Food and Drug Department, University of Parma, Parco Area delle Scienze, 27/A, 43124 Parma, Italy.
Interdepartmental Centre for Measurements, Parco Area delle Scienze, 23/A, 43124 Parma, Italy.
Food Res Int. 2023 Oct;172:113183. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2023.113183. Epub 2023 Jun 28.
Nowadays, consumers are increasingly inclined toward plant-based meat analogues for sake of food security, safety, and sustainability. This growing interest, not only from consumers but also from food companies, brought the offer on the market to be wide and vast. From our previous study it emerged that the market supply, especially the Italian one, is diversified both in terms of protein sources and nutrient content. Although these products are increasingly consumed, for most of the meat analogues today on the market, little is still known about their actual protein quality and digestibility. To fill this gap, in this study different commercial plant-based burgers (2 soy-based and 2 pea-based) were selected and compared to two beef burgers, as controls, in terms of protein quality and digestibility. The findings of this study demonstrated the essential amino acidic profile lacks lysine for almost all burgers (including the meat-based ones) compared to the amino acid scoring pattern set by FAO/WHO (for older children and adults), even if the sum of essential amino acids was within the range of sufficiency. All samples showed good initial protein integrity with low hydrolysis (above 6%) and percentage of D-enantiomers (above 15%). The study of the digestibility, performed by the validated INFOGEST in vitro model, showed better protein solubilisation in the case of meat burgers (63 ± 3% and 61 ± 8%), but a good digestibility also in the case of plant-based ones (from 55% to 40%). The degree of hydrolysis of the solubilised proteins was very high in all samples (from 65% to 40%) indicating a very good protein accessibility to digestive enzymes. The analysis of the peptide fraction of digestates indicated a high prevalence of collagen proteins in beef burgers and of reserve proteins in plant-based burgers. This study showed that the differences between these products are mostly dependent on the quality of the raw materials used, rather than on the vegetal or animal protein source. Therefore, to have a product with a good protein quality and digestibility, independently from the protein origin, the consumer needs to make an accurate choice, carefully reading the ingredient list.
如今，出于食品安全、健康和可持续性等方面的考虑，消费者越来越倾向于选择植物性肉类替代品。这种日益增长的兴趣不仅来自消费者，也来自食品公司，这使得市场供应变得广泛而多样。从我们之前的研究中可以看出，市场供应，尤其是意大利市场，在蛋白质来源和营养成分方面都呈现出多样化。尽管这些产品的消费越来越多，但对于目前市场上的大多数肉类替代品，它们的实际蛋白质质量和消化率仍然知之甚少。为了填补这一空白，本研究选择了不同的商业植物性汉堡（2 种基于大豆的和 2 种基于豌豆的），并与两种牛肉汉堡（作为对照）进行了比较，以评估它们的蛋白质质量和消化率。研究结果表明，与 FAO/WHO（针对儿童和成年人）设定的氨基酸评分模式相比，几乎所有汉堡（包括基于肉类的汉堡）的必需氨基酸图谱都缺乏赖氨酸，尽管必需氨基酸的总和在充足范围内。所有样品的初始蛋白质完整性都很好，水解度低（超过 6%），D-对映异构体百分比高（超过 15%）。通过经过验证的 INFOGEST 体外模型进行的消化率研究表明，肉类汉堡的蛋白质溶解效果更好（63±3%和 61±8%），但植物性汉堡的消化率也很好（55%至 40%）。所有样品的蛋白质溶解度水解程度都很高（65%至 40%），表明蛋白质对消化酶的可及性非常好。消化物中肽段的分析表明，牛肉汉堡中富含胶原蛋白蛋白，而植物性汉堡中富含储备蛋白。本研究表明，这些产品之间的差异主要取决于所用原材料的质量，而不是植物性或动物性蛋白质来源。因此，为了获得具有良好蛋白质质量和消化率的产品，消费者需要根据蛋白质来源以外的因素做出准确的选择，仔细阅读成分表。
