| Type of microorganism |
Yeast |
| Target proteins |
Dairy proteins, egg proteins, sweet proteins, meat proteins, enzymes. See organism table for specific cases. |
| Wild-type or GMO |
Mostly GMO, also one wild-type case. See organism table for specific cases. |
| Production mode (intracellular/extracellular) |
Mainly extracellular production due to ease of DSP (Eastham & Leman, 2024)
|
| C & N source |
Primarily glucose or glycerol used as C-source, and ammonium salts or amino-acids (in the form of yeast extract) as N-source. (De Brabander et al., 2023; Martin & Chan, 2024). See organism table for specific cases. |
| Regulatory status in Europe |
The production of food related proteins in yeasts is not allowed. Some cases are issued as safe for consumption by EFSA, but are not allowed yet. See organism table for specific cases. |
| Regulatory status in other parts of the world |
Several products have FDA GRAS apporval or self-affirmed GRAS in the US. Two products are allowed in Canada. See organism table for specific cases. |
| Companies |
|
| Average yield |
0.5-3 g/L (Eastham & Leman, 2024)
|
| General temperature range |
25-40°C (De Brabander et al., 2023)
|
| General pH range |
pH 4-9 (De Brabander et al., 2023)
|
| Growth rate (µ) |
0.23-1.04/hour (Bratosin et al., 2021
|
| Ease of genetic modification |
Overall very easy genetic manipulation (Fraczek et al., 2018)
|
| Feedstock suitability |
Wide variety of agro-industrial waste streams can be used as feedstock (Rajput et al., 2024). See organism table for specific cases.
|
| Downstream purification processing complexity (isloation, lysis, purification) |
|
| Advantages |
Eukaryotic PTMs, easy genetic modification, high protein secretion (De Brabander et al., 2023)
|
| Challenges (Key limitations, risk factors) |
Cannot perform complex post-translational modifications, glycosylation patterns are different form mammals (Cereghino, 1999)
|
| Publications/references |
-
Eastham, J. L., & Leman, A. R. (2024). Precision fermentation for food proteins: ingredient innovations, bioprocess considerations, and outlook — a mini-review. Current Opinion in Food Science, 58, 101194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2024.101194
-
De Brabander, P., Uitterhaegen, E., Delmulle, T., De Winter, K., & Soetaert, W. (2023). Challenges and progress towards industrial recombinant protein production in yeasts: A review. Biotechnology Advances, 64, 108121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2023.108121
-
Bratosin, B. C., Darjan, S., & Vodnar, D. C. (2021). Single Cell Protein: A Potential Substitute in Human and Animal Nutrition. Sustainability, 13(16), 9284. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169284
-
Martin, G. J. O., & Chan, S. (2024). Future production of yeast biomass for sustainable proteins: a critical review. Sustainable Food Technology. https://doi.org/10.1039/d4fb00164h
-
Fraczek, M. G., Naseeb, S., & Delneri, D. (2018). History of genome editing in yeast. Yeast, 35(5), 361–368. https://doi.org/10.1002/yea.3308
-
Cereghino, G. (1999). Applications of yeast in biotechnology: protein production and genetic analysis. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 10(5), 422–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0958-1669(99)00004-x
-
Tripathi, N. K., & Shrivastava, A. (2019). Recent Developments in Bioprocessing of Recombinant Proteins: Expression Hosts and Process Development. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2019.00420
-
Gomes, T. A., Zanette, C. M., & Spier, M. R. (2020). An overview of cell disruption methods for intracellular biomolecules recovery. Preparative Biochemistry & Biotechnology, 50(7), 635–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826068.2020.1728696
-
Rajput, S. D., Pandey, N., & Sahu, K. (2024). A comprehensive report on valorization of waste to single cell protein: strategies, challenges, and future prospects. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31(18), 26378–26414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-33004-7
|