Next Article in Journal
Heat Stress and an Immune Challenge Influence Turkey Meat Quality, but Conspecific-Directed Pecking Behavior Does Not
Next Article in Special Issue
Differences in the Physical Properties of Plant-Based Meat Alternatives Containing Root Vegetables
Previous Article in Journal
Physicochemical Properties, Stability and Texture of Soybean-Oil-Body-Substituted Low-Fat Mayonnaise: Effects of Thickeners and Storage Temperatures
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 11
Issue 15
10.3390/foods11152202
foods-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Ingredients and Process Affect the Structural Quality of Recombinant Plant-Based Meat Alternatives and Their Components

by
Di Zhao
1,
Lu Huang
1,
He Li
1,*,
Yuqing Ren
1,
Jinnuo Cao
2,
Tianyu Zhang
3 and
Xinqi Liu
1
1
National Soybean Processing Industry Technology Innovation Center, Beijing Technology and Business University (BTBU), Beijing 100048, China
2
Plant Meat (Hangzhou) Health Technology Limited Company, Hangzhou 311121, China
3
Shandong Gulin Food Technology Limited Company, Yantai 264010, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2022, 11(15), 2202; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11152202
Submission received: 29 June 2022 / Revised: 22 July 2022 / Accepted: 22 July 2022 / Published: 25 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Study and Development of Plant-Based Alternatives to Animal Food Products)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Recombinant plant-based meat alternatives are a kind of product that simulates animal meat with complete structure by assembling plant-tissue protein and other plant-based ingredients. The market is growing rapidly and appears to have a promising future due to the broad culinary applicability of such products. Based on the analysis and summary of the relevant literature in the recent five years, this review summarizes the effects of raw materials and production methods on the structure and quality of specific components (tissue protein and simulated fat) in plant-based meat alternatives. Furthermore, the important roles of tissue and simulated fat as the main components of recombinant plant-based meat alternatives are further elucidated herein. In this paper, the factors affecting the structure and quality of plant-based meat alternatives are analyzed from part to whole, with the aim of contributing to the structural optimization and providing reference for the future development of the plant meat industry.

1. Introduction

As the global population continues to grow and natural resources are progressively reduced, the demand for protein supplies is increasingly strained [1,2]. Traditional livestock farming is gradually becoming overwhelmed as the primary source of meat protein, with insufficient livestock land resources, environmental pollution, the greenhouse effect, veterinary drugs, hormone residues and animal welfare concerns among those posing limiting factors for the industry [3,4]. Furthermore, the availability of meat protein (an average of 1 kg of meat protein for every 6 kg of plant protein) [5] is not sufficient to fulfill the demand of the world’s steadily growing population. Consequently, recently developed plant-protein-based meat substitutes are increasingly filling the protein supply gap, increasing the proportion of plant protein going directly to the table.
Plant-based meat alternatives, a type of artificial meat, are composed of plant protein processed either with or without the addition of auxiliary materials. This class of meat substitutes is considered similar in texture, flavor, morphology and other characteristics of animal meat products. In comparison to some of the other currently available meat substitutes, plant-based meat alternatives have gained a certain consumer base and are easily accepted by the public. Moreover, the production and processing of plant-based meat alternatives exert low impact on the environment, which is consistent with the concept of sustainable development and contributes to the realization of ‘carbon neutrality’ in the food industry [6]. The market for plant-based meat alternatives has exceeded US $5 billion and is expected to reach US $6.4 billion by early 2023, with more than 400 million consumers worldwide enjoying plant-based meat alternative products [7]. Thus, the plant-based meat alternatives market is burgeoning and has great potential for further development. One of the most important factors influencing the consumer acceptability of plant-based meat alternatives is its structural similarity to animal meat products. The reproduction of the hierarchical structure of known meat tissues helps to simulate their functional and sensory properties [8]. Therefore, overcoming the technological obstacles to mimicking the structure of meat products to meet the needs and expectations of customers is a key direction in the development of plant-based meat alternatives [9].
Recombinant plant-based meat alternatives are produced by adding blocks of simulated fat or simulated fat binder to the basis of tissue protein to simulate structurally intact animal meat [10]. Compared with the structure of single-tissue protein, the structure of recombinant plant-based meat alternatives is more complete and more suitable for cooking, successfully simulating the appearance, texture and flavor of animal meat products, and has, consequently, become a hot spot for development in the food industry. At present, recombinant plant-based meat alternative products include relatively simple mincemeat products, such as plant-based burger patties, plant-based sausages and plant-based meatballs, while complete meat blocks, such as pork pancetta and snowy beef, are neither widely simulated nor studied due to the complexity of their compositional structure [11]. Similar products did appear at the early stage of recombinant plant protein development, due to the demand for such meat products from vegetarian; however, these were mostly distorted and poorly simulated. In recent years, based on new developments in tissue-protein-related technologies, research related to the blocking of simulated fat and binders has increased progressively, and whole recombinant plant-based meat alternative products have gradually emerged [12].
The factors affecting the structural quality of plant-based meat alternatives are complex and diverse. Previous studies and related reviews have focused on the general characteristics of plant-based meat alternatives in a broad sense, so there is currently a lack of analytical data regarding specific types of plant-based meat alternatives. [13,14] Additionally, most studies have explored the effects of the raw material components on plant-based meat alternatives in general, rather than the effects of raw material on specific components (such as tissue protein or simulated fat) or the effects of individual components on the overall characteristics of plant-based meat alternatives. Therefore, this review emphasizes the effects of different raw material components as well as various production methods on tissue protein, simulated fat and recombinant plant-based meat alternatives as a whole from the perspective of structural optimization of plant-based meat alternatives (as shown in Figure 1), and with the aim of aiding the future development and structural quality optimization of recombinant plant-based meat alternatives on an industrial scale.

2. Factors Affecting the Structural Quality of Tissue Protein

Tissue proteins or textured vegetable proteins (with a lean fiber-like structure and chewiness) form the main skeletal structure of plant-based meat alternative products. These can be obtained through techniques such as extrusion, shearing, spinning, freezing structuring and three-dimensional (3D) printing [18]. The main constituents of tissue proteins are proteins, lipids, water, carbohydrates, flavoring agents and coloring agents. The choice of plant protein raw materials, with their various processing characteristics, prior to processing is a decisive factor in structural quality differentiation. During processing, the appropriate lipid and water content are essential to ensuring good structural and sensory properties. Finally, the structure of the simulated meat forms during the process, and different forming methods exert various influences on the final structure of the tissue protein. Thus, this section focuses on the collation of the main components (proteins, lipids and water) and the effect of different production methods on the structural quality of tissue proteins in recombinant plant-based meat alternatives.

2.1. Effects of Protein on the Structural Quality of Tissue Protein

Protein is the most important factor impacting the structural quality of tissue protein, as it is the main component of the fibrous structure that mimics meat products. Protein melting and denaturation are prerequisites for the formation of histochemistry. During processing, the combined actions of temperature, shear, pressure and water melt the plant proteins completely, with the molecular chains unfolding in the flow direction, exposing the sulfhydryl groups and creating new disulfide bonds through oxidation. In this way, the protein denatures, losing its original structure, and depolymerizes from the natural spherical aggregated state to form an anisotropic structure. This molten state includes the action of molecules with other substances, in which the protein molecules are rearranged. After sufficient homogenization and oriented arrangement, the mixture is cooled down and characterized, with the protein having been converted into a tissue protein with a structure similar to that of animal meat fibers [19]. Thus, to facilitate this process, it is essential that the proteins used as raw materials contain sufficient sulfur-containing amino acids in their globulin molecular chains [20]. In the next section, the differences and advantages of various raw protein materials, as well as their impact on the structural quality of tissue protein, will be collated and compared.
Table 1, below, presents a comparison of the nutritional properties, processing characteristics and respective limiting factors in the production of different types of raw protein. The practical applications of these products are also summarized to provide a foundation of reference for the selection of raw protein materials for recombinant plant-based meat alternatives.

2.1.1. Legume Protein

Legumes are currently the most important source of protein in the production and processing of tissue protein. Soybeans and other legumes differ in their main components, nutritional values and processing characteristics. For example, soybean is extremely low in carbohydrates, high in fat and protein, and has a more balanced amino acid ratio. Protein content in pea is slightly lower than soybean, but it is one of the major plant protein resources due to the high yield. This section summarizes and analyzes the potential of legume proteins to be used in the production of tissue proteins, using two different categories of legumes as examples.
Soybean protein is a common, high-quality plant protein that can readily replace animal protein [37]. The origin of tofu, which is made from coagulated soy milk, can be traced all the way back to A.D. 965 [38]. Due to the wide availability of high-quality raw soybean materials, the relatively established extraction method and the excellent processing characteristics of anisotropic fiber structures, they are currently widely utilized in the production of tissue protein for recombinant plant-based meat alternatives. The globulin molecular chain in soybean protein contains abundant sulfur-containing amino acids for the manufacturing of tissue protein, which tend to open the chain when subjected to thermal shear, thereby exposing molecular binding sites and contributing to further oxidation to form disulfide bonds and promote the formation of fibrous meshwork. The main forces at work in this organizing process are disulfide bonds, hydrogen bonds, hydrophobic forces and electrostatic interactions, with various proportions of each bond resulting in varied levels of thermal reversibility and structural stiffness [39]. The complex changes in production involve changes in both covalent and noncovalent interactions, with disulfide bonds playing a more important role in the formation of rigid structures and fiber textures than noncovalent interactions [40].
Among legume proteins, pea protein is another of the main raw materials occupying an important position in the plant-based meat alternatives market. This is due to its characteristics of being a non-genetically modified organism (GMO), non-allergenic and estrogen free, with high bioavailability, local cultivation, high yield and low cost [20]. Peas also have considerable development potential due to their processing characteristics and functional food advantages, yet their commercial utilization is currently limited, mainly due to their less-ideal organoleptic properties. However, the processing properties of pea protein can be effectively improved through protein modification. According to a study for the sequential enzyme modification of pea protein, the covalent linking of the protein to hydrophilic polysaccharides can significantly improve the solubility, emulsification properties, water and oil holding capacity of pea protein to form a strong, fibrous and tough tissue protein [41,42]. In another study by Fang et al. [43], pea proteins treated with glutaminase showed higher flexibility, homogeneity and dispersion, and reduced the bean odor and lumpy flocculation in tissue proteins compared to untreated pea proteins. Sandoval et al. [44], who thoroughly investigated the interactions of pea proteins and the mechanism of fibrous structure formation during their processing, concluded that the protein macromolecular network was formed mainly through disulfide bonds during extrusion and cooling, and the formation of the fibrous structure was further facilitated by spinodal phase separation. Thus, protein modification offers a promising approach to enhance the suitability of pea-protein processing, and the obtained modified pea protein has excellent potential in protein tissue processing.

2.1.2. Grain Protein

The protein content of grains is lower than that of legumes, with poor digestibility and unsatisfactory amino acid composition, particularly in the lack of lysine and threonine [45]. Indeed, the intake of a single category of protein often does not meet the full nutritional needs of the body. For example, most legume proteins are low in methionine and cysteine, while grain proteins are often low in lysine. Consequently, grain proteins require supplementation to improve their biological value in plant-based meat alternatives and to balance the ratio of amino acids in the final product.
Following hydration, wheat protein forms a 3D protein network structure maintained by disulfide bonds, which plays an important role in simulating the fibrous structure of meat, increasing the viscoelasticity and hardness of the product, and improving its color stability, juiciness and water retention [28]. In one study, for example, the extrudate obtained by adding 30% wheat gluten protein under high moisture extrusion conditions was found to have improved organization, firmness and chewiness [46]. The texture was closer to that of real meat, and the viscoelasticity, formability and film-forming properties were enhanced. Guo et al. [47] demonstrated that the proportion of α-helices and reverse parallel β-folds (associated with hydrogen bonding and representing stable secondary structures of proteins) decreased, while the proportion of loose β-turned and randomly curled structures increased in tissue, resulting in improved intramolecular hydrogen-bonding interactions, while promoting water and the retention of flavor substances. Wheat protein plays an important role in increasing disulfide bonding and promoting the formation of fibrous structures because hydrogen bonding is the main interaction force between forming and stabilizing proteins, and disulfide bonding is the key force in forming the fibrous structure of high-moisture extruded tissue proteins [46]. Consequently, wheat protein (with its good processing characteristics) is a more commonly used grain protein, which can be added to plant-based meat alternatives as a second composite protein raw material with a complementary amino acid balance, and has an optimal effect on its histochemical structure quality, which is conducive to the development of high-quality plant-based meat alternative products.

2.1.3. Non-Plant Classified Protein

Although fungi are not essentially plants, meat analogs made from fungal proteins are often defined as plant-based meat alternatives. Fusarium, Agaricus bisporus and other fungal proteins are sources of high-quality plant-based meat alternatives [48]. Mycelium has a fibrous-like microstructure, and the fungal protein developed from mycelium is similar to that of meat protein, with excellent hardness, elasticity, chewiness and outstanding freshness [49].
Algae proteins, such as chlorella primordialis and spirulina, have also been tested in the manufacturing of plant-based meat alternatives to improve the product quality [50]. Microalgae proteins have good gelation, water absorption, fat absorption, emulsification and foaming abilities, all of which are beneficial in their application in tissue protein production. For example, the addition of spirulina protein in the production of tissue protein has resulted in products with good elasticity, flexibility and fiber properties [35]. Caporgno et al. [51] combined microalgae (30%) and soybean protein tissue to improve the nutritional value, appearance and color properties of the latter and obtain a good tissue protein with significant juiciness. Moreover, compared to other plant protein sources, microalgae have higher growth rates and can adapt to a wide range of growth conditions, making them an efficient source of material for protein production.

2.2. Effects of Lipids on the Structural Quality of Tissue Protein

During processing, lipids can impact the structural quality and sensory properties of textured proteins. Lipids can act as plasticizers or lubricants during the tissue protein molding process, which can reduce particle interactions in the material and lessen the friction between processing machine and material, resulting in improved texture, viscosity and integrity in the tissue protein product. The combination of different lipid concentrations and processing conditions can produce tissue proteins with differentiated structural characteristics to meet the specific needs of a variety of products [38].
The addition of lipids can also improve the organization of the legume tissue protein, resulting in a product with good fibrous structure and suitable hardness and flexibility. Jia et al. [52] found that the addition of 8% mixed plant oil could affect the protein interactions during wheat gluten protein extrusion by enhancing the polymerization of disulfide bonds, thereby improving the fibrous strength of the tissue protein and obtaining a well-organized product with improved continuity. However, it has been suggested that lipids can adversely affect the anisotropic fibrous structure of organized protein, and that excess lipid can inhibit the formation of fibrous structures, thus reducing the tensile strength and structural quality of tissue protein [53]. Kendler et al. investigated the effects of different lipid contents on the anisotropic fibril structure of tissue protein obtained by processing wheat gluten protein as a base material. No significant differences were observed between the 0% and 2% lipid content samples; however, the anisotropic fibril structure was reduced in the 4% lipid content samples [54]. This was due to the fact that as the lipid content increases, oil droplets aggregate and increase in size, interfering with the polymerization of gluten proteins and leading to a weakened protein network structure.
In general, the addition of lipids has varying effects on process kinetics. Further investigations are required to provide insight into the effects of lipids on processing conditions, protein polymerization, matrix rheological properties and their microstructure, as well as to clarify optimal quantities of lipid additions for various target products. The appropriate proportion of fats and oils can effectively improve fibrous strength and structural quality in the manufacture of organized products with different processing characteristics.

2.3. Effects of Moisture on the Structural Quality of Tissue Protein

Moisture affects both the fibrous structure and texture of tissue protein, contributing to the unfolding and arrangement of protein molecules during processing and promoting the formation of fibrous structures. It has previously been found that moisture content is a crucial factor affecting the formation of fibrous structure via the extrusion of lupin protein [55]. When moisture content is less than 40%, the hydration of lupin protein is incomplete, with ineffective cross-linking, and the resulting tissue protein fibers are poorly structured and prone to breaking [47]. In high moisture processing conditions, protein molecule aggregation relies mainly on hydrophobic interactions, while disulfide bonds replace hydrophobic interactions as the stabilizing force for protein molecule aggregation in low moisture-processing conditions [56]. During the increase in moisture content from 20% to 60%, disulfide bonding and hydrophobic interaction were found to occur synergistically, thereby facilitating increased fibrillation [57]. It has been suggested that the effect of moisture content on the hardness of tissue protein is most significant during extrusion [58]. Increased free moisture content has a lubricating effect on processing, promotes the fluidity of the material, lowers the processing intensity and pressure, reduces the expansion phenomenon, improves the compactness of the product structure, and results in a dense and juicy tissue protein structure [47]. Therefore, increasing the moisture content of the material is conducive to the promotion of protein-stretching denaturation, thereby improving the tissue protein quality of structural characteristics, including hardness, juiciness and other textural characteristics [59].
Moisture levels are also important for the production, storage and transportation of final products. In the most common extrusion process, for example, low moisture extrusion (with a moisture content of less than 40%) produces a relatively poor-tasting tissue protein, while high moisture extrusion (with a moisture content of more than 40%) retains moisture and produces a highly textured, elastic, tough, fresh and high-quality tissue protein with a texture similar to animal meat and an appearance and taste similar to cooked meat [60]. Furthermore, based on the difference in the moisture content of tissue protein, low-moisture tissue protein is less likely to spoil after drying and can be stored for a long time with a longer shelf life. However, the production cost of high-moisture tissue protein is high, and it has a short shelf life, with strict requirements for storage (during which it must be refrigerated) and transportation. Thus, further improvement is required.

2.4. Effects of Molding Process on the Structural Quality of Tissue Protein

In recent years, extrusion technology is still the main way to process tissue protein because it can form a fibrous structure similar to meat, and the research is relatively mature, in which high moisture extrusion has a better taste and gradually becomes the better choice. 3D printing technology is gaining the attention of scholars studying plant-based meat alternatives because of its personalization and nutritional customization and its ability to create products with complex structures or geometric shapes. Many scholars are gradually researching it in depth, expecting it to become an industrial production technology for plant-based meat alternatives [38,61,62]. Shear cell technology, spinning technology and refrigeration structure technology are also plant-based tissue-protein-processing technologies that distinguish themselves from the previous processing methods. This section of the review will focus on the technical processing principles and processes of five molding methods (with a key focus on extrusion). In addition, the effects of different technologies on the structural quality of tissue protein are analyzed, and the characteristics of the finished products of different molding methods are presented (Figure 2).

2.4.1. Extrusion Technology

Extrusion technology integrates the mixing, homogenizing, aging and forming of materials through thermomechanical treatment and shear flow to form a fibrous structure that is similar to meat. It is dependent on the moisture content of the material, and therefore, when the moisture content of the material is lower than 40%, it is a low moisture extrusion process, and if it is higher than 40%, then it is a high moisture extrusion process [60]. Figure 2b is a graphical representation of the extrusion of final products with different moisture contents. The low moisture extrusion method does not require high protein content in raw materials [28]. Wet materials flow through the extruder at high temperature, the moisture in the material instantly turns to hot steam, the extrudate expands, and the structure becomes puffed sponge that must be rehydrated before use [65,66]. Low moisture extrusion is a more commonly used technology due to its wide applicability, high technical maturity and low equipment cost. High-moisture extrusion is a technique developed on the basis of low-moisture extrusion technology, which can better simulate the fiber structure of similar meat [67]. In the high-moisture extrusion process, the quality of the organized plant protein can be improved by increasing the protein concentration, and the high moisture content can ensure that the tissue protein will not break easily at high fiber strength, so the protein content of the raw material is usually more than 60%, and the tissue protein obtained via this process has higher moisture retention as well as high elasticity and toughness [68]. It is similar to meat products, with little loss of nutrients, and does not require rehydration before it can be eaten [69]. Due to its low energy consumption and excellent product performance, it is currently the most common method used in the production of juicy tissue protein in recombinant plant-based meat alternatives. While this technology and its market are still developing, the application potential of this approach is generally recognized by the industry as offering the most commercialization prospects [70].

2.4.2. 3D Printing Technology

3D printing technology, also called additive manufacturing technology for rapid prototyping, refers to the manufacturing of solid 3D structures created from virtual models through computer-aided design [71]. In this type of tissue protein molding technology, molten raw materials are squeezed out from a movable nozzle, solidified and then stacked, layer-by-layer, to obtain prints that resemble the structure of meat [72]. This technique requires the modification of matrix via different cross-linking methods and pre-treatment to obtain a plant-protein-based printing material that can be squeezed easily from the nozzle with sufficient mechanical strength [73,74]. Shahbazi et al. used 3D printing technology to produce plant-based meat alternatives based on soybean isolate protein and explored the effect of introducing biosurfactants to achieve partial fat replacement and improved structural properties of 3D printed products [75]. A team of researchers intend to improve the texture of alternative meat by directly inserting hydrocolloid-based fibers into the protein matrix using a coaxial nozzle-assisted 3D food printer [76]. Although the 3D printing of plant-based meat alternatives has been explored to some extent, it is not yet fully developed and requires further progress to achieve the immediate and rapid fabrication of structurally superior plant-based meat alternatives.

2.4.3. Other Technologies

Shear cell processing technology uses shear flow to mix raw plant protein materials and water. The processing time is controlled by adjusting the cylinder speed and temperature of the equipment. With anisotropic tissue proteins and a simple combination of shear force and heating, plant protein can be processed into homogenous, layered and multilayered fibrous structures [77]. Shear cell processing technology features a constant shear force and reduced mechanical energy dissipation, and is highly flexible in terms of required equipment. Moreover, it has great potential for growth in the field of tissue protein synthesis. The processed tissue protein has strong continuity in the shear direction, a long and slender fiber structure with a tight and dense interfiber, and is difficult to break [78].
Electrostatic spinning technology refers to the process in which nano-level oriented fibers are formed from plant protein polymer solutions in a nonwoven state under the breakdown of a high-voltage electrostatic field. However, the technological difficulty of this process is relatively high because proteins have a complex advanced structure, making them more difficult to destroy during spinning, and the pre-treatment requirements for raw materials are stringent [79]. These technical constraints limit the utilization of this method, as only some proteins are suitable for spinning technology, and, hence, it has relatively limited applications in tissue protein production.
Refrigeration structure technology produces porous fibrillar structures by, first, freezing protein emulsions and then removing the ice crystals to obtain tissue proteins that resemble the structure of animal muscle fibers and consist of many parallel and highly connected lamellar proteins [80]. The composite effect of the structural and physicochemical properties of different plant proteins results in differences in the structure of tissue proteins obtained from different plant-based composites. This technology has the capacity to form plant-based meat alternatives with unique textural contours and at a relatively low cost, making it suitable for small-scale industrial production [64].

3. Factors Affecting the Structural Quality of Simulated Fat

Simulated fat is an oil-containing protein-polysaccharide composite that mimics the structure and chewiness of animal fat, but it has a significantly lower lipid content. It can provide a filler structure and improve the texture and taste of recombinant plant-based meat alternatives. There are two main types of simulated fat, one that simulates entire fat with a distinct structure, and another that simulates the dispersed fat between tissue proteins and acts as an adhesive [81]. The dispersion of simulated fat can improve the textural, water, and oil-holding properties of recombinant plant-based meat alternative products so that their simulated fiber structure is juicier and has a delicate taste. Lipids and polysaccharides are the main factors influencing the structural quality of simulated fat because they can impart juiciness to the reconstituted plant flesh and fully exploit the binding effect. In addition, transglutaminase (TG) can promote cross-linking and has an important role in the formation of block simulated fat.

3.1. Effects of Lipids on the Structural Quality of Simulated Fat

Plant oils are suitable raw materials with which to simulate animal fats, as they are a relevant flavor source, providing proportional fatty acid composition for health benefits [82] as well as good processing characteristics to maximize the structural quality and sensory characteristics of products [83,84]. The quality of simulated fat is greatly influenced by the choice of lipid source materials, and therefore, the exploration of richer sources of lipids, appropriate proportions, specific applications and mechanisms related to the formation and improvement of structure by lipids are important directions for the progressive development of simulated fat.
The right proportion of lipids can effectively increase moisture retention in simulated fat, thereby improving the tenderness, texture and juiciness of recombinant plant-based meat alternatives [85]. In one recent study, 3.5% sunflower oil and konjac glucomannan were used as raw materials to develop a plant-based fishball analogue, the results of which showed that the addition of sunflower oil is beneficial to the texture and water retention of plant-based fishballs [86]. Similarly, Wi et al. [87] reported that the water retention of plant-based meat alternatives with added oil was superior to that of plant-based meat alternatives without the oil due to the enhanced interaction between the hydrocarbon side chains of the oil and the hydrophobic amino acids of the protein, which enhanced elastic behavior and gel strength and resulted in a greater water retention capacity. Overall, the substitution of animal fats with plant oils in recombinant plant-based meat alternatives has excellent health and processing advantages.
Different kinds of plant oils also possess different processing characteristics. The selection of a suitable oil based on the target product can improve the applicability and overall quality of simulated fat in recombinant plant-based meat alternatives. These different effects include those on the texture of simulated fat. In one study, as the concentration of palm oil increased, the hardness and viscosity of simulated fat gradually increased and the structure became more compact, whereas, with the increase in the concentration of soybean oil, simulated fat became softer [88]. The ratio of liquid fats to solid fats can be varied according to the needs of different products to improve the texture and flavor of simulated fat. Compared to the use of a single liquid plant oil, fat formulation has been shown to more effectively solve the texture and juiciness concerns of simulated fat. According to Dreher et al. [89] raw material contains 70% lipids (a mixture of rapeseed oil and solid hydrogenated rapeseed oil), wherein the rapeseed oil and its hydrides were incorporated into the plant protein network through emulsification to fully simulate animal adipose tissue, resulted in well-textured, juicy simulated fat, thereby laying the foundation for the development of fat systems for recombinant plant-based meat alternatives.

3.2. Effects of Polysaccharides on the Structural Quality of Simulated Fat

Polysaccharides are an important raw material in the processing of simulated fat. A protein-polysaccharide gel network structure can be obtained via the compounding with protein, providing good water and oil-holding properties and resulting in simulated fat with juicy and lubricious textures. In this section of the review, the characteristics and optimization of different polysaccharides in previous studies are analyzed from the viewpoint of the influence of polysaccharides on the structural quality of block simulated fat with adhesive effect, providing a foundation for the selection of polysaccharide-based raw materials for simulated fat. Starch is a polysaccharide raw material that commonly acts as a filler, facilitating the combination of protein, water and lipid components in the product, maintaining structural stability, and generating a mimicked fat with good formability by combining water and lipids, mostly through physical means [38]. It has been reported that when simulated fats were prepared from coconut and soybean oils, the addition of appropriate amounts of potato starch increased the dynamic modulus and hardness, reduced the meltability of the simulated fat, and achieved similar levels of taste and sensory qualities of commercial beef and pork fats [90]. Bon-Yeob and Gi-Hyung [91] demonstrated that the addition of 10% corn starch improved cohesion between protein molecules, resulting in a simulated fat with higher water absorption, elasticity and adhesion. This simulated fat, with its adhesive effect, can fill in the tissue protein interstices and fully imitate the fat dispersal in lean meat products to obtain recombinant plant-based meat alternatives with tight structure and good juiciness.
Methylcellulose and konjac glucomannan are also important raw materials in the production and processing of simulated fat. Methylcellulose absorbs water, swells during processing, and has good water-holding and gelation properties. After heating, the viscosity increases significantly, which is conducive to improving the texture and juiciness of simulated fat, which makes it a popular binder for the formulation of simulated fat in plant-based hamburger [92]. Huang et al. [93] found that the addition of 4% konjac glucomannan to solid block simulated fat with soybean protein and coconut oil as the main ingredients resulted in a similar appearance to pork fats, with more desirable functional properties in terms of mechanical properties and oral tribology, and better chewiness and mouthfeel scores.

3.3. Effects of TG on the Structural Quality of Simulated Fat

Transglutaminase (TG) is a commonly used synergist and cross-linking agent in simulated fat processing, in which it can play a bonding and cross-linking role, thereby promoting molding and improving the resulting simulated whole animal fat [94]. TG acts on the acyl transfer reaction between the γ-amino group of the glutamine (Gln) residue and the ε-amino group of the lysine (Lys) residue [95]. Protein can be modified by adding amine groups to promote intermolecular cross-linking under its induced covalent cross-linking effect, thus altering its molecular structure and resulting in improved simulated fat gels, textures and other functional properties [96,97]. A 2021 study have found that TG can provide adhesion for the TG-induced gel, with covalent (isopeptide) bonds used as an adhesive to link tissue protein and simulated fat, which led to sufficient cohesion to not fragment in the assembled bacon analogues. [98]. Wen et al. found that TG could promote protein aggregation, increase the stiffness, elasticity and cohesiveness of gels, contribute to the formation of a more homogeneous and denser three-dimensional network, and notably enhance the resistance of TG-induced bitter almond protein gels to simulated gastric juice [99]. Dreher et al. [100] manipulated plant oils and their hydrides into the network structure of plant proteins via emulsification, and then induced covalent cross-linking between proteins by TG, obtaining whole simulated fat with a certain hardness crushed to pellets with good granularity and used in the preparation of plant-based salami.

4. Factors Affecting the Overall Structural Quality of Recombinant Plant-Based Meat Alternatives

Tissue proteins can be assembled and combined with simulated fat and binders to obtain quality characteristics that match the product attributes of particular meat products. This is made possible by combining the analysis of animal meat composition with an understanding of the histochemical ability of plant proteins [19]. Tissue protein and simulated fat, as the major components of recombinant plant-based meat alternatives, play critical roles in its structural quality and can be blended in a variety of ways depending on the simulated product [10]. Moreover, the structural quality and simulation effect of recombinant plant-based meat alternatives are highly dependent on the choice of assembly and molding processes.

4.1. Effects of Tissue Protein on the Structural Quality of Recombinant Plant-Based Meat Alternatives

Tissue protein in plant-based meat alternatives provides structure and chewiness similar to those of lean meat fiber. It is also the skeleton structure for building recombinant plant-based meat alternative products and has a decisive role in stimulating the structural characteristics of animal meat products [18]. Suitable raw materials can be chosen on the basis of various tissue protein characteristics in order to properly imitate the structural characteristics of various animal meat products and generate recombinant plant-based meat alternatives with excellent quality.
Under the same processing conditions, the soybean tissue protein after silk tearing is thicker, with greater toughness and hardness, suitable for the production of chewable recombinant plant-based meat alternatives with a stronger fiber structure [69]. Wheat-based protein is finer, longer and more brittle after dismantling, making it ideal for the production of recombinant plant-based meat alternatives with a delicate flesh and strong continuity of fiber structure [66]. Pea-protein-based products are less filamentous, less elastic and have a pea bean flavor after shredding, making them suitable for the production of recombinant plant-based meat alternatives suitable for higher processing precision, lower requirements for fiber structure, but higher flavor requirements [101].

4.2. Effects of Simulated Fat on the Structural Quality of Recombinant Plant-Based Meat Alternatives

The simulated fat helps to refine the structure of the recombinant plant-based meat alternatives to adequately mimic the taste of animal meat products. It has been demonstrated that by optimizing the formulation, block simulated fat with sensory properties similar to pork fat, such as hardness, flexibility and chewiness, can be created for the assembly of reconstituted plant-based meat alternatives with improved sensory qualities [93]. Simulated fat has favorable water and oil-holding properties, and may, thus, provide recombinant plant-based meat alternatives with a delicate and juicy feel, maximizing the bonding effect, and facilitating assembly and molding. It has been shown that the pulverization of block simulated fat can be used to bind tissue protein particles for the preparation of plant-based salami [100]. Products produced via this method are assembled and shaped by the binding action and have a meat-like granularity, juiciness and a significant simulated effect.
Simulated fat based on plant oil enables recombinant plant-based meat alternatives to maintain similar organoleptic properties to those found in animal fat, reducing the negative impact of the process on organoleptic properties and improving product structure and quality stability. Nieto et al. [102] prepared simulated fat from olive oil to replace some animal fats in sausages and monitored the emulsion stability, color and lipid oxidation of the sausages, finding that the deterioration of sausage quality was delayed, shelf life was extended and quality stability was significantly improved. Shahbazi et al. [8] used soybean isolate protein, rapeseed oil and modified inulin as raw materials to prepare simulated fat for the construction of 3D-printed low-fat plant-based meat alternatives, thereby greatly improving the emulsion stability while reducing the lipid content, and the resultant printed plant-based meat alternatives was shown to exhibit good continuity and formability.

5. Future Prospects

The recombinant plant-based meat alternatives market is currently expanding worldwide, with the number of commercially available products growing steadily. Likewise, the manufacturing processes are becoming more industrialized and advanced; however, in comparison to animal meat, recombinant plant-based meat alternatives still have insufficient flavor, a large structural gap, and poor sensory attributes and chewing sensations. Its structural quality is one of the important factors affecting consumers’ preferential purchasing decisions. Furthermore, there are relatively few whole reconstituted plant-based meat alternative products available that are suitable for a variety of cooking methods, and the sector is largely undeveloped, with significant research gaps and market potential.
(1) The future development of recombinant plant-based meat alternatives should be devoted to optimizing the structural quality and sensory characteristics of tissue protein. There is a need to expand the sources of plant proteins, explore in depth the new characteristic proteins and improve the quality of tissue proteins via the use of different processing of characteristic proteins for compounding, through enzyme modification and other methods. Moreover, the quality of tissue proteins could be improved by adding proteins with better gel ability to assist the main protein raw materials.
(2) For the optimal molding of tissue protein, it is necessary to improve the inclusiveness of production equipment for raw materials and the level of processing technology, and to reduce production costs, as well to explore the simulation of meat fiber structure and chewing sensation in depth. Furthermore, the application of high moisture extrusion and 3D printing technologies with excellent production quality and good development prospects in the production of tissue protein should be promoted.
(3) The nutritional composition and processing characteristics of different varieties of lipids and polysaccharides warrant in-depth investigation, and the optimal additions and related processes should be clarified to optimize their use in simulating fats and binders. It is also important to explore more abundant sources of lipids and polysaccharides, and to optimize the nutritional ratios, functional properties and specific applications of fat substitutes, as an important direction for the future development of plant-based meat alternatives. In addition, the effect of TG on simulated fat structures and related mechanisms should be researched to promote the application of TG to improve structural quality and enhance simulation effectiveness.
(4) According to the plant-based meat product, different types of simulated fat or binders should be selected to optimize structural quality and to obtain high-quality plant-based meat alternatives with good juiciness and chewiness. The development of simulated fat binders is under consideration for our own future study to obtain a protein–fat interphase in recombinant plant-based meat alternatives with good texture, while developing the hierarchy of a complete meat structure.
(5) Whole recombinant plant-based meat alternatives offer a wide range of culinary applicability and scenarios, and they should be developed in-depth. In the future, the simulation accuracy of tissue protein, fat and the skin-layering structure of whole meat should be improved to ensure that it can undergo corresponding changes in cooking while retaining its distinct taste and texture. Recombinant plant-based meat alternatives are an important future research direction in plant meat technology that deserves further investigation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.Z., L.H. and H.L.; methodology, D.Z., L.H. and Y.R.; Investigation, D.Z. and L.H.; Formal analysis, D.Z., Y.R. and J.C.; Writing—original draft, D.Z.; Writing—review & editing, J.C., T.Z., H.L. and L.H.; Supervision, L.H., H.L. and X.L.; Resources, H.L., X.L. and T.Z.; Project administration, H.L., X.L. and J.C.; Funding acquisition, H.L., X.L. and T.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2021YFC2101405).

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the National Key Research and Development Program of China for its support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

  1. Zhang, T.Y.; Dou, W.; Zhang, X.; Zhao, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Jiang, L.Z.; Sui, X.N. The development history and recent updates on soy protein-based meat alternatives. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 109, 702–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Willett, W.; Rockström, J.; Loken, B.; Springmann, M.; Lang, T.; Vermeulen, S.; Murray, C.J. Food in the anthropocene: The EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 2019, 393, 447–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Mancini, M.C.; Antonioli, F. Exploring consumers’ attitude towards cultured meat in Italy. Meat Sci. 2019, 150, 101–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Zhang, H.Y.; Xu, Y.; Lahr, M.L. The greenhouse gas footprints of China’s food production and consumption (1987–2017). J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 301, 113934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Boer, J.D.; Aiking, H. Pursuing a low meat diet to improve both health and sustainability: How can we use the frames that shape our meals? Ecol. Econ. 2017, 142, 238–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Eshel, G.; Stainier, P.; Shepon, A.; Swaminathan, A. Environmentally optimal, nutritionally sound, protein and energy conserving plant based alternatives to US meat. Sci. Rep.-UK 2019, 9, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bryant, C.; Sanctorum, H. Alternative proteins, evolving attitudes: Comparing consumer attitudes to plant-based and cultured meat in Belgium in two consecutive years. Appetite 2021, 161, 105161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Shahbazi, M.; Jager, H.; Chen, J.S.; Ettelaie, R. Construction of 3D printed reduced-fat meat analogue by emulsion gels. Part II: Printing performance, thermal, tribological, and dynamic sensory characterization of printed objects. Food Hydrocoll. 2021, 121, 107054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Anzani, C.; Boukid, F.; Drummond, L.; Mullen, A.M.; Lvarez, C. Optimising the use of proteins from rich meat co-products and non-meat alternatives: Nutritional, technological and allergenicity challenges. Food Res. Int. 2020, 137, 109575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Chen, Y.P.; Feng, X.; Blank, I.; Liu, Y. Strategies to improve meat-like properties of meat analogs meeting consumers’ expectations. Biomaterials 2022, 287, 121648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zhang, Q.; Huang, L.; Li, H.; Zhao, D.; Cao, J.; Song, Y.; Liu, X. Mimic Pork Rinds from Plant-Based Gel: The Influence of Sweet Potato Starch and Konjac Glucomannan. Molecules 2022, 27, 3103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Lee, E.J.; Hong, G.P. Effects of microbial transglutaminase and alginate on the water-binding, textural and oil absorption properties of soy patties. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2020, 29, 777–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Cordelle, S.; Redl, A.; Schlich, P. Sensory acceptability of new plant protein meat substitutes. Food Qual. Prefer. 2022, 98, 104508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Palanisamy, M.; Töpfl, S.; Aganovic, K.; Berger, R.G. Influence of iota carrageenan addition on the properties of soya protein meat analogues. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 87, 546–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Habeych, E.; Dekkers, B.; Goot, A.; Boom, R. Starch-zein blends formed by shear flow. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2008, 63, 5229–5238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zhang, J.C.; Liu, L.; Liu, H.; Yoon, A.; Rizvi, S.S.; Wang, Q. Changes in conformation and quality of vegetable protein during texturization process by extrusion. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. 2019, 59, 3267–3280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Dreher, J.; Blach, C.; Terjung, N.; Gibis, M.; Weiss, J. Formation and characterization of plant-based emulsified and crosslinked fat crystal networks to mimic animal fat tissue. J. Food Sci. 2020, 85, 421–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Boukid, F. Plant-based meat analogues: From niche to mainstream. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2021, 247, 297–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cornet, S.; Snel, S.; Schreuders, F.; Sman, R.; Goot, A. Thermo-mechanical processing of plant proteins using shear cell and high-moisture extrusion cooking. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. 2021, 62, 3264–3280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Boukid, F.; Rosell, C.M.; Castellari, M. Pea protein ingredients: A mainstream ingredient to (re)formulate innovative foods and beverages. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 110, 729–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Boeck, T.; Sahin, A.W.; Zannini, E.; Arendt, E.K. Nutritional properties and health aspects of pulses and their use in plant-based yogurt alternatives. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2021, 20, 3858–3880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Monteiro, S.R.; Lopes-Da-Silva, J.A. Critical evaluation of the functionality of soy protein isolates obtained from different raw materials. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2018, 245, 199–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Pi, X.; Sun, Y.; Fu, G.; Wu, Z.; Cheng, J. Effect of processing on soybean allergens and their allergenicity. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 118, 316–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lu, Z.X.; He, J.F.; Zhang, Y.C.; Bing, D.J. Composition, physicochemical properties of pea protein and its application in functional foods. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. 2019, 60, 2593–2605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Yu, N.; Xu, Y.; Jiang, Q.; Xia, W. Molecular forces involved in heat-induced freshwater surimi gel: Effects of various bond disrupting agents on the gel properties and protein conformation changes. Food Hydrocoll. 2017, 69, 193–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Moreno, H.M.; Tovar, C.A.; Domnguez-Timn, F.; Cano-Bez, J.; Borderas, A.J. Gelation of commercial pea protein isolate: Effect of microbial transglutaminase and thermal processing. Food Sci. Technol.-Brazil 2020, 40, 800–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Davies, R.W.; Jakeman, P.M. Separating the wheat from the chaff: Nutritional value of plant proteins and their potential contribution to human health. Nutrients 2020, 12, 2410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Samard, S.; Gu, B.Y.; Ryu, G.H. Effects of extrusion types, screw speed and addition of wheat gluten on physicochemical characteristics and cooking stability of meat analogues. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2019, 99, 4922–4931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zhao, H.; Shen, C.; Wu, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Xu, C. Comparison of wheat, soybean, rice, and pea protein properties for effective applications in food products. J. Food Biochem. 2020, 44, e13157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Finnigan, T.; Needham, L.; Abbott, C. Mycoprotein: A healthy new protein with a low environmental impact. Sustain. Protein Sources 2017, 305–325. [Google Scholar]
  31. Hashempour-Baltor, K.F.; Khosravi-Darani, K.; Hosseini, H.; Farshi, P.; Reihani, S. Mycoproteins as safe meat substitutes. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 253, 119958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wang, L.; Li, C.; Ren, L.; Guo, H.; Li, Y. Production of pork sausages using pleaurotus eryngii with different treatments as replacements for pork back fat. J. Food Sci. 2019, 84, 3091–3098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Fu, Y.; Chen, T.; Chen, S.H.Y.; Liu, B.; Sun, P.; Sun, H.; Chen, F. The potentials and challenges of using microalgae as an ingredient to produce meat analogues. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 112, 188–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Buchmann, L.; Bertsch, P.; Bocker, L.; Krahenmann, U.; Fischer, P.; Mathys, A. Adsorption kinetics and foaming properties of soluble microalgae fractions at the air/water interface. Food Hydrocoll. 2019, 97, 105182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Grahl, S.; Palanisamy, M.; Strack, M.; Meier-Dinkel, L.; Toepfl, S.; Mörlein, D. Towards more sustainable meat alternatives: How technical parameters affect the sensory properties of extrusion products derived from soy and algae. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 198, 962–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Delia, A.S.; Caruso, G.; Melcarne, L.; Caruso, G.; Laganà, P. Biological toxins from marine and freshwater microalgae. In Microbial Toxins and Related Contamination in the Food Industry; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 13–55. [Google Scholar]
  37. Lan, T.; Dong, Y.B.; Zheng, M.; Jiang, L.Z.; Zhang, Y.; Sui, X.N. Complexation between soy peptides and epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG): Formation mechanism and morphological characterization. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 134, 109990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kyriakopoulou, K.; Dekkers, B.; Goot, A. Plant-based meat analogues. Sustain. Meat Prod. Process. 2019, 103–126. [Google Scholar]
  39. Lee, J.S.; Oh, H.; Choi, I.; Yoon, C.S.; Han, J. Physico-chemical characteristics of rice protein-based novel textured vegetable proteins as meat analogues produced by low-moisture extrusion cooking technology. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 157, 113056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Beck, S.M.; Knoerzer, K.; Foerster, M.; Mayo, S.; Philipp, C.; Arcot, J. Low moisture extrusion of pea protein and pea fibre fortified rice starch blends. J. Food Eng. 2018, 231, 61–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Shen, Y.T.; Hong, S.; Du, Z.J.; Chao, M.; O’Quinn, T.; Li, Y.H. Effect of adding modified pea protein as functional extender on the physical and sensory properties of beef patties. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 154, 112774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Shen, Y.; Li, Y. Acylation modification and/or guar gum conjugation enhanced functional properties of pea protein isolate. Food Hydrocoll. 2021, 117, 106686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Fang, L.Y.; Xiang, H.; Sun-Waterhouse, D.; Cui, C.; Lin, J.J. Enhancing the usability of pea protein isolate in food applications through modifying its structural and sensory properties via deamidation by glutaminase. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2020, 68, 1691–1697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Sandoval, M.; Osen, R.; Hiermaier, S.; Ganzenmüller, G. Towards understanding the mechanism of fibrous texture formation during high-moisture extrusion of meat substitutes. J. Food Eng. 2018, 242, 8–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Gong, X.; Hui, X.; Wu, G.; Morton, J.D.; Brennan, M.A.; Brennan, C.S. In vitro digestion characteristics of cereal protein concentrates as assessed using a pepsin-pancreatin digestion model. Food Res. Int. 2022, 152, 110715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Chiang, J.H.; Loveday, S.M.; Hardacre, A.K.; Parker, M.E. Effects of soy protein to wheat gluten ratio on the physicochemical properties of extruded meat analogues. Food Struct.-Neth. 2019, 19, 100102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Jiang, L.Z. Effects of material characteristics on the structural characteristics and flavor substances retention of meat analogs. Food Hydrocoll. 2020, 105, 105752. [Google Scholar]
  48. Stephan, A.; Ahlborn, J.; Zajul, M.; Zorn, H. Edible mushroom mycelia of pleurotus sapidus as novel protein sources in a vegan boiled sausage analog system: Functionality and sensory tests in comparison to commercial proteins and meat sausages. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2018, 244, 913–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Zhang, C.; Guan, X.; Yu, S.; Zhou, J.; Chen, J. Production of meat alternatives using live cells, cultures and plant proteins. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2022, 43, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bleakley, S.; Hayes, M. Algal proteins: Extraction, application, and challenges concerning production. Foods 2017, 6, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Caporgno, M.P.; Bocker, L.; Mussner, C.; Stirnemann, E.; Haberkorn, I.; Adelmann, H.; Handschin, S.; Windhab, E.J.; Mathys, A. Extruded meat analogues based on yellow, heterotrophically cultivated Auxenochlorella protothecoides microalgae. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. 2020, 59, 102275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Jia, F.; Wang, J.; Chen, Y.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, C. Effect of oil contents on gluten network during the extrusion processing. Czech J. Food Sci. 2019, 37, 226–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Chen, Y.; Liang, Y.; Jia, F.; Chen, D.; Wang, J. Effect of extrusion temperature on the protein aggregation of wheat gluten with the addition of peanut oil during extrusion. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 166, 1377–1386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Emin, M.A. Effect of oil content and oil addition point on the extrusion processing of wheat gluten-based meat analogues. Foods 2021, 10, 697. [Google Scholar]
  55. Palanisamy, M.; Franke, K.; Berger, R.G.; Heinz, V.; Töpfl, S. High moisture extrusion of lupin protein: Influence of extrusion parameters on extruder responses and product properties. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2019, 99, 2175–2185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Samard, S.; Ryu, G. Physicochemical and functional characteristics of plant protein-based meat analogs. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2019, 43, e14123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Pietsch, V.L.; Karbstein, H.P.; Emin, M.A. Kinetics of wheat gluten polymerization at extrusion-like conditions relevant for the production of meat analog products. Food Hydrocoll. 2018, 85, 102–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Wu, M.; Sun, Y.; Bi, C.H.; Ji, F.; Li, B.R.; Xing, J.J. Effects of extrusion conditions on the physicochemical properties of soy protein/gluten composite. Int. J. Agr. Biol. Eng. 2018, 11, 230–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Emin, M.A.; Quevedo, M.; Wilhelm, M.; Karbstein, H.P. Analysis of the reaction behavior of highly concentrated plant proteins in extrusion-like conditions. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. 2017, 44, 15–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Smetana, S.; Larki, N.A.; Pernutz, C.; Franke, K.; Heinz, V. Structure design of insect-based meat analogs with high-moisture extrusion. J. Food Eng. 2018, 229, 83–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Wang, T.; Kaur, L.; Furuhata, Y.; Aoyama, H.; Singh, J. 3D Printing of Textured Soft Hybrid Meat Analogues. Foods 2022, 11, 478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Zhang, J.Y.; Pandya, J.K.; McClements, D.J.; Lu, J.; Kinchla, A.J. Advancements in 3D food printing: A comprehensive overview of properties and opportunities. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. 2021, 62, 4752–4768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Grabowska, K.J.; Tekidou, S.; Boom, R.M.; Atze-Jan, V. Shear structuring as a new method to make anisotropic structures from soy-gluten blends. Food Res. Int. 2014, 64, 743–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Yuliarti, O.; Kovis, T.J.K.; Yi, N.J. Structuring the meat analogue by using plant-based derived composites. J. Food Eng. 2021, 288, 110138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Bingol, E.B.; Akkaya, E.; Hampikyan, H.; Cetin, O.; Colak, H. Effect of nisin-EDTA combinations and modified atmosphere packaging on the survival of Salmonella enteritidis in Turkish type meatballs. Cyta J. Food 2018, 16, 1030–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Pietsch, V.L.; Werner, R.; Karbstein, H.P.; Emin, M.A. High moisture extrusion of wheat gluten: Relationship between process parameters, protein polymerization, and final product characteristics. J. Food Eng. 2019, 259, 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Zhang, Z.; Zhang, L.; He, S.; Li, X.; Jin, R.; Liu, Q.; Chen, S.; Sun, H. High-moisture extrusion technology application in the processing of textured plant protein meat analogues: A review. Food Rev. Int. 2022, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Zhang, J.C.; Liu, L.; Zhu, S.; Wang, Q. Texturisation behaviour of peanut-soy bean/wheat protein mixtures during high moisture extrusion cooking. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 53, 2535–2541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Dou, W.; Zhang, X.; Zhao, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Jiang, L.; Sui, X. High moisture extrusion cooking on soy proteins: Importance influence of gums on promoting the fiber formation. Food Res. Int. 2022, 156, 111189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Zhang, J.; Liu, L.; Jiang, Y.; Faisal, S.; Wei, L.; Cao, C.; Wang, Q. Converting peanut protein biomass waste into “double green” meat substitutes using a high-moisture extrusion process: A multiscale method to explore a process for forming a meat-like fibrous structure. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2019, 67, 10713–10725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Dankar, I.; Haddarah, A.; Omar, F.E.L.; Sepulcre, F.; Pujolà, M. 3D printing technology: The new era for food customization and elaboration. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 75, 231–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Portanguen, S.; Tournayre, P.; Sicard, J.; Astruc, T.; Mirade, P.S. Toward the design of functional foods and biobased products by 3D printing: A review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 86, 188–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Chen, Y.; Zhang, M.; Phuhongsung, P. 3D printing of protein-based composite fruit and vegetable gel system. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 141, 110978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Shi, Z.X.; Blecker, C.; Richel, A.; Wei, Z.C.; Chen, J.W.; Ren, G.X.; Guo, D.Q.; Yao, Y.; Haubruge, E. Three-dimensional (3D) printability assessment of food-ink systems with superfine ground white common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) protein based on different 3D food printers. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 155, 112906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Shahbazi, M.; Jäger, H.; Ettelaie, R.; Chen, J. Construction of 3D printed reduced-fat meat analogue by emulsion gels. Part I: Flow behavior, thixotropic feature, and network structure of soy protein-based inks. Food Hydrocoll. 2021, 120, 106967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Ko, H.J.; Wen, Y.; Choi, J.H.; Park, B.R.; Kim, H.W.; Park, H.J. Meat analog production through artificial muscle fiber insertion using coaxial nozzle-assisted three-dimensional food printing. Food Hydrocoll. 2021, 120, 106898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Dekkers, B.L.; Nikiforidis, C.V.; Jan, V. Shear-induced fibrous structure formation from a pectin/SPI blend. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. 2016, 36, 193–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Dekkers, B.L.; Boom, R.M.; Goot, A.J.V.D. Structuring processes for meat analogues. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 81, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Li, C.; Huang, Y.; Li, R.; Wang, Y.; Xu, W. Fabrication and properties of carboxymethyl chitosan/polyethylene oxide composite nonwoven mats by centrifugal spinning. Carbohydr. Polym. 2021, 251, 117037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Chantanuson, R.; Nagamine, S.; Kobayashi, T.; Nakagawa, K. Preparation of soy protein-based food gels and control of fibrous structure and rheological property by freezing. Food Struct.-Neth. 2022, 32, 100258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Arora, B.; Kamal, S.; Sharma, V.P. Effect of binding agents on quality characteristics of mushroom based sausage analogue. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2017, 41, e13134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Yashini, M.; Sunil, C.K.; Sahana, S.; Hemanth, S.D.; Chidanand, D.V.; Rawson, A. Protein-based fat replacers-a review of recent advances. Food Rev. Int. 2021, 37, 197–223. [Google Scholar]
  83. Schwingshackl, L.; Zhringer, J.; Beyerbach, J.; Werner, S.S.; Meerpohl, J.J. A scoping review of current guidelines on dietary fat and fat quality. Ann. Nutr. Metab. 2021, 77, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Kumar, Y. Development of low-fat/reduced-fat processed meat products using fat replacers and analogues. Food Rev. Int. 2019, 37, 296–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Beniwal, A.S.; Singh, J.; Kaur, L.; Hardacre, A.; Singh, H. Meat analogs: Protein restructuring during thermomechanical processing. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2021, 20, 1221–1249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Ran, X.L.; Lou, X.W.; Zheng, H.Q.; Gu, Q.Y.; Yang, H.S. Improving the texture and rheological qualities of a plant-based fishball analogue by using konjac glucomannan to enhance crosslinks with soy protein. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. 2022, 75, 102910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Wi, Y.; Bae, J.W.; Kim, H.Y.; Cho, Y.J.; Choi, M.J. Evaluation of the physicochemical and structural properties and the sensory characteristics of meat analogues prepared with various non-animal based liquid additives. Foods 2020, 9, 461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Ningtyas, D.W.; Tam, B.; Bhandari, B.; Prakash, S. Effect of different types and concentrations of fat on the physico-chemical properties of soy protein isolate gel. Food Hydrocoll. 2021, 111, 106226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Dreher, J.; Weimüller, M.; Herrmann, K.; Terjung, N.; Weiss, J. Influence of protein and solid fat content on mechanical properties and comminution behavior of structured plant-based lipids. Food Res. Int. 2021, 145, 110416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Wen, Y.; Che, Q.T.; Kim, H.W.; Park, H.J. Potato starch altered the rheological, printing, and melting properties of 3D-printable fat analogs based on inulin emulsion-filled gels. Carbohydr. Polym. 2021, 269, 118285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Bon-Yeob, G.; Gi-Hyung, R. Effects of barrel temperature and addition of corn starch on physical properties of extruded soy protein isolate. J. Korean Soc. Food Sci. Nutr. 2018, 47, 485–491. [Google Scholar]
  92. Bohrer, B.M. An investigation of the formulation and nutritional composition of modern meat analogue products. Food Sci. Hum. Wellness 2019, 8, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Huang, L.; Ren, Y.Q.; Li, H.; Zhang, Q.B.; Wang, Y.; Cao, J.N.; Liu, X.Q. Create fat substitute from soybean protein isolate/konjac glucomannan: The impact of the protein and polysaccharide concentrations formulations. Front. Nutr. 2022, 9, 843832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Dreher, J.; Blach, C.; Terjung, N.; Gibis, M.; Weiss, J. Influence of protein content on plant-based emulsified and crosslinked fat crystal networks to mimic animal fat tissue. Food Hydrocoll. 2020, 106, 105864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Zhao, Z.K.; Mu, T.H.; Zhang, M.; Richel, A. Effects of high hydrostatic pressure and microbial transglutaminase treatment on structure and gelation properties of sweet potato protein. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 115, 108436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Qiang, C.A.; Gw, B.; Da, G.A.; Lin, W.A.; Az, A.; Xw, A.; Ning, X.A.; Lj, A. Improving the gel properties of transgenic microbial transglutaminase cross-linked soybean-whey mixed protein by ultrasonic pretreatment. Process Biochem. 2020, 91, 104–112. [Google Scholar]
  97. Darnay, L.; Kralik, F.; Oros, G.; Koncz, A.; Firtha, F. Monitoring the effect of transglutaminase in semi-hard cheese during ripening by hyperspectral imaging. J. Food Eng. 2017, 196, 123–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Herz, E.; Herz, L.; Dreher, J.; Gibis, M.; Ray, J.; Pibarot, P.; Weiss, J. Influencing factors on the ability to assemble a complex meat analogue using a soy-protein-binder. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. 2021, 73, 102806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Wen, X.; Feng, J.; Regenstein, J.M.; Wang, F. Transglutaminase induced gels using bitter apricot kernel protein: Chemical, textural and release properties. Food Biosci. 2018, 26, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Dreher, J.; König, M.; Herrmann, K.; Terjung, N.; Gibis, M.; Weiss, J. Varying the amount of solid fat in animal fat mimetics for plant-based salami analogues influences texture, appearance and sensory characteristics. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 143, 111140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Osen, R.; Toelstede, S.; Eisner, P.; Schweiggert-Weisz, U. Effect of high moisture extrusion cooking on protein-protein interactions of pea (Pisum sativum L.) protein isolates. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 50, 1390–1396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Nieto, G.; Martínez, L.; Castillo, J.; Ros, G. Hydroxytyrosol extracts, olive oil and walnuts as functional components in chicken sausages. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2017, 97, 3761–3771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Foods 11 02202 g001 550
Figure 1. Factors influencing the structural quality of recombinant plant-based meat alternative [15,16,17].
Figure 1. Factors influencing the structural quality of recombinant plant-based meat alternative [15,16,17].
Foods 11 02202 g001
Foods 11 02202 g002 550
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the processing principle, process and finished products of different molding technologies [16,63,64]. (a) Schematic diagram of the processing principle, process and finished products of extrusion technology; (b) Schematic diagram of the processing principle, process and finished products of 3D printing technology; (c) Schematic diagram of the processing principle, process and finished products of shear cell processing technology; (d) Schematic diagram of the processing principle, process and finished products of electrostatic spinning technology; (e) Schematic diagram of the processing principle, process and finished products of refrigeration structure technology).
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the processing principle, process and finished products of different molding technologies [16,63,64]. (a) Schematic diagram of the processing principle, process and finished products of extrusion technology; (b) Schematic diagram of the processing principle, process and finished products of 3D printing technology; (c) Schematic diagram of the processing principle, process and finished products of shear cell processing technology; (d) Schematic diagram of the processing principle, process and finished products of electrostatic spinning technology; (e) Schematic diagram of the processing principle, process and finished products of refrigeration structure technology).
Foods 11 02202 g002
Table
Table 1. Comparison of the properties of different protein raw materials.
Table 1. Comparison of the properties of different protein raw materials.
Protein sourcesCharacteristics and Applications
Legume ProteinSoybean ProteinNutritional
Characteristics		High protein content (approx. 40%); rich in amino acids; balanced ratio, close to WHO/FAO recommended standards [21]
Processing
Characteristics		Excellent processing properties, including good gelation, emulsification, water retention and anisotropic fiber structure [22]
Limiting
Factors		Soybean odor (limits consumer’s acceptance); allergenicity (allergenic to people with protein allergies, especially infants and children [23])
Specific
Applications		Impossible Food (USA) launched a plant-based burger patty made from soy protein concentrate; Qishan Food (China) introduced a plant-based steak with soybean isolate protein as the main ingredient
Pea
Protein		Nutritional
Characteristics		High carbohydrate content; 30% protein; amino acid ratio close to WHO/FAO recommended standards; high lysine content; lack of methionine; high bioavailability [24]
Processing
Characteristics		Pea protein can absorb more fat with the same water content and has good water- and oil-holding properties [25]
Limiting
Factors		Relatively weak heat-induced gelling ability (need to optimize the gel strength of the product by changing the stability of interprotein molecular force interaction through salt ions or processing conditions [26])
Specific
Applications		Beyond Meat (USA) launched a plant-based meat burger with pea protein as the main ingredient; Shuangta Foods (China) launched a plant-based meat chicken nugget with pea tissue protein and pea isolate protein as ingredients
Grain
Protein		Wheat ProteinNutritional
Characteristics		Low protein content (approx. 13%); unsatisfactory amino acid composition; lack of lysine; low digestibility [27]
Processing
Characteristics		Excellent water absorption; viscoelasticity; film-forming; thermosetting; and other processing characteristics [28]
Limiting
Factors		Allergenicity (intake of wheat bran protein by intolerant individuals can trigger reactions such as celiac disease, nonceliac gluten allergy and wheat allergy [29])
Specific
Applications		Field Roast (USA) launched a plant meat burger made from wheat isolate protein; wheat protein has been added to plant meat products such as Jin Zi Ham plant meat patties (China), Impossible Burger (USA), and Garden Meatless Meat Balls (Canada)
Non-Plant Classified ProteinFungal ProteinNutritional
Characteristics		Protein content of approx. 15%; amino acid ratio close to WHO/FAO recommended standards; high sulfur content; glutamic acid for fresh taste [30,31]
Processing
Characteristics		The texture and chewiness of plant-based meat alternatives developed from fibrous fungal protein in the form of mycelium is similar to that of meat products [32]
Limiting
Factors		The core technology development of bacteriophage protein meat processing is not yet perfect, and standardization and industrialization have not yet been achieved
Specific
Applications		Quorn Food (UK) introduced plant-based fried chicken nuggets made from fungal protein
Algal
Protein		Nutritional
Characteristics		Rich protein content (50–71%); balanced amino acid composition (the essential amino acid ratio is comparable to casein in milk); high bioavailability; comparable to soy protein and better than wheat gluten protein [33]
Processing
Characteristics		Excellent abilities to gel, absorb water and fat, emulsify and foam [34]
Limiting
Factors		Algae odor (earthy and moldy algae-like odor [35]); biotoxicity (potential biotoxicity and risk of toxin accumulation due to water contamination [36])
Specific
Applications		Sophie’s Bionutrients (Singapore) launched burger patties made from microalgae protein
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhao, D.; Huang, L.; Li, H.; Ren, Y.; Cao, J.; Zhang, T.; Liu, X. Ingredients and Process Affect the Structural Quality of Recombinant Plant-Based Meat Alternatives and Their Components. Foods 2022, 11, 2202. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11152202

AMA Style

Zhao D, Huang L, Li H, Ren Y, Cao J, Zhang T, Liu X. Ingredients and Process Affect the Structural Quality of Recombinant Plant-Based Meat Alternatives and Their Components. Foods. 2022; 11(15):2202. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11152202

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhao, Di, Lu Huang, He Li, Yuqing Ren, Jinnuo Cao, Tianyu Zhang, and Xinqi Liu. 2022. "Ingredients and Process Affect the Structural Quality of Recombinant Plant-Based Meat Alternatives and Their Components" Foods 11, no. 15: 2202. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11152202

APA Style

Zhao, D., Huang, L., Li, H., Ren, Y., Cao, J., Zhang, T., & Liu, X. (2022). Ingredients and Process Affect the Structural Quality of Recombinant Plant-Based Meat Alternatives and Their Components. Foods, 11(15), 2202. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11152202

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