology to construct microbial chassis for the production of difficult-to-express proteins. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 21, 990 (2020).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Ito, Y. et al. Efficient microfluidic screening method using a fluorescent immunosensor for recombinant protein secretions. Small 19, 2207943 (2023).

Amara, A. A. & El-Baky, N. A. Fungi as a source of edible proteins and animal feed. J. Fungi 9, 73–82 (2023).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Köpke, M. & Simpson, S. D. Pollution to products: recycling of ‘above ground’carbon by gas fermentation. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 65, 180–189 (2020).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Koukoumaki, D. I. et al. Recent advances in the production of single cell protein from renewable resources and applications. Carbon Resour. Convers. 4, 135–142 (2023).

Google Scholar

Bakratsas, G. et al. Single-cell protein production by Pleurotus ostreatus in submerged fermentation. Sustain Food Technol. 1, 377–389 (2023).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Koul, B., Yakoob, M. & Shah, M. P. Agricultural waste management strategies for environmental sustainability. Environ. Res. 206, 112285 (2022).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Kraak, V. I. Perspective: unpacking the wicked challenges for alternative proteins in the United States: can highly processed plant-based and cell-cultured food and beverage products support healthy and sustainable diets and food systems? Adv. Nutr. 13, 38–47 (2022).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Nielsen, M. M. et al. Cultivation of Ulva lactuca with manure for simultaneous bioremediation and biomass production. J. Appl. Phycol. 24, 449–458 (2012).

Article Google Scholar

Kumar Sadh, P. et al. Fermentation: a boon for production of bioactive compounds by processing of food industries wastes (by-products). Molecules 23, 2560 (2018).

Article Google Scholar

Kumar, B. & Verma, P. Biomass-based biorefineries: an important architype towards a circular economy. Fuel 288, 119622 (2021).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Hardy, R. W. et al. Partial replacement of soybean meal with Methylobacterium extorquens single-cell protein in feeds for rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss Walbaum). Aquac. Res. 49, 2218–2224 (2018).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Altenbuchner, J. Editing of the Bacillus subtilis genome by the CRISPR-Cas9 system. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 82, 5421–5427 (2016).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Kumar, D. & Tewary, T. Techno-economic assessment and optimization of a standalone residential hybrid energy system for sustainable energy utilization. Int. J. Energy Res. 46, 10020–10039 (2021).

Article Google Scholar

Haroun, A. A. et al. Molecular identification of green algae, Spirogyra porticalis, along parts of River Kaduna and its potential for single cell protein (SCP) production. NAPAS 1, 38–43 (2018).

Google Scholar

Heringer, H. C. E. et al. Valorization of spent Brewer’s yeast in the integrated production of the fungal exopolysaccharide (1→ 6)-β-D-glucan (lasiodiplodan) and single-cell protein. ISBAB 54, 102971 (2023).

CAS Google Scholar

Hidalgo-Cantabrana, C., Goh, Y. J. & Barrangou, R. Characterization and repurposing of type I and type II CRISPR–Cas systems in bacteria. J. Mol. Biol. 431, 21–33 (2019).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Hoang, M. D. et al. Application of an Escherichia coli triple reporter strain for at‐line monitoring of single‐cell physiology during L‐phenylalanine production. Eng. Life Sci. 23, e2100162 (2023).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Huling, R. in Fungi and Fungal Products in Human Welfare and Biotechnology (eds Deshmukh, S. K. & Satyanarayana, T.) Ch. 13 (Springer Nature, 2023).

Hülsen, T. et al. Simultaneous treatment and single cell protein production from agri-industrial wastewaters using purple phototrophic bacteria or microalgae–a comparison. Bioresour. Technol. 254, 214–223 (2018).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Hülsen, T. et al. Application of purple phototrophic bacteria in a biofilm photobioreactor for single cell protein production: Biofilm vs suspended growth. Water Res. 181, 115909 (2020).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Hussain, M. A. Novel protein sources: an overview of food regulations. AP 4, 407–427 (2022).

Google Scholar

Irfan, M. et al. Optimization of process parameters for the production of single cell biomass of Candida utilis in solid state fermentation. AEJAES 10, 264–270 (2011).

CAS Google Scholar

Janssen, M., Wijffels, R. H. & Barbosa, M. J. Microalgae-based production of single-cell protein. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 75, 102705 (2022).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Jarvio, N. et al. An attributional life cycle assessment of microbial protein production: a case study on using hydrogen-oxidizing bacteria. Sci. Total Environ. 776, 145764 (2021).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Jiang, X. et al. Effect of aroma-producing yeasts in high-salt liquid-state fermentation soy sauce and the biosynthesis pathways of the dominant esters. Food Chem. 344, 128681 (2021).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Jhamb, V. & Swaminathan, P. Role and importance of lactic acid bacteria in different Indian fermented foods. Biologia 78, 3609–3623 (2023).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Hansen, C. L. & Cheong, D. Y. in Handbook of Farm, Dairy and Food Machinery Engineering (ed. Kutz, M. Cahpter 3) (Academic Press, 2019).

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 10, 1226 (2021).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Gundupalli, M. P. et al. Bacterial single cell protein (BSCP): a sustainable protein source from methylobacterium species. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 147, 104426 (2020).

Grdeń, A. S. & Sołowiej, B. G. Macronutrients, amino and fatty acid composition, elements, and toxins in high-protein powders of crickets, Arthrospira, single cell protein, potato, and rice as potential ingredients in fermented food products. Appl. Sci. 12, 12831 (2022).

Article Google Scholar

Graham, A. E. & Ledesma-Amaro, R. The microbial food revolution. Nat. Commun. 14, 2231 (2023).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Kumar, V. et al. Recent developments on solid-state fermentation for production of microbial secondary metabolites: challenges and solutions. Bioresour. Technol. 323, 124566 (2021).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Aggelopoulos, T. et al. Upgrading of mixed food industry side-streams by solid-state fermentation with P. ostreatus. Recycling 3, 256–263 (2018).

Article Google Scholar

Dawczynski, C., Schubert, R. & Jahreis, G. Amino acids, fatty acids, and dietary fibre in edible seaweed products. Food Chem. 103, 891–899 (2007).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Davies, S., Brown, M. & Camilleri, M. Preliminary assessment of the seaweed Porphyra purpurea in artificial diets for the tick-lipped grey mullet (Chelon labrosus). Aquaculture 152, 249–258 (1997).

Article Google Scholar

Zannou, O. et al. Traditional fermented foods and beverages: indigenous practices of food processing in the Benin Republic. Int. J. Gastron. Food Sci. 27, 100450 (2022).

Article Google Scholar

Yap, S. M. et al. Enhancement of protein production using synthetic brewery wastewater by Haematococcus pluvialis. J. Biotechnol. 350, 1–10 (2022).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Bulkan, G. et al. Techno-economic analysis of bioethanol plant by-product valorization: exploring market opportunities with protein-rich fungal biomass production. Fermentation 6, 99–109 (2020).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Cuvas-Limon, R. B. et al. Spontaneously fermented traditional beverages as a source of bioactive compounds: an overview. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 61, 2984–3006 (2021).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Gorte, O. et al. Evaluation of downstream processing, extraction, and quantification strategies for single cell oil produced by the oleaginous yeasts Saitozyma podzolica DSM 27192 and Apiotrichum porosum DSM 27194. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 8, 355 (2020).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Gordon, A. (ed.) Food Safety and Quality Systems in Developing Countries: Volume III: Technical and Market Considerations (Academic Press, 2020).

Giacomella, L. Techno-economic assessment (tea) and life cycle costing analysis (Lcca): discussing methodological steps and integrability. Insights Region. Dev. 3, 176–197 (2021).

Article Google Scholar

Ghoreishi, G., Barrena, R. & Font, X. Using green waste as a substrate to produce biostimulant and biopesticide products through solid-state fermentation. Waste Manag. 159, 84–92 (2023).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Cho, S., Shin, J. & Cho, B. K. Applications of CRISPR/Cas system to bacterial metabolic engineering. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 19, 1089 (2018).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Chilakamarry, C. R. et al. Advances in solid-state fermentation for bioconversion of agricultural wastes to value-added products: opportunities and challenges. Bioresour. Technol. 343, 126065 (2022).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Kurambhatti, C. et al. Process design and techno-economic analysis of 2’-fucosyllactose enriched distiller’s dried grains with solubles production in dry grind ethanol process using genetically engineered Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Bioresour. Technol. 341, 125919 (2021).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Afolalu, S. A. et al. A sustainable renewable source of energy review. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 012040 (IOP Publishing, 2021).

Fackler, N. et al. Stepping on the gas to a circular economy: accelerating development of carbon-negative chemical production from gas fermentation. Annu. Rev. Chem. Biomol. Eng. 12, 439–470 (2021).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Ewuoso, M. O., Animashaun, O. H. & Adejumo, A. A. Lactic acid bacteria and yeasts in spontaneously fermented sorghum sourdough. Am. J. Microbiol. Res. 8, 63–72 (2020).

CAS Google Scholar

Elyasi, S. N. et al. An integer superstructure model to find a sustainable biorefinery platform for valorizing household waste to bioenergy, microbial protein, and biochemicals. J. Clean. Prod. 278, 123986 (2021).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Chen, Z., Chen, J. J. & Fan, R. Single-cell protein secretion detection and profiling. Annu. Rev. Anal. Chem. 12, 431–449 (2019).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Kumar, R. et al. Opportunities and challenges in single‐cell protein production using lignocellulosic material. Biofpr 18, 310–321 (2023).

Google Scholar

Aidoo, R. et al. Overview of single cell protein: production pathway, sustainability outlook, and digital twin potentials. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 138, 577–598 (2023).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Gesicka, A., Oleskowicz-Popiel, P. & Lezyk, M. Recent trends in methane to bioproduct conversion by methanotrophs. Biotechnol. Adv. 53, 107861 (2021).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Gervasi, T. et al. Production of single cell protein (SCP) from food and agricultural waste by using Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nat. Prod. Res. 32, 648–653 (2018).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Garcia-Vaquero, M. & Hayes, M. Red and green macroalgae for fish and animal feed and human functional food development. Food Rev. Int. 32, 15–45 (2016).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Fleurence, J. in Proteins in Food Processing (ed. Yada, R. Y.) Ch. 9 (Elsevier, 2004).

Finnigan, T., Needham, L. & Abbott, C. Mycoprotein: a healthy new protein with a low environmental impact. Sustain. Protein Source 3, 305–325 (2017).

Article Google Scholar

Elyamine, A. et al. Aerobic and anaerobic bacterial and fungal degradation of pyrene: mechanism pathway including biochemical reaction and catabolic genes. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 22, 8202 (2021).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Jean, A. B. & Brown, R. C. Techno-economic analysis of gas fermentation for the production of single cell protein. Environ. Sci. Tech. 58, 3823–3829 (2024).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Jaswal, A., Singh, P. P. & Mondal, T. Furfural–a versatile, biomass-derived platform chemical for the production of renewable chemicals. Green. Chem. 24, 510–551 (2022).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Couture, J. L. et al. Environmental benefits of novel nonhuman food inputs to salmon feeds. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 1967–1975 (2019).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Chen, Y. et al. Partial replacement of fishmeal with Clostridium autoethanogenum single‐cell protein in the diet for juvenile black sea bream (Acanthopagrus schlegelii). Aquac. Res. 51, 1000–1011 (2020).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Chen, C. Y. et al. Optimizing heterotrophic production of Chlorella sorokiniana SU-9 proteins potentially used as a sustainable protein substitute in aquafeed. Bioresour. Technol. 370, 128538 (2023).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Chakraborty, A. & Bhowal, J. Bioconversion of jackfruit seed waste to fungal biomass protein by submerged fermentation. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 195, 2158–2171 (2023).

CAS Google Scholar

Chai, K. F. et al. Precision fermentation to advance fungal food fermentations. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 47, 100881 (2022).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Zhao, Y. et al. SC-AIR-BERT: a pre-trained single-cell model for predicting the antigen-binding specificity of the adaptive immune receptor. Brief. Bioinform 24, bbad191 (2023).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Zhang, Z., Chen, X. & Gao, L. New strategy for the biosynthesis of alternative feed protein: Single‐cell protein production from straw‐based biomass. GCB Bioenergy 16, e13120 (2024).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Zeng, D. et al. Recycling of acetate and ammonium from digestate for single-cell protein production by a hybrid electrochemical-membrane fermentation process. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 188, 106705 (2023).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Yang, L. & Hatanaka, T. Construction and development of a novel dual-gene coexpression system to promote heterologous protein secretion for Streptomyces. Biosci. Biotechnol. 87, 349–357 (2023).

Article Google Scholar

Yafetto, L., Odamtten, G. T. & Wiafe-Kwagyan, M. Valorization of agro-industrial wastes into animal feed through microbial fermentation: a review of the global and Ghanaian case. Heliyon 9, e14814 (2023).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Yafetto, L. Application of solid-state fermentation by microbial biotechnology for bioprocessing of agro-industrial wastes from 1970 to 2020: a review and bibliometric analysis. Heliyon 8, e09173 (2022).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Xue, V. W., Wong, S. C. C. & Cho, W. C. From proteomic landscape to single-cell oncoproteomics. Expert Rev. Proteom. 18, 1–6 (2021).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Weber, S. et al. Insights into cell wall disintegration of Chlorella vulgaris. PLoS ONE 17, e0262500 (2022).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Wang, Y. et al. Whole-genome analysis of probiotic product isolates reveals the presence of genes related to antimicrobial resistance, virulence factors, and toxic metabolites, posing potential health risks. BMC Genomics 22, 1–12 (2021).

Google Scholar

Wang, J. et al. Co-production of ethanol and cellulose nanocrystals through self-cycling fermentation of wood pulp hydrolysate. Bioresour. Technol. 330, 124969 (2021).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Voidarou, C. et al. Fermentative foods: microbiology, biochemistry, potential human health benefits and public health issues. Foods 10, 69 (2020).

Vlaeminck, E. et al. Single-cell protein production from industrial off-gas through acetate: techno-economic analysis for a coupled fermentation approach. Fermentation 9, 771 (2023).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Villa, T. G. & Abril, A. A Critical Appraisal of Current Microbiological Hot Topics (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2023).

Bratosin, B. C., Darjan, S. & Vodnar, D. C. Single cell protein: a potential substitute in human and animal nutrition. Sustainability 2021, 9284 (2021).

Article Google Scholar

Wan, M. et al. A novel paradigm for the highly efficient production of phycocyanin from Galdieria sulphuraria. Bioresour. Technol. 218, 272–278 (2016).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Sadh, P. K. et al. Recovery of agricultural waste biomass: a path for circular bioeconomy. Sci. Total Environ. 870, 161904 (2023).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Ruan, S. et al. Analysis in protein profile, antioxidant activity and structure-activity relationship based on ultrasound-assisted liquid-state fermentation of soybean meal with Bacillus subtilis. Ultrason. Sonochem. 64, 104846 (2020).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Rodriguez, K. et al. Gas fermentation for microbial sustainable aviation fuel production. Microbiol. Aust. 4, 162–173 (2023).

Google Scholar

Wada, O. Z., Vincent, A. S. & Mackey, H. R. Single-cell protein production from purple non-sulfur bacteria-based wastewater treatment. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 21, 931–956 (2022).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Vigouroux, A. & Bikard, D. CRISPR tools to control gene expression in bacteria. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 84, 10–1128 (2020).

Article Google Scholar

Fernández-López, L. et al. Life cycle assessment of single cell protein production–a review of current technologies and emerging challenges. CLCB 3, 100079 (2024).

Google Scholar

Carranza-M´endez, R. C. et al. Production of single-cell protein from orange peel residues by Candida Utilis. ISBAB 40, 102298 (2022).

Google Scholar

García Martínez, J. B. et al. Methane single cell protein: potential to secure a global protein supply against catastrophic food shocks. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 10, 906704 (2022).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Zhou, Y. M. et al. Recycling of orange waste for single cell protein production and the synergistic and antagonistic effects on production quality. J. Clean. Prod. 213, 384–392 (2019).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Vigani, M. et al. Food and feed products from micro-algae: market opportunities and challenges for the EU. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 42, 81–92 (2015).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Vezzoni, R. Green growth for whom, how, and why? The REPowerEU plan and the inconsistencies of European Union energy policy. ERSS 101, 103134 (2023).

Google Scholar

Vethathirri, R. S. et al. Microbial community-based production of single-cell protein from soybean-processing wastewater of variable chemical composition. Sci. Total Environ. 873, 162241 (2023).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Van Heerden, J. H. et al. Statistics and simulation of growth of single bacterial cells: illustrations with B. subtilis and E. coli. Sci. rep. 7, 16094 (2017).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Hua, K. et al. The future of aquatic protein: implications for protein sources in aquaculture diets. One Earth 1, 316–329 (2019).

Article Google Scholar

Kurniawan, R. et al. Carotenoids composition of green algae Caulerpa racemosa and their antidiabetic, anti-obesity, antioxidant, and anti-inflammatory properties. Molecules 28, 3267 (2023).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Adetunji, J. B. et al. in Next-Generation Algae, (ed. Adetunji, C. Chapter 5) (Scrivener Publishing, 2023).

Valentino, M. J. et al. Single-cell protein potential of endophytic fungi associated with bamboo using rice bran as substrate. Adv. Appl. Sci. Res. 7, 68–72 (2016).

CAS Google Scholar

Upcraft, T. et al. Protein from renewable resources: mycoprotein production from agricultural residues. Green. Chem. 23, 5150–5165 (2021).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Woolley, L. et al. Gas to protein: microbial single-cell protein is an alternative to fishmeal in aquaculture. Sci. Total Environ. 859, 160141 (2023).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Wood, J. C. et al. Strategies to improve the viability of a circular carbon economy-A techno-economic review of microbial electrosynthesis and gas fermentation. Water Res. 201, 117306 (2021).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Wild, K. J., Steing, H. & Rodehutscord, M. Variability in nutrient composition and in vitro crude protein digestibility of 16 microalgae products. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 102, 1306–1319 (2018).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Tropea, A. et al. Single-cell protein production through multi-food-waste substrate fermentation. Fermentation 8, 91–99 (2022).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Thangaraj, R. et al. in Food Microbiology Based Entrepreneurship: Making Money From Microbes (eds Dharumadurai, D., Amaresan, N. & Babalola, O. O.) (Springer Nature, 2023).

Takahashi, Y., Koike, H. & Katoh, S. Multiple forms of chlorophyll-protein complexes from a thermophilic cyanobacterium Synechococcus sp. Arch. Biochem. 219, 209–218 (2018).

Article Google Scholar

Sun, Y. et al. Metabolomic and transcriptomic analyses reveal comparisons against liquid-state fermentation of primary dark tea, green tea and white tea by Aspergillus cristatus. Int. Food Res. 3, 113115 (2023).

Article Google Scholar

Bogdahn, I. Agriculture-independent, sustainable, fail-safe, and efficient food production by autotrophic single-cell protein. PeerJ 3, e1279 (2015).

Google Scholar

Sun, Y. et al. Single-cell landscape of the ecosystem in early-relapse hepatocellular carcinoma. Cell 184, 404–421 (2021).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Sultana, S., Ali, M. E. & Ahamad, M. N. U. in Preparation and Processing of Religious and Cultural Foods (eds Ali, Md. E., Nizar, N. N. A.) Ch. 11 (Woodhead Publishing, 2018).

Srivastava, R. K. et al. Biomass utilization and production of biofuels from carbon neutral materials. Environ. Pollut. 276, 116731 (2021).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Spalvins, K., Zihare, L. & Blumberga, D. Single cell protein production from waste biomass: comparison of various industrial by-products. Energy Procedia 147, 409–418 (2018).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Song, X. et al. CRISPR-Cas9(D10A) nickase-assisted genome editing in Lactobacillus casei. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 83, 152361 (2017).

Article Google Scholar

Somda, M. K. et al. Production of single cell protein (SCP) and essentials amino acids from Candida utilis FMJ12 by solid state fermentation using mango waste supplemented with nitrogen sources. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 17, 716–723 (2018).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Pavithra, K. G. et al. Microalgae for biofuel production and removal of heavy metals: a review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 18, 1905–1923 (2020).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Passanisi, S. et al. Novel diagnostic techniques and therapeutic strategies for IgE–mediated food allergy. Allergy Asthma Proc. 42, 124–136 (2021).

Sillman, J. et al. A life cycle environmental sustainability analysis of microbial protein production via power-to-food approaches. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 25, 2190–2203 (2020).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Sheth, U. & Patel, S. in Food Microbiology Based Entrepreneurship: Making Money From Microbes (ed. Amaresan, N. Chapet 2) (Springer Nature, 2023).

Sharif, M. et al. Single cell protein: Sources, mechanism of production, nutritional value and its uses in aquaculture nutrition. Aquaculture 531, 735885 (2021).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Bogale, T. T. Microbial protein production from agro-industrial wastes as food and feed. Am. J. Life Sci. 8, 121–126 (2020).

CAS Google Scholar

Shao, X. et al. Integrated proteome analysis device for fast single-cell protein profiling. Anal. Chem. 90, 14003–14010 (2018).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

El Abbadi, S. H. et al. Stranded methane to food: techno-economic analysis of methanotrophic protein production. Preprint at EarthArXiv X5PP5D (2021).

Shaikh, S. et al. Effect of nutrient deficiency on biofilm formation and single cell protein production with a purple non-sulfur bacteria enriched culture. Biofilm 5, 100098 (2023).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Senturk, S. et al. Rapid and tunable method to temporally control gene editing based on conditional cas9 stabilization. Nat. Commun. 8, 14370 (2017).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Paz-Arteaga, S. L. et al. Bioprocessing of pineapple waste for sustainable production of bioactive compounds using solid-state fermentation. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 85, 103313 (2023).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Parsons, S., Allen, M. J. & Chuck, C. J. Coproducts of algae and yeast-derived single cell oils: a critical review of their role in improving biorefinery sustainability. Bioresour. Technol. 303, 122862 (2020).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Panwar, J. S. & Sharma, D. (Eds.). Microbial Resource Technologies for Sustainable Development (Elsevier, (2022).

Sekoai, P. T. et al. Valorization of food waste into single-cell protein: an innovative technological strategy for sustainable protein production. Microorganisms 12, 166 (2024).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Schultenkämper, K., Brito, L. F. & Wendisch, V. F. Impact of CRISPR interference on strain development in biotechnology. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 67, 7–21 (2020).

Article Google Scholar

Sarma, A. P., Petar, P. & Murthy, S. D. S. Spirulina as a source of single cell protein. Int. J. Plant Res. 21, 35–45 (2008).

Google Scholar

Toghiani, J. et al. Sustainable pistachio dehulling waste management and its valorization approaches: a review. Curr. Pollut. Rep. 9, 60–72 (2023).

Google Scholar

Tiwari, M. et al. Solid‐state fermentation. Micro. Food Indus 3, 355–392 (2023).

Article Google Scholar

Timira, V. et al. A comprehensive review on the application of novel disruption techniques for proteins release from microalgae. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 62, 4309–4325 (2022).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Tikhonova, E. N. et al. Methylomonas Rapida sp. nov., a novel species of fast-growing, carotenoid-producing obligate methanotrophs with high biotechnological potential. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 46, 126398 (2023).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Said, S. D. et al. Production of single cell protein by Aspergillus niger using a mixture of coffee husk and molasses as substrate. J. Appl. Food Technol. 10, 152–160 (2023).

Google Scholar

Saejung, C. & Thammaratana, T. Biomass recovery during municipal wastewater treatment using photosynthetic bacteria and the prospect of production of single cell protein for feedstuff. Environ. Technol. 37, 3055–3061 (2016).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Saejung, C. & Salasook, P. Recycling of sugar industry wastewater for single-cell protein production with supplemental carotenoids. Environ. Technol. 3, 156–164 (2018).

Google Scholar

Bhatia, S. K. et al. Renewable biohydrogen production from lignocellulosic biomass using fermentation and integration of systems with other energy generation technologies. Sci. Total Environ. 765, 144429 (2021).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Saeed, M. S., Saeed, A. & Adnan, M. Production and utilization of single cell proteins-an overview. Curr. Res. Agri. Farm. 1, 9–12 (2020).

Article Google Scholar

Anneli, R. et al. Single cell protein—state-of-the-art, industrial landscape and patents 2001–2016. Front. Microbiol. 8, 54–62 (2017).

Google Scholar

Ribeiro, G. O. et al. Innovations and developments in single cell protein: bibliometric review and patents analysis. Front. microbiol 13, 1093464 (2023).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Reihani, S. F. S. & Khosravi-Darani, K. Influencing factors on single-cell protein production by submerged fermentation: a review. Electron. J. Biotechnol. 37, 34–40 (2019).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Razzaq, Z. U. et al. Characterization of single cell protein from Saccharomyces cerevisiae for nutritional, functional, and antioxidant properties. Sens. Instrum. Food Qual. Saf. 14, 2520–2528 (2020).

Google Scholar

Lv, J. Y. et al. Histidine as a versatile excipient in protein-based biopharmaceutical formulations. Int. J. Pharm. 1, 124472 (2024).

Article Google Scholar

Bertini, A. et al. Exploring the application of Corynebacterium glutamicum single cell protein in the diet of flathead grey mullet (Mugil cephalus): effects on growth performance, digestive enzymes activity and gut microbiota. Front. Mar. Sci. 10, 1172505 (2023).

Article Google Scholar

Raziq, A. et al. Single-cell protein (SCP) production and potential substrates: a comprehensive review. Pure Appl. Biol. 9, 1743–1754 (2020).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Rasouli, Z. et al. Nutrient recovery from industrial wastewater as single-cell protein by a co-culture of green microalgae and methanotrophs. Biochem. Eng. J. 134, 129–135 (2018).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Raji, R. O. et al. Bioconversion of biomass energy and biological residues: the role of microbes. Microb. Biotechnol. 153–177 (2024).

Rajendran, K., Rajoli, S. & Taherzadeh, M. Techno-economic analysis of integrating first and second-generation ethanol production using filamentous fungi: an industrial case study. Energies 9, 359 (2016).

Article Google Scholar

Okeke, E. S. et al. Microalgae biorefinery: an integrated route for the sustainable production of high-value-added products. Energy Convers. Manag. 16, 100323 (2022).

CAS Google Scholar

Obradovic, A. et al. Single-cell protein activity analysis identifies recurrence-associated renal tumor macrophages. Cell 184, 2988–3005 (2021).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Rahman, M. M., Hosano, N. & Hosano, H. Recovering microalgal bioresources: a review of cell disruption methods and extraction technologies. Molecules 27, 2786 (2022).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Qi, N. et al. Isolation and characterization of a novel hydrolase-producing probiotic Bacillus licheniformis and its application in the fermentation of soybean meal. Front. Nutr. 10, 1123422 (2023).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Putri, D. et al. Single cell protein production of Chlorella sp. using food processing waste as a cultivation medium. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (IOP Publishing, 2018).

Postigo, L. O. C. et al. Solid-state fermentation for enhancing the nutraceutical content of agrifood by-products: recent advances and its industrial feasibility. Food Biosci. 41, 100926 (2021).

Article Google Scholar

Phlairaharn, T. et al. Optimizing linear ion-trap data-independent acquisition toward single-cell proteomics. Anal. Chem. 95, 9881–9891 (2023).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Bernheim, A. et al. Inhibition of NHEJ repair by type ii-a CRISPR-Cas systems in bacteria. Nat. Commun. 8, 2094 (2017).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Peters, J. M. et al. A comprehensive, CRISPR-based functional analysis of essential genes in bacteria. Cell 165, 1493–1506 (2016).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Pander, B. et al. Hydrogen oxidising bacteria for production of single‐cell protein and other food and feed ingredients. Biol. Eng. 4, 21–24 (2020).

Article Google Scholar

Pan, D. et al. Homologous high-level lipase and single-cell protein production with engineered Yarrowia lipolytica via scale-up fermentation for industrial applications. Fermentation 9, 268 (2023).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Özkan, A. et al. Programmable RNA targeting with the single-protein CRISPR effector Cas7-11. Nature 597, 720–725 (2021).

Article Google Scholar

Owusu-Kwarteng, J. et al. Technologically relevant Bacillus species and microbial safety of West African traditional alkaline fermented seed condiments. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 62, 871–888 (2022).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Berne, C. et al. Bacterial adhesion at the single-cell level. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 16, 616–627 (2018).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Owsianiak, M. et al. Performance of second-generation microbial protein used as aquaculture feed about planetary boundaries. Resour. Conser. Recycl. 180, 158963 (2022).

Article Google Scholar

Mahan, K. M. et al. Production of single cell protein from agrowaste using rhodococcus opacus. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 45, 795–801 (2018).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Machado, L., Carvalho, G. & Pereira, R. N. Effects of innovative processing methods on microalgae cell wall: prospects towards digestibility of protein-rich biomass. Biomass 2, 80–102 (2022).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Øverland, M., Mydland, L. T. & Skrede, A. Marine macroalgae as sources of protein and bioactive compounds in feed for monogastric animals. J. Sci. Food Agric. 99, 13–24 (2019).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Obaeda, B. Yeasts as a source of single cell protein production: a review. Plant Arch. 21, 324–328 (2021).

Article Google Scholar

Nyyssölä, A. et al. The role of single cell protein in cellular agriculture. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 75, 102686 (2022).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Nurmalasari, A. & Maharani, S. Addition of carbon sources to pineapple waste media in the production of single cell protein biomass Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J. Biol. Res. Appl. 2, 71–75 (2020).

Google Scholar

Novita, E., Zaki, M. & Said, S. D. Solid state fermentation of rice straw pulp with a local trichoderma reesei for single cell protein production: effects of temperature, initial medium Ph and fermentation time. Mater. Sci. Eng. 536, 13569 (2019).

Google Scholar

Nguyen, V. G. et al. Machine learning for the management of biochar yield and properties of biomass sources for sustainable energy. Biofpr 18, 567–593 (2024).

CAS Google Scholar

Benoit, S. L. et al. Molecular hydrogen metabolism: a widespread trait of pathogenic bacteria and protists. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 84, 10–1128 (2020).

Article Google Scholar

Nangul, A. & Bhatia, R. Microorganisms: a marvelous source of single cell proteins. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. Food Sci. 3, 15–18 (2021).

Google Scholar

Nadeem, H. Effect of pH and different fermentation time intervals on the production of single cell proteins (SCPs) from potato peels. Pak. Biomed. J. 4, 17–20 (2023).

Article Google Scholar

Nadeem, H. Conversion of potato peels into single cell protein. FBT 3, 9–13 (2021).

Article Google Scholar

Muys, M. et al. High variability in nutritional value and safety of commercially available Chlorella and Spirulina biomass indicates the need for smart production strategies. Bioresour. Technol. 275, 247–257 (2019).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Murali Sankar, P. et al. in Food Microbiology Based Entrepreneurship: Making Money from Microbes (Springer Nature, 2023).

Muniz, C. E. S. et al. Solid-state fermentation for single-cell protein enrichment of guava and cashew by-products and inclusion on cereal bars. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 25, 253–260 (2020).

Article Google Scholar

Mujdalipah, S. & Putri, M. L. Utilization of pineapple peel and rice washing water to produce single cell proteins using Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Earth Environ. Sci. 472, 132486 (2020).

Google Scholar

Morais, T. et al. Seaweed potential in the animal feed: a review. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 8, 559 (2020).

Article Google Scholar

Molnar, J. & Pal, M. Applying single cell protein as functional foods. J. Microbiol. Immunol. Biotechnol. 7, 33–35 (2020).

Google Scholar

Mensah, J. K. & Twumasi, P. Use of pineapple waste for single cell protein (SCP) production and the effect of substrate concentration on the yield. J. Food Process Eng. 40, e12478 (2017).

Article Google Scholar

Humphreys, C. M. & Minton, N. P. Advances in metabolic engineering in the microbial production of fuels and chemicals from C1 gas. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 50, 174–181 (2018).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Meng, J. et al. Economical production of Pichia pastoris single cell protein from methanol at industrial pilot scale. Microb. Cell Fact. 22, 198–211 (2023).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Leite, P. et al. Recent advances in production of lignocellulolytic enzymes by solid-state fermentation of agro-industrial wastes. Curr. Opin. Green. Sustain Chem. 27, 100407 (2021).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Leger, D. et al. Photovoltaic-driven microbial protein production can use land and sunlight more efficiently than conventional crops. Proc. Natl Acad.Sci. USA 118, e2015025118 (2021).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Leeuwendaal, N. K. et al. Fermented foods, health, and the gut microbiome. Nutrients 14, 1527 (2022).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

McAuliffe, G. A., Takahashi, T. & Lee, M. R. Applications of nutritional functional units in commodity-level life cycle assessment (LCA) of agri-food systems. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 25, 208–221 (2020).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Abdullahi, N., Dandago, M. A. & Yunusa, A. K. Review on production of single-cell protein from food wastes. TURJAF 9, 968–974 (2021).

Google Scholar

Vane, L. M. A review of pervaporation for product recovery from biomass fermentation processes. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 80, 603–629 (2005).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Matassa, S. et al. Upcycling of biowaste carbon and nutrients in line with consumer confidence: the “full gas” route to single cell protein. Green. Chem. 22, 4912–4929 (2020).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Martinez-Garcia, M. & van der Maarel, M. J. E. C. Floridoside production by the red microalga Galdieria sulphuraria under diferent conditions of growth and osmotic stress. AMB Express 6, 71–82 (2016).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Man, Y. B. et al. in Food Waste Valorisation: Food, Feed, Fertiliser, Fuel and Value-Added Products (ed. Wang, M. Chapter 3) (World Scientific Publishing Company, 2023).

Bekhit, A. E. D. A., Riley, W. W. & Hussain, M. A. (eds.) Alternative Proteins: Safety and Food Security Considerations (CRC Press, 2022).

Lynd, L. R. et al. Toward low-cost biological and hybrid biological/catalytic conversion of cellulosic biomass to fuels. Energy Environ. Sci. 15, 938–990 (2022).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Lourens, V. Pre-treatment of Sugarcane bagasse for Conversion to Single Cell Protein through One-Step Enzymatic Hydrolysis and Bioconversion. Doctoral dissertation, Stellenbosch Univ. (2023).

Lourenco, S. O. et al. Amino acid composition, protein content and calculation of nitrogen-to-protein conversion factors for 19 tropical seaweeds. Phycol. Res. 50, 233–241 (2002).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Liu, X. et al. Carbon dioxide fixation coupled with ammonium uptake by immobilized Scenedesmus obliquus and its potential for protein production. Bioresour. Technol. 289, 121685 (2019).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Liu, X. et al. Survival-based grouping of genetic variants: a novel statistical framework with an application to TP53 mutations. Cancer Res. 84, 3564–3564 (2024).

Article Google Scholar

Liao, S. Y. et al. Untargeted metabolomics and quantification analysis reveal the shift of chemical constituents between instant dark teas individually liquid-state fermented by Aspergillus cristatus, Aspergillus niger, and Aspergillus tubingensis. Front. Microbiol. 14, 1124546 (2023).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Negrete-Romero et al. Nutritional contributions and health associations of traditional fermented foods. Fermentation 7, 289 (2021).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Mathur, S. et al. Alternative fuels for agriculture sustainability: carbon footprint and economic feasibility. Agri. Eng. 4, 993–1015 (2022).

CAS Google Scholar

Matavacas, J., Anand, D. & von Wachenfeldt, C. New insights into the disulfide stress response by the Bacillus subtilis Spx system at a single‐cell level. Mol. Microbiol. 3, 12568 (2023).

Google Scholar

Balagurunathan, B. et al. Potential use of microbial engineering in single-cell protein production. Curr. Opin.Biotechnol. 76, 102740 (2022).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Landeta-Salgado, C., Cicatiello, P. & Lienqueo, M. E. Mycoprotein and hydrophobin like protein produced from marine fungi Paradendryphiella salina in submerged fermentation with green seaweed Ulva spp. Algal Res. 56, 102314 (2021).

Article Google Scholar

Abdullahi, N. et al. Review on the production of single-cell protein from food wastes. TURJAF 9, 968–974 (2021).

Google Scholar

Download references

We appreciate the editorial board and the reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions, which have greatly improved the quality of our manuscript. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

College of Agricultural Resources and Environmental Science, Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming, 650201, China

Yu Pin Li

School of Agriculture and Environment, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, 6009, Australia

Fatemeh Ahmadi & Khalil Kariman

Circe Biotechnologie GmbH, Kerpengasse 125, 1210, Vienna, Austria

Maximilian Lackner

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Y.P.L.: wrote the original draft; F.A.: the conceptualization, writing, and editing; K.K. and M.L.: revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the manuscript.

Correspondence to Yu Pin Li or Maximilian Lackner.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

Li, Y.P., Ahmadi, F., Kariman, K. et al. Recent advances and challenges in single cell protein (SCP) technologies for food and feed production. npj Sci Food 8, 66 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-024-00299-2

Download citation

Received: 31 January 2024

Accepted: 07 August 2024

Published: 18 September 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-024-00299-2

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative