Next Article in Journal
Quorum Sensing in Chromobacterium subtsugae ATCC 31532 (Formerly Chromobacterium violaceum ATCC 31532): Transcriptomic and Genomic Analyses
Previous Article in Journal
A Case of Granulomatous Interstitial Nephritis Associated with Mycobacterium chimaera Disseminated Infection
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Probiotic Fermentation of Defatted Cottonseed Meal for Sustainable Foods and Non-Food Applications

1
School of Medicine, Huanghe Science & Technology University, School of Chemical Engineering, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, China
2
Zhengzhou Research Base, State Key Laboratory of Cotton Bio-Breeding and Integrated Utilization, Laboratory of Synthetic Biology, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, China
3
Institute of Edible Fungi, Shanghai Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Southern Key Laboratory of Edible Fungus Resource Utilization, Ministry of Agriculture, National Engineering Research Center of Edible Fungi, Shanghai 201403, China
4
Food Laboratory of Zhongyuan, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, China
5
Center for Lipid Biosynthetic Engineering, Muyuan Laboratory, 110 Shangding Road, Zhengzhou 450016, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microorganisms 2025, 13(5), 1020; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms13051020
Submission received: 27 March 2025 / Revised: 24 April 2025 / Accepted: 24 April 2025 / Published: 29 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Microbial Biotechnology)

Abstract

:
Cottonseed is a valuable source of high-quality proteins and oils. Defatted cottonseed meal (DCSM), a by-product of cottonseed oil extraction, holds significant potential as a sustainable protein resource. This review outlines the chemical composition, structural features, and unique properties of cottonseed, with a focus on its inherent antinutritional factors, such as gossypol. Strategies for enhancing the utilization of DCSM as a protein source are systematically evaluated, including physical, chemical, and biological methods used to eliminate or reduce antinutritional components. Among these, microbial fermentation, particularly solid-state fermentation, is highlighted as a promising, eco-friendly approach for detoxification and nutritional improvement. This review further discusses critical factors influencing the removal of anti-nutritional compounds, such as pretreatment methods, fermentation parameters, and microbial strains. The efficacy of probiotic strains (e.g., Bacillus and yeasts) in enhancing the protein digestibility, amino acid profiles, and functional properties of DCSM is discussed. Additionally, recent advances in the application of fermented cottonseed protein in foods (e.g., animal feed, functional peptides, and food additives) and non-food sectors (e.g., biofuels and bioplastic) are explored. The integration of probiotic-driven fermentation processes is proposed as a strategy to exploit the full nutritional and economic potential of DCSM, paving the way for its broader and sustainable use in foods and non-food applications.

1. Introduction

Cotton (Gossypium spp.) is a globally cultivated crop with widespread agricultural significance [1]. According to the 2022 database of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), cotton was grown on 31.4 million hectares worldwide, yielding 69.7 million tons of production. As a primary source of natural fiber for the textile industry, cotton is cultivated in over 75 countries. In particular, China, India, and the United States collectively account for more than 70% of global cotton production [2]. The cotton plant comprises several components, including cotton fiber, cottonseed, cotton hull, cottonseed shell, and cotton stalk [3]. While cotton is primarily grown for its fiber, approximately 150 kg of cottonseed is produced for every 100 kg of lint fiber obtained during ginning [4]. Cottonseed is rich in lipids, proteins, carbohydrates, and minerals [5]. It contains 17–22% oil, which is predominantly utilized in the food industry. The extraction of oil yields defatted cottonseed meal (DCSM) as a valuable by-product [6].
DCSM is recognized as one of the most promising sources of plant protein. DCSM typically contains 20–70% protein by dry weight, with the exact content varying significantly depending on the preparation and analytical methods used. In some cases, cottonseed protein can achieve nearly 100% [4]. Due to its high protein content, low cost, abundant availability, and ease of processing, DCSM is widely utilized in feeds for domestic animals and fish [7,8]. However, cottonseed protein contributes about 5% to the global protein supply. This limited utilization is primarily attributed to several challenges associated with DCSM, including poor palatability, low digestibility, and an unappealing dark color. Additionally, DCSM contains some anti-nutritional factors, such as gossypol, cyclopropenoid fatty acids, phytic acid, and tannins [9,10,11]. Among these, gossypol presence in feed negatively impacts animal growth, development, and reproductive health, thereby restricting the broader use of cottonseed in animal nutrition [12,13].
The growing demand for soybean meal and animal-based proteins has positioned DCSM as a competitive and sustainable alternative protein source for animal feed. Cottonseed protein isolates have diverse applications, including protein supplements [14], bio-based adhesives [15,16,17], and bioplastics [18,19]. Additionally, cottonseed shells and cotton stalks can serve not only as dietary cellulose supplements in animal feed but also as raw materials for producing a range of value-added products, including bio-based materials, chemicals, and biofuels [20,21].
In this review, the chemical composition and biological characteristics of various parts of the cotton plant are outlined, and the application of cottonseed protein in animal feed is introduced. Furthermore, this study systematically investigated the applications of DCSM in pharmaceutical, industrial, and foods (Figure 1). The technological advancements and commercialization potential of cotton by-product processing strategies are analyzed, aiming to establish a theoretical foundation for innovative utilization strategies that enhance the value chain integration of DCSM and optimize its economic benefits.

2. Chemical Composition, Structure, and Characteristics of Cottonseed

Cottonseeds are primarily composed of protein, fat, and fiber (Figure 2). Among oilseed crops, cottonseed ranks as the fifth-largest source of protein following soybean, canola, palm, and sunflower [22,23]. In addition to fiber, cottonseed yields hulls (22%), liters (7%), and DCSM (50%) [5,24]. Due to the different technologies of oil extraction, the obtained components have certain differences.

2.1. DCSM Obtained After Cottonseed Oil Extraction

DCSM is rich in protein, fiber, and other nutrients (Figure 2). It is often used in food and feed production. However, nutrient concentrations in different samples vary [25]. These differences may be due to different agronomic practices (such as fertilization), different degrees of cortex removal, the ratio of the skin to the shell, and processing methods during oil extraction [26,27]. DCSM was added to enhance soybean meal utilization by 50% in lactating dairy cow diets [28].
Lysine is the first limiting amino acid in cotton protein (Figure 2). During oil extraction processing, gossypol forms stable complexes with the lysine amino group, thereby reducing lysine bioavailability and resulting in diminished lysine digestibility in cottonseed-derived products [29]. The content of gossypol had a negative effect on the amino acid digestibility of DCSM [30]. When the gossypol content was 1.52%, the true digestibility coefficient of essential amino acids in DCSM was 73.9% to 91.8% [11]. Higher dietary inclusion of DCSM increased the concentration of free gossypol, changed the dietary amino acid composition, and limited the growth of goslings aged 1–20 days [31]. Therefore, reducing the level of gossypol in cottonseed can increase feed yield.

2.2. Antinutritional Factors—Gossypol

Gossypol, a phenolic terpenoid aldehyde biosynthesized in pigment glands, exhibits dual antioxidant and phytotoxic properties. This specialized metabolite functions as an endogenous defense compound against biotic stressors (e.g., phytophagous insects, microbial pathogens) while concurrently enhancing plant resilience to abiotic environmental challenges through adaptive biochemical coordination [32,33]. Cottonseed generally contains 0.02–6.64% gossypol based on dry weight depending on the cotton variety and the region and climate [5,34] and is synthesized by the pigment glands of cotton plants in the mallow family [35]. Gossypol exhibits anti-physiological activity, including impairing somatic growth, disrupting developmental homeostasis, and suppressing reproductive efficiency in animal species.
Gossypol is available as bound gossypol and free gossypol in cotton. Free gossypol has active aldehyde and hydroxyl groups and can harm animal blood vessels, cells, and nerves, cause animal physiological function disorders, and reduce the reproductive ability of male animals. Bound gossypol is bound to proteins, amino acids, or other substances. Therefore, bound gossypol is not easily absorbed by animals and is less toxic to animals [34,36]. Three principal mitigation strategies are routinely implemented during DCSM valorization for animal nutrition, including mechanical processing, chemical treatment, and microbial fermentation [37]. The limit of free gossypol in DCSM protein products that are safe for use in non-ruminants is 450 ppm, which is set by the United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) and the World Health Organization (WHO) [5].

2.3. Green and Sustainable Plant Protein–Cottonseed Protein

Decorticated cottonseed meal containing concentrated protein content exceeding 44% represents a high-quality plant-derived protein matrix for industrial applications. The cottonseed protein contains high salt-soluble protein, followed by water-soluble protein and alkali-soluble protein [5,38]. The surface properties of proteins are based on different functional properties, such as wettability, dispersion, oxidative stability, fluidity, and rehydration [39]. Arginine accounts for 15–34% of total cottonseed protein, and another 8 essential amino acids account for approximately 5% of total protein. Among the non-essential amino acids, glutamic is the highest, accounting for 10% of total cottonseed protein. Quantitative amino acid profiling demonstrated that histidine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine, threonine, and valine constituted 30.0% and 28.1% of the total amino acid content in alkali-soluble and salt-soluble protein fractions, respectively [40]. The essential amino acids in glandless DCSM were 26%, which is higher than that in soy protein (17%), showing that DCSM might be an excellent source of protein for animal consumption.
Dietary fiber is defined as non-digestible carbohydrate with lignin, which includes non-digestible starch polysaccharides, hydrocolloids, resistant starch, resistant oligosaccharides, and lignin related to dietary fiber polysaccharides [41]. Cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin are the main sources of cotton dietary fiber (Figure 2) [42]. Dietary fiber is one of the main components of agricultural by-products, which can be divided into soluble dietary fiber and insoluble dietary fiber [43]. Dietary fiber can affect the structure of animal intestinal microbiota [44,45]. Thus, understanding the physiological function of dietary fiber in animal nutrition and the composition of its metabolites helps promote the development of animal feed.

3. Approaches for Efficient Utilization of DCSM

DCSM is a by-product of the cotton fiber industry, and its use in animal feed is limited due to the toxicity of gossypol. The sensitivity of different animals to gossypol varies; The EU Directive 2002 L00032 limits free gossypol in cottonseed cake feed to 20 ppm for laying hens and piglets, 100 ppm for poultry and calves, and 500 ppm for cattle, goats, and sheep [46]. DCSM should be detoxified before being used in feed. The common pretreatment methods for gossypol in DCSM include physical, chemical, and biological methods (Figure 3).

3.1. Physical Methods for the Degossypolization of DCSM

The available physical methods for the removal of free gossypol include heat treatment, separation of cottonseed pigment glands, and high-energy radiation. Under thermal hydrolysis processing conditions, free gossypol undergoes covalent conjugation with amino acid residues or polypeptide chains, forming bound gossypol derivatives through chemisorption-mediated detoxification mechanisms [29]. This method could reduce the gossypol in DCSM by 91.1% [47]. However, this method reduces the protein content in the kernel and the fatty acid content in the oil, which limits its application in DCSM detoxification. Cottonseed with glands can be treated with physical methods to remove gossypol-bearing glands, such as the air classification process or liquid cyclone process [48]. Liquid cyclone process can produce edible DCSM with 0.04% or less free gossypol [37]. The air classification process is designed to reduce gossypol content in DCSM by removing pigment glands, which was developed as a means to improve the liquid cyclone process [37]. Recently, gamma, and electron irradiation has been proven to be effective in reducing anti-nutrient factors of various plant sources [49,50], and this treatment does not cause damage to nutrients or form undesired products [51].

3.2. Chemical Methods for the Degossypolization of DCSM

The organic solvent extraction method is based on similar phase dissolution. The most commonly used solvents are acetone, ethanol, n–butanol, methanol, and dichloromethane. Gossypol has a strong affinity and forms strong bonds with divalent cations, especially iron. The addition of iron sulfate can enable feed containing safe levels of gossypol of various domestic animals [52]. Adding the same amount of dehydrated ferrous sulfate to DCSM reduces the level of free gossypol to 0.0001%. The free gossypol content of DCSM was effectively reduced when calcium hydroxide was used for the alkali treatment of DCSM. The use of calcium hydroxide (2%) and pressure-cooking treatment reduced the free gossypol content of DCSM in poultry feed [53]. However, calcium hydroxide generally reduces vitamins and the detoxification efficiency of gossypol removal [54].

3.3. Biological Methods for the Degossypolization of DCSM

Microbial fermentation could not only efficiently remove gossypol but also improve the nutritional values of cottonseed powder [55,56]. Biological methods include the genetic breeding method, the enzyme digestion method, and microbial fermentation. Gossypol and related terpenoids are produced and stored in the lysigenous glands in the cotton plant. Thus, the removal of “glandless mutant cotton” without lysigenous glands is a target for biological breeding. Though commercial breeding has been attempted, commercial glandless cotton varieties have failed due to the crop being more sensitive to pests than conventional cotton. Enzymatic hydrolysis is an effective method to improve the quality of cottonseed protein because the reaction conditions are non-irritating, have no impact on the nutritional value of amino acids, and produce low environmental pollution [57]. Enzymatic biocatalysts could bind or remove the toxic aldehyde group in gossypol (Figure 4) [58,59]. To elucidate the mechanism of the CarE CCE001a protein in the efficient degradation of gossypol, UPLC-QTOF/MS analysis was employed to detect gossypol degradation intermediates (Figure 4). The results suggest that binding to or removal of the toxic aldehyde group(s) in gossypol could effectively reduce its toxicity [58]. Laccase could help to degrade gossypol [59]. Laccase can catalyze the intramolecular cyclization of aldehyde and hydroxyl group of gossypols with o–semiquinone radical and produce free radical ·OH. Oxidation of the aldehyde group significantly reduced reproductive toxicity and hepatotoxicity [59]. The Panus lecomtei strain BRM044603 demonstrated a significant capacity to reduce free gossypol to 100 μg/g. Enzymatic and proteomic analyses indicated that the increase in laccase activity was correlated with the reduction of free gossypol and the degradation of gossypol to trace amounts [60]. Five engineered strains (GS115-LacA, GS115-LacB, GS115-LacC, KM711-LCC1, and GS115-Lcc2) were generated by expressing high-activity laccases. Among them, KM711-LCC1 exhibited the highest efficiency in gossypol degradation. The degradation performance of these laccases was positively correlated with temperature and pH [61].
Solid-state fermentation is a fermentation process that harnesses microorganisms under conditions of low moisture. Liquid fermentation is a fermentation process that involves large-scale microbial cultivation through a flow environment with proper dissolved gas and nutrients [62,63]. The starter, substrate, and fermentation conditions might change the nutritional properties of fermented feed [64]. Yeast species, such as Saccharomyces cerevisiae, are the most used microorganisms for DCSM fermentation [65,66]. Bacillus spp. exhibit free gossypol biodegradation capacity, and specific strains could enhance the nutritional quality of DCSM [56,67]. Certain lactic acid bacteria can reduce the content of anti-nutrient elements in DCSM and produce a large number of volatile substances, such as lactic acid and acetic acid, which can improve the palatability of feed. The secretion ability of lactic acid bacteria is weak, resulting in less improvement in the nutritional value of DCSM [68]. The insect gut is an important interface between the host and the external environment. It is possible to isolate and identify bacteria from the insect body which uses cotton leaves (including gossypol) as feed [69].
Microbial fermentation has emerged as a promising biotechnological approach for DCSM detoxification, functioning via dual mechanisms of biodegradation and molecular conjugation. The process requires scientific strain selection and targeted microbial treatment. Successful detoxification crucially depends on strain specificity (particularly gossypol-degrading enzyme production capacity) and optimized fermentation parameters including moisture content, temperature, and substrate pretreatment.

3.4. Factors Affecting the Degradation of Gossypol by Solid-State Fermentation

The initial moisture content, pH, incubation temperature, initial inoculum level, duration of fermentation, and mineral additives might affect the final anti-nutrient content of DCSM after solid-state fermentation (Figure 3). The moisture content of a fermentation substrate should be determined according to the properties of the substrate (particle size), microbial characteristics (anaerobic, aerobic, or facultative anaerobic), temperature, and time [64]. The initial moisture can affect the microbiota and flavor generation, and increasing moisture could enhance the Lactobacillus content and microbial stability during Baijiu production [70]. Elevateed moisture content inhibits the conversion efficiency of free gossypol to bound gossypol [71]. The metabolic activity of microorganisms is largely affected by the pH value of the medium [72].
Microorganisms have specific temperature ranges where they have optimal growth. Maintaining an optimal temperature is critical to shortening the stabilization phase of fermentation and maximizing product yield while minimizing by-product formation [73]. Furthermore, controlled thermal conditions enhance enzymatic reaction kinetics and promote microbial proliferation, thereby accelerating metabolic flux and substrate utilization efficiency [74]. A free gossypol degradation rate of 86.5% was achieved at 30 °C, while only 57% was achieved at 40 °C [5,75].
The initial inoculum level is another important factor affecting the biodegradation of free gossypol. A high concentration of Candida tropicalis degraded more than 80% free gossypol, while a low concentration degraded less than 60% free gossypol [5,75]. The duration of fermentation depends on characteristics such as the growth rate of the microorganism and the efficiency of free gossypol degradation. Shorter fermentation times may result in incomplete utilization of the substrate, thereby reducing the gossypol degradation rate, while fermentation beyond the optimal range may result in denaturation and subsequent deactivation of enzymes associated with free gossypol degradation due to interactions with other compounds/by-products formed during the process.
Mineral supplementation was found to improve free gossypol detoxification efficiency and protein content. Phosphate contributes to the buffering capacity of the medium and is a component of nucleic acids, phospholipids, and coenzymes. The supply of potassium or sodium ions changes the osmotic pressure. Potassium is a major cation in microbial cells, especially as a cofactor for enzymes such as hexokinase phosphate.

3.5. Impact of Different Start Cultures on the Nutrient Content of DCSM

The different starter cultures affect the gossypol removal efficiency of DCSM (Table 1). The degradation of gossypol by microorganisms may be due to the use of gossypol as a carbon source or the conversion of free gossypol to bound gossypol. Bacillus species have been applied in gossypol degradation [66,76,77].
B. subtilis, B. coagulans, Lactobacillus agilis, and other bacteria increased the crude protein content of DCSM and degraded free gossypol after fermentation. The protein content in DCSM reaches 7.63% post B. subtilis BJ–1 bioprocessing [79]. The rumen-derived strain L. agile WWK129 achieved 83% degradation of gossypol in DCSM within 5 days [78]. After 14 days of solid-state fermentation with B. subtilis M-15, the gossypol degradation rate in DCSM reached 93.46%, while the acid-soluble protein content significantly increased to 13.26% [67]. Eight microbial strains exhibiting gossypol-degrading capabilities were isolated from DCSM, and the isolated Meyerozyma guilliermondii WST–M1 reduced the total gossypol and free gossypol content by 31.97% and 74.70%, respectively [71]. The fermentation of soybean meal by B. amyloliquefaciens, improved crude protein content and acid soluble protein concentration. Moreover, the antigenic protein was degraded during fermentation [92]. Extracellular enzymes were produced by bacteria during fermentation. Bacillus spp. produces industrially valuable enzymes such as protease and xylanase are produced [93].
Yeast is often used in fermentation processes due to its ease of culture, fast growth rate, and inherently high protein content [94]. Yeast demonstrates gossypol reduction in DCSM and improve nutrition and is currently widely applied in feed additives [80,81,82]. Geotrichum candidum G07 exhibits potent gossypol degradation capacity, with a detoxification efficiency of 78.9% after 48 h incubation at 30 °C [83]. Fermentation coupled with enzymatic hydrolysis of DCSM improves protein utilization efficiency and expands the application potential of unconventional proteins [84]. To improve the overall quality of DCSM, short-term (4 days) and long-term (14 days) fermentation using yeast strains caused an increase in total essential amino acid content (M = 44%) and total non-essential amino acid content (16–18%). In addition, a 17% reduction in gossypol is achieved [95]. The yeast is a potential source for protein in food, and the application of yeasts in DCSM fermentation might satisfy the requirement for future protein demand [96]. Fungi, such as Aspergillus niger and Pycnoporus sanguineus, are often used to ferment DCSM. Trichoderma spp. has the ability to synthesize proteins [97]. The detoxification efficiency of free gossypol varied according to the type and proportion of the strains used in DCSM fermentation.
Mixed culture enhances fermentation efficacy by producing high-activity hydrolases, increasing crude protein content, reducing the crude fiber levels, and improving the nutritional quality of detoxified DCSM [85,86]. Fermentation of DCSM using B. subtilis ST-141 and Saccharomycetes N5 can effectively reduce gossypol content and enhance acid-soluble protein concentration [87,90]. DCSM fermented with Candida tropicalis and S. cerevisiae provides a simplified processing approach for the animal feed industry [88]. Mixed fermentation can take advantage of the synergistic effect among different strains. Solid-state fermentation effectively converts anti-nutritional factors such as gossypol in DCSM and glucosinolates in rapeseed meal, enhancing dietary nutritional bioavailability, and confers potential application value in animal husbandry [89].

3.6. Application of Microbiome Engineering in Gossypol Degradation

Although progress has been made in the probiotic-mediated fermentation of DCSM [6], the functional interplay between microbial consortia and gossypol within its structurally complex matrix remains largely uncharted. This knowledge gap necessitates the incorporation of multi-omics profiling and genetic engineering technologies [98], which hold the potential to elucidate the underlying mechanisms and thereby advance the integration use of DCSM. Gossypol-degrading microorganisms can be obtained through screening from fermented foods or natural environments, and engineered microorganisms via metabolic engineering approaches could be assembled into synthetic microbiota for testing and industrial application for DCSM (Figure 5). Through screening and selection of seven high-yielding protease-producing strains, microbial strains with superior activity in digesting free gossypol were identified [67].
Gene editing technology offers a novel alternative approach for bottom-up metabolic reprogramming of microbial systems [99,100]. The carboxylesterase (CarE)-encoding gene cce001a derived from Helicoverpa armigera was transformed into Pichia pastoris GS115. The target protein CarE CCE001a was successfully expressed, which exhibited effective degradation capability against free gossypol, achieving a degradation rate of 89% within 1.5 h [58]. Transcriptomic analysis of C. tropicalis ZD–3 revealed that the CTRG_04744 gene was significantly upregulated under gossypol stress. Subsequently, this gene was expressed in P. pastoris. The purified recombinant protein AKR_Z1 demonstrated efficient gossypol degradation capability, achieving a degradation rate of 92% within 48 h [101]. The development of gene editing and other advanced biotechnologies will enable microbes to acquire new capabilities, and these engineered microbes can significantly enhance fermentation effects [102,103]. Furthermore, integrating engineered probiotics with natural probiotics would generate a synthetic microbiota with high biomass transformation and gossypol removal ability [104,105].

4. Foods and Non-Food Applications of Cottonseed Protein

Cottonseed protein is produced through oil extraction, removal of gossypol, and other process stages. The cottonseed protein could reach up to 60% of DCSM. Cottonseed protein has great potential as a component of value-added industrial products and bioactive functional materials. Cottonseed protein isolate includes bioadhesives, food additives, enzyme preparations, bioplastics and films, antioxidant components/peptides, and antimicrobial peptides (Figure 1).

4.1. Cottonseed Protein as Food Source for Human Nutrition

The global annual production rate of cottonseed protein is about 10.8 million tons, which can meet the protein needs of the global population of 50 g of protein per day [106]. Nearly 23% of cotton seeds are made up of high-quality protein. The use of cottonseed protein in foods depends on gossypol content, nutritional value, and functional properties. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) admits cottonseed proteins as food supplements if they have less than 0.8% bound gossypol or 0.045% free gossypol [107]. Therefore, reducing the gossypol content in cottonseed protein is a prerequisite for high-quality protein. The addition of DCSM increases the protein content of snacks. Extruded snacks prepared with 10% DCSM have 88% more protein and lower in fat [108]. The freeze-dried protein powder obtained under optimized conditions had higher crude protein content (93.1%), ultra-low gossypol, and no foodborne pathogens [109].

4.2. DCSM as Animal Protein Source

Low gossypol DCSM can be effectively used as feed for poultry and aquaculture. These animals can efficiently convert feed protein into edible animal protein. The transformation of ultra-low gossypol cottonseed protein into animal-derived proteins operates under defined protein conversion metrics, and the values exhibit species-specific variation [106]. The fermentation process reduced the content of gossypol and crude fiber and increased the content of certain beneficial lactic acid bacteria and crude protein in DCSM. The DCSM processed through fermentation could be used as an alternative protein source for poultry feed, which could reduce reliance on soy protein feed [110]. Converting cottonseed protein to animal protein reduced the risk of gossypol.

4.3. Non-Food Application of DCSM and Cottonseed Protein

The mechanical properties, water solubility, plasticizing properties, cross-linking behavior, and 3D structure of cottonseed protein affect the non-food applications of DCSM. These applications include adhesives, packaging, bioplastics, hydrogels, interface materials, and emulsification [4].

4.3.1. Cottonseed Protein Used as an Adhesive

Certain adhesives on the market are urea–formaldehyde resins, which are derived from petroleum. Formaldehyde could cause serious health problems. Consequently, developing sustainable, renewable adhesive systems to replace petroleum-derived formaldehyde is necessary [111]. Cottonseed protein has been demonstrated in adhesive engineering as a viable wood binder, with its combination incorporating phosphoric acid exhibiting superior binding performance compared to soy protein [112]. The phosphorus/calcium was used as a protein modifier to improve the adhesive’s bond strength and water resistance. The interaction between amino acid and phosphorus enhanced the crosslinking property and improved the bonding property of cottonseed protein-based wood adhesive [15].

4.3.2. Cottonseed Protein as Packaging Material

Films and coatings are used in the packaging of agricultural products such as fruits and vegetables. In the packaging industry, biodegradable materials have become the preferred material to replace plastic packaging. Protein-based biodegradable polymers are considered second-generation bioplastics [113], for they provide better mechanical support, and better protection against gas leaks [114]. A blended film by casting cottonseed protein and polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) was prepared and modified with different plasticizers. The degree of plasticizers is the interaction between proteins and polyvinyl alcohol, and the interaction changes the secondary structure of cottonseed protein. These blended films could be promising plastics for food packaging and flower-growing applications [115].

4.3.3. Cottonseed Protein as a Substrate for Industrial Production of Enzymes

The enzymes produced by microorganisms from agro-industrial waste are cost-effective [116]. The solid substrate provides nutrients for the growth of microorganisms [117]. DCSM can be used as a substrate for microbial growth. When DCSM: wheat bran was used as a substrate for growing Botryosphaeria spp. AM 01 and Saccharicola spp. EJC 04 under solid-state fermentation conditions, cellulase and xylanases activities were detected, which might be used for sugarcane bagasse treatment [118]. Cottonseed cake was used as a nitrogen source to produce a fibrinolytic protease by B. cereus, which increased 71% protease activity [119].
The advanced processing of fermented cottonseed meal will drive the resource utilization of agricultural waste, which holds significant implications for ensuring sustainable development in animal husbandry and alleviating global feed protein resources through technological innovation.

5. Conclusions

DCSM is a valuable protein source with broad application potential. However, the presence of gossypol limits its widespread utilization. Solid-state fermentation offers a green, eco-friendly, and sustainable solution for gossypol removal, and the strains are essential for the fermentation. Microbiome and synthetic biology are expected to be the key approaches for the comprehensive utilization of DCSM. Through detoxification and high-value utilization processes, DCSM has emerged as an eco-friendly alternative to conventional raw materials across multiple fields, including food processing, livestock feed production, biofuel generation, and bioplastics manufacturing, while simultaneously addressing economic viability and environmental sustainability. In conclusion, through appropriate fermentation and other biological methods, it is feasible to further promote the sustainable development of the cotton industry and exploit the value of cottonseed in the future.

Author Contributions

Writing—original draft preparation, Z.Y.; Writing—review and editing, X.Z., T.L., L.Q. and Y.W.; Visualization, G.Z., Z.Y. and T.L.; Conceptualization, L.Q. and Y.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study received financial support from various sources, including Henan Province Outstanding Youth Foundation (No. 242300421097), Zhengzhou Research Base, National Key Laboratory of Cotton Bio-breeding and Integrated Utilization (No. CBIU2023ZZ06, CB2024A30, and CBIU2023ZZ09), Muyuan Laboratory (No. 12106022401), and the Science and Technology Project of Henan Province (No. 242102311170).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Acknowledgments

We thank Henan Muyi Animal Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. for fermentation help. During the preparation of this work.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Yang, Z.; Qanmber, G.; Wang, Z.; Yang, Z.; Li, F. Gossypium genomics: Trends, scope, and utilization for cotton improvement. Trends Plant Sci. 2020, 25, 488–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Data of Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations. 2022. Available online: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL/visualize (accessed on 11 July 2024).
  3. Huang, G.; Huang, J.Q.; Chen, X.Y.; Zhu, Y.X. Recent advances and future perspectives in cotton research. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2021, 72, 437–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Cheng, H.N.; He, Z.; Ford, C.; Wyckoff, W.; Wu, Q. A review of cottonseed protein chemistry and non-food applications. Sustain. Chem. 2020, 1, 256–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kumar, M.; Tomar, M.; Punia, S.; Grasso, S.; Arrutia, F.; Choudhary, J.; Singh, S.; Verma, P.; Mahapatra, A.; Patil, S. Cottonseed: A Sustainable contributor to global protein requirements. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 111, 100–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lin, J.; Zhang, J.; Zou, G.; Zhang, X.; Shang, H.; Ji, B.; Bai, Y.; Qu, L.; Wei, Y. Enhancing the nutritional quality of defatted cottonseed meal by solid-state fermentation with probiotic microbes. Fermentation 2024, 10, 429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Dolatkhah, B.; Ghorbani, G.R.; Alikhani, M.; Hashemzadeh, F.; Mahdavi, A.H.; Sadeghi-Sefidmazgi, A.; Erfani, H.; Rezamand, P. Effects of hydrolyzed cottonseed protein supplementation on performance, blood metabolites, gastrointestinal development, and intestinal microbial colonization in neonatal calves. J. Dairy Sci. 2020, 103, 5102–5117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bu, X.; Chen, A.; Lian, X.; Chen, F.; Zhang, Y.; Muhammad, I.; Ge, X.; Yang, Y. An evaluation of replacing fish meal with cottonseed meal in the diet of juvenile Ussuri catfish Pseudobagrus ussuriensis: Growth, antioxidant capacity, nonspecific immunity and resistance to Aeromonas hydrophila. Aquaculture 2017, 479, 829–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Singh, P.; Pandey, V.K.; Sultan, Z.; Singh, R.; Dar, A.H. Classification, benefits, and applications of various anti-nutritional factors present in edible crops. J. Agric. Food Res. 2023, 14, 100902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zhang, W.J.; Xu, Z.R.; Zhao, S.-H.; Jiang, J.F.; Wang, Y.; Yan, X.H. Optimization of process parameters for reduction of gossypol levels in cottonseed Meal by Candida tropicalis ZD-3 during solid substrate fermentation. Toxicon 2006, 48, 221–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Świątkiewicz, S.; Arczewska-Włosek, A.; Józefiak, D. The use of cottonseed meal as a protein source for poultry: An updated review. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 2016, 72, 473–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Shi, Y.; Zhong, L.; Liu, Y.; Zheng, S.; Xu, S.; Xie, S.; Hu, Y. Gossypol is the main limiting factor in the application of cottonseed meal in grass carp feed production: Involvement of growth, intestinal physical and immune barrier, and intestinal microbiota. Water Biol. Secur. 2024, 3, 100287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Zhang, W.J.; Xu, Z.R.; Pan, X.L.; Yan, X.H.; Wang, Y. Advances in gossypol toxicity and processing effects of whole cottonseed in dairy cows feeding. Livest. Sci. 2007, 111, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Xu, X.; Yang, H.; Zhang, C.; Bian, Y.; Yao, W.; Xu, Z.; Wang, Y.; Li, X.; Leng, X. Effects of replacing fishmeal with cottonseed protein concentrate on growth performance, flesh quality and gossypol deposition of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). Aquaculture 2022, 548, 737551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Li, J.; Pradyawong, S.; He, Z.; Sun, X.S.; Wang, D.; Cheng, H.N.; Zhong, J. Assessment and application of phosphorus/calcium-cottonseed protein adhesive for plywood production. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 229, 454–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cheng, H.N.; Ford, C.; Dowd, M.K.; He, Z. Soy and cottonseed protein blends as wood adhesives. Ind. Crops Prod. 2016, 85, 324–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Liu, M.; Wang, Y.; Wu, Y.; He, Z.; Wan, H. “Greener” adhesives composed of urea-formaldehyde resin and cottonseed meal for wood-based composites. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 187, 361–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Oliveira Filho, J.G.D.; Rodrigues, J.M.; Valadares, A.C.F.; Almeida, A.B.D.; Lima, T.M.D.; Takeuchi, K.P.; Alves, C.C.F.; Sousa, H.A.D.F.; Silva, E.R.D.; Dyszy, F.H. Active food packaging: Alginate films with cottonseed protein hydrolysates. Food Hydrocoll. 2019, 92, 267–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Yue, H.; Zheng, Y.; Zheng, P.; Guo, J.; Fernández-Blázquez, J.P.; Clark, J.H.; Cui, Y. On the improvement of properties of bioplastic composites derived from wasted cottonseed protein by rational cross-linking and natural fiber reinforcement. Green Chem. 2020, 22, 8642–8655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Cai, C.; Wang, Z.; Ma, L.; Xu, Z.; Yu, J.; Li, F. Cotton stalk valorization towards bio-based materials, chemicals, and biofuels: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2024, 202, 114651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Tian, G.; Li, L.; Li, Y.; Wang, Q. Water-soluble poly(vinyl alcohol)/biomass waste composites: A new route toward ecofriendly materials. ACS Omega 2022, 7, 42515–42523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kaur, T.; Sharma, P.K.; Brar, A.S.; Choudhary, A.K.; Sharma, S.; Brar, H.S. Fiber quality, oil seed composition and fatty acid profiling of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) seed as influenced by sub-surface drip-irrigation and foliar-fertilization strategy in semi-arid agro-ecology of south-Asia. J. Agric. Food Res. 2025, 19, 101604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zia, M.A.; Shah, S.H.; Shoukat, S.; Hussain, Z.; Khan, S.U.; Shafqat, N. Physicochemical features, functional characteristics, and health benefits of cottonseed oil: A review. Braz. J. Biol. 2022, 82, e243511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Hinze, L.L.; Horn, P.J.; Kothari, N.; Dever, J.K.; Frelichowski, J.; Chapman, K.D.; Percy, R.G. Nondestructive measurements of cottonseed nutritional trait diversity in the U.S. national cotton germplasm collection. Crop Sci. 2015, 55, 770–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bertrand, J.A.; Sudduth, T.Q.; Condon, A.; Jenkins, T.C.; Calhoun, M.C. Nutrient content of whole cottonseed. J. Dairy Sci. 2005, 88, 1470–1477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Riaz, T.; Iqbal, M.W.; Mahmood, S.; Yasmin, I.; Leghari, A.A.; Rehman, A.; Mushtaq, A.; Ali, K.; Azam, M.; Bilal, M. Cottonseed oil: A review of extraction techniques, physicochemical, functional, and nutritional properties. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2023, 63, 1219–1237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Goetsch, A.L.; Owens, F.N. The effects of commercial processing method of cottonseed meal on site and extent of digestion in cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 1985, 60, 803–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Broderick, G.A.; Kerkman, T.M.; Sullivan, H.M.; Dowd, M.K.; Funk, P.A. Effect of replacing soybean meal protein with protein from upland cottonseed, pima cottonseed, or extruded pima cottonseed on production of lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2013, 96, 2374–2386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Pelitire, S.M.; Dowd, M.K.; Cheng, H.N. Acidic solvent extraction of gossypol from cottonseed meal. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2014, 195, 120–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Qiu, K.; Wang, X.; Wang, J.; Wang, H.; Qi, G.; Zhang, H.; Wu, S. Comparison of amino acid digestibility of soybean meal, cottonseed meal, and low-gossypol cottonseed meal between broilers and laying hens. Anim. Biosci. 2023, 36, 619–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Yu, J.; Yang, Z.; Yang, H.; Wang, Z. Effects of cottonseed meal on growth performance, liver redox status, and serum biochemical parameters in goslings at 1 to 28 days of age. BMC Vet. Res. 2022, 18, 347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Tian, X.; Ruan, J.; Huang, J.; Fang, X.; Mao, Y.; Wang, L.; Chen, X.; Yang, C. Gossypol: Phytoalexin of cotton. Sci. China Life Sci. 2016, 59, 122–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Marone, D.; Mastrangelo, A.M.; Borrelli, G.M.; Mores, A.; Laidò, G.; Russo, M.A.; Ficco, D.B.M. Specialized metabolites: Physiological and biochemical role in stress resistance, strategies to improve their accumulation, and new applications in crop breeding and management. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2022, 172, 48–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gadelha, I.C.N.; Fonseca, N.B.S.; Oloris, S.C.S.; Melo, M.M.; Soto-Blanco, B. Gossypol toxicity from cottonseed products. Sci. World J. 2014, 2014, 231635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Jan, M.; Liu, Z.; Guo, C.; Zhou, Y.; Sun, X. An overview of cotton gland development and its transcriptional regulation. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 4892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Zhang, C.; Shu, G.; Zhou, K.; You, Y.; Liu, R.; Chen, J.; Jiang, Q.; Yin, Y.; Chen, L. Long-term bound gossypol administration damages the liver and reproductive functions of male mice. Ann. Agric. Sci. 2024, 69, 100377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Tao, A.; Wang, J.; Luo, B.; Liu, B.; Wang, Z.; Chen, X.; Zou, T.; Chen, J.; You, J. Research progress on cottonseed meal as a protein source in pig nutrition: An updated review. Anim. Nutr. 2024, 18, 220–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Singh, A.; Kaur, A. Comparative studies on seed protein characteristics in eight lines of two Gossypium species. J. Cotton Res. 2019, 2, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. He, Z.; Zhang, D.; Cao, H. Protein profiling of water and alkali soluble cottonseed protein isolates. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 9306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Delgado, E.; Valverde-Quiroz, L.; Lopez, D.; Cooke, P.; Valles-Rosales, D.; Flores, N. Characterization of soluble glandless cottonseed meal proteins based on electrophoresis, functional properties, and microscopic structure. J. Food Sci. 2019, 84, 2820–2830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Stephen, A.M.; Champ, M.M.J.; Cloran, S.J.; Fleith, M.; van Lieshout, L.; Mejborn, H.; Burley, V.J. Dietary fibre in Europe: Current state of knowledge on definitions, sources, recommendations, intakes and relationships to health. Nutr. Res. Rev. 2017, 30, 149–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sun, X.; Qin, A.; Wang, X.; Ge, X.; Liu, Z.; Guo, C.; Yu, X.; Zhang, X.; Lu, Y.; Yang, J. Spatiotemporal transcriptome and metabolome landscapes of cotton fiber during initiation and early development. Nat. Commun. 2025, 16, 858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Dey, D.; Richter, J.K.; Ek, P.; Gu, B.J.; Ganjyal, G.M. Utilization of food processing by-products in extrusion processing: A review. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 4, 603751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Lin, S.M.; Zhou, X.M.; Zhou, Y.L.; Kuang, W.M.; Chen, Y.J.; Luo, L.; Dai, F.Y. Intestinal morphology, immunity and microbiota response to dietary fibers in largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoide. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2020, 103, 135–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Miao, S.; Zhao, C.; Zhu, J.; Hu, J.; Dong, X.; Sun, L. Dietary soybean meal affects intestinal homoeostasis by altering the microbiota, morphology and inflammatory cytokine gene expression in northern snakehead. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Soares Neto, C.B.; Conceição, A.A.; Gomes, T.G.; de Aquino Ribeiro, J.A.; Campanha, R.B.; Barroso, P.A.V.; Machado, A.E.V.; Mendonça, S.; De Siqueira, F.G.; Miller, R.N.G. A comparison of physical, chemical, biological and combined treatments for detoxification of free gossypol in crushed whole cottonseed. Waste Biomass Valorization 2021, 12, 3965–3975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Gad, T.E.; El-Zalaki, E.M. Effect of various pressure cooking conditions on gossypol content of cottonseed meal and oil. Fette Seifen Anstrichm. 1980, 82, 450–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Liu, Y.; Zhai, Y.; Li, Y.; Zheng, J.; Zhang, J.; Kumar, M.; Li, F.; Ren, M. Multiple strategies to detoxify cottonseed as human food source. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 1080407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kadam, D.M.; Kumar, M.; Kasara, A. Application of high energy electromagnetic radiations in elimination of anti-nutritional factors from oilseeds. LWT 2021, 151, 112085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Fatehi, P.; Alamouti, A.A.; Behgar, M.; Norouzian, M.A. Effect of electron irradiation on some physical, chemical and digestion properties of pistachio by-products. Radiat. Phys. Chem. 2020, 174, 108921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ravindran, R.; Jaiswal, A.K. Wholesomeness and safety aspects of irradiated foods. Food Chem. 2019, 285, 363–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Barraza, M.L.; Coppock, C.E.; Brooks, K.N.; Wilks, D.L.; Saunders, R.G.; Latimer, G.W. Iron sulfate and feed pelleting to detoxify free gossypol in cottonseed diets for dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 1991, 74, 3457–3467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Nagalakshmi, D.; Sastry, V.R.B.; Agrawal, D.K. Detoxification of undecorticated cottonseed meal by various physical and chemical methods. Anim. Nutr. Feed Technol. 2002, 2, 117–126. [Google Scholar]
  54. Zhang, W.-J.; Xu, Z.R.; Zhao, S.-H.; Sun, J.-Y.; Yang, X. Development of a microbial fermentation process for detoxification of gossypol in cottonseed meal. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2007, 135, 176–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Weng, X.Y.; Sun, J.Y. Biodegradation of free gossypol by a new strain of Candida tropicalis under solid state fermentation: Effects of fermentation parameters. Process Biochem. 2006, 41, 1663–1668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Weng, X.Y.; Sun, J.Y. Kinetics of biodegradation of free gossypol by Candida tropicalis in solid-state fermentation. Biochem. Eng. J. 2006, 32, 226–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Wang, L.; Ma, M.; Yu, Z.; Du, S. Preparation and identification of antioxidant peptides from cottonseed proteins. Food Chem. 2021, 352, 129399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Zhang, L.; Yang, X.; Huang, R.; Nie, C.; Niu, J.; Chen, C.; Zhang, W. Biodegradation of free gossypol by Helicoverpa armigera carboxylesterase expressed in Pichia pastoris. Toxins 2022, 14, 816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Wang, L.; Chen, M.; Luo, X.; Fan, Y.; Zheng, Z.; He, Z.; Yin, R.; Meng, T.; Xu, S.; Pan, Y. Intramolecular annulation of gossypol by laccase to produce safe cottonseed protein. Front. Chem. 2020, 8, 583176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Neto, C.B.S.; Gomes, T.G.; Filho, E.X.F.; Fontes, W.; Ricart, C.A.O.; De Almeida, J.R.M.; De Siqueira, F.G.; Miller, R.N.G. An enzymatic and proteomic analysis of Panus lecomtei during biodegradation of gossypol in cottonseed. J. Fungi 2024, 10, 321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Li, Q.; Chai, C.; Zhao, L. Biodegradation of endocrine disrupting chemicals with laccase isozymes from recombinant Pichia pastori. Catal. Lett. 2022, 152, 2625–2636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Lin, J.; Li, T.; Yin, Y.; Wei, Y. Selected fungal fermentation of Astragali radix (Huangqi) alters its bioactive compound profile. Food Biosci. 2025, 63, 105781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Zhang, X.; Miao, Q.; Pan, C.; Yin, J.; Wang, L.; Qu, L.; Yin, Y.; Wei, Y. Research advances in probiotic fermentation of Chinese herbal medicines. iMeta 2023, 2, e93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Yang, L.; Zeng, X.; Qiao, S. Advances in research on solid-state fermented feed and its utilization: The pioneer of private customization for intestinal microorganisms. Anim. Nutr. 2021, 7, 905–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Ramos, C.L.; De Almeida, E.G.; Freire, A.L.; Freitas Schwan, R. Diversity of bacteria and yeast in the naturally fermented cotton seed and rice beverage produced by Brazilian Amerindians. Food Microbiol. 2011, 28, 1380–1386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Zhang, Z.; Yang, D.; Liu, L.; Chang, Z.; Peng, N. Effective gossypol removal from cottonseed meal through optimized solid-state fermentation by Bacillus coagulans. Microb. Cell Fact. 2022, 21, 252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Li, J.; Gao, T.; Hao, Z.; Guo, X.; Zhu, B. Anaerobic solid-state fermentation with Bacillus subtilis for digesting free gossypol and improving nutritional quality in cottonseed meal. Front. Nutr. 2022, 9, 1017637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Yusuf, H.A.; Piao, M.; Ma, T.; Huo, R.; Tu, Y. Effect of lactic acid bacteria and yeast supplementation on anti-nutritional factors and chemical composition of fermented total mixed ration containing cottonseed meal or rapeseed meal. Anim. Biosci. 2022, 35, 556–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Krempl, C.; Sporer, T.; Reichelt, M.; Ahn, S.J.; Heidel-Fischer, H.; Vogel, H.; Heckel, D.G.; Joußen, N. Potential detoxification of gossypol by UDP-glycosyltransferases in the two Heliothine moth species Helicoverpa armigera and Heliothis virescens. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2016, 71, 49–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Wang, H.; Sun, C.; Yang, S.; Ruan, Y.; Lyu, L.; Guo, X.; Wu, X.; Chen, Y. Exploring the impact of initial moisture content on microbial community and flavor generation in Xiaoqu baijiu fermentation. Food Chem. X 2023, 20, 100981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Wang, S.; Liang, Q.; Zhan, Y.; Mukhtar, H.; Fu, X.; Zhang, F.; Wang, Y.; Mou, H. A novel gossypol-degradation approach by Meyerozyma guilliermondii WST-M1 and its application in the development of cottonseed meal as feed resource. Ind. Crops Prod. 2024, 220, 119299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Mougi, A. pH Adaptation stabilizes bacterial communities. npj Biodivers. 2024, 3, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Dujardin, M.; Elain, A.; Lendormi, T.; Le Fellic, M.; Le Treut, Y.; Sire, O. Keeping under control a liquid feed fermentation process for pigs: A reality scale pilot based study. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2014, 194, 81–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Kabir, M.F.; Ju, L.-K. On optimization of enzymatic processes: Temperature effects on activity and long-term deactivation kinetics. Process Biochem. 2023, 130, 734–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Khalaf, M.; Meleigy, S. Reduction of free gossypol levels in cottonseed meal by microbial treatment. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2008, 10, 1560–8530. [Google Scholar]
  76. Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Dai, L.; Liu, Y.; Cheng, M.; Chen, L. Isolation and characterization of a novel gossypol-degrading bacteria Bacillus subtilis strain Rumen Bacillus Subtilis. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 31, 63–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Sun, H.; Tang, J.; Yao, X.; Wu, Y.; Wang, X.; Liu, Y. Effects of replacement of fish meal with fermented cottonseed meal on growth performance, body composition and haemolymph indexes of pacific white shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei Boone, 1931. Aquac. Res. 2016, 47, 2623–2632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Wang, W.K.; Li, W.J.; Wu, Q.C.; Wang, Y.L.; Li, S.L.; Yang, H.J. Isolation and identification of a rumen Lactobacillus bacteria and its degradation potential of gossypol in cottonseed meal during solid-state fermentation. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 2200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Tang, J.W.; Sun, H.; Yao, X.H.; Wu, Y.F.; Wang, X.; Feng, J. Effects of replacement of soybean meal by fermented cottonseed meal on growth performance, serum biochemical parameters and immune function of yellow-feathered broilers. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2012, 25, 393–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Xiong, J.; Wang, Z.; Miao, L.; Meng, F.; Wu, L. Growth performance and toxic response of broilers fed diets containing fermented or unfermented cottonseed meal. J. Anim. Feed Sci. 2016, 25, 348–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Sun, Z.; Fang, H.Y.; Zhuge, B.; Zhang, M.; Zhu, G.J. Isolation, identification and mutation breeding of high gossypol detoxification strain. Microbiol. China 2011, 38, 1166–1171. [Google Scholar]
  82. Dharmakar, P.; Aanand, S.; Kumar, J.; Ande, M.; Padmavathy, P.; Pereira, J.; Balakrishna, C. Solid-state fermentation of cottonseed meal with Saccharomyces cerevisiae for gossypol reduction and nutrient enrichment. Indian J. Anim. Res. 2023, 57, 868–874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Sun, Z.T.; Liu, C.; Du, J.H. Optimisation of fermentation medium for the detoxification of free gossypol in cottonseed powder by Geotrichum candidum G07 in solid-state fermentation with response surface methodology. Ann. Microbiol. 2008, 58, 683–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Tang, X.; Xiang, R.; Chen, S.; Yang, S.; Hu, L.; Fang, R.; Li, A. Effects of fermented cottonseed meal and enzymatic hydrolyzed cottonseed meal on amino acid digestibility and metabolic energy in white leghorn rooster. Pak. J. Zool. 2018, 50, 957–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Vellaichamy, M. Optimization of solid state fermentation process for gossypol detoxification in heat sterilized cotton seed cake by mixed fungal cultures. Int. J. Food. Ferment. Technol. 2016, 6, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Atia, A.; Abdel-Rahim, G. Detoxification treatments of free gossypol in cottonseed meal by microbial treatment of mixed cultures and biochemical evaluation on rabbits. J. Radiat. Res. Appl. Sci. 2009, 2, 397–415. [Google Scholar]
  87. Wang, Y.; Deng, Q.; Song, D.; Wang, W.; Zhou, H.; Wang, L.; Li, A. Effects of fermented cottonseed meal on growth performance, serum biochemical parameters, immune functions, antioxidative abilities, and cecal microflora in broilers. Food Agric. Immunol. 2017, 28, 725–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Mageshwaran, V.; Satankar, V.; Paul, S. Solid-state fermentation for gossypol detoxification and nutritive enrichment of cottonseed cake: A scale-up of batch fermentation process. BioResources 2024, 19, 1107–1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Yusuf, H.A.; Piao, M.; Ma, T.; Huo, R.; Tu, Y. Enhancing the quality of total mixed ration containing cottonseed or rapeseed meal by optimization of fermentation conditions. Fermentation 2021, 7, 234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Ashayerizadeh, A.; Jazi, V.; Rezvani, M.R.; Mohebodini, H.; Soumeh, E.A.; Abdollahi, M.R. An investigation into the influence of fermented cottonseed meal on the productive performance, egg quality, and gut health in laying hens. Poult. Sci. 2024, 103, 103574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Vellaichamy, M.; Shaikh, A.; Kathe, A. Optimization of process parameters for gossypol detoxification in chemical disinfected cottonseed cake by mixed fungal culture during solid state fermentation. J. Sci. Ind. Res. 2017, 76, 714–719. [Google Scholar]
  92. Li, Y.; Guo, B.; Li, C.; Wang, W.; Wu, Z.; Liu, G.; Cai, H. Isolation of a highly efficient antigenic-protein-degrading Bacillus amyloliquefaciens and assessment of its safety. Animals 2020, 10, 1144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Nigam, P. Microbial enzymes with special characteristics for biotechnological applications. Biomolecules 2013, 3, 597–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Maicas, S. The role of yeasts in fermentation processes. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Duodu, C.P.; Adjei-Boateng, D.; Edziyie, R.E.; Agbo, N.W.; Owusu-Boateng, G.; Larsen, B.K.; Skov, P.V. Processing techniques of selected oilseed by-products of potential use in animal feed: Effects on proximate nutrient composition, amino acid profile and antinutrients. Anim. Nutr. 2018, 4, 442–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Ma, J.; Sun, Y.; Meng, D.; Zhou, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, R. Yeast proteins: The novel and sustainable alternative protein in food applications. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2023, 135, 190–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Lima, P.C.; Karimian, P.; Johnston, E.; Hartley, C.J. The use of Trichoderma spp. for the bioconversion of agro-industrial waste biomass via fermentation: A review. Fermentation 2024, 10, 442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Zhang, J.; Li, T.; Zou, G.; Wei, Y.; Qu, L. Advancements and future directions in yellow rice wine production research. Fermentation 2024, 10, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Wei, J.; Li, Y. CRISPR-based gene editing technology and its application in microbial engineering. Eng. Microbiol. 2023, 3, 100101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Zou, G.; Nielsen, J.B.; Wei, Y. Harnessing synthetic biology for mushroom farming. Trends Biotechnol. 2023, 41, 480–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Zhang, L.; Yang, X.; Nie, C.; Chen, C.; Zhang, W. Combined transcriptomics and cellular analyses reveal the molecular mechanism by which Candida tropicalis ZD-3 adapts to and degrades gossypol. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2024, 279, 135294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Zhang, X.; Tang, B.; Wen, S.; Wang, Y.; Pan, C.; Qu, L.; Yin, Y.; Wei, Y. Advancements in the biotransformation and biosynthesis of the primary active flavonoids derived from Epimedium. Molecules 2023, 28, 7173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Zhang, X.; Miao, Q.; Tang, B.; Mijakovic, I.; Ji, X.J.; Qu, L.; Wei, Y. Discovery of novel alkaline-tolerant xylanases from fecal microbiota of dairy cows. Biotechnol. Biofuels Bioprod. 2023, 16, 182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Fu, B.; Cheng, C.; Fan, J.; Yuan, J. Designing and Engineering Synthetic Microbiota to Utilize Plant Lignin-Based Biomass for the Synthesis of Bioactive Compounds. In Scale-Up and Chemical Process for Microbial Production of Plant-Derived Bioactive Compounds; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2024; pp. 89–124. ISBN 978-0-443-15584-0. [Google Scholar]
  105. Wei, Y.; Niu, W.; Zhang, X.; Li, T.; Wang, L.; Xu, X.; Qu, L. The Synthetic Probiotic Microbiota and Their Potential Applications in the Production of Plant-Derived Products. In Scale-Up and Chemical Process for Microbial Production of Plant-Derived Bioactive Compounds; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2024; pp. 137–152. ISBN 978-0-443-15584-0. [Google Scholar]
  106. Rathore, K.S.; Pandeya, D.; Campbell, L.M.; Wedegaertner, T.C.; Puckhaber, L.; Stipanovic, R.D.; Thenell, J.S.; Hague, S.; Hake, K. Ultra-low gossypol cottonseed: Selective gene silencing opens up a vast resource of plant-based protein to improve human nutrition. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2020, 39, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Ma, M.; Ren, Y.; Xie, W.; Zhou, D.; Tang, S.; Kuang, M.; Wang, Y.; Du, S. Physicochemical and functional properties of protein isolate obtained from cottonseed meal. Food Chem. 2018, 240, 856–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Reyes-Jáquez, D.; Casillas, F.; Flores, N.; Andrade-González, I.; Solís-Soto, A.; Medrano-Roldán, H.; Carrete, F.; Delgado, E. The effect of glandless cottonseed meal content and process parameters on the functional properties of snacks during extrusion cooking. Food Nutr. Sci. 2012, 3, 1716–1725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Kumar, M.; Potkule, J.; Patil, S.; Saxena, S.; Patil, P.G.; Mageshwaran, V.; Punia, S.; Varghese, E.; Mahapatra, A.; Ashtaputre, N.; et al. Extraction of ultra-low gossypol protein from cottonseed: Characterization based on antioxidant activity, structural morphology and functional group analysis. LWT 2021, 140, 110692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Jazi, V.; Boldaji, F.; Dastar, B.; Hashemi, S.R.; Ashayerizadeh, A. Effects of fermented cottonseed meal on the growth performance, gastrointestinal microflora population and small intestinal morphology in broiler chickens. Br. Poult. Sci. 2017, 58, 402–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Ferdosian, F.; Pan, Z.; Gao, G.; Zhao, B. Bio-based adhesives and evaluation for wood composites application. Polymers 2017, 9, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Cheng, H.N.; Ford, C.; Dowd, M.K.; He, Z. Effects of phosphorus-containing additives on soy and cottonseed protein as wood adhesives. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 2017, 77, 51–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Verbeek, C.J.; Berg, L.E. Recent developments in thermo-mechanical processing of proteinous bioplastics. Recent Pat. Mater. Sci. 2009, 2, 171–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Nur Hanani, Z.A.; Roos, Y.H.; Kerry, J.P. Use of beef, pork and fish gelatin sources in the manufacture of films and assessment of their composition and mechanical properties. Food Hydrocoll. 2012, 29, 144–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Chen, W.; Ding, J.; Yan, X.; Yan, W.; He, M.; Yin, G. Plasticization of cottonseed protein/polyvinyl alcohol blend films. Polymers 2019, 11, 2096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Salihu, A.; Alam, M.Z.; AbdulKarim, M.I.; Salleh, H.M. Lipase production: An insight in the utilization of renewable agricultural residues. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2012, 58, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Maurice, N. Role of Solid-State Fermentation to Enhance Cellulase Production. In New and Future Developments in Microbial Biotechnology and Bioengineering; Srivastava, N., Srivastava, M., Mishra, P.K., Ramteke, P.W., Singh, R.L., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 127–153. ISBN 978-0-444-64223-3. [Google Scholar]
  118. Zhang, H.; Sang, Q. Statistical optimization of cellulases production by Penicillium chrysogenum QML-2 under solid-state fermentation and primary application to chitosan hydrolysis. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2012, 28, 1163–1174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Bajaj, B.K.; Sharma, N.; Singh, S. Enhanced production of fibrinolytic protease from Bacillus cereus NS-2 using cotton seed cake as nitrogen source. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2013, 2, 204–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Cotton and its by-products demonstrate remarkable versatility across multiple industries. Cotton is primarily utilized in the textile industry, while cottonseed is commonly processed for oil extraction. DCSM is widely used as animal feed. Large ruminants can tolerate gossypol without pretreatment. The removal of gossypol from DCSM through biological methods (solid-state fermentation) has significantly enhanced its utilization as feed for both small ruminants and non-ruminants. Furthermore, cottonseed protein extracted from detoxified DCSM has been explored as a valuable supplement for various foods and biomaterials.
Figure 1. Cotton and its by-products demonstrate remarkable versatility across multiple industries. Cotton is primarily utilized in the textile industry, while cottonseed is commonly processed for oil extraction. DCSM is widely used as animal feed. Large ruminants can tolerate gossypol without pretreatment. The removal of gossypol from DCSM through biological methods (solid-state fermentation) has significantly enhanced its utilization as feed for both small ruminants and non-ruminants. Furthermore, cottonseed protein extracted from detoxified DCSM has been explored as a valuable supplement for various foods and biomaterials.
Microorganisms 13 01020 g001
Figure 2. Specific properties and chemical composition of cottonseed. Cottonseeds consist of approximately 18% oil and 22–24% protein. Cottonseed oil is rich in functional fatty acids, as well as diverse amino acids. Additionally, cottonseed shells are abundant in cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin, making them a valuable source of renewable lignocellulosic biomass.
Figure 2. Specific properties and chemical composition of cottonseed. Cottonseeds consist of approximately 18% oil and 22–24% protein. Cottonseed oil is rich in functional fatty acids, as well as diverse amino acids. Additionally, cottonseed shells are abundant in cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin, making them a valuable source of renewable lignocellulosic biomass.
Microorganisms 13 01020 g002
Figure 3. The DCSM detoxification methods and the influencing factors of solid-state fermentation. (A), the detoxification methods of DCSM include physical, chemical, and biological methods. Solid-state fermentation is a typical way to ferment DCSM. (B), solid-state fermentation is affected by the initial moisture content, pH, incubation temperature, the initial inoculum level, the duration of fermentation, and minerals and additives.
Figure 3. The DCSM detoxification methods and the influencing factors of solid-state fermentation. (A), the detoxification methods of DCSM include physical, chemical, and biological methods. Solid-state fermentation is a typical way to ferment DCSM. (B), solid-state fermentation is affected by the initial moisture content, pH, incubation temperature, the initial inoculum level, the duration of fermentation, and minerals and additives.
Microorganisms 13 01020 g003
Figure 4. Enzymatic approaches to bind or eliminate the toxic aldehyde groups in gossypol. The dashed arrows indicate the inferred process of binding or removing the aldehyde groups responsible for gossypol toxicity, while the solid arrows represent the reported gossypol degradation steps.
Figure 4. Enzymatic approaches to bind or eliminate the toxic aldehyde groups in gossypol. The dashed arrows indicate the inferred process of binding or removing the aldehyde groups responsible for gossypol toxicity, while the solid arrows represent the reported gossypol degradation steps.
Microorganisms 13 01020 g004
Figure 5. Screening and engineering gossypol degrading microorganisms. Microorganisms are first isolated and identified from fermented foods or environmental samples, followed by screening for strains capable of utilizing gossypol. Genomic and transcriptomic analyses are then employed to mine enzymes associated with gossypol metabolism, and genetic engineering is conducted to enhance metabolic efficiency. Subsequently, a synthetic microbiota was constructed through plate screening and applied for fermenting DCSM in industrial production. Besides, the natural microbiota with gossypol removal ability can be enriched with gossypol as substrate.
Figure 5. Screening and engineering gossypol degrading microorganisms. Microorganisms are first isolated and identified from fermented foods or environmental samples, followed by screening for strains capable of utilizing gossypol. Genomic and transcriptomic analyses are then employed to mine enzymes associated with gossypol metabolism, and genetic engineering is conducted to enhance metabolic efficiency. Subsequently, a synthetic microbiota was constructed through plate screening and applied for fermenting DCSM in industrial production. Besides, the natural microbiota with gossypol removal ability can be enriched with gossypol as substrate.
Microorganisms 13 01020 g005
Table 1. The effects of free gossypol detoxification by microbes using solid-state fermentation.
Table 1. The effects of free gossypol detoxification by microbes using solid-state fermentation.
MicroorganismsOptimum ConditionsFree Gossypol Removed (%)Improvement in Protein
Content (%)
Reference
Initial Moisture Content
(%)
pHTemperature
(°C)
Duration of Fermentation (h)Initial Inoculum Level (cells/g)
Bacillus subtilis GH38506.5397210778.864.98[76]
Bacillus subtilis BJ–15030481% (v/w)59.477.63[77]
Bacillus coagulans S175040522.8 × 10981.8310.09[66]
Lactobacillus agilis WWK12950391205% (v/w)80.07.12[78]
Bacillus subtilis BJ–15030481.4 × 10874.48.58[79]
Bacillus subtilis M–15502533610996.5[67]
Candida tropicalis555.2304810788.615.24[75]
Candida tropicalis ZD–350304810 g mycelia/Kg94.610.76[54]
Candida tropicalis ZAU–1556.0307210792.29[55]
Saccharomyces cerevisiae ZD–55030485 mL yeast88.5111.09[54]
Candida utilis5030245.0 × 10567.12.3[80]
Meyerozyma guilliermondii WST–M14530723.0 × 10874.706.10[71]
Pichia pastoris Y–250304820 g mycelia/Kg58[81]
Saccharomyces cerevisiae50284860 mg yeast25[82]
Aspergillus niger ZD–850304810 g mycelia/Kg85.1522.23[54]
Pycnoporus sanguineus CC400602836098.95[46]
Geotrichum candidum G0762.19304810778.9[83]
Aspergillus niger50284810% (v/w)8.42[84]
Pleurotus sajor-caju and Saccharomyces cerevisiae703048106, 15% (v/w)83.6[85]
Saccharomyces cerevisae and Aspergillus niger553048106, 5% (v/w)90.2[86]
Bacillus subtilis ST-141 and Saccharomycetes N533.33048109, 0.5% (v/w)57.82.41[87]
Candida tropicalis and Saccharomycetes cerevisiae7028487.5% (v/w)83.667.5[88]
Bacillus clausii and Saccharomyces cariocanus503260109 and 5.0 × 10936.5017.45[89]
Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Bacillus subtilis and Lactiplantibacillus plantarum54.55.7230168105, 1:1:189.148.02[90]
Candida tropicalis and Saccharomyces cerevisiae70304815% (v/w)79.5013.40[91]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yan, Z.; Li, T.; Zou, G.; Zhang, X.; Qu, L.; Wei, Y. Probiotic Fermentation of Defatted Cottonseed Meal for Sustainable Foods and Non-Food Applications. Microorganisms 2025, 13, 1020. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms13051020

AMA Style

Yan Z, Li T, Zou G, Zhang X, Qu L, Wei Y. Probiotic Fermentation of Defatted Cottonseed Meal for Sustainable Foods and Non-Food Applications. Microorganisms. 2025; 13(5):1020. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms13051020

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yan, Zhanqiang, Tian Li, Gen Zou, Xiaoling Zhang, Lingbo Qu, and Yongjun Wei. 2025. "Probiotic Fermentation of Defatted Cottonseed Meal for Sustainable Foods and Non-Food Applications" Microorganisms 13, no. 5: 1020. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms13051020

APA Style

Yan, Z., Li, T., Zou, G., Zhang, X., Qu, L., & Wei, Y. (2025). Probiotic Fermentation of Defatted Cottonseed Meal for Sustainable Foods and Non-Food Applications. Microorganisms, 13(5), 1020. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms13051020

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop