A metabolomics comparison of plant-based meat and grass-fed meat indicates large nutritional differences despite comparable Nutrition Facts panels

Abstract A new generation of plant-based meat alternatives—formulated to mimic the taste and nutritional composition of red meat—have attracted considerable consumer interest, research attention, and media coverage. This has raised questions of whether plant-based meat alternatives represent proper...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Stephan van Vliet, James R. Bain, Michael J. Muehlbauer, Frederick D. Provenza, Scott L. Kronberg, Carl F. Pieper, Kim M. Huffman
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Nature Portfolio 2021
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/b9e4aabebd0f460eb41206a8e8f06e79
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:b9e4aabebd0f460eb41206a8e8f06e79
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:b9e4aabebd0f460eb41206a8e8f06e792021-12-02T16:14:46ZA metabolomics comparison of plant-based meat and grass-fed meat indicates large nutritional differences despite comparable Nutrition Facts panels10.1038/s41598-021-93100-32045-2322https://doaj.org/article/b9e4aabebd0f460eb41206a8e8f06e792021-07-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-93100-3https://doaj.org/toc/2045-2322Abstract A new generation of plant-based meat alternatives—formulated to mimic the taste and nutritional composition of red meat—have attracted considerable consumer interest, research attention, and media coverage. This has raised questions of whether plant-based meat alternatives represent proper nutritional replacements to animal meat. The goal of our study was to use untargeted metabolomics to provide an in-depth comparison of the metabolite profiles a popular plant-based meat alternative (n = 18) and grass-fed ground beef (n = 18) matched for serving size (113 g) and fat content (14 g). Despite apparent similarities based on Nutrition Facts panels, our metabolomics analysis found that metabolite abundances between the plant-based meat alternative and grass-fed ground beef differed by 90% (171 out of 190 profiled metabolites; false discovery rate adjusted p < 0.05). Several metabolites were found either exclusively (22 metabolites) or in greater quantities in beef (51 metabolites) (all, p < 0.05). Nutrients such as docosahexaenoic acid (ω-3), niacinamide (vitamin B3), glucosamine, hydroxyproline and the anti-oxidants allantoin, anserine, cysteamine, spermine, and squalene were amongst those only found in beef. Several other metabolites were found exclusively (31 metabolites) or in greater quantities (67 metabolites) in the plant-based meat alternative (all, p < 0.05). Ascorbate (vitamin C), phytosterols, and several phenolic anti-oxidants such as loganin, sulfurol, syringic acid, tyrosol, and vanillic acid were amongst those only found in the plant-based meat alternative. Large differences in metabolites within various nutrient classes (e.g., amino acids, dipeptides, vitamins, phenols, tocopherols, and fatty acids) with physiological, anti-inflammatory, and/or immunomodulatory roles indicate that these products should not be viewed as truly nutritionally interchangeable, but could be viewed as complementary in terms of provided nutrients. The new information we provide is important for making informed decisions by consumers and health professionals. It cannot be determined from our data if either source is healthier to consume.Stephan van VlietJames R. BainMichael J. MuehlbauerFrederick D. ProvenzaScott L. KronbergCarl F. PieperKim M. HuffmanNature PortfolioarticleMedicineRScienceQENScientific Reports, Vol 11, Iss 1, Pp 1-13 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Stephan van Vliet James R. Bain Michael J. Muehlbauer Frederick D. Provenza Scott L. Kronberg Carl F. Pieper Kim M. Huffman A metabolomics comparison of plant-based meat and grass-fed meat indicates large nutritional differences despite comparable Nutrition Facts panels
description	Abstract A new generation of plant-based meat alternatives—formulated to mimic the taste and nutritional composition of red meat—have attracted considerable consumer interest, research attention, and media coverage. This has raised questions of whether plant-based meat alternatives represent proper nutritional replacements to animal meat. The goal of our study was to use untargeted metabolomics to provide an in-depth comparison of the metabolite profiles a popular plant-based meat alternative (n = 18) and grass-fed ground beef (n = 18) matched for serving size (113 g) and fat content (14 g). Despite apparent similarities based on Nutrition Facts panels, our metabolomics analysis found that metabolite abundances between the plant-based meat alternative and grass-fed ground beef differed by 90% (171 out of 190 profiled metabolites; false discovery rate adjusted p < 0.05). Several metabolites were found either exclusively (22 metabolites) or in greater quantities in beef (51 metabolites) (all, p < 0.05). Nutrients such as docosahexaenoic acid (ω-3), niacinamide (vitamin B3), glucosamine, hydroxyproline and the anti-oxidants allantoin, anserine, cysteamine, spermine, and squalene were amongst those only found in beef. Several other metabolites were found exclusively (31 metabolites) or in greater quantities (67 metabolites) in the plant-based meat alternative (all, p < 0.05). Ascorbate (vitamin C), phytosterols, and several phenolic anti-oxidants such as loganin, sulfurol, syringic acid, tyrosol, and vanillic acid were amongst those only found in the plant-based meat alternative. Large differences in metabolites within various nutrient classes (e.g., amino acids, dipeptides, vitamins, phenols, tocopherols, and fatty acids) with physiological, anti-inflammatory, and/or immunomodulatory roles indicate that these products should not be viewed as truly nutritionally interchangeable, but could be viewed as complementary in terms of provided nutrients. The new information we provide is important for making informed decisions by consumers and health professionals. It cannot be determined from our data if either source is healthier to consume.
format	article
author	Stephan van Vliet James R. Bain Michael J. Muehlbauer Frederick D. Provenza Scott L. Kronberg Carl F. Pieper Kim M. Huffman
author_facet	Stephan van Vliet James R. Bain Michael J. Muehlbauer Frederick D. Provenza Scott L. Kronberg Carl F. Pieper Kim M. Huffman
author_sort	Stephan van Vliet
title	A metabolomics comparison of plant-based meat and grass-fed meat indicates large nutritional differences despite comparable Nutrition Facts panels
title_short	A metabolomics comparison of plant-based meat and grass-fed meat indicates large nutritional differences despite comparable Nutrition Facts panels
title_full	A metabolomics comparison of plant-based meat and grass-fed meat indicates large nutritional differences despite comparable Nutrition Facts panels
title_fullStr	A metabolomics comparison of plant-based meat and grass-fed meat indicates large nutritional differences despite comparable Nutrition Facts panels
title_full_unstemmed	A metabolomics comparison of plant-based meat and grass-fed meat indicates large nutritional differences despite comparable Nutrition Facts panels
title_sort	metabolomics comparison of plant-based meat and grass-fed meat indicates large nutritional differences despite comparable nutrition facts panels
publisher	Nature Portfolio
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/b9e4aabebd0f460eb41206a8e8f06e79
work_keys_str_mv	AT stephanvanvliet ametabolomicscomparisonofplantbasedmeatandgrassfedmeatindicateslargenutritionaldifferencesdespitecomparablenutritionfactspanels AT jamesrbain ametabolomicscomparisonofplantbasedmeatandgrassfedmeatindicateslargenutritionaldifferencesdespitecomparablenutritionfactspanels AT michaeljmuehlbauer ametabolomicscomparisonofplantbasedmeatandgrassfedmeatindicateslargenutritionaldifferencesdespitecomparablenutritionfactspanels AT frederickdprovenza ametabolomicscomparisonofplantbasedmeatandgrassfedmeatindicateslargenutritionaldifferencesdespitecomparablenutritionfactspanels AT scottlkronberg ametabolomicscomparisonofplantbasedmeatandgrassfedmeatindicateslargenutritionaldifferencesdespitecomparablenutritionfactspanels AT carlfpieper ametabolomicscomparisonofplantbasedmeatandgrassfedmeatindicateslargenutritionaldifferencesdespitecomparablenutritionfactspanels AT kimmhuffman ametabolomicscomparisonofplantbasedmeatandgrassfedmeatindicateslargenutritionaldifferencesdespitecomparablenutritionfactspanels AT stephanvanvliet metabolomicscomparisonofplantbasedmeatandgrassfedmeatindicateslargenutritionaldifferencesdespitecomparablenutritionfactspanels AT jamesrbain metabolomicscomparisonofplantbasedmeatandgrassfedmeatindicateslargenutritionaldifferencesdespitecomparablenutritionfactspanels AT michaeljmuehlbauer metabolomicscomparisonofplantbasedmeatandgrassfedmeatindicateslargenutritionaldifferencesdespitecomparablenutritionfactspanels AT frederickdprovenza metabolomicscomparisonofplantbasedmeatandgrassfedmeatindicateslargenutritionaldifferencesdespitecomparablenutritionfactspanels AT scottlkronberg metabolomicscomparisonofplantbasedmeatandgrassfedmeatindicateslargenutritionaldifferencesdespitecomparablenutritionfactspanels AT carlfpieper metabolomicscomparisonofplantbasedmeatandgrassfedmeatindicateslargenutritionaldifferencesdespitecomparablenutritionfactspanels AT kimmhuffman metabolomicscomparisonofplantbasedmeatandgrassfedmeatindicateslargenutritionaldifferencesdespitecomparablenutritionfactspanels
_version_	1718384314584924160

A metabolomics comparison of plant-based meat and grass-fed meat indicates large nutritional differences despite comparable Nutrition Facts panels

Ejemplares similares