Next Article in Journal
Effects of Freezing Raw Yak Milk on the Fermentation Performance and Storage Quality of Yogurt
Next Article in Special Issue
Research Progress in Modifications, Bioactivities, and Applications of Medicine and Food Homologous Plant Starch
Previous Article in Journal
Cellulose Isolation from Tomato Pomace: Part II—Integrating High-Pressure Homogenization in a Cascade Hydrolysis Process for the Recovery of Nanostructured Cellulose and Bioactive Molecules
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Significance of Fermentation in Plant-Based Meat Analogs: A Critical Review of Nutrition, and Safety-Related Aspects

by
Hosam Elhalis
,
Xin Yi See
,
Raffael Osen
,
Xin Hui Chin
and
Yvonne Chow
*
Singapore Institute of Food and Biotechnology Innovation (SIFBI), Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), 31 Biopolis Way, Nanos, Singapore 138669, Singapore
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2023, 12(17), 3222; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12173222
Submission received: 24 July 2023 / Revised: 23 August 2023 / Accepted: 24 August 2023 / Published: 27 August 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Novel Technologies to Improve the Nutritional Properties of Food)

Abstract

:
Plant-based meat analogs have been shown to cause less harm for both human health and the environment compared to real meat, especially processed meat. However, the intense pressure to enhance the sensory qualities of plant-based meat alternatives has caused their nutritional and safety aspects to be overlooked. This paper reviews our current understanding of the nutrition and safety behind plant-based meat alternatives, proposing fermentation as a potential way of overcoming limitations in these aspects. Plant protein blends, fortification, and preservatives have been the main methods for enhancing the nutritional content and stability of plant-based meat alternatives, but concerns that include safety, nutrient deficiencies, low digestibility, high allergenicity, and high costs have been raised in their use. Fermentation with microorganisms such as Bacillus subtilis, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum, Neurospora intermedia, and Rhizopus oryzae improves digestibility and reduces allergenicity and antinutritive factors more effectively. At the same time, microbial metabolites can boost the final product’s safety, nutrition, and sensory quality, although some concerns regarding their toxicity remain. Designing a single starter culture or microbial consortium for plant-based meat alternatives can be a novel solution for advancing the health benefits of the final product while still fulfilling the demands of an expanding and sustainable economy.

1. Introduction

Meat and meat products represent an essential source of protein, with the global market estimated at over USD 897 billion in 2021 [1,2]. By 2050, the global population is projected to have grown to roughly 9 billion people, which will require at least twice as much protein as is currently produced [3,4]. To meet this demand, meat production must increase, but this increase is severely constrained by scarcity in water and land resources. In addition, the negative effects of the meat industry on the environment and climate change, the rising concern for animal welfare, and the growth of the halal and kosher markets all point to the necessity of meat analogs (also known as meat replacers, meat substitutes, or meat alternatives) for supporting this growing demand [5,6].
Cultured meat, edible insects, mycoprotein, and plant-based proteins are expected to be the main protein sources for formulating meat analogs. Among them, plant-based meat analogs are gaining popularity in the market and have been promoted as a healthy, environmentally friendly, and ethical solution [7]. Plant-based diets are reported to have lower adverse impacts on human health that include lowering blood pressure, and incidences of cardiovascular diseases and diabetes [8,9,10]. Additionally, they are proven to be more eco-friendly and produce less greenhouse gases [11,12]. Tempeh, tofu, and seitan are the first generation of plant-based food products. These products are popular in Asian countries but have lower consumer acceptability in the West [13]. A new generation of items made from plant ingredients that mimic real meat are already in the market and called plant-based meat analogs [14,15]. Plant-based meat analogs are defined as plant proteins that are structured and formulated to mimic the flavor, appearance, texture, and nutritional profile of meat [16,17]. Such products are designed to appear and taste like meat, contain a similar amount of protein, and are generally lower in fats and calories compared to meat products [18,19]. Although considerable effort has been employed to improve the appearance, flavor, and texture [7,20] of these meat analogs, little attention has been given to enhancing their health benefits and improving their safety. Fortifications include vitamins such as riboflavin, thiamine, niacin, cobalamin, and pyridoxin, and minerals such as calcium, zinc, and iron, as well as fiber from vegetables, oat, bamboo, and pea, which are common ingredients that have been used in plant-based meat alternatives. There is little evidence to prove that these additives offer a significant health benefit [21,22,23,24,25]. Additionally, plant-based meat analogs are ultra-processed foods and reported to have anti-nutrients such as trypsin inhibitors, phytates, oligosaccharides, and allergens, which raise health concerns [26,27,28]. This highlights the need for food industries to find solutions to these challenges [7,29].
Fermentation is one of the oldest methods used to preserve perishable foods and improve their safety, nutritional, and sensory quality in an economical and energy-efficient way [30,31]. Fermentation improves the nutritional value by boosting the quantities of vitamins, amino acids, fatty acids, and other bioactive components [32]. As such, fermentation may be a good option for improving the nutritional value of plant-based meat substitutes. Unlike conventional spontaneous fermentation, starter culture technology uses formulators to exert control over fermentation processes and adjust the quality of the final products [33,34,35,36,37]. A starter culture contains a wide range of active microorganisms, including bacteria and fungi, that are added to initiate desirable changes during the product manufacturing process. The use of fermented plant materials and starter culture technology in the production of plant-based meat analogs has received little attention, despite its potential in improving the nutritional value of meat alternatives. This review provides an overview of the current state of scientific knowledge regarding the challenges to the safety and nutritional aspects of plant-based meat analogs and introduces the use of fermentation and starter culture technology as novel strategies for more sustainable and economical ways of producing safe, nutritional plant-based meat analogs.

2. Plant-Based Meat Analogs Characterization and the Demand for New Approaches

Plant-based meat alternatives are a broad category of foods that are similar in texture, appearance, flavor, and nutritional quality to real meat products in the human diet. For the purpose of this review, real meats are defined as fresh uncooked whole muscle meat such as boneless steaks, whole, cooked cuts such as beef roast, or fermented meats, such as fermented sausages. Nutrition quality is considered a key driver for consumer acceptance of plant-based meat analogs [7,38]. Table 1 summarizes the nutritional content and illustrates some selected advantages and disadvantages of real meat and plant-based meat alternatives. Details regarding components, formulation, and structuring technologies of plant-based meat analogs and their functions are outside the scope of this review and have been reviewed in depth by other authors [7,39,40,41,42]. However, we briefly highlight relevant points to explain the drawbacks of current processing methods and the need for a novel approach.
Plant-based meat analogs contain protein, fiber, low levels of saturated fat, and no cholesterol [39,69]. They are created from plant proteins and non-proteins mixed with other additives and subjected to downstream processes to improve their texture, appearance, flavor, and taste [14,15]. Such products are designed to appear and taste like conventional meat-based products. They contain similar concentrations of proteins but are lower in carbohydrates, fats, and calories compared to real meat products [18,19]. Soybeans are the major source of plant protein used but other vegetable proteins such as peas, check beans, cotton seeds, canola seeds, and rape seeds have also been used [14]. Vegetable oils including coconut oil, avocado oil, cocoa butter, corn oil, soybean oil, and sunflower oil are among the most common source of lipids used in meat alternatives [70]. Glucose, fructose, starch, and methyl cellulose are commonly utilized as carbohydrates in meat alternatives [71]. Furthermore, plant-based meat analogs are usually fortified with micronutrients like zinc, iron, folic acid, and vitamins B1, B2, B6, and B12 [72,73]. Encapsulation techniques including emulsion and non-emulsion systems may be applied to improve the delivery of sensitive functional ingredients that may be degraded during processing or storage such as vitamins [74,75,76]. For the microbial safety and stability of the final product, plant-based preservatives with antioxidant and antimicrobial functionalities are added to the meat analogs [76]. For example, carotenoids, tocopherols, spices, and herbs are used as antioxidants, and curcumin, essential oils, and polyphenols are used as antimicrobials [70,77]. Despite the apparent nutritional completeness of these meat alternatives, recent concerns on their nutritional content and safety have been raised. These include the presence of antinutritive factors, food pathogens, and genetically modified ingredients as well as their low digestibility, high allergenicity, and nutrition deficiency. There is thus an urgent need for further improvement in these meat alternatives, as discussed below.

2.1. Anti-Nutritional Factors

Many plant proteins contain anti-nutritional factors that can be heat-labile (such as trypsin inhibitors and lectins) or heat-stable (e.g., saponins, phytates, condensed tannins, and oligosaccharides such as raffinose and stachyose); these factors negatively impact nutrient digestion and absorption [27,78]. The presence of these factors increases the risk of malnutrition and indigestion. Hence, it is desirable to reduce the content of these anti-nutritional factors via pretreatment before consumption [79]. Thermal treatment at 170–180 °C (e.g., by cooking or extrusion) can lower the levels of heat-labile anti-nutritional factors. However, treatment at such high temperatures can also damage heat-labile nutrients such as vitamins [80,81,82,83,84]. Enzymatic hydrolysis can also effectively decrease the amount of heat-stable anti-nutritional factors (e.g., phytic acid) present. However, excess enzyme activity can lead to macromolecular degradation, compromising the texture and integrity of the meat analog [85,86,87,88].

2.2. Protein Allergenicity and Ultra-Processed Food

Soy, wheat, and their derivatives have been identified as allergenic ingredients that can trigger frequent and severe reactions in some individuals [89]. Levels of heat-labile allergens can be reduced by thermal treatment. However, allergen degradation is rarely complete, and in some circumstances, the ingredient’s allergenicity may even worsen with treatment [89].
Plant proteins are globular and not fibrillar. Thus, processes and additives are applied to create fibrous structures from plant proteins. Employing industrial processes such as extruding, as well as molding, hydrolysis, hydrogenation, and reshaping or using chemical additives makes food treated this way an ultra-processed food according to the NOVA classification [90]. Generally, plant-based meat alternatives are considered ultra-processed products, and ultra-processed products have been linked to an increased incidence of obesity and cancer among consumers [91,92]. Furthermore, additives including texturizing agents (e.g., transglutaminases that increase intestinal permeability), as well as artificial colorants, and flavorings have been associated with celiac diseases and may be carcinogenic [93,94]. Due to these issues, there is a need to find safer alternative strategies for producing plant-based meat alternatives [15,95,96,97].

2.3. Digestibility and Nutrient Deficiency

Plant-based meat analogs show lower digestibility compared to real meat. Plant proteins often have a lower digestibility score (0.4–0.9) than animal proteins (more than 0.9) [72,73]. The bioaccessibility and bioavailability of plant ingredients, including starch, protein, and lipids, are crucial factors during digestion, therefore modulation of the plant nutrient microstructure might be essential [98]. Zhou et al. used an in vitro digestion standardized model to examine the digestive characteristics of a plant-based meat analog made from textured soy protein concentrate [99]. They concluded that two features were largely responsible for the poor digestion of meat analogs: a larger particle size than that of real meat, as well as the excessive usage of adhesive additives (mainly used to maintain the shape of the plant-based meat analog). Both features made it difficult for the digestive enzymes to contact the food ingredients, resulting in a lower digestibility. Furthermore, differences in the impacts of plant-based meat analogs and real meat on gastrointestinal functions in mice were demonstrated [100]. Mice (n = 16) were fed either plant-based meat analog or real meat diets for 68 days. Both diets included the same amount of protein content and numerous other nutrients, with the exception that the former contained more sodium, fiber, and fat, which cannot be entirely balanced based on the protein content. The study found that plant-based meat analogs had lower pepsin levels, associated with the generation of less peptides after digestion than meat. They also lowered the number of gastric parietal cells, as well as the levels of intracellular Ca2+, CAMK II, PKC, and PKA, as well as extracellular gastrin/CCKBR and Ach/AchR, all of which decreased gastric acid secretion capabilities. In the small intestine of plant-based meat analogs, there was a decrease in duodenal villus height and the ratio of villus height to crypt depth. Serum samples revealed lower levels of total amino acids, essential amino acids, and non-essential amino acids in plant-based meat analog groups compared to meat, indicating that plant-based meat analogs have poor in vivo absorption. The authors hypothesized that because of protein denaturation and aggregation during heating in the presence of salt and phosphate, a complex and rigid structure would form, resulting in a loss of protein digestibility. Furthermore, the authors identified differences in gut microbiota between the two diet types, which may also be connected with alterations in digestibility and absorption, and they urged further research [100].
Many plant proteins, such as legumes, also contain suboptimal levels of essential amino acids, particularly the sulfur-containing amino acids, including cysteine and methionine [101]. A leading role is played by methionine in a number of cellular functions, including the initiation of the translation of mRNA [102,103]. Besides being an essential structural and functional component of proteins and enzymes, cysteine is also required by other cell components containing reduced sulfur, such as methionine, homoglutathione, glutathione, iron–sulfur clusters, and vitamin cofactors such as thiamin and biotin, as well as multiple secondary metabolites [102,103,104]. Therefore, these two sulfur-containing amino acids are essential for dietary intake by humans. Furthermore, a metabolomic study using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) analysis with electron impact ionization (EI) found essential metabolites including creatinine (product of creatine), hydroxyproline, anserine, glucosamine, and cysteamine (an aminothiol) to be present in real meat but not in plant-based meat analogs [105]. These nutrients have significant physiological, immunomodulatory, and anti-inflammatory roles in the human body, and their absence in the human diet has been associated with cardiovascular, retinal, neurological, and hepatic dysfunction [106,107]. Thus, fortifying plant-based meat alternatives with essential amino acids that include methionine and cysteine, as well as blending with different cereal proteins to avoid essential nutrients deficiencies, has been widely applied [108,109,110]. Iron from plant foods tends to be less bioavailable than iron from real meat [111]. Fortification remains the strategy of choice to overcome this decrease in iron bioavailability. However, its high cost and the presence of anti-nutritional factors in dietary components that inhibit iron absorption (e.g., phytates) make fortification less effective [112]. Furthermore, most of the plant-based meat alternative products available in the market contain less levels of vitamin B12 and zinc compared to real meat products [113,114,115,116,117]. Additionally, plant ingredients also tend to lack essential omega-3 fatty acids, especially the more bioavailable omega-3 fatty acid forms like eicosapentaenoic (EPA) and docosahexaenoic (DHA) acids. These fatty acids play vital roles in health maintenance, such as for cardiovascular, neurologic, and immune health [118,119]. To counter such deficiencies, some plant-based meat products are supplemented with omega-3 fatty acids. In summary, the currently reported nutrient deficiencies in plant ingredients constrain their application in meat analogs and manufacturers circumvent these issues by applying additives, which may achieve the target but increase the overall cost, and sometimes the health risks of consuming the product.

2.4. Food Spoilage and Pathogens

Food spoilage and the pathogens present in meat alternatives are considered health hazards. Plant-based meat analogs contain high protein and moisture levels and have a neutral pH value. These properties increase the proliferation of spoilage microorganisms and food pathogens in meat analogs [120,121]. A microbial survey by Tóth et al. to monitor the microbial quality of plant-based meat alternatives found the microbial load to be low during production [89]. However, large quantities of Enterobacteriaceae and yeast species were observed during storage in both refrigerated and unrefrigerated meat analogs. These contaminations likely originate from raw materials or during post-processing. These microbial species grew during storage, mainly at ambient temperature. As such, Tóth et al. concluded that uncooked plant-based meat analogs have a higher food safety risk than animal-based foods and additional precautions should be applied in their manufacture and storage. Foodborne pathogens may also be present in the plant ingredients, but these pathogens are mostly inactivated by exposure to heat during production (e.g., the extrusion process). However, spore-forming bacteria, including Bacillus spp. and Clostridium spp., may survive the heating process or contaminate the products after processing [79,122,123].

2.5. Genetically Modified Foods

There has been concern about applying recombinant proteins in the alternative meat industry. The recombinant proteins are foreign proteins created in prokaryotic and eukaryotic expression hosts [90]. Advances have been reported in using recombinant proteins to mimic the flavor and color of real meat in plant-based meat analogs [96]. However, the use of recombinant proteins still raises concerns due to their potential health and environmental risks [124]. Toxins, allergies, or genetic hazards are the main concerns regarding health risks linked with genetically modified food [124]. For instance, bean plants that were genetically altered to contain more cysteine and methionine were renounced when it was discovered that the transgene produced extremely allergenic proteins [125]. Similarly, altered metabolic pathways may result in the creation of toxins and other unidentified substances [125,126]. Table 2 shows a summary of the current major ingredients and techniques used in plant-based meat analog production, their positive contributions, and limitations in safety and nutrition of the final product.

3. Fermentation and Plant-Based Meat Analogs’ Nutrition and Safety

Meat alternatives should match real meat products in terms of nutrition as well as texture, flavor, and color to be widely accepted by consumers [128]. Recent studies highlight the public concern about the multiplicity of processing steps and utilization of additives in producing plant-based meat. Such approaches negatively impact the sustainability, safety, and nutrition of the final product [109,129]. Thus, it is necessary to optimize the quality of raw materials to reduce the number of additives and processing steps needed in manufacture while maximizing the products’ nutritional content. Mayer Labba et al. conducted a recent survey in Sweden to determine the nutritional content of 44 meat substitutes available in the market [130]. They discovered plant-based meat analogs to generally have a low iron content and high levels of phytate, highlighting the need to further improve the nutritional quality of existing meat substitutes. In contrast, tempeh and mycoprotein-based meat analogs (fermentation-based products) were found to be lower in phytates and higher in bioavailable zinc [130]. These results support our hypothesis that using fermented ingredients instead of raw or mechanically processed plant ingredients can improve the nutritional value of plant-based meat analogs. In the next subsection, we discuss how fermentation can alleviate the increasing health concerns associated with consuming plant-based meat analogs.

3.1. Anti-Nutrients

Studies have shown that fermentation can be used to partially or fully degrade anti-nutritional factors in food [131,132,133]. During fermentation, identified microorganisms were shown to impact the levels of anti-nutritional factors. Bacillus subtilis was shown to remove indigestible oligosaccharides from soybeans and improve soybean digestibility [134,135,136]. Similarly, the concentration of trypsin inhibitors, phytates, tannins, and oligosaccharides in fava beans and black beans significantly decreased after lactic acid bacteria (LAB) fermentation with Weissella spp. and Leuconostoc spp., L. plantarum and L. casei [137,138,139,140]. Yeasts such as Kluyveromyces marxianus [141] and Lindnera saturnus [142] were shown to reduce levels of anti-nutritional factors such as phytic acid, and trypsin inhibitors in soybean residues, in addition to removing the undesirable beany flavor. The filamentous fungus Aspergillus oryzae was isolated from soybean fermentation and reported to decrease the levels of trypsin inhibitors and phytic acids [16,143]. Furthermore, Rhizopus spp. and Neurospora crassa decreased the levels of glycinin, β-conglycinin, trypsin inhibitors, and oligosaccharides on food substrates [144,145]. Other legumes such as chickpeas and cowpeas fermented with R. oligosporus showed lower levels of oligosaccharides, tannins, and phytates in the fermented products [146,147]. Similar findings were achieved using coculture techniques. For example, L. plantarum and L. acidophilus were inoculated into cowpea and showed more effectiveness in degrading trypsin inhibitors than fermentation with individual inocula [148]. A mixed culture of Bifidobacterium infantis and Streptococcus thermophilus applied to soybeans significantly reduced the concentration of saponin and phytic acid upon fermentation [111,148]. These reductions were correlated with the microbes’ increasing enzymatic activities (e.g., proteases, phytases, phenolic oxidases, and glutathione reductases). For example, phytic acid complexes with numerous essential minerals, including zinc, calcium, and iron, making them unavailable for absorption in the body. Microbial enzymes, such as phytase, were found to degrade these complexes and unfold the bonding between the mineral and phosphorus in the phytate, making the minerals accessible in the body [149,150]. Similarly, proteinaceous antinutritional factors such as lectins that contain disulfide bonds are susceptible to microbial proteases such as glutathione reductase [151]. Lectin degradation during legume fermentation depends on the catalyzation of glutathione through thiol exchange reactions. Microbial activities such as organic acid creation and pH lowering by LAB can also promote anti-nutritional factor breakdown. This acidification process may support the natural endogenous enzymes in the beans that degrade these anti-nutritional factors [137,150,151,152]. It is worth mentioning that fermentation has also been shown to improve product stability by inhibiting the growth of spoilage microbes and food pathogens [153]. As an example, exopolysaccharides and organic acids synthesized during fermentation help to resist the growth of undesirable microbes and food pathogens. Such compounds also negate the effects of bacterial toxins, increasing product stability and reducing food poisoning [154,155].

3.2. Allergenicity

Fermentation may also reduce allergenicity of foods. Microbial isolates such as Lactobacillus helveticus, L. casei, Enterococcus feacalis, B. subtilis, and A. oryzae can degrade soy and gluten proteins into low molecular weight polypeptides, reducing their allergenicity [89,156,157,158,159]. Moreover, studies revealed that structurally altering allergen protein conformations, including increasing surface hydrophobicity and β-strands, decreased the allergenicity of soy protein by roughly 90% following fermentation by L. plantarum [160]. This conformation might be related to a decrease in pH, which leads to the disruption of the soy protein structures and a loss of allergenicity. Sun et al. reported a significant reduction in β-glycinin lgE reactivity after fermentation by L. plantarum, as a result of lactic acid production during fermentation [161]. Particle size distribution analysis showed that fermentation induced the formation of protein gel/aggregates into large particles at pH 4.5 and reduced band intensities of α-, α′-, and β-subunits from SDS-PAGE analysis, suggesting a transformation of soluble to insoluble proteins. The β-subunit of β-glycinin was reported to play an important role in immunoreactivity, as it contains many lgE-binding epitopes [161]. Disruption of the protein subunits and aggregation of the protein units during fermentation may have led to the burial of these epitopes located on the surface of the β-subunit, resulting in a reduction in the lgE binding capacity and a reduction in immunoreactivity [162]. However, the pH at the end point of fermentation also plays a crucial role in immunoreactivity reduction. At pH 4 and pH 3.5, an increase in band intensities of the proteins was reported, suggesting a dissociation of the protein into smaller particles and a disruption of the gel/aggregation matrix. This degradation of the matrix due to a looser protein structure may have led to a release in the subunits and expositing lgE binding epitopes, thereby increasing immunoreactivity [162]. Frias et al. also compared the rate of immunoreactivity degradation in soybean flour and reported lactic acid bacteria to result in a higher degradation rate as compared to fungi when used as starter cultures in fermentation [163]. Peptide analysis revealed smaller particle size and the presence of less intense immunoreactive peptides below 30 kDA, with reductions greater than 90% in fermentation using L. plantarum as a starter culture [163]. Therefore, protein degradation and conformation changes were responsible for the reduction of fermented protein allergenicity.

3.3. Digestability

Potential improvements in digestibility were observed in plant proteins fermented with A. niger [164], Ligilactobacillus salivarius [165], and naturally [166,167]. As an example, soybean fermented with N. crassa led to 10.5% protein hydrolysis and a 13-fold increase in the levels of free amino acids that was associated with a 37.9% rise in the in vitro protein digestibility [168]. Similarly, fermentation can break up complex polysaccharides and fat present in plants and produce lower molecular weight compounds, as discussed above. As an example, the in vitro starch digestibility of unfermented black gram (legume) was found to be 35.7 mg maltose released/g [169]. Spontaneous fermentation improved the starch digestibility to 59% in 18 h at 25 °C, which was further improved to 88% when fermentation was conducted at 35 °C. This breakdown that occurred during fermentation was thought to result from the activities of endogenous enzymes from either the endogenous microbiota or the legume [169,170].

3.4. Improve Nutritional Components

Fermentation also improved the amino acid profiles of the plant-based substrates used in meat alternatives [153]. For instance, L. plantarum, L. acidophilus, and Bifidobacterium species were shown to increase the total protein concentration and the levels of methionine, tryptophan, and lysine in fermented soy-based products [171,172,173]. This increase in the total protein content and the changes in the amino acid profile observed in the fermented sample may be correlated to the microbial inoculum itself, its growth, or its enzymatic activities [174]. Microorganisms use carbohydrates as a carbon source and convert them into microbial proteins through intermediary metabolism [141]. They also break down the feed protein into short peptides and free amino acids, as mentioned above. These activities illustrate the potential changes that may occur to the amino acid profile during fermentation. Fermentation can increase the levels of bioactive compounds that are beneficial to human health. High levels of phenolic, flavonoid, antioxidant, and antimicrobial compounds were detected in soybeans fermented with N. crassa [168], Monascus purpureus, A. oryzae [175], B. subtilis [176], B. velezensis, and Pichia anomala [177]. Microorganisms produce secondary metabolites during growth, including alkaloids, terpenoids, phenols, steroids, peptides, flavonoids, polyketones, and quinols. These substances have vital functions in microbial growth, such as adaptability, defense, and signaling during environmental stresses or ecological interactions [178]. They are biosynthesized in microorganisms largely by the shikimate and phenylpropanoid metabolic pathways [179]. These compounds have physiological functions if consumed in sufficient amounts. Alkaloids, for example, are biosynthesized from amino acids such as lysine, ornithine, aspartic acid, tyrosine, phenylalanine, and tryptophan and show anti-cancer effects [180]. Polyphenols have been reported to have antioxidant, anti-carcinogenic, and anti-microbial activities [181]. Similarly, some steroids, peptides, polyketones, and quinols were reported to have essential health benefits for humans [182]. Besides biosynthesis, microbial enzymes may also help to increase the bioavailability of some of these compounds, if they occur naturally in the plant matrix. For example, microbial enzymes including cellulase, amylase, xylanase, esterase, and β-glucosidase have been reported to catalyze covalent bond hydrolysis between lignocellulose and phenolics in the plant matrix, releasing phenolic compounds. These results were observed during the fermentation of mulberry fruits and leaves by microorganisms, including L. plantarum, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, M. purpureus, and R. oligosporus in studies [183,184,185]. Similar results were reported for the biovailability of other nutrients. As an example, the fermentation of soy curd using a mixture of the yeast S. boulardii and LAB L. plantarum, was associated with significant increases in calcium and magnesium bioavailability [148,186]. These results are associated with a reduction of the antinutrients, mainly phytic acid, which correlate to increased mineral availability. Tangyu et al. found the fermented product to contain lower levels of oligosaccharides (stachyose and raffinose) and beany flavors [148]. Surprisingly, the degradation of phytates by phytase that can occur during fermentation has been shown to produce metabolically active myo-inositol phosphates with potential health benefits [187], with D-myo-inositol (1,3,4,5) tetrakisphosphate and D-myo-inositol (1,4,5) trisphosphate reported to have anti-inflammatory and anti-tumor activities, as well as preventing diabetes complication and promoting heart health [188,189]. As mentioned, many plant ingredients do not contain all the essential amino acids or the omega-3 fatty acid DHA, necessitating the addition of these ingredients. Using a specific microbial group, such as microalgae, may provide an alternative method for plant-based meat substitutes. Microalgae proteins contain all the essential amino acids and some microalgae, such as Schizochytrium spp., are considered a valuable source of the omega-3 fatty acid DHA [111,190]. Additionally, microalgae such as Arthrospira platensis have been reported to contain more calcium than raw milk (about 180% of raw milk), making it a good source of calcium [191]. Xia et al. mixed the Haematococcus pluvialis residue with traditional plant pea protein and found a significant improvement in the final product appearance and texture to mimic the real meat [192]. Besides using microalgae as ingredients, they can also be employed as a fermenting group. Several studies showed the capability of various microalgae strains to be cultivated on different agricultural processed residues including soybeans, pea seed, and corn seed [193,194,195,196]. Additionally, the development of consortia of microalgae with bacterial or fungal species has recently widened the microalgae applications [197]. Such characteristics might make microalgae a suitable candidate either to be used as an additive in plant-based meat analogs or combined with other microorganisms (consortia) during fermenting plant-based raw ingredients.

3.5. Others

Finally, applying probiotics to plant-based meat analogs can confer other health benefits to plant-based meat analogs if minimal heat treatment is applied or selected thermotolerant strains are used to ensure probiotic livability. Fermentation using probiotic species, such as L. acidophilus, L. delbrueckii, L. salivarius, Clostridium butyricum, and S. boulardii were reported to confer health benefits related to probiotic consumption, including enhanced intestinal health, improved immune response, reduced cholesterol level, and cancer prevention [160,161,162]. Plant proteins have been shown to be efficient probiotic carriers [198]. Probiotic LAB species including L. casei, L. fermentum, L. helveticus, L. reuteri, L. rhamnosus, L. acidophilus, L. johnsonii, B. animalis ssp. lactis, E. faecium, and S. thermophilus have been successfully applied in plant-based beverages, cheese alternatives, and yogurt alternatives [199]. Soy protein isolate (SPI) was used to carry L. paracasei and showed substantial protection in simulated gastrointestinal conditions (45 g/L bile salt, 8.5 g/L NaCl, and 1 g/L pancreatin at pH 8) [200]. Here, Yan et al. combined a bacterial solution with an interpenetrating polymer network made of soy protein isolates and sugar beet pectin (SBP). Different concentrations of laccase were added to the mixture, which enhanced the formation of a hydrogel by creating a crosslinked network between the protein and the pectin. This study demonstrated that the produced gel preserved over 96.7% of the bacterial viability when treated to stimulated gastric fluid, with no viable cells observed in the free culture. Moreover, L. paracasei showed significant stability during storage at 4 °C for 21 days, with maximum stability found at 3.5% SBP, 10% SPI, and 10 U laccase, which correlates to a higher water holding capacity of the formed gel [200]. The presence of protein and pectin in plant ingredients, together with various microbial enzymes created during fermentation, can make plant-based meat analogs an excellent delivery system for probiotics and boost their nutritional quality. These features make the use of microorganisms and fermentation techniques promising avenues for improving plant-based meat alternative safety by reducing anti-nutritional factor levels, increasing digestibility, providing probiotic health benefits, and including high-value nutrients such as polyphenols, vitamins, minerals, essential amino acids, and omega-3 fatty acids.

3.6. Nutrition and Health Challenges

While fermented food is often considered a ‘super food’ that is rich in bioactive compounds including vitamins, peptides, minerals, and organic acids, they may also be associated with negative health impacts. Toxic metabolites such as biogenic amines (BA) and mycotoxins have been reported with fermenting microorganisms that include bacteria and fungi. Mycotoxins including aflatoxins, ochratoxins, and patulin have been reported to be synthesized by many species of Aspergillus and Penicillium, while trichothecenes, fumonisins, and zearalenone compounds may be produced by Fusarium species [201]. Some of these mycotoxins are known carcinogens, for instance, the ones synthesized by A. parasiticus and A. flavus. Others produced by Fusarium spp. may increase the host’s susceptibility to infectious diseases [201]. Several treatments have been proven to reduce the level of mycotoxigenic fungi and mycotoxins before fermentation. Sorting, soaking, washing, and cooking, as well as the addition of organic acids, bases, or oxidants during the soaking, have all been shown to decrease their presence in soybeans [202,203]. Furthermore, adjusting the fermentation conditions may directly reduce the presence of mycotoxigenic fungi and mycotoxin generation. More specifically, optimizing the temperature, pH, and water activity of the fermentation mass to levels that favor the growth of the inoculum may enable them to lead the fermentation process and prevent the presence of undesirable microorganisms, including filamentous fungi [203]. For the inoculum criteria, selecting non-mycotoxin producing strains is essential to avoid the mycotoxin generation. Additionally, various microorganisms have been reported to suppress the growth of mycotoxin-producing species or to degrade mycotoxins. For example, B. licheniformis was shown to outcompete mycotoxigenic Aspergillus spp. [204], while B. albus was capable to metabolize aflatoxin B1 and G1 and significantly decrease their concentrations [205]. Both capabilities, the growth suppression of undesirable fungi and mycotoxin degradation, were also observed with A. oryzae strains. These strains were isolated from fermented soybean products and demonstrated the ability to suppress the growth of mycotoxigenic A. flavus, as well as breakdown more than 90% of aflatoxin B1 present in culture broth [206].
Biogenic amines, such as histamine, tyramine, cadaverine, and putrescine, are low molecular weight nitrogenous compounds produced by the decarboxylation of amino acids including histidine, ornithine, and tyrosine [207]. They have been detected in microbial isolates that include genera belonging to Enterobacteriaceae [208,209]. Heat treatment, such as pasteurization, as well as the addition of protectors and oxygen scavengers are the most common strategies to suppress the growth of Enterobacteriaceae isolates [210]. Some Bacillus strains such as B. subtilis and B. amyloliquefaciens have been reported to produce putrescine and cadaverine during sausage fermentation [211]. Similarly, LAB fermentation with the genera Lactobacillus, Enterococcus, Lactococcus, Leuconostoc, and Streptococcus can also produce BA in fermented dairy products [210,212,213]. Different measures have been applied to prevent or decrease the BA during sausages and dairy fermentation including heat treatment, improvements to the hygiene level during production, and preservatives [211,214,215]. Additionally, fermentation of foods and beverages with non-BA producing microorganisms or microorganisms that degrade BA are essential approaches to reduce BA levels. For example, inoculating soybeans with B. subtilis T2 resulted in over 80% reduction in total BA content compared to spontaneous fermentation with the endogenous species [216]. For the BA degradation, a number of microbial enzymes, including monoamine oxidases, diamine oxidases, and multicopper oxidases, have been reported to degrade the BA [217]. Such enzymes were correlated to metabolize tyramine and putrescine by L. casei and L. plantarum [218,219,220], as well as to degrade histamine by Debaryomyces hansenii, during evaluation studies [221]. Consequently, choosing the right microorganism and formulating strategies to improve safety is essential for increasing the reliability and applicability of fermentation in plant-based meat analogs. A selection of nutritional and safety characteristics of selected microorganisms is summarized in Table 3.

4. Fermentation and Plant-Based Meat Analogs’ Sensory Quality

The main focus of this review is on plant-based meat analogs safety and nutritional quality. However, in this part, we aim to shed light on the impact of fermentation on sensory quality as a key characteristic of the meat analogs. As mentioned above, plant-based meat analogs are largely influenced by their formulation and structuring technology. The sensory characteristics of plant-based meat analogs have been reviewed in depth by other authors [7,39,40,41,42,121]. Briefly, several key ingredients are used in the production of plant-based meat analogs. These ingredients contribute to the color, flavor, and texture of the product. The sensory quality of plant-based meat analogs can be improved, but there are several drawbacks. Plant ingredients lack a perceptible meaty aroma and taste, as well as having off flavors such as green, beany, astringent, bitter, and metallic tastes [224,225]. There has been limited success reported with flavorings to mask off flavors or reproduce meaty flavors, and some flavoring agents may be destroyed during cooking [226]. In terms of texture, extrusion is the most common method used. Nevertheless, extrusion presents challenges in producing cost-effective fibrous meat-like structures. In addition, several parameters must be closely monitored, including barrel temperature, pressure, and powder/water feed rates [40,227,228]. A similar constraint is color, since plant proteins typically lack the red or brown color associated with raw or cooked meat. Heat-stable coloring compounds such as annatto, caramel, and carotene are used to simulate the red color of raw meat; however, they cannot replicate the color of cooked meat. In general, existing techniques have had little success in reproducing the real meaty sensory quality [129,229,230,231]. The use of microbial fermentation may provide an alternative method of replicating these characteristics.
The beany flavor of plant materials can be successfully minimized or eliminated through the fermentation process. Researchers have demonstrated that soybean off-flavor characteristics, such as the beany flavor, decreased or disappeared after fermentation using different microorganisms, including Kluyveromyces marxianus, B. subtilis, and Weissella confuse [134,141,232]. It is believed that these microorganisms are capable of degrading lipoxygenases, which act on polyunsaturated fatty acids to produce off tastes such as beany notes. Additionally, by generating pleasant microbial volatiles, they can also mask these undesirable odors. In a similar manner, undesirable aldehydes can be transformed into desired chemicals by microbes, such as Lindnera saturnus, through the metabolism of ester compounds during fermentation [142]. An increase of 70 times in the concentration of esters, ranging from 0.17 to 0.28 mg/g dry weight, as well as other important volatiles, including ethyl heptanoate, hexyl acetate, 3-hexenyl acetate, octanoate, and 2-heptenyl acetates, were detected. These findings demonstrate that microorganisms have the capacity to reduce off-flavors by either denaturing the enzymes directly, degrading undesirable aldehyde compounds or masking them through the generation of desirable metabolites.
Despite the fact that plant-based meat components are primarily composed of proteins, polysaccharides, and lipids, they lack important intermediary substances like reducing sugars, fatty acids, and amino acids that are necessary to produce distinct meat aromas and flavors [233,234]. Many bacteria were found to have strong enzymatic activity, which may aid in the breakdown of these complex molecules. For instance, several microorganisms, such as B. subtilis, B. polyfermenticus, and B. amyloliquefaciens, demonstrated high protease activity and produced significant quantities of peptides and amino acids in fermented products [134,135,235,236,237]. At 35 °C and pH 7, R. oryzae and Mucor sp. have been shown to produce a potent lipase activity that breaks down lipids into small peptides and fatty acids [238,239]. The presence of these degraded compounds may increase the formation of desired flavors and produce flavors during further processing (heating) [233,240].
As mentioned above, current texturing techniques have some difficulties in creating the mouth feeling, a fibrous structure, and a meaty appearance. Microorganisms and fermentation techniques can be used to overcome these limitations. For example, a B. subtilis fermentation step during the production of a meat analogue results in a product with desirable eating qualities, improved chewiness, integrity, and firmness, when compared to a non-fermented product [241]. Similarly, the functional properties of various fermented products are enhanced by filamentous strains such as A. oryzae, R. oryzae, Fusarium venenatum, and Neurospora intermedia [242,243,244,245,246,247]. Such filamentous species have high-quality proteins, and their mycelia are rich in fiber and polyunsaturated fatty acids, which are modified through controlled denaturation processes to give them a meaty texture [17,248].
Fermentation is shown to improve the organoleptic quality of the final products. However, it is worth noting that excessive microbial activity during fermentation, mainly enzymes and generating organic acids and microbial volatiles, can be associated with unfavorable changes in product sensation and texture. For example, over-fermentation can lead to the accumulation of flavor compounds such as esters, creating an overly fruity aroma. It can also cause the production of other fermentation off flavors such as propionic acid, ferulic acid, and 2,3-pentanedione, which can adversely affect the organoleptic quality of fermented products [249]. Similarly, microbial enzymes and frequent acidification processes during fermentation may be associated with significant changes in product texture, and their suitability for plant-based meat alternatives should be further investigated. For example, cassava starch fermented with B. subtills, L. plantarum, and Candida krusei showed lower water absorption, lower swelling capacity, lower adhesiveness, and lower viscosity compared to non-fermented samples [250]. These findings highlight the importance of considering and monitoring sensory effects in order to effectively utilize fermentation to improve the safety and nutritional features of plant-based meat analogs.

5. Plant-Based Meat Analogs and Starter Culture Technology

Fermentation technology may be a good way to improve the quality and acceptability of plant-based meat and starter cultures can be used to modulate fermentation outcomes. So far, no starter cultures have been designed to fulfill these characteristics. The success stories of developing new starter cultures for numerous foods gives us optimism about its eventual adoption here. Starter cultures have been used to improve the texture, flavor, appearance, and nutritional quality of tempeh, bread, cheese, yogurt, coffee, and sausage to satisfy consumer preferences [37,78,251,252,253,254,255]. Given the crucial role of microorganisms in improving the characteristics of plant ingredients, it is clear that starter cultures show great potential in producing ingredients that better mimic the characteristics of real meat and overcome the current disadvantages associated with the use of additives or extensive processing steps. To choose the best starter cultures, it is important to assess the capacity of the microorganisms to carry out the desired biotransformation and their potential for commercial development (Figure 1). Laboratory assays have been used in the traditional microbial screening process for these characteristics, and modern bioinformatics tools such as the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) database may also be used to help scientists look for suitable microbial candidates [256,257,258]. The general recommendations for designing a starter culture to enhance safety and nutrition in plant-based meat analogs are given below.
  • Based on the above discussion, most ingredients used for producing plant-based meat, such as legumes, have significantly high protein, carbohydrate, and fat concentrations, as well as anti-nutritional factors. Starter cultures with strong enzymatic activity, including proteases, lipases, amylases, and phytases, are needed to transform these components. Degradation of these substances improves the digestibility of the final product, as well as reducing the allergenicity and anti-nutritional factor content of plant-based meat, as mentioned above. Furthermore, attention should be given to microorganisms known for producing desired volatile and non-volatile profiles. Conventional and advanced methodologies that have been applied to measure these microbial activities in other areas of study include plate assay, colorimetry, chromatography, microcalorimetry, and sensory tests, all of which can be applied to microbial screening [259,260,261].
  • The fermentation of the plant ingredients used in meat analogs has been linked to health benefits including an increase in the level of essential amino acids, omega-3 fatty acids, bioactive compounds, probiotics, and an improvement in the meat analog’s safety and stability. These features have potential physiological roles in the human body and should be considered when screening for suitable starter cultures. Selecting the right microorganisms with such characteristics as the main fermenting microorganism or as the coculture may boost the acceptability of plant-based meat analogs. Laboratory and clinical studies that have been widely applied to test the safety and health benefits of fermented products may be employed in the microbial screening process for plant-based meat analogs [258,262,263].
  • Using the available microbial survey data of plant ingredients and meat analogs, the selected strains should be examined for their ability to adapt, compete with the natural microflora, as well as other microbial contaminates and food pathogens, that may present in the raw ingredients during and after processing. An in-depth investigation of microbial safety, and biodegradation capability to toxic compounds include mycotoxins and biogenic amines, should be considered. This criterion can be determined by exposing the selected strains to different stressors (such as high temperature, high salt, pH, and other additives), as well as observing how they react to microflora, foodborne pathogens, and toxic compounds that are frequently found in raw ingredients and processed foods. Successful growth under such stressful conditions is considered a potential indicator of high fermentation performance of the selected isolates. Additionally, factors such as inoculum size, inoculation time, and incubation parameters should be controlled to ensure successful fermentation with desirable results. Similar approaches have been applied to develop starter cultures for other food products [264,265,266].
  • Additionally, for commercial applications, selected strains designed for starter culture should be able to be cultivated on available and cheap substrates to lower production costs. In addition, the strains should tolerate downstream processes such as air drying, freeze drying, packaging, and rehydration to ensure stability during storage and handling [267,268].
  • With current advancements in molecular techniques, screening and gene editing may be used to increase the capability of the selected isolates to desirably interact with the food matrix. A similar approach was used to improve LAB strains in the meat and dairy fermentation process, which involved no extra risk compared to the use of wild strains [269,270,271]. Genome editing technologies, like CRISPR-Cas9, can be used to eliminate specific DNA sequences from a microbial genome that control mycotoxin or BA biosynthesis, or to add desired genes that biocontrol undesired microorganisms and toxins. Despite the fact that these applications can reduce costs, and improve strain capabilities, using genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food may trigger public concerns [206,272,273].
  • Before starting the development of starter cultures and their commercialization, the Nagoya protocol should be considered. Based on this protocol, prior informed consent and mutually agreed terms must be built by the research provider describing access to the resources and benefit shares [274].

6. Conclusions

Persuading the general population to adopt plant-based meat analogs as a protein source has been challenging due to difficulties in mimicking the taste and texture of real meat. Furthermore, the current approach of making plant-based meat alternatives by using different ingredients and heavy mechanical processes is costly and has health concerns. Our survey of the literature indicates fermentation with different microorganisms to be an efficient way of overcoming these drawbacks and reducing the need for excessive additives and heavy processes. Fermentation additionally reduces the anti-nutritive levels and allergenicity, as well as increases digestibility and micronutrient bioavailability, and improves safety and sensory quality. To support the market growth of plant-based meat alternatives, additional studies are required to advance our understanding of how fermentation and starter culture technology can improve the quality of plant-based meat alternatives, with special consideration to the final product’s sensory quality.

Author Contributions

H.E. contributed to every section of the manuscript, conceptualized the idea, and wrote the first draft; X.Y.S. and X.H.C. revised and edited the manuscript; R.O. and Y.C. conceptualized the idea, wrote and reviewed the manuscript, and supervised. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) under the CRF-ATR Programme.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be available upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Font-i-Furnols, M.; Guerrero, L. Consumer Preference, Behavior and Perception about Meat and Meat Products: An Overview. Meat Sci. 2014, 98, 361–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Markets and Markets. 2019. “Plant-Based Protein Market | Industry Size, Share, Analysis, Trends and Forecasts - 2025”. Available online: https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/plant-based-protein-market-14715651.html (accessed on 20 July 2023).
  3. Bonny, S.P.F.; Gardner, G.E.; Pethick, D.W.; Hocquette, J.-F. What Is Artificial Meat and What Does It Mean for the Future of the Meat Industry? J. Integr. Agric. 2015, 14, 255–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Weinrich, R.; Strack, M.; Neugebauer, F. Consumer Acceptance of Cultured Meat in Germany. Meat Sci. 2020, 162, 107924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hoek, A.C.; Luning, P.A.; Weijzen, P.; Engels, W.; Kok, F.J.; De Graaf, C. Replacement of Meat by Meat Substitutes. A Survey on Person-and Product-Related Factors in Consumer Acceptance. Appetite 2011, 56, 662–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Alexander, P.; Brown, C.; Arneth, A.; Dias, C.; Finnigan, J.; Moran, D.; Rounsevell, M.D.A. Could Consumption of Insects, Cultured Meat or Imitation Meat Reduce Global Agricultural Land Use? Glob. Food Secur. 2017, 15, 22–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Boukid, F. Plant-Based Meat Analogues: From Niche to Mainstream. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2021, 247, 297–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Xazela, N.M.; Hugo, A.; Marume, U.; Muchenje, V. Perceptions of Rural Consumers on the Aspects of Meat Quality and Health Implications Associated With Meat Consumption. Sustainability 2017, 9, 830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Mohamed, Z.; Terano, R.; Yeoh, S.J.; Iliyasu, A. Opinions of Non-Vegetarian Consumers Among the Chinese Community in Malaysia Toward Vegetarian Food and Diets. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2017, 23, 80–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Imran, M.; Liyan, Z. Production of Plant-Based Meat: Functionality, Limitations and Future Prospects. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2023, 249, 2189–2213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Smetana, S.; Mathys, A.; Knoch, A.; Heinz, V. Meat Alternatives: Life Cycle Assessment of Most Known Meat Substitutes. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2015, 20, 1254–1267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Fresán, U.; Marrin, D.L.; Mejia, M.A.; Sabaté, J. Water Footprint of Meat Analogs: Selected Indicators According to Life Cycle Assessment. Water 2019, 11, 728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Dekkers, B.L.; Boom, R.M.; van der Goot, A.J. Structuring Processes for Meat Analogues. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 81, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. He, J.; Evans, N.M.; Liu, H.; Shao, S. A Review of Research on Plant-based Meat Alternatives: Driving Forces, History, Manufacturing, and Consumer Attitudes. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2020, 19, 2639–2656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Singh, M.; Trivedi, N.; Enamala, M.K.; Kuppam, C.; Parikh, P.; Nikolova, M.P.; Chavali, M. Plant-Based Meat Analogue (PBMA) as a Sustainable Food: A Concise Review. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2021, 247, 2499–2526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Joshi, V.K.; Kumar, S. Meat Analogues: Plant Based Alternatives to Meat Products-A Review. Int. J. Food Ferment. Technol. 2015, 5, 107–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kumar, P.; Chatli, M.K.; Mehta, N.; Singh, P.; Malav, O.P.; Verma, A.K. Meat Analogues: Health Promising Sustainable Meat Substitutes. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2017, 57, 923–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Asgar, M.; Fazilah, A.; Huda, N.; Bhat, R.; Karim, A.A. Nonmeat Protein Alternatives as Meat Extenders and Meat Analogs. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2010, 9, 513–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Singh, P.; Kumar, R.; Sabapathy, S.N.; Bawa, A.S. Functional and Edible Uses of Soy Protein Products. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2008, 7, 14–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bakhsh, A.; Lee, S.-J.; Lee, E.-Y.; Hwang, Y.-H.; Joo, S.-T. Evaluation of Rheological and Sensory Characteristics of Plant-Based Meat Analog with Comparison to Beef and Pork. Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 2021, 41, 983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hu, F.B.; Otis, B.O.; McCarthy, G. Can Plant-Based Meat Alternatives Be Part of a Healthy and Sustainable Diet? JAMA 2019, 322, 1547–1548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ettinger, L.; Falkeisen, A.; Knowles, S.; Gorman, M.; Barker, S.; Moss, R.; McSweeney, M.B. Consumer Perception and Acceptability of Plant-Based Alternatives to Chicken. Foods 2022, 11, 2271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Toh, D.W.K.; SRV, A.; Henry, C.J. Unknown Impacts of Plant-Based Meat Alternatives on Long-Term Health. Nat. Food 2022, 3, 90–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Jahn, S.; Furchheim, P.; Strässner, A.-M. Plant-Based Meat Alternatives: Motivational Adoption Barriers and Solutions. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Flint, M.; Bowles, S.; Lynn, A.; Paxman, J.R. Novel Plant-Based Meat Alternatives: Future Opportunities and Health Considerations. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2023, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Santo, R.E.; Kim, B.F.; Goldman, S.E.; Dutkiewicz, J.; Biehl, E.; Bloem, M.W.; Neff, R.A.; Nachman, K.E. Considering Plant-Based Meat Substitutes and Cell-Based Meats: A Public Health and Food Systems Perspective. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2020, 4, 134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Aganga, A.A.; Tshwenyane, S.O. Feeding Values and Anti-Nutritive Factors of Forage Tree Legumes. Pak. J. Nutr. 2003, 2, 170–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Tomova, A.; Bukovsky, I.; Rembert, E.; Yonas, W.; Alwarith, J.; Barnard, N.D.; Kahleova, H. The Effects of Vegetarian and Vegan Diets on Gut Microbiota. Front. Nutr. 2019, 6, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wood, P.; Tavan, M. A Review of the Alternative Protein Industry. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2022, 47, 100869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gänzle, M.G. From Gene to Function: Metabolic Traits of Starter Cultures for Improved Quality of Cereal Foods. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2009, 134, 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sakandar, H.A.; Hussain, R.; Khan, Q.F.; Zhang, H. Functional Microbiota in Chinese Traditional Baijiu and Mijiu Qu (Starters): A Review. Food Res. Int. 2020, 138, 109830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bourdichon, F.; Casaregola, S.; Farrokh, C.; Frisvad, J.C.; Gerds, M.L.; Hammes, W.P.; Harnett, J.; Huys, G.; Laulund, S.; Ouwehand, A. Food Fermentations: Microorganisms with Technological Beneficial Use. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2012, 154, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hansen, E.B. Starter Cultures: Uses in the Food Industry. In Encyclopedia of Food Microbiology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 529–534. [Google Scholar]
  34. Elhalis, H.; Cox, J.; Frank, D.; Zhao, J. Microbiological and Chemical Characteristics of Wet Coffee Fermentation Inoculated With Hansinaspora Uvarum and Pichia Kudriavzevii and Their Impact on Coffee Sensory Quality. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 713969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Cassimiro, D.M.d.J.; Batista, N.N.; Fonseca, H.C.; Naves, J.A.O.; Dias, D.R.; Schwan, R.F. Coinoculation of Lactic Acid Bacteria and Yeasts Increases the Quality of Wet Fermented Arabica Coffee. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2022, 369, 109627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Whittington, H.D.; Dagher, S.F.; Bruno-Bárcena, J.M. Production and Conservation of Starter Cultures: From “Backslopping” to Controlled Fermentations. In How Fermented Foods Feed a Healthy Gut Microbiota; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 125–138. [Google Scholar]
  37. Papaioannou, G.M.; Kosma, I.S.; Dimitreli, G.; Badeka, A.V.; Kontominas, M.G. Effect of Starter Culture, Probiotics, and Flavor Additives on Physico-Chemical, Rheological, and Sensory Properties of Cow and Goat Dessert Yogurts. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2022, 248, 1191–1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Fiorentini, M.; Kinchla, A.J.; Nolden, A.A. Role of Sensory Evaluation in Consumer Acceptance of Plant-Based Meat Analogs and Meat Extenders: A Scoping Review. Foods 2020, 9, 1334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Fresán, U.; Mejia, M.A.; Craig, W.J.; Jaceldo-Siegl, K.; Sabaté, J. Meat Analogs from Different Protein Sources: A Comparison of Their Sustainability and Nutritional Content. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Samard, S.; Ryu, G.-H. A Comparison of Physicochemical Characteristics, Texture, and Structure of Meat Analogue and Meats. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2019, 99, 2708–2715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Sun, C.; Ge, J.; He, J.; Gan, R.; Fang, Y. Processing, Quality, Safety, and Acceptance of Meat Analogue Products. Engineering 2021, 7, 674–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Younis, K.; Ashfaq, A.; Ahmad, A.; Anjum, Z.; Yousuf, O. A Critical Review Focusing the Effect of Ingredients on the Textural Properties of Plant-Based Meat Products. J. Texture Stud. 2022, 54, 365–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hamed Hammad Mohammed, H.; Jin, G.; Ma, M.; Khalifa, I.; Shukat, R.; Elkhedir, A.E.; Zeng, Q.; Noman, A.E. Comparative Characterization of Proximate Nutritional Compositions, Microbial Quality and Safety of Camel Meat in Relation to Mutton, Beef, and Chicken. LWT 2020, 118, 108714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Roe, M.; Pinchen, H.; Church, S.; Finglas, P. McCance and Widdowson’s The Composition of Foods Seventh Summary Edition and Updated Composition of Foods Integrated Dataset. Nutr Bull 2015, 40, 36–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Negrão, C.C.; Mizubuti, I.Y.; Morita, M.C.; Colli, C.; Ida, E.I.; Shimokomaki, M. Biological Evaluation of Mechanically Deboned Chicken Meat Protein Quality. Food Chem. 2005, 90, 579–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Pires, C.V.; Oliveira, M.G.d.A.; Rosa, J.C.; Costa, N.M.B. Nutritional Quality and Chemical Score of Amino Acids from Different Protein Sources. Food Sci. Technol. 2006, 26, 179–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Barrón-Hoyos, J.M.; Archuleta, A.R.; del Refugio Falcón-Villa, M.; Canett-Romero, R.; Cinco-Moroyoqui, F.J.; Romero-Barancini, A.L.; Rueda-Puente, E. Protein Quality Evaluation of Animal Food Proteins by In-Vitro Methodologies. Food Nutr. Sci. 2013, 2013, 376–384. [Google Scholar]
  48. Ahnan-Winarno, A.D.; Cordeiro, L.; Winarno, F.G.; Gibbons, J.; Xiao, H. Tempeh: A Semicentennial Review on Its Health Benefits, Fermentation, Safety, Processing, Sustainability, and Affordability. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2021, 20, 1717–1767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Murata, K.; Ikehata, H.; Miyamoto, T. Studies on the Nutritional Value of Tempeh. J. Food Sci. 1967, 32, 580–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Haron, H.B.; Raob, N. Changes in Macronutrient, Total Phenolic and Anti-Nutrient Contentsduring Preparation of Tempeh. J. Nutr. Food Sci. 2014, 4, 265. [Google Scholar]
  51. Qin, P.; Wang, T.; Luo, Y. A Review on Plant-Based Proteins from Soybean: Health Benefits and Soy Product Development. J. Agric. Food Res. 2022, 7, 100265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Eze, N.M.; Okwume, U.G.; Eseadi, C.; Udenta, E.A.; Onyeke, N.G.; Ugwu, E.N.; Akubue, B.N.; Njoku, H.A.; Ezeanwu, A.B. Acceptability and Consumption of Tofu as a Meat Alternative among Secondary School Boarders in Enugu State, Nigeria: Implications for Nutritional Counseling and Education. Medicine 2018, 97, e13155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Anwar, D.A.; El-Chaghaby, G. Nutritional Quality, Amino Acid Profiles, Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Scores and Antioxidant Properties of Fried Tofu and Seitan. Food Environ. Saf. J. 2019, 18, 176–190. [Google Scholar]
  54. Sim, S.Y.J.; Srv, A.; Chiang, J.H.; Henry, C.J. Plant Proteins for Future Foods: A Roadmap. Foods 2021, 10, 1967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Muliani, D.; Nathania, E.; Jeslin, J.; Jayanti, Y.N.; Hadrian, E. Food Innovation: Fungi and Vegetables Potential as A Healthy and Sustainable Meat Substitute. Indones. J. Life Sci. 2021, 3, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Sedgwick, P. Convenience Sampling. Bmj 2013, 347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Nigam, P.S.-N. Single Cell Protein: Mycelial Fungi. In Encyclopedia of Food Microbiology; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2000; p. 2034. [Google Scholar]
  58. Gilani, G.S.; Lee, N. Protein | Sources of Food-grade Protein. In Encyclopedia of Food Sciences and Nutrition, 2nd ed.; Caballero, B., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2003; pp. 4873–4879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. O’Donnell, K.; Cigelnik, E.; Casper, H.H. Molecular Phylogenetic, Morphological, and Mycotoxin Data Support Reidentification of the Quorn Mycoprotein Fungus AsFusarium Venenatum. Fungal Genet. Biol. 1998, 23, 57–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Jacobson, M.F.; DePorter, J. Self-Reported Adverse Reactions Associated with Mycoprotein (Quorn-Brand) Containing Foods. Ann. Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2018, 120, 626–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Denny, A.; Aisbitt, B.; Lunn, J. Mycoprotein and Health. Nutr. Bull. 2008, 33, 298–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Akdogan, H. High Moisture Food Extrusion. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 1999, 34, 195–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Baune, M.C.; Terjung, N.; Tülbek, M.Ç.; Boukid, F. Textured Vegetable Proteins (TVP): Future Foods Standing on Their Merits as Meat Alternatives. Future Foods 2022, 6, 100181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Boye, J.; Wijesinha-Bettoni, R.; Burlingame, B. Protein Quality Evaluation Twenty Years after the Introduction of the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score Method. Br. J. Nutr. 2012, 108, S183–S211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Hughes, G.J.; Ryan, D.J.; Mukherjea, R.; Schasteen, C.S. Protein Digestibility-Corrected Amino Acid Scores (PDCAAS) for Soy Protein Isolates and Concentrate: Criteria for Evaluation. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 12707–12712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Riaz, M.N. Texturized Vegetable Proteins. Handb. Food Proteins 2011, 395–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Shanthakumar, P.; Klepacka, J.; Bains, A.; Chawla, P.; Dhull, S.B.; Najda, A. The Current Situation of Pea Protein and Its Application in the Food Industry. Molecules 2022, 27, 5354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. van den Berg, L.A.; Mes, J.J.; Mensink, M.; Wanders, A.J. Protein Quality of Soy and the Effect of Processing: A Quantitative Review. Front. Nutr. 2022, 9, 2148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Craig, W.J.; Mangels, A.R. Position of the American Dietetic Association: Vegetarian Diets. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 2009, 109, 1266. [Google Scholar]
  70. Sha, L.; Xiong, Y.L. Plant Protein-Based Alternatives of Reconstructed Meat: Science, Technology, and Challenges. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 102, 51–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Williams, P.A.; Phillips, G.O. Chapter 1-Introduction to Food Hydrocolloids. In Woodhead Publishing Series in Food Science, Technology and Nutrition, 3rd ed.; Phillips, G.O., Williams, P.A., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2021; pp. 3–26. ISBN 978-0-12-820104-6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Caporgno, M.P.; Böcker, L.; Müssner, 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. Technol. 2020, 59, 102275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Wi, G.; Bae, J.; Kim, H.; Cho, Y.; 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]
  74. McClements, D.J. Development of Next-Generation Nutritionally Fortified Plant-Based Milk Substitutes: Structural Design Principles. Foods 2020, 9, 421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. McClements, D.J. Nanoscale Nutrient Delivery Systems for Food Applications: Improving Bioactive Dispersibility, Stability, and Bioavailability. J. Food Sci. 2015, 80, N1602–N1611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Tyndall, S.M.; Maloney, G.R.; Cole, M.B.; Hazell, N.G.; Augustin, M.A. Critical Food and Nutrition Science Challenges for Plant-Based Meat Alternative Products. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2022, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. McClements, D.J.; Grossmann, L. A Brief Review of the Science behind the Design of Healthy and Sustainable Plant-Based Foods. NPJ Sci. Food 2021, 5, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Elhalis, H.; Chin, X.H.; Chow, Y. Soybean Fermentation: Microbial Ecology and Starter Culture Technology. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2023, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Hadi, J.; Brightwell, G. Safety of Alternative Proteins: Technological, Environmental and Regulatory Aspects of Cultured Meat, Plant-Based Meat, Insect Protein and Single-Cell Protein. Foods 2021, 10, 1226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Huang, H.; Kwok, K.; Liang, H. Effects of Tea Polyphenols on the Activities of Soybean Trypsin Inhibitors and Trypsin. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2004, 84, 121–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Kaur, S.; Sharma, S.; Dar, B.N.; Singh, B. Optimization of Process for Reduction of Antinutritional Factors in Edible Cereal Brans. Food Sci. Technol. Int. 2012, 18, 445–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Rouhana, A.; Adler-Nissen, J.; Cogan, U.R.I.; Frøkiær, H. Heat Inactivation Kinetics of Trypsin Inhibitors during High Temperature-short Time Processing of Soymilk. J. Food Sci. 1996, 61, 265–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Sessa, D.J.; Haney, J.K.; Nelsen, T.C. Inactivation of Soybean Trypsin Inhibitors with Ascorbic Acid plus Copper. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1990, 38, 1469–1474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Yuan, S.H.; Chang, S.K.C. Trypsin Inhibitor Activity in Laboratory-Produced and Commercial Soymilk. In Chemistry, Texture, and Flavor of Soy; ACS Publications: Washington, DC, USA; pp. 23–43. ISBN 1947-5918.
  85. Luo, Y.; Xie, W.; Xie, C.; Li, Y.; Gu, Z. Impact of Soaking and Phytase Treatments on Phytic Acid, Calcium, Iron and Zinc in Faba Bean Fractions. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2009, 44, 2590–2597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Kaleda, A.; Talvistu, K.; Tamm, M.; Viirma, M.; Rosend, J.; Tanilas, K.; Kriisa, M.; Part, N.; Tammik, M.-L. Impact of Fermentation and Phytase Treatment of Pea-Oat Protein Blend on Physicochemical, Sensory, and Nutritional Properties of Extruded Meat Analogs. Foods 2020, 9, 1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Kurek, M.A.; Onopiuk, A.; Pogorzelska-Nowicka, E.; Szpicer, A.; Zalewska, M.; Półtorak, A. Novel Protein Sources for Applications in Meat-Alternative Products—Insight and Challenges. Foods 2022, 11, 957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Asif, M.; Qureshi, I.; Bangroo, S.; Mahdi, S.S.; Sheikh, F.A.; Bhat, M.A.; Alie, B.A.; Khan, M.H.; Dar, N.A.; Dar, Z.A.; et al. Reduction of Phytic Acid and Enhancement of Bioavailable Micronutrients in Common Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in Changing Climatic Scenario BT-Developing Climate Resilient Grain and Forage Legumes; Jha, U.C., Nayyar, H., Agrawal, S.K., Siddique, K.H.M., Eds.; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2022; pp. 59–76. ISBN 978-981-16-9848-4. [Google Scholar]
  89. El Mecherfi, K.-E.; Todorov, S.D.; Cavalcanti de Albuquerque, M.A.; Denery-Papini, S.; Lupi, R.; Haertlé, T.; Dora Gombossy de Melo Franco, B.; Larré, C. Allergenicity of Fermented Foods: Emphasis on Seeds Protein-Based Products. Foods 2020, 9, 792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Gehring, J.; Touvier, M.; Baudry, J.; Julia, C.; Buscail, C.; Srour, B.; Hercberg, S.; Péneau, S.; Kesse-Guyot, E.; Allès, B. Consumption of Ultra-Processed Foods by Pesco-Vegetarians, Vegetarians, and Vegans: Associations with Duration and Age at Diet Initiation. J. Nutr. 2021, 151, 120–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Poti, J.M.; Braga, B.; Qin, B. Ultra-Processed Food Intake and Obesity: What Really Matters for Health—Processing or Nutrient Content? Curr. Obes. Rep. 2017, 6, 420–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Fiolet, T.; Srour, B.; Sellem, L.; Kesse-Guyot, E.; Allès, B.; Méjean, C.; Deschasaux, M.; Fassier, P.; Latino-Martel, P.; Beslay, M. Consumption of Ultra-Processed Foods and Cancer Risk: Results from NutriNet-Santé Prospective Cohort. BMJ 2018, 360, k322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Johns Hopkins Cancer Biologists Find DNA-Damaging Toxins in Common Plant-Based Foods. Available online: https://phys.org/news/2013-03-cancer-biologists-dna-damaging-toxins-common.html (accessed on 19 August 2023).
  94. Gallo, M.; Ferrara, L.; Calogero, A.; Montesano, D.; Naviglio, D. Relationships between food and diseases: What to know to ensure food safety. Food Res. Int. 2020, 137, 109414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Amchova, P.; Kotolova, H.; Ruda-Kucerova, J. Health Safety Issues of Synthetic Food Colorants. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2015, 73, 914–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Fraser, R.Z.; Shitut, M.; Agrawal, P.; Mendes, O.; Klapholz, S. Safety Evaluation of Soy Leghemoglobin Protein Preparation Derived from Pichia Pastoris, Intended for Use as a Flavor Catalyst in Plant-Based Meat. Int. J. Toxicol. 2018, 37, 241–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. López, D.N.; Ingrassia, R.; Busti, P.; Wagner, J.; Boeris, V.; Spelzini, D. Effects of Extraction PH of Chia Protein Isolates on Functional Properties. LWT 2018, 97, 523–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Ogawa, Y.; Donlao, N.; Thuengtung, S.; Tian, J.; Cai, Y.; Reginio, F.C.; Ketnawa, S.; Yamamoto, N.; Tamura, M. Impact of Food Structure and Cell Matrix on Digestibility of Plant-Based Food. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2018, 19, 36–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Zhou, H.; Hu, Y.; Tan, Y.; Zhang, Z.; McClements, D.J. Digestibility and Gastrointestinal Fate of Meat versus Plant-Based Meat Analogs: An in Vitro Comparison. Food Chem. 2021, 364, 130439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Xie, Y.; Cai, L.; Huang, Z.; Shan, K.; Xu, X.; Zhou, G.; Li, C. Plant-Based Meat Analogues Weaken Gastrointestinal Digestive Function and Show Less Digestibility Than Real Meat in Mice. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2022, 70, 12442–12455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Erbersdobler, H.F.; Barth, C.A.; Jahreis, G. Legumes in Human Nutrition. Nutrient Content and Protein Quality of Pulses. Ernahr. Umsch. 2017, 64, 134–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Ingenbleek, Y.; Kimura, H. Nutritional Essentiality of Sulfur in Health and Disease. Nutr. Rev. 2013, 71, 413–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Hell, R.; Hillebrand, H. Plant Concepts for Mineral Acquisition and Allocation. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2001, 12, 161–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Krishnan, H.B.; Jez, J.M. Review: The Promise and Limits for Enhancing Sulfur-Containing Amino Acid Content of Soybean Seed. Plant Sci. 2018, 272, 14–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. van Vliet, S.; Bain, J.R.; Muehlbauer, M.J.; Provenza, F.D.; Kronberg, S.L.; Pieper, C.F.; Huffman, K.M. A Metabolomics Comparison of Plant-Based Meat and Grass-Fed Meat Indicates Large Nutritional Differences despite Comparable Nutrition Facts Panels. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 13828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Wu, G. Important Roles of Dietary Taurine, Creatine, Carnosine, Anserine and 4-Hydroxyproline in Human Nutrition and Health. Amino Acids 2020, 52, 329–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Rokicki, J.; Li, L.; Imabayashi, E.; Kaneko, J.; Hisatsune, T.; Matsuda, H. Daily Carnosine and Anserine Supplementation Alters Verbal Episodic Memory and Resting State Network Connectivity in Healthy Elderly Adults. Front. Aging Neurosci. 2015, 7, 219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Galili, G.; Amir, R. Fortifying Plants with the Essential Amino Acids Lysine and Methionine to Improve Nutritional Quality. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2013, 11, 211–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Ismail, I.; Hwang, Y.-H.; Joo, S.-T. Meat Analog as Future Food: A Review. J. Anim. Sci. Technol. 2020, 62, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Yu, S.; Zeng, W.; Xu, S.; Zhou, J. Expediting the Growth of Plant-Based Meat Alternatives by Microfluidic Technology: Identification of the Opportunities and Challenges. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2022, 75, 102720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Alcorta, A.; Porta, A.; Tárrega, A.; Alvarez, M.D.; Vaquero, M.P. Foods for Plant-Based Diets: Challenges and Innovations. Foods 2021, 10, 293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Blanco-Rojo, R.; Vaquero, M.P. Iron Bioavailability from Food Fortification to Precision Nutrition. A Review. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2019, 51, 126–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Cole, E.; Goeler-Slough, N.; Cox, A.; Nolden, A. Examination of the Nutritional Composition of Alternative Beef Burgers Available in the United States. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2022, 73, 425–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Harnack, L.; Mork, S.; Valluri, S.; Weber, C.; Schmitz, K.; Stevenson, J.; Pettit, J. Nutrient Composition of a Selection of Plant-Based Ground Beef Alternative Products Available in the United States. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2021, 121, 2401–2408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Cutroneo, S.; Angelino, D.; Tedeschi, T.; Pellegrini, N.; Martini, D.; Dall’Asta, M.; Russo, M.D.; Nucci, D.; Moccia, S.; Paolella, G.; et al. Nutritional Quality of Meat Analogues: Results From the Food Labelling of Italian Products (FLIP) Project. Front. Nutr. 2022, 9, 852831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Bryngelsson, S.; Moshtaghian, H.; Bianchi, M.; Hallström, E. Nutritional Assessment of Plant-Based Meat Analogues on the Swedish Market. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2022, 73, 889–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. De Marchi, M.; Costa, A.; Pozza, M.; Goi, A.; Manuelian, C.L. Detailed Characterization of Plant-Based Burgers. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 2049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. McEvoy, C.T.; Temple, N.; Woodside, J. V Vegetarian Diets, Low-Meat Diets and Health: A Review. Public Health Nutr. 2012, 15, 2287–2294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. García-Maldonado, E.; Gallego-Narbón, A.; Vaquero, M. Son Las Dietas Vegetarianas Nutricionalmente Adecuadas? Una Revisión de La Evidencia Científica. Nutr. Hosp. 2019, 36, 950–961. [Google Scholar]
  120. Nychas, G.-J.E.; Panagou, E. Microbiological Spoilage of Foods and Beverages. In Woodhead Publishing Series in Food Science, Technology and Nutrition; Kilcast, D., Subramaniam, P., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2011; pp. 3–28. ISBN 978-1-84569-701-3. [Google Scholar]
  121. Samard, S.; Gu, B.; Ryu, G. 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]
  122. Tóth, A.J.; Dunay, A.; Battay, M.; Illés, C.B.; Bittsánszky, A.; Süth, M. Microbial Spoilage of Plant-Based Meat Analogues. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 8309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Wild, F.; Czerny, M.; Janssen, A.M.; Kole, A.P.; Zunabovic, M.; Domig, K.J. The Evolution of a Plant-Based Alternative to Meat. Agro Food Industry Hi Tech 2014, 25, 45–49. [Google Scholar]
  124. Bawa, A.S.; Anilakumar, K.R. Genetically Modified Foods: Safety, Risks and Public Concerns-a Review. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2013, 50, 1035–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Butler, D.; Reichhardt, T.; Abbott, A.; Dickson, D.; Saegusa, A. Long-Term Effect of GM Crops Serves up Food for Thought. Nature 1999, 398, 651–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Conner, A.J.; Jacobs, J.M.E. Genetic Engineering of Crops as Potential Source of Genetic Hazard in the Human Diet. Mutat. Res. /Genet. Toxicol. Environ. Mutagen. 1999, 443, 223–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Schreuders, F.K.G.; Dekkers, B.L.; Bodnár, I.; Erni, P.; Boom, R.M.; van der Goot, A.J. Comparing Structuring Potential of Pea and Soy Protein with Gluten for Meat Analogue Preparation. J. Food Eng. 2019, 261, 32–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Michel, F.; Hartmann, C.; Siegrist, M. Consumers’ Associations, Perceptions and Acceptance of Meat and Plant-Based Meat Alternatives. Food Qual. Prefer. 2021, 87, 104063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Kyriakopoulou, K.; Dekkers, B.; van der Goot, A.J. Plant-Based Meat Analogues. In Sustainable Meat Production and Processing; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 103–126. [Google Scholar]
  130. Mayer Labba, I.-C.; Steinhausen, H.; Almius, L.; Bach Knudsen, K.E.; Sandberg, A.-S. Nutritional Composition and Estimated Iron and Zinc Bioavailability of Meat Substitutes Available on the Swedish Market. Nutrients 2022, 14, 3903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Shirai, K.; Revah-Moiseev, S.; García-Garibay, M.; Marshall, V.M. Ability of Some Strains of Lactic Acid Bacteria to Degrade Phytic Acid. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 1994, 19, 366–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Sutardi; Buckle, K.A. Phytic Acid Changes in Soybeans Fermented by Traditional Inoculum and Six Strains of Rhizopus Oligosporus. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 1985, 58, 539–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Villacrés, E.; Quelal, M.B.; Fernández, E.; Garcìa, G.; Cueva, G.; Rosell, C.M. Impact of Debittering and Fermentation Processes on the Antinutritional and Antioxidant Compounds in Lupinus Mutabilis Sweet. LWT 2020, 131, 109745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Owens, J.D.; Allagheny, N.; Kipping, G.; Ames, J.M. Formation of Volatile Compounds during Bacillus Subtilis Fermentation of Soya Beans. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1997, 74, 132–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Shrestha, A.K.; Noomhorm, A. Composition and Functional Properties of Fermented Soybean Flour (Kinema). J. Food Sci. Technol. -Mysore 2001, 38, 467–470. [Google Scholar]
  136. Shrestha, A.K.; Dahal, N.R.; Ndungutse, V. Bacillus Fermentation of Soybean: A Review. J. Food Sci. Technol. Nepal 2010, 6, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Coda, R.; Melama, L.; Rizzello, C.G.; Curiel, J.A.; Sibakov, J.; Holopainen, U.; Pulkkinen, M.; Sozer, N. Effect of Air Classification and Fermentation by Lactobacillus Plantarum VTT E-133328 on Faba Bean (Vicia faba L.) Flour Nutritional Properties. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2015, 193, 34–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. Roy, F.; Boye, J.I.; Simpson, B.K. Bioactive Proteins and Peptides in Pulse Crops: Pea, Chickpea and Lentil. Food Res. Int. 2010, 43, 432–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Wang, Y.; Sorvali, P.; Laitila, A.; Maina, N.H.; Coda, R.; Katina, K. Dextran Produced in Situ as a Tool to Improve the Quality of Wheat-Faba Bean Composite Bread. Food Hydrocoll 2018, 84, 396–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Xu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Coda, R.; Säde, E.; Tuomainen, P.; Tenkanen, M.; Katina, K. In Situ Synthesis of Exopolysaccharides by Leuconostoc Spp. and Weissella Spp. and Their Rheological Impacts in Fava Bean Flour. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2017, 248, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Hu, Y.; Piao, C.; Chen, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Wang, D.; Yu, H.; Xu, B. Soybean Residue (Okara) Fermentation with the Yeast Kluyveromyces Marxianus. Food Biosci. 2019, 31, 100439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Vong, W.C.; Liu, S.-Q. Bioconversion of Green Volatiles in Okara (Soybean residue) into Esters by Coupling Enzyme Catalysis and Yeast (Lindnera saturnus) Fermentation. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2018, 102, 10017–10026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  143. Onwurafor, E.U.; Onweluzo, J.C.; Ezeoke, A.M. Effect of Fermentation Methods on Chemical and Microbial Properties of Mung Bean (Vigna radiata) Flour. Niger. Food J. 2014, 32, 89–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Fardiaz, D.; Markakis, P. Oligosaccharides and Protein Efficiency Ratio of Oncom (Fermented Peanut Press Cake). J. Food Sci. 1981, 46, 1970–1971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Xiao, Y.; Xing, G.; Rui, X.; Li, W.; Chen, X.; Jiang, M.; Dong, M. Effect of Solid-State Fermentation with Cordyceps Militaris SN-18 on Physicochemical and Functional Properties of Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) Flour. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 63, 1317–1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Anwar, F.; Latif, S.; Przybylski, R.; Sultana, B.; Ashraf, M. Chemical Composition and Antioxidant Activity of Seeds of Different Cultivars of Mungbean. J. Food Sci. 2007, 72, S503–S510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Wu, H.; Rui, X.; Li, W.; Chen, X.; Jiang, M.; Dong, M. Mung Bean (Vigna radiata) as Probiotic Food through Fermentation with Lactobacillus Plantarum B1-6. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 63, 445–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Tangyu, M.; Muller, J.; Bolten, C.J.; Wittmann, C. Fermentation of Plant-Based Milk Alternatives for Improved Flavour and Nutritional Value. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2019, 103, 9263–9275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Gibson, R.S.; Bailey, K.B.; Gibbs, M.; Ferguson, E.L. A Review of Phytate, Iron, Zinc, and Calcium Concentrations in Plant-Based Complementary Foods Used in Low-Income Countries and Implications for Bioavailability. Food Nutr. Bull. 2010, 31, S134–S146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Arbab Sakandar, H.; Chen, Y.; Peng, C.; Chen, X.; Imran, M.; Zhang, H. Impact of Fermentation on Antinutritional Factors and Protein Degradation of Legume Seeds: A Review. Food Rev. Int. 2021, 39, 1227–1249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Tovar, L.E.R.; Gänzle, M.G. Degradation of Wheat Germ Agglutinin during Sourdough Fermentation. Foods 2021, 10, 340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Tian, S.; Sun, Y.; Chen, Z.; Yang, Y.; Wang, Y. Functional Properties of Polyphenols in Grains and Effects of Physicochemical Processing on Polyphenols. J. Food Qual 2019, 2019, 2793973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Molfetta, M.; Morais, E.G.; Barreira, L.; Bruno, G.L.; Porcelli, F.; Dugat-Bony, E.; Bonnarme, P.; Minervini, F. Protein Sources Alternative to Meat: State of the Art and Involvement of Fermentation. Foods 2022, 11, 2065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. David, L.A.; Maurice, C.F.; Carmody, R.N.; Gootenberg, D.B.; Button, J.E.; Wolfe, B.E.; Ling, A.V.; Devlin, A.S.; Varma, Y.; Fischbach, M.A.; et al. Diet Rapidly and Reproducibly Alters the Human Gut Microbiome. Nature 2014, 505, 559–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Caggianiello, G.; Kleerebezem, M.; Spano, G. Exopolysaccharides Produced by Lactic Acid Bacteria: From Health-Promoting Benefits to Stress Tolerance Mechanisms. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2016, 100, 3877–3886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  156. Biscola, V.; de Olmos, A.R.; Choiset, Y.; Rabesona, H.; Garro, M.S.; Mozzi, F.; Chobert, J.-M.; Drouet, M.; Haertlé, T.; Franco, B.D.G.d.M. Soymilk Fermentation by Enterococcus Faecalis VB43 Leads to Reduction in the Immunoreactivity of Allergenic Proteins β-Conglycinin (7S) and Glycinin (11S). Benef. Microbes 2017, 8, 635–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  157. Meinlschmidt, P.; Schweiggert-Weisz, U.; Eisner, P. Soy Protein Hydrolysates Fermentation: Effect of Debittering and Degradation of Major Soy Allergens. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 71, 202–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Rizzello, C.G.; De Angelis, M.; Coda, R.; Gobbetti, M. Use of Selected Sourdough Lactic Acid Bacteria to Hydrolyze Wheat and Rye Proteins Responsible for Cereal Allergy. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2006, 223, 405–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Yang, A.; Zuo, L.; Cheng, Y.; Wu, Z.; Li, X.; Tong, P.; Chen, H. Degradation of Major Allergens and Allergenicity Reduction of Soybean Meal through Solid-State Fermentation with Microorganisms. Food Funct. 2018, 9, 1899–1909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Scholz, M.B.d.S.; Prudencio, S.H.; Kitzberger, C.S.G.; Silva, R.S. dos S.F. da Physico-Chemical Characteristics and Sensory Attributes of Coffee Beans Submitted to Two Post-Harvest Processes. J. Food Meas. Charact. 2019, 13, 831–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Sun, X.; Shan, X.; Yan, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Guan, L. Prediction and Characterization of the Linear IgE Epitopes for the Major Soybean Allergen β-Conglycinin Using Immunoinformatics Tools. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2013, 56, 254–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Liu, Z.; Fu, Y.; Liu, Y.; Chen, X.; Jiang, M.; Rui, X. Lactic Acid Bacteria Fermented Soy β-Conglycinin: Assessment of Structural Conformational Feature and Immunoglobulin E Reactivity. LWT 2023, 173, 114246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Frias, J.; Song, Y.S.; Martínez-Villaluenga, C.; De Mejia, E.G.; Vidal-Valverde, C. Immunoreactivity and Amino Acid Content of Fermented Soybean Products. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 99–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  164. Jannathulla, R.; Dayal, J.S.; Vasanthakumar, D.; Ambasankar, K.; Muralidhar, M. Effect of Fungal Fermentation on Apparent Digestibility Coefficient for Dry Matter, Crude Protein and Amino Acids of Various Plant Protein Sources in Penaeus Vannamei. Aquac. Nutr. 2018, 24, 1318–1329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Ahmed, A.; Zulkifli, I.; Farjam, A.S.; Abdullah, N.; Liang, J.B.; Awad, E.A. Effect of Solid State Fermentation on Nutrient Content and Ileal Amino Acids Digestibility of Canola Meal in Broiler Chickens. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2014, 13, 3293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Yousif, N.E.; El Tinay, A.H. Effect of Fermentation on Sorghum Protein Fractions and in Vitro Protein Digestibility. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 2001, 56, 175–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  167. Osman, M.A. Changes in Sorghum Enzyme Inhibitors, Phytic Acid, Tannins and in Vitro Protein Digestibility Occurring during Khamir (Local Bread) Fermentation. Food Chem. 2004, 88, 129–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Li, J.; Zhou, R.; Ren, Z.; Fan, Y.; Hu, S.; Zhuo, C.; Deng, Z. Improvement of Protein Quality and Degradation of Allergen in Soybean Meal Fermented by Neurospora Crassa. LWT 2019, 101, 220–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Yadav, S.; Khetarpaul, N. Indigenous Legume Fermentation: Effect on Some Antinutrients and in-Vitro Digestibility of Starch and Protein. Food Chem. 1994, 50, 403–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Cronk, T.C.; Steinkraus, K.H.; Hackler, L.R.; Mattick, L.R. Indonesian Tapé Ketan Fermentation. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1977, 33, 1067–1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Hou, J.-W.; Yu, R.-C.; Chou, C.-C. Changes in Some Components of Soymilk during Fermentation with Bifidobacteria. Food Res. Int. 2000, 33, 393–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Song, Y.-S.; Frías, J.; Martinez-Villaluenga, C.; Vidal-Valdeverde, C.; de Mejia, E.G. Immunoreactivity Reduction of Soybean Meal by Fermentation, Effect on Amino Acid Composition and Antigenicity of Commercial Soy Products. Food Chem. 2008, 108, 571–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  173. Wang, N.-F.; Shi, Y.-H.; Sun, J.; Le, G.-W. Evaluation of Peanut Flour Fermented with Lactic Acid Bacteria as a Probiotic Food. Food Sci. Technol. Int. 2007, 13, 469–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Jannathulla, R.; Dayal, J.S.; Vasanthakumar, D.; Ambasankar, K.; Muralidhar, M. Effect of fermentation methods on amino acids, fiber fractions and anti nutritional factors in different plant protein sources and essential amino acid index for Penaeus (Litopenaeus) vannamei. Indian J. Fish. 2017, 64, 60341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Handa, C.L.; de Lima, F.S.; Guelfi, M.F.G.; da Silva Fernandes, M.; Georgetti, S.R.; Ida, E.I. Parameters of the Fermentation of Soybean Flour by Monascus Purpureus or Aspergillus Oryzae on the Production of Bioactive Compounds and Antioxidant Activity. Food Chem. 2019, 271, 274–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Jeon, H.-L.; Yang, S.-J.; Son, S.-H.; Kim, W.-S.; Lee, N.-K.; Paik, H.-D. Evaluation of Probiotic Bacillus Subtilis P229 Isolated from Cheonggukjang and Its Application in Soybean Fermentation. LWT 2018, 97, 94–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Cui, J.; Xia, P.; Zhang, L.; Hu, Y.; Xie, Q.; Xiang, H. A Novel Fermented Soybean, Inoculated with Selected Bacillus, Lactobacillus and Hansenula Strains, Showed Strong Antioxidant and Anti-Fatigue Potential Activity. Food Chem. 2020, 333, 127527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  178. Singh, M.; Kumar, A.; Singh, R.; Pandey, K.D. Endophytic Bacteria: A New Source of Bioactive Compounds. 3 Biotech 2017, 7, 315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Lyu, X.; Lee, J.; Chen, W.N. Potential Natural Food Preservatives and Their Sustainable Production in Yeast: Terpenoids and Polyphenols. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2019, 67, 4397–4417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Wang, J.; Guleria, S.; Koffas, M.A.G.; Yan, Y. Microbial Production of Value-Added Nutraceuticals. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2016, 37, 97–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Ha, L.T.N. Phenolic Compounds and Human Health Benefits. Vietnam J. Agri. Sci. 2016, 14, 1107–1118. [Google Scholar]
  182. Singh, R.; Kumar, M.; Mittal, A.; Mehta, P.K. Microbial Metabolites in Nutrition, Healthcare and Agriculture. 3 Biotech 2017, 7, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Chuah, H.Q.; Tang, P.L.; Ang, N.J.; Tan, H.Y. Submerged Fermentation Improves Bioactivity of Mulberry Fruits and Leaves. Chin. Herb. Med. 2021, 13, 565–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  184. Bei, Q.; Chen, G.; Lu, F.; Wu, S.; Wu, Z. Enzymatic Action Mechanism of Phenolic Mobilization in Oats (Avena sativa L.) during Solid-State Fermentation with Monascus Anka. Food Chem. 2018, 245, 297–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Gao, M.-Z.; Cui, Q.; Wang, L.-T.; Meng, Y.; Yu, L.; Li, Y.-Y.; Fu, Y.-J. A Green and Integrated Strategy for Enhanced Phenolic Compounds Extraction from Mulberry (Morus alba L.) Leaves by Deep Eutectic Solvent. Microchem. J. 2020, 154, 104598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Rekha, C.R.; Vijayalakshmi, G. Bioconversion of Isoflavone Glycosides to Aglycones, Mineral Bioavailability and Vitamin B Complex in Fermented Soymilk by Probiotic Bacteria and Yeast. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2010, 109, 1198–1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Greiner, R.; Konietzny, U. Phytase for Food Application. Food Technol. Biotechnol. 2006, 44, 125–140. [Google Scholar]
  188. Claxson, A.; Morris, C.; Blake, D.; Sirén, M.; Halliwell, B.; Gustafsson, T.; Löfkvist, B.; Bergelin, I. The Anti-Inflammatory Effects Ofd-Myo-Inositol-1.2.6-Trisphosphate (PP56) on Animal Models of Inflammation. Agents Actions 1990, 29, 68–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Carrington, A.L.; Calcutt, N.A.; Ettlinger, C.B.; Gustafsson, T.; Tomlinson, D.R. Effects of Treatment with Myo-Inositol or Its 1,2,6-Trisphosphate (PP56) on Nerve Conduction in Streptozotocin-Diabetes. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 1993, 237, 257–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  190. Matos, Â.P. The Impact of Microalgae in Food Science and Technology. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 2017, 94, 1333–1350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Koyande, A.K.; Chew, K.W.; Rambabu, K.; Tao, Y.; Chu, D.-T.; Show, P.-L. Microalgae: A Potential Alternative to Health Supplementation for Humans. Food Sci. Hum. Wellness 2019, 8, 16–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Xia, S.; Xue, Y.; Xue, C.; Jiang, X.; Li, J. Structural and Rheological Properties of Meat Analogues from Haematococcus Pluvialis Residue-Pea Protein by High Moisture Extrusion. LWT 2022, 154, 112756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Stiles, W.A.V.; Styles, D.; Chapman, S.P.; Esteves, S.; Bywater, A.; Melville, L.; Silkina, A.; Lupatsch, I.; Grünewald, C.F.; Lovitt, R. Using Microalgae in the Circular Economy to Valorise Anaerobic Digestate: Challenges and Opportunities. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 267, 732–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  194. Shirai, F.; Kunii, K.; Sato, C.; Teramoto, Y.; Mizuki, E.; Murao, S.; Nakayama, S. Cultivation of Microalgae in the Solution from the Desalting Process of Soy Sauce Waste Treatment and Utilization of the Algal Biomass for Ethanol Fermentation. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 1998, 14, 839–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Koutra, E.; Grammatikopoulos, G.; Kornaros, M. Selection of Microalgae Intended for Valorization of Digestate from Agro-Waste Mixtures. Waste Manag. 2018, 73, 123–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Chong, J.W.R.; Khoo, K.S.; Yew, G.Y.; Leong, W.H.; Lim, J.W.; Lam, M.K.; Ho, Y.-C.; Ng, H.S.; Munawaroh, H.S.H.; Show, P.L. Advances in Production of Bioplastics by Microalgae Using Food Waste Hydrolysate and Wastewater: A Review. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 342, 125947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Renuka, N.; Guldhe, A.; Prasanna, R.; Singh, P.; Bux, F. Microalgae as Multi-Functional Options in Modern Agriculture: Current Trends, Prospects and Challenges. Biotechnol. Adv. 2018, 36, 1255–1273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Valero-Cases, E.; Cerdá-Bernad, D.; Pastor, J.-J.; Frutos, M.-J. Non-Dairy Fermented Beverages as Potential Carriers to Ensure Probiotics, Prebiotics, and Bioactive Compounds Arrival to the Gut and Their Health Benefits. Nutrients 2020, 12, 1666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Boukid, F.; Hassoun, A.; Zouari, A.; Tülbek, M.Ç.; Mefleh, M.; Aït-Kaddour, A.; Castellari, M. Fermentation for Designing Innovative Plant-Based Meat and Dairy Alternatives. Foods 2023, 12, 1005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Yan, W.; Jia, X.; Zhang, Q.; Chen, H.; Zhu, Q.; Yin, L. Interpenetrating Polymer Network Hydrogels of Soy Protein Isolate and Sugar Beet Pectin as a Potential Carrier for Probiotics. Food Hydrocoll. 2021, 113, 106453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Marasas, W.F.O.; Gelderblom, W.C.A.; Shephard, G.S.; Vismer, H.F. Mycotoxins: A Global Problem. In Mycotoxins: Detection Methods, Management, Public Health and Agricultural Trade; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2008; pp. 29–39. [Google Scholar]
  202. Lee, J.; Her, J.Y.; Lee, K.G. Reduction of Aflatoxins (B1, B2, G1, and G2) in Soybean-Based Model Systems. Food Chem. 2015, 189, 45–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Tian, F.; Woo, S.Y.; Lee, S.Y.; Park, S.B.; Im, J.H.; Chun, H.S. Mycotoxins in Soybean-Based Foods Fermented with Filamentous Fungi: Occurrence and Preventive Strategies. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2022, 21, 5131–5152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  204. Petchkongkaew, A.; Taillandier, P.; Gasaluck, P.; Lebrihi, A. Isolation of Bacillus Spp. from Thai Fermented Soybean (Thua-nao): Screening for Aflatoxin B1 and Ochratoxin A Detoxification. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2008, 104, 1495–1502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  205. Kumar, V.; Bahuguna, A.; Lee, J.S.; Sood, A.; Han, S.S.; Chun, H.S.; Kim, M. Degradation Mechanism of Aflatoxin B1 and Aflatoxin G1 by Salt Tolerant Bacillus Albus YUN5 Isolated from ‘Doenjang’, a Traditional Korean Food. Food Res. Int. 2023, 165, 112479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  206. Lee, H.J.; Ryu, D. Worldwide Occurrence of Mycotoxins in Cereals and Cereal-Derived Food Products: Public Health Perspectives of Their Co-Occurrence. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2017, 65, 7034–7051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  207. Linares, D.M.; Martín, M.; Ladero, V.; Alvarez, M.A.; Fernández, M. Biogenic Amines in Dairy Products. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2011, 51, 691–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  208. Pircher, A.; Bauer, F.; Paulsen, P. Formation of Cadaverine, Histamine, Putrescine and Tyramine by Bacteria Isolated from Meat, Fermented Sausages and Cheeses. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2007, 226, 225–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Marino, M.; Maifreni, M.; Moret, S.; Rondinini, G. The Capacity of Enterobacteriaceae Species to Produce Biogenic Amines in Cheese. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2000, 31, 169–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Fernández, M.; Hudson, J.A.; Korpela, R.; de los Reyes-Gavilán, C.G. Impact on Human Health of Microorganisms Present in Fermented Dairy Products: An Overview. BioMed Res. Int. 2015, 2015, 412714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Bermúdez, R.; Lorenzo, J.; Fonseca, S.; Franco, I.; Carballo, J. Strains of Staphylococcus and Bacillus Isolated from Traditional Sausages as Producers of Biogenic Amines. Front. Microbiol. 2012, 3, 151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Ladero, V.; Rattray, F.P.; Mayo, B.; Martín, M.C.; Fernández, M.; Alvarez, M.A. Sequencing and Transcriptional Analysis of the Biosynthesis Gene Cluster of Putrescine-Producing Lactococcus Lactis. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2011, 77, 6409–6418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. Fernández, M.; Linares, D.M.; Alvarez, M.A. Sequencing of the Tyrosine Decarboxylase Cluster of Lactococcus Lactis IPLA 655 and the Development of a PCR Method for Detecting Tyrosine Decarboxylating Lactic Acid Bacteria. J. Food Prot. 2004, 67, 2521–2529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  214. Bunčić, S.; Paunović, L.j.; Teodorović, V.; Radišić, D.; Vojinović, G.; Smiljanić, D.; Baltić, M. Effects of Gluconodeltalactone and Lactobacillus Plantarum on the Production of Histamine and Tyramine in Fermented Sausages. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 1993, 17, 303–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  215. Maijala, R.L.; Eerola, S.H.; Aho, M.A.; Hirn, J.A. The Effect of GDL-Induced PH Decrease on the Formation of Biogenic Amines in Meat. J. Food Prot. 1993, 56, 125–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  216. Chen, Y.; Luo, W.; Fu, M.; Yu, Y.; Wu, J.; Xu, Y.; Li, L. Effects of Selected Bacillus Strains on the Biogenic Amines, Bioactive Ingredients and Antioxidant Capacity of Shuidouchi. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2023, 388, 110084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  217. Li, B.; Lu, S. The Importance of Amine-Degrading Enzymes on the Biogenic Amine Degradation in Fermented Foods: A Review. Process Biochem. 2020, 99, 331–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  218. García-Ruiz, A.; González-Rompinelli, E.M.; Bartolomé, B.; Moreno-Arribas, M.V. Potential of Wine-Associated Lactic Acid Bacteria to Degrade Biogenic Amines. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2011, 148, 115–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Beneduce, L.; Romano, A.; Capozzi, V.; Lucas, P.; Barnavon, L.; Bach, B.; Vuchot, P.; Grieco, F.; Spano, G. Biogenic Amine in Wines. Ann. Microbiol. 2010, 60, 573–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Capozzi, V.; Russo, P.; Ladero, V.; Fernandez, M.; Fiocco, D.; Alvarez, M.A.; Grieco, F.; Spano, G. Biogenic Amines Degradation by Lactobacillus Plantarum: Toward a Potential Application in Wine. Front. Microbiol. 2012, 3, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  221. Bäumlisberger, M.; Moellecken, U.; König, H.; Claus, H. The Potential of the Yeast Debaryomyces Hansenii H525 to Degrade Biogenic Amines in Food. Microorganisms 2015, 3, 839–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  222. Gupta, S.; Abu-Ghannam, N. Probiotic Fermentation of Plant Based Products: Possibilities and Opportunities. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2012, 52, 183–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  223. Su, L.-W.; Cheng, Y.-H.; Hsiao, F.S.-H.; Han, J.-C.; Yu, Y.-H. Optimization of Mixed Solid-State Fermentation of Soybean Meal by Lactobacillus Species and Clostridium Butyricum. Pol. J. Microbiol. 2018, 67, 297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  224. Fuhrmeister, H.; Meuser, F. Impact of Processing on Functional Properties of Protein Products from Wrinkled Peas. J. Food Eng. 2003, 56, 119–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  225. Taherian, A.R.; Mondor, M.; Labranche, J.; Drolet, H.; Ippersiel, D.; Lamarche, F. Comparative Study of Functional Properties of Commercial and Membrane Processed Yellow Pea Protein Isolates. Food Res. Int. 2011, 44, 2505–2514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  226. Li, X.; Li, J. The Flavor of Plant-Based Meat Analogues. Cereal Foods World 2020, 65, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  227. Monteiro, C.A.; Cannon, G.; Moubarac, J.-C.; Levy, R.B.; Louzada, M.L.C.; Jaime, P.C. The UN Decade of Nutrition, the NOVA Food Classification and the Trouble with Ultra-Processing. Public Health Nutr. 2018, 21, 5–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  228. Rehrah, D.; Ahmedna, M.; Goktepe, I.; Yu, J. Extrusion Parameters and Consumer Acceptability of a Peanut-Based Meat Analogue. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2009, 44, 2075–2084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  229. Kyriakopoulou, K.; Dekkers, B.; van der Goot, A.J. Functionality of Ingredients and Additives in Plant-Based Meat Analogues. In Foods 10, No. 3: 600; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 103–126. [Google Scholar]
  230. Sakai, K.; Sato, Y.; Okada, M.; Yamaguchi, S. Synergistic Effects of Laccase and Pectin on the Color Changes and Functional Properties of Meat Analogs Containing Beet Red Pigment. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  231. Bohrer, B.M. An Investigation of the Formulation and Nutritional Composition of Modern Meat Analogue Products. Food Sci. Hum. Wellness 2019, 8, 320–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  232. Tuccillo, F.; Wang, Y.; Edelmann, M.; Lampi, A.-M.; Coda, R.; Katina, K. Fermentation Conditions Affect the Synthesis of Volatile Compounds, Dextran, and Organic Acids by Weissella Confusa A16 in Faba Bean Protein Concentrate. Foods 2022, 11, 3579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  233. Piao, M.Y.; Lee, H.J.; Yong, H.I.; Beak, S.-H.; Kim, H.J.; Jo, C.; Wiryawan, K.G.; Baik, M. Comparison of Reducing Sugar Content, Sensory Traits, and Fatty Acids and Volatile Compound Profiles of the Longissimus Thoracis among Korean Cattle, Holsteins, and Angus Steers. Asian-Australas J. Anim. Sci. 2019, 32, 126–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  234. Xu, X.; Chen, X.; Chen, D.; Yu, B.; Yin, J.; Huang, Z. Effects of Dietary Apple Polyphenol Supplementation on Carcass Traits, Meat Quality, Muscle Amino Acid and Fatty Acid Composition in Finishing Pigs. Food Funct. 2019, 10, 7426–7434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  235. Cho, S.-J.; Oh, S.-H.; Pridmore, R.D.; Juillerat, M.A.; Lee, C.-H. Purification and Characterization of Proteases from Bacillus Amyloliquefaciens Isolated from Traditional Soybean Fermentation Starter. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2003, 51, 7664–7670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  236. Jiang, K.; Tang, B.; Wang, Q.; Xu, Z.; Sun, L.; Ma, J.; Li, S.; Xu, H.; Lei, P. The Bio-Processing of Soybean Dregs by Solid State Fermentation Using a Poly γ-Glutamic Acid Producing Strain and Its Effect as Feed Additive. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 291, 121841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  237. Sarkar, P.K.; Tamang, J.P. Changes in the Microbial Profile and Proximate Composition during Natural and Controlled Fermentations of Soybeans to Produce Kinema. Food Microbiol. 1995, 12, 317–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  238. Abbas, H.; Hiol, A.; Deyris, V.; Comeau, L. Isolation and Characterization of an Extracellular Lipase from Mucor Sp Strain Isolated from Palm Fruit. Enzym. Microb. Technol. 2002, 31, 968–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  239. Hiol, A.; Jonzo, M.D.; Rugani, N.; Druet, D.; Sarda, L.; Comeau, L.C. Purification and Characterization of an Extracellular Lipase from a Thermophilic Rhizopus Oryzae Strain Isolated from Palm Fruit. Enzym. Microb. Technol. 2000, 26, 421–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  240. Stødkilde, L.; Ambye-Jensen, M.; Jensen, S.K. Biorefined Organic Grass-Clover Protein Concentrate for Growing Pigs: Effect on Growth Performance and Meat Fatty Acid Profile. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2021, 276, 114943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  241. Gu, B.Y.; Kim, M.H.; Ryu, G.H. Fermentation of Texturized Vegetable Proteins Extruded at Different Moisture Contents: Effect on Physicochemical, Structural, and Microbial Properties. Food. Sci. Biotechnol. 2020, 29, 897–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  242. Day, L. Proteins from Land Plants–Potential Resources for Human Nutrition and Food Security. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2013, 32, 25–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  243. McCarthy, N.A.; Kennedy, D.; Hogan, S.A.; Kelly, P.M.; Thapa, K.; Murphy, K.M.; Fenelon, M.A. Emulsification Properties of Pea Protein Isolate Using Homogenization, Microfluidization and Ultrasonication. Food Res. Int. 2016, 89, 415–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  244. Ruxton, C.H.S.; McMillan, B. The Impact of Mycoprotein on Blood Cholesterol Levels: A Pilot Study. Br. Food J. 2010, 112, 1092–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  245. Souza Filho, P.F.; Nair, R.B.; Andersson, D.; Lennartsson, P.R.; Taherzadeh, M.J. Vegan-Mycoprotein Concentrate from Pea-Processing Industry Byproduct Using Edible Filamentous Fungi. Fungal Biol. Biotechnol. 2018, 5, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  246. Upcraft, T.; Tu, W.-C.; Johnson, R.; Finnigan, T.; Van Hung, N.; Hallett, J.; Guo, M. Protein from Renewable Resources: Mycoprotein Production from Agricultural Residues. Green Chem. 2021, 23, 5150–5165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  247. Williamson, D.A.; Geiselman, P.J.; Lovejoy, J.; Greenway, F.; Volaufova, J.; Martin, C.K.; Arnett, C.; Ortego, L. Effects of Consuming Mycoprotein, Tofu or Chicken upon Subsequent Eating Behaviour, Hunger and Safety. Appetite 2006, 46, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  248. Finnigan, T.; Needham, L.; Abbott, C. Mycoprotein: A Healthy New Protein with a Low Environmental Impact. In Sustainable Protein Sources; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 305–325. [Google Scholar]
  249. Liu, S.-Q. Impact of Yeast and Bacteria on Beer Appearance and Flavour. In Woodhead Publishing Series in Food Science, Technology and Nutrition; Hill, A.E., Ed.; Woodhead Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2015; pp. 357–374. ISBN 978-1-78242-331-7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  250. Numfor, F.A.; Walter Jr, W.M.; Schwartz, S.J. Physicochemical Changes in Cassava Starch and Flour Associated With Fermentation: Effect on Textural Properties. Starch-Stärke 1995, 47, 86–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  251. Jia, R.; Zhang, F.; Song, Y.; Lou, Y.; Zhao, A.; Liu, Y.; Peng, H.; Hui, Y.; Ren, R.; Wang, B. Physicochemical and Textural Characteristics and Volatile Compounds of Semihard Goat Cheese as Affected by Starter Cultures. J. Dairy Sci. 2021, 104, 270–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  252. Korcari, D.; Secchiero, R.; Laureati, M.; Marti, A.; Cardone, G.; Rabitti, N.S.; Ricci, G.; Fortina, M.G. Technological Properties, Shelf Life and Consumer Preference of Spelt-Based Sourdough Bread Using Novel, Selected Starter Cultures. LWT 2021, 151, 112097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  253. Zhou, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Pang, G.; Wang, S. Effect of Inoculation of Starter on Physicochemical Properties and Texture Characteristics of Fermented Beef Jerky. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2021, 45, e15744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  254. Steinkraus, K. Industrialization of Indigenous Fermented Foods, Revised and Expanded; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2004; ISBN 0429215622. [Google Scholar]
  255. Elhalis, H.; Cox, J.; Zhao, J. Coffee Fermentation: Expedition from Traditional to Controlled Process and Perspectives for Industrialization. Appl. Food Res. 2023, 3, 100253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  256. Helmy, M.; Elhalis, H.; Yan, L.; Chow, Y.; Selvarajoo, K. Perspective: Multi-Omics and Machine Learning Help Unleash the Alternative Food Potential of Microalgae. Adv. Nutr. 2022, 14, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  257. Helmy, M.; Smith, D.; Selvarajoo, K. Systems Biology Approaches Integrated with Artificial Intelligence for Optimized Metabolic Engineering. Metab. Eng. Commun. 2020, 11, e00149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  258. Pérez-Miranda, S.; Cabirol, N.; George-Téllez, R.; Zamudio-Rivera, L.S.; Fernández, F.J. O-CAS, a Fast and Universal Method for Siderophore Detection. J. Microbiol. Methods 2007, 70, 127–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  259. Kasana, R.C.; Salwan, R.; Yadav, S.K. Microbial Proteases: Detection, Production, and Genetic Improvement. Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 2011, 37, 262–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  260. Li, K.; Tang, J.; Zhang, Z.; Wu, Z.; Zhong, A.; Li, Z.; Wang, Y. Correlation between Flavor Compounds and Microorganisms of Chaling Natural Fermented Red Sufu. LWT 2022, 154, 112873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  261. Thomson, C.A.; Delaquis, P.J.; Mazza, G. Detection and Measurement of Microbial Lipase Activity: A Review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 1999, 39, 165–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  262. Pimentel, G.; Burton, K.J.; von Ah, U.; Bütikofer, U.; Pralong, F.P.; Vionnet, N.; Portmann, R.; Vergères, G. Metabolic Footprinting of Fermented Milk Consumption in Serum of Healthy Men. J. Nutr. 2018, 148, 851–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  263. Camargo Prado, F.; De Dea Lindner, J.; Inaba, J.; Thomaz-Soccol, V.; Kaur Brar, S.; Soccol, C.R. Development and Evaluation of a Fermented Coconut Water Beverage with Potential Health Benefits. J. Funct. Foods 2015, 12, 489–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  264. dos Santos Cruxen, C.E.; Funck, G.D.; Haubert, L.; da Silva Dannenberg, G.; de Lima Marques, J.; Chaves, F.C.; da Silva, W.P.; Fiorentini, Â.M.; Cruxen, C.E.d.S.; Funck, G.D.; et al. Selection of Native Bacterial Starter Culture in the Production of Fermented Meat Sausages: Application Potential, Safety Aspects, and Emerging Technologies. Food Res. Int. 2019, 122, 371–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  265. Elhalis, H.; Cox, J.; Frank, D.; Zhao, J. Microbiological and Biochemical Performances of Six Yeast Species as Potential Starter Cultures for Wet Fermentation of Coffee Beans. LWT 2021, 137, 110430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  266. Pereira, G.V.d.M.; Miguel, M.G.d.C.P.; Ramos, C.L.; Schwan, R.F. Microbiological and Physicochemical Characterization of Small-Scale Cocoa Fermentations and Screening of Yeast and Bacterial Strains to Develop a Defined Starter Culture. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2012, 78, 5395–5405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  267. Fleet, G.H. Wine Yeasts for the Future. FEMS Yeast Res. 2008, 8, 979–995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  268. Soubeyrand, V.; Julien, A.; Sablayrolles, J.-M. Rehydration Protocols for Active Dry Wine Yeasts and the Search for Early Indicators of Yeast Activity. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2006, 57, 474–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  269. Mogensen, G. Starter Cultures BT-Technology of Reduced-Additive Foods; Smith, J., Ed.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1993; pp. 1–25. ISBN 978-1-4615-2115-0. [Google Scholar]
  270. Xiao, Z.; Lv, C.; Gao, C.; Qin, J.; Ma, C.; Liu, Z.; Liu, P.; Li, L.; Xu, P. A Novel Whole-Cell Biocatalyst with NAD+ Regeneration for Production of Chiral Chemicals. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e8860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  271. Yu, L.; Pei, X.; Lei, T.; Wang, Y.; Feng, Y. Genome Shuffling Enhanced L-Lactic Acid Production by Improving Glucose Tolerance of Lactobacillus Rhamnosus. J. Biotechnol. 2008, 134, 154–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  272. Shi, T.-Q.; Liu, G.-N.; Ji, R.-Y.; Shi, K.; Song, P.; Ren, L.-J.; Huang, H.; Ji, X.-J. CRISPR/Cas9-Based Genome Editing of the Filamentous Fungi: The State of the Art. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2017, 101, 7435–7443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  273. Sarrocco, S.; Vannacci, G. Preharvest Application of Beneficial Fungi as a Strategy to Prevent Postharvest Mycotoxin Contamination: A Review. Crop. Prot. 2018, 110, 160–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  274. Johansen, E. Future Access and Improvement of Industrial Lactic Acid Bacteria Cultures. Microb. Cell Fact. 2017, 16, 230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Starter cultures selecting criteria for plant-based meat analogs to improve the nutrient and safety aspects, created by BioRender.com.
Figure 1. Starter cultures selecting criteria for plant-based meat analogs to improve the nutrient and safety aspects, created by BioRender.com.
Foods 12 03222 g001
Table 1. Comparison of nutritional content, selected advantages and disadvantages of conventional meat and plant-based meat alternatives.
Table 1. Comparison of nutritional content, selected advantages and disadvantages of conventional meat and plant-based meat alternatives.
FoodNutritional Content (%)AdvantagesDisadvantagesReferences
ProteinFatPDCAAS 1
MeatHigh protein content and protein digestibility
High consumer acceptance and sensory quality
Good source of iron and vitamin B12
Resource-intensive production
Animal-welfare concerns
Red meat consumption linked to adverse health effects (e.g., cancer and cardiovascular disease)
Chicken22.3–22.70.9–2.10.95[43,44,45]
Beef20.6–22.54.3–6.80.92[43,44,46]
Pork21.84.0-[44,47]
Mutton20.2–21.64.6–8.00.99[43,44]
Meat alternatives
Tempeh (fermented whole soybean)61.9–56.98.4–23.90.92–0.99Good source of protein, low in saturated fat
Good source of iron and fiber
Free of cholesterol
High digestibility
More resource-efficient production than meat
Low allergenicity, fermentation breaks down allergenic proteins
Lack sulfur-containing amino acids, including methionine and cysteine
Lack of vitamin B12, except if vitamin B12-producing bacteria present during fermentation
Low consumer acceptance
Sensory quality is different from meat
[48,49,50]
Tofu (made from soymilk)11.37.84 0.56–0.70Rich in B vitamins, and low in sodium
Net protein utilization (NPU) is estimated to be around 65%, making it comparable to chicken meat in terms of assimilation and digestion
More resource efficient production than meat
Lack sulfur-containing amino acids
Lower digestibility than meat
Loss of nutritional and nutraceutical contents during processing
Presence of anti-nutritive factors
Lack flavors causing a low consumer acceptability
[51,52,53,54]
Seitan (made from wheat gluten)34.30.78 0. 23Consumption of 100 g provides 61.2–74.5% of recommended daily proteinLow in lysine[53,55,56]
Its fibrous structure and high protein content make it an excellent meat substituteLow digestibility
Its sensory properties can be easily modulated by spices and flavors during manufacturing due to its neutral taste and aromaSensory quality is closer to meat than tempeh and tofu but still not a perfect real meat analogy
Quorn (mycoprotein, made from Fusarium venenatum)9.4–11.52.60.91High protein digestibility, low in saturated fat
Low antinutrient content
More resource-efficient production than meat
High fiber content
Texture more like meat compared to plant proteins
Lower levels of iron and vitamin B12 than real meat
May cause allergies and/or gastrointestinal symptoms
Possible presence of mycotoxins after inoculating F. venenatum into rice culture
[57,58,59,60,61]
Texturized
plant protein 2

Soybean isolates
Wheat gluten
Pea protein concentrates
 


87.0

80.0
50.0–85.0
 


<0.1
-

<1
 


~1.0

0.26
0.73
High protein content, low in saturated fat, free from cholesterol
Fibrous structure and texture like meat
Possible to blend protein sources to achieve a more complete amino acid profile
Deficient in micronutrients that are common in meat (e.g., vitamin B12 and iron)
Considered as ultra-processed foods associated with adverse health effects
Usually not clean label as additives are added to modulate the sensory properties (e.g., texture, color, and flavor). These additives may not diffuse in the product homogeneously, leading the worse sensory quality than meat
[62,63,64,65,66,67,68]
1 PDCAAS = Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score; 2 most common protein sources, which are used in plant-based meat analogs.
Table 2. Main approaches used in plant-based meat analog production to improve safety and nutrition of the final products, their positive contribution, and current limitations.
Table 2. Main approaches used in plant-based meat analog production to improve safety and nutrition of the final products, their positive contribution, and current limitations.
TargetIngredients and ProcessesFunctionsLimitation of the
Current Methods
References
Enhance product safetyHeat
Add ascorbic acid, essential oils, curcumin, polyphenols, tocopherols, spices, carotenoids, and herbs
Minimize product contamination and food poisoning
Improve product shelf-life and health
Survival of food spoilage and pathogens
Resistance of anti-nutritional factors, such as saponins, alkaloids, phytates
Failure to completely remove allergens such as soybean protein and gluten
Some used additives are correlated to human diseases and public concerns
Considered as ultra-processed products cause obesity and cancer
[70,77,89,91,92,112,122,127]
Improve product nutritionBlend proteins, carbohydrates, and oils
Fortification and encapsulation for micronutrients, including minerals, and vitamins
Qualify as good sources of protein, energy, and fiber
Increases the concentration and bioavailability of essential nutrients overcome their deficiencies
The extensiveness of processes and functional ingredients and additives make it an expensive purchase
Damage heat-labile nutrients during processing
Presence of phytates reduces bioavailability of essential minerals
[74,75,76,112,119]
Table 3. Microorganisms’ contributions to the nutrition and safety of plant-based meat alternatives.
Table 3. Microorganisms’ contributions to the nutrition and safety of plant-based meat alternatives.
Fermentation byContributions toReferences
Bacillus subtilis/Bacillus velezensis/
Ligilactobacillus salivarius/Weissella spp./Leuconostoc spp./Lactiplantibacillus plantarum
Lactobacillus casei/
Pichia anomala/Saccharomyces cerevisiae/
Neurospora crassa/Monascus purpureus/Aspergillus oryzae/
Rhizopus oligosporus
Improves digestibility (breakdown of polysaccharides, proteins, and lipids)[134,135,136,164,165,166,167]
Weissella spp./Leuconostoc spp.
L. plantarum/
L. casei
Decreases trypsin inhibitors, phytates, tannins, and convicine[137,139,140]
Kluyveromyces marxianus/
Lindnera saturnus
Decreases phytic acid and trypsin inhibitors[141,142]
A. oryzaeReduces trypsin inhibitors and phytic acid[16,143]
Rhizopus spp./N. crassaReduces glycinin, β-conglycinin, trypsin inhibitors, and oligosaccharides[144,145]
L. casei/Lacticaseibacillus helveticus/
Enterococcus faecalis/
B. subtilis/A. oryzae
Reduces allergenicity[89,156,157,158,159]
Bifidobacterium speciesIncreases protein concentration[171]
L. plantarum/
L. acidophilus
Increases the levels of methionine, tryptophan, and lysine
Competes and reduces the growth of spoilage and pathogenic microorganisms
[153,172,173]
B. subtilis/B. velezensis/L. plantarum/
P. anomala/S. cerevisiae/N. crassa/M. purpureus/A. oryzae/R. oligosporus
Increases phenolics, flavonoids, antioxidants, and antimicrobials
Enhances digestibility
Decreases allergenicity
[168,175,176,177]
L. acidophilus/L. delbrueckii/L. salivarius/C. butyricum/S. boulardiiProbiotics health benefits[222,223]
Aspergillus spp./Penicillium spp./Fusarium spp.Secretes mycotoxins (carcinogens)
Decreases immunity
[201]
B. subtilis/B. amyloliquefaciens
Lactobacillus spp./Enterococcus spp./Lactococcus spp./Leuconostoc spp./Streptococcus spp.
Forms biogenic amines[210,212,213]
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

Elhalis, H.; See, X.Y.; Osen, R.; Chin, X.H.; Chow, Y. Significance of Fermentation in Plant-Based Meat Analogs: A Critical Review of Nutrition, and Safety-Related Aspects. Foods 2023, 12, 3222. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12173222

AMA Style

Elhalis H, See XY, Osen R, Chin XH, Chow Y. Significance of Fermentation in Plant-Based Meat Analogs: A Critical Review of Nutrition, and Safety-Related Aspects. Foods. 2023; 12(17):3222. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12173222

Chicago/Turabian Style

Elhalis, Hosam, Xin Yi See, Raffael Osen, Xin Hui Chin, and Yvonne Chow. 2023. "Significance of Fermentation in Plant-Based Meat Analogs: A Critical Review of Nutrition, and Safety-Related Aspects" Foods 12, no. 17: 3222. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12173222

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