Publications
Sort:
Issue
Nutritional and Processing Characteristic Evaluation and Proteomics Analysis of Chicken Cultured Meat
Scientia Agricultura Sinica 2026, 59(14): 3185-3202
Published: 16 July 2026
Abstract PDF (4.6 MB) Collect
Downloads:0
Objective

This study aimed to clarify the differences in nutritional and processing qualities between cultured meat (CM) and chicken breast (CB), chicken thigh (CT), and to use proteomic technology to elucidate the quality differences, thereby providing a theoretical basis for the food processing of cultured meat.

Method

The compositional differences among CM, CB and CT in proteins, water, fat, vitamins, minerals, fatty acids, and amino acids were evaluated to assess the nutritional quality of CM. pH values, color differences, and water holding capacity were measured to evaluate the processing quality of CM. Finally, proteomic analysis was used to identify differentially expressed proteins among CM, CB and CT, with metabolic pathways annotated using Gene Ontology (GO) and the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) to explain the compositional differences.

Result

CM had higher water content and lower protein content compared with CB and CT, but significant differences were observed in fatty acids, vitamins, and amino acids. The predominant fatty acid in cultured meat was oleic acid (C18:1), while the saturated fatty acid (SFA) content in CM was lower than that in CB and CT. Glutamic acid constitutes the primary amino acid (99.55 mg/100 g), cysteine and tyrosine levels were higher. However, the proportion of essential amino acids (34.99%) was lower than that in CB and CT. Vitamin B1 content (0.09 mg/100 g) in CM was intermediate between CB and CT, but vitamin E content (0.01 mg/100 g) was lower than that in CB and CT. Potassium was also lower than that in CB and CT, while aluminum, iron, and selenium content exceeded those in CB and CT. The hardness and chewiness of CM were lower than those in CB and CT, the loss of centrifugal force was higher than that of CB (14.57%) and CT (12.56%), and the cooking loss was almost the same as that of CB, but significantly lower than that of CT (P<0.05). Through proteomic analysis with VIP>1, 76 differentially expressed proteins were identified among CB, CT and CM, primarily including fructose-1, 5-bisphosphate aldolase (ALDOC) and myosin light chain (MYL1). Structural proteins such as myofibrillar proteins in CM, along with proteins related to muscular system processes and skeletal muscle development, were downregulated. Conversely, fibroblast-associated proteins exhibited up-regulation, such as KANK1, TPM2, and COL5A1.

Conclusion

CM was different from raised meat in nutritional quality. It contained lower protein and essential amino acid ratios while having higher sodium levels than raised meat. However, it demonstrated relatively lower SFA content and contained unsaturated fatty acids. CM also contained higher levels of microelements like iron and selenium, indicating potential for nutritional fortification. The texture of CM was softer, with lower water retention capacity than raised meat, making it more suitable for processing into emulsified sausages and other minced meat products. Proteomic analysis revealed down-regulated expression of structural proteins, such as myofibrillar proteins in CM, resulting in weaker thermal gelation ability and water holding capacity, which might be key factors contributing to its texture differences.

Total 1