CM Workshop Review Comments

1:01 Start from here after the stinger -- remove previous discussion which was a lot of setup

Where the slide/screen content is boring or static, switch the talking head to cover all/most of the screen. This comment applies across all videos.

Excellent example within the context of this workshop of an explanation of the principles of the workshop series. Could be used as an example provided in advance of future workshops on other subjects.

The beginning of this belongs in the PREVIOUS video. Move everything from after the stinger to 1:32 to the 'intro + Framing video'

This video should begin with Oana Kubinyecz's presentation at 4:23 -- that's when she actually starts (cut the setup screenshare etc.

Put a large banner over the middle of the screen with "Oana Kubinyecz, PhD. ATOVA. Formerly at Cellag.uk" ... should disappear after a few seconds

Oana makes an important claim that gene editing used to be seen as "no way this is going to happen" but now "countries are accepting ... not genetic modification but gene editing"

Oana lists some of the many benefits of gene editing, in addition to the immortalization, such as facilitating higher density, less use of growth factors, etc. She senses that much of this is _not_ being reflected in the cost modeling.

McNulty agrees with and backs up Kubynecz claims ind intuition about the importance of cell lines and the power of gene editing. He makes some bold//hot takes of his own. (Including some technical points we should dive into/highlight; I don't understand these)

David Reinstein asks the question raised about EU funds openness to proposals involving gene editing

Swartz on the difficulty of creating a 'general production model' -- "production for fat could look different than production for muscle or fibroblasts etc"

Swartz -- GFI surveyed the industry, all the mentioned cell types are being used, not clear which ones will win.

Elliot Swartz on positive potential for cell engineering. About half of companies in GFI survey were ~working on developing this. Risky because of regulatory issues -- sees Meatable as a cautionary tale for this. But sees engineering as happening not right away 'go to market' but in tandem, perhaps rolling out in the early 2030s.

Swartz -- cell adaptation as an alternative to engineering to get over some of the engineering hurdles while bypassing regulatory roadblocks. "Going on a lot in the industry"

Oana responds to Swartz on Gene Editing 25:22 -- 'the first products to get approved are not commercially viable' 25:57 -- companies got approval with spontaneously immortalized cell lines, but then they went bankrupt ... thinks this could have been because "the cell lines were not actually growing enough' ... non-edited ... After 26:40 Swartz semi-agrees but with less emphasis ... "wouldn't put all the weight on the cell lines alone"

Let's end this video at 27:26 (put ending stinger there) ... the rest is just asking us to move on to the next topic

Oana Kubynecz "How cells also drive costs ... the main [cost[ discussion ... [is about media but cells] can influence media costs ... can have a role as important as media components]

Video should start at 01:13, when the presentation begins

As a layperson it's not easy for me to definitively identify the crux or other stand-out parts of this, but if we were to promote this workshop specifically to CM researchers/industry figures, this might be a suitable part to take out from her presentation and use as part of a highlights video

Cut screen share tech time

Explicitly used our preliminary cost model to provide context, demonstrating the value of the tools we've built to help people prepare for the workshop.

DMEM-F12 is the current mainly used basal media (this might not be anything newly surfaced, but it was highlighted and good to get confirmed)

Presents a crux "can hydrolysates be used as substitutes for FBS as the basal media" ... and shares prior evidence (not successful, but signs of promise) and introduces the key questions motivating her own research she is about to present. Skeptics: Have you seen the latest evidence on the use of hydrolysates? Do you accept that this has a high likelihood of being used and dramatically decreasing media costs? If not, what are your main doubts and what would change your mind about this? (Toxicity, growth rates, 'full basal medium', use of food agri-waste, other -- we should ask Fuchs to anticipate some key barriers/sub-issues) 4:45 reveals full slide.

What they are doing/testing, and what seems like a major result -- three types of commercial scale hydrolysates seem ready and have been tested for toxicity (and passed).

Work with yeast hydrolysates alone, frustrations and lack of success

Looking at combinations 8:57 --signs of success with a P Pastoris product ... there should be a 'hot spot'

Conclusion : DMEM/F12 could be substituted with a mixture of 3 components (2 hydrolysates and a ?seed source) ... worked for 5/6 passages. With lower 'component concentrations' than for DMEM/F12.

Hydrolysate based medium components: 7 (Euro) cents/L vs. 2.5 Euros/L for DMEM-F12 ! #costs

Is this "Circular Cell Culture" discussion about the environmental sustainability 'circular economy' implications, or does it have important cost implications too, e.g., the waste media is producing 'more growth factors'? (Also maybe relevant for CM in space travel) #question_for_speaker

End video (before stinger) at 18:35 ... no need for David's interrupted interstitial

End video at 15:26 (plus end stinger)

Cutoff at 15:24:50, before David joins

Davit was cut off. His statement from 16:42 in the previous s1-03 video, should be where this video starts, attaching it back here (maybe from the orig file).

General -- on all videos, use a wider more mixed set of stinger audio from the library

High value exchange between Swartz and Fuchs on viability of hydrolysates and costs and benefits vs. pure Amino Acids Swartz ... 'these are the best POCs, I'm really excited' Raises a substantive question about nutritional content ... "can we actually support hd cell growth in suspension settings using hydrolysates ... " Fuchs responds (1:04): "Concentration of pure AA is very low but ... it's not a surprise that the cell is still growing that nicely, because most of the hydrolyzed protein will be present in the hydrolysate in the v short peptides ... a lot of cells prefer shorter peptides [references paper]" ... they didn't show this because it's hard to measure short peptides Swartz: Would be nice to show this data -- "a big missing piece". And it's still an open question whether hydrolysates provide cost/benefit relative to pure AAs (costs, processing). Fuchs: agrees, there is more data with pure AA and easier to work with. It's inherent that hydrolysates are not that consistent in the end ... but that may not actually be a problem. But [something about the prices of purified AA vs price of ?hydrolysates which is essentially just the cost of providing yeast extracts] And some hydrolysates have other benefits like vitamins and glucose. And recycling drops the media price even lower. Ask skeptics: Does the evidence on the potential for hydrolysates seem convincig? How likely do you think that the right hydrolysate combo has the necessary nutrients (short peptides are good?).

David interrupts to move conversation along. You can cut 5:36-8:30, it's mostly housekeeping, already visible in the agenda.

Frolich: "Growth factors will be eventually phased out... interested to know what others think"

Jordi Morales-Dalmau (Cultimate Foods CEO): Agrees with Frolich's point that GF are not necessary. Some novel foods submissions were without growth factors. Some prices (?) are ridiculous compared to cost of insulin. [To do -- check if we have a record of agree/disagree in the chat]

Suggested sections to turn into a highlights video to preseent this section: 00:17-02:19; 05:38-10:25

Cut 8:41-8:57 (discussion of whether Tarka is present)

David asking for other thoughts on Growth Factors, no response ... cut this

Frolich introduces discussion about cell densities

"Relevant measurements for cell density/mass" Morales discusses cell densities. Suggests 'cell densities' by itself is meaningless -- because (i) high cell densities may require lots of costly inputs and (ii) it may be hard to scale up at high densities. 10:13 -- Frolich agrees 'cell count itself is misleading' ... would rather we talk about dry cell weight or protein content -- because cell diameters vary, which impacts the _mass_, which is what we ultimately care about

Create and add a meaningful title slide for this

the stinger came up twice, including at 0:06

The first stinger should continue for a few more seconds, including as the title appears . You still have a second stringer coming in where it doesn't belong.

Remove the first 10 seconds; after the first 10 seconds the video is almost ideal to be used as an explanation of the beliefs elicitation form

Start at 0:08

There's no stinger or title here

Start at 0:52 -- the previous is mostly housekeeping

Missing Stinger Audio

From this point in the video to the end is a good monologue on academia-industry disparity/collaboration. Isolate this latter part of the video as a clip for use in other videos.

The video could be split into two parts with different themes: general funding discussion until 08:39 and the specific theme of taste from 08:39 onwards.

Ensure that any videos split into multiple shorter vidoes retain the intro/outro 'Unjournal' graphic and sound.

Splice together this video from 00:19 to 03:09 with the 'Funding Debate Part 1' video from 08:39 onwards. This will produce a video on the theme of sense and taste in cultivated meat research and development.

Begin the video at 00:19

Most of this video serves as a useful example of the discussion that the Unjournal intends to facilitate, because it features back and forth discussion with development and refinement of ideas. Cut off the sections before and after the timestamps attached to this note.