Skip to main content
ACS AuthorChoice logoLink to ACS AuthorChoice
. 2023 Dec 6;72(5):2697–2707. doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.3c03307

Mycelium: A Nutrient-Dense Food To Help Address World Hunger, Promote Health, and Support a Regenerative Food System

Roberta R Holt †,*, John P Munafo Jr , Julie Salmen §, Carl L Keen , Behroze S Mistry , Justin M Whiteley , Harold H Schmitz ∇,#,
PMCID: PMC10853969  PMID: 38054424

Abstract

graphic file with name jf3c03307_0001.jpg

There is a need for transformational innovation within the existing food system to achieve United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 2 of ending hunger within a sustainable agricultural system by 2030. Mycelium, the vegetative growth form of filamentous fungi, may represent a convergence of several features crucial for the development of food products that are nutritious, desirable, scalable, affordable, and environmentally sustainable. Mycelium has gained interest as technology advances demonstrate its ability to provide scalable biomass for food production delivering good flavor and quality protein, fiber, and essential micronutrients urgently needed to improve public health. We review the potential of mycelium as an environmentally sustainable food to address malnutrition and undernutrition, driven by food insecurity and caloric dense diets with less than optimal macro- and micronutrient density.

Keywords: mycelium, mycofoods, hunger, sustainability, protein, micronutrients

Introduction

The United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 2 (UNSDG2) requires a multidisciplinary approach to achieve its aim of ending hunger while providing food and nutrition security within a sustainable agricultural system by 2030.1 Achieving this goal requires transformational innovations that can be rapidly scaled given that as of 2020 approximately 720–811 million people suffer from hunger, with another 2.4 billion being moderately or severely food insecure.2 Malnutrition increasingly coexists as both undernutrition driven by food insecurity and obesity driven by nutrition insecurity in many regions of the world.3,4 This conundrum emphasizes the urgent need for the development of affordable foods desirable for global consumers and dense in bioavailable nutrients that are required for improving public health. In addition to the development of affordable foods providing better nutrition, an associated challenge will be manufacturing these foods within a food system that is environmentally beneficial and enables resilient agriculture practices.5

New developments with plant-based proteins have created opportunities to improve public health and environmental sustainability while reducing dependence on animal-based food products. Increasingly, dietary recommendations include a greater intake of plant-based foods to reduce noncommunicable chronic disease burden in both the developing and developed world.6,7 In addition to opportunities for improving public health, plant-based diets can lower the impact of food systems on the environment by reducing water use and the production of greenhouse gases.8 However, potential concerns of plant-based diets include the bioaccessibility of essential nutrients not produced endogenously or in sufficient quantity to support health that then must be obtained from the diet and “limiting” amino acids that are not present in sufficient quantity to stimulate protein synthesis. Representative of these concerns are populations with limited dietary protein diversity and a high incidence of anemia, stunting, and other health conditions associated with micronutrient deficiencies. Finally, any changes to an existing food system should be adaptable to the local environment and economic conditions and be sensitive to cultural practices.9

In addition to diets containing more plant-based foods, mycelium produced from filamentous fungi offers opportunities to develop food products that have desirable flavor and texture characteristics that are high in protein quality while providing fiber and essential micronutrients. Historically, not new to the food supply, fungal mycelium has gained interest, as technological advances have aided its formation into a protein biomass for food production. Some of these products are referred to as mycoprotein.10,11 Here, we review the potential of mycelium as a sustainable category of food well positioned to reduce malnutrition and enable the goal of zero hunger. We will first provide a basic understanding of mycelium while outlining the historical perspective of mycelium as a food. This historical perspective is followed by a discussion regarding the nutritional composition of mycelium, its potential benefits for public health, and future research needs in this context. Finally, we discuss the potential of mycelium-based foods, or mycofoods, as an affordable, scalable, and environmentally sustainable new source of high-quality protein for global consumers.

Mycelium Basics

Fungi are one of the largest groups of eukaryotic organisms on the planet. They play many ecological roles in the environment including nutrient and carbon cycling and have been documented to be intimately interconnected with other organisms existing in mutualistic, pathogenic, and saprotrophic lifestyles.12 The fungal kingdom has enormous diversity, and recent estimates have indicated that the species count may range from two to 11 million species, with about 155,598 fungal species formally described to date.1315 Analysis of metabarcoding data has suggested an even larger species number as high as 1.7–13.2 million species.16 Thus, fungi are considered one of the largest and least explored biodiverse resources on the planet.

Accordingly, there has been historical debate, more so than any other group of eukaryotic organisms, as to which groups to include or exclude within a taxonomical group. With advances in technology and expansion in knowledge over the years, most notably in genomics, there has been a shift in the phylogenic classification methodologies employed, moving from taxonomy based on mostly shared key morphological, ecological, and physiological characteristics, to more reliance on the similarity of relevant DNA sequences.17 In addition to a large diversity of species identified via DNA sequencing, fungi also have a diversity of morphological growth forms that are still in use for taxonomical classification. Prior to DNA sequencing, the historical reliance mostly on morphological characteristics added to the complexity of classification.12 For example, one characteristic that has aided in species identification is the size of reproductive structures. If the reproductive structure is visible to the naked eye (i.e., mushroom-forming fungi), the fungus is referred to as a macrofungus. If the reproductive structure is not visible to the naked eye (i.e., yeast), the fungus is referred to as a microfungus. Although considered as artifical taxonomic characters, the terminology is still useful for identification purposes and communication to the public. Additionally, teleomorph refers to fungi in the sexual state and anamorph refers to those in an asexual state. However, some fungi species have only been identified as anamorphs, with these species historically referred to as fungi imperfecti, demonstrating the complexity of a classification system based predominantly on morphological characteristics. With the implementation of modern molecular systematic methodologies, the taxonomy of fungi lacking distinct reproductive morphological structures has been better resolved.

Most commonly, fungi grow vegetatively in the form of elongated cells or hyphae that are often branching and tubelike in appearance. A network of hyphal cells growing together are referred to as mycelium. Within the different taxonomical groups of fungi, hyphae tend to be generally uniform, with some exceptions, for example, the presence or absence of cross-walls within hyphal cells, referred to as septa. In addition, not all fungi grow as hyphae but some grow as discrete single yeast cells. Some species are dimorphic and can switch between hyphal and yeastlike growth stages, with intermediate stages referred to as pseudohyphae. However, the term mycelium is not limited to fungi, but also occurs in other non-fungi organisms including those in Chromista.12 For the purpose of this review, we focus on fungal mycelium.

The kingdom fungi have undergone many phylogenetic revisions in the past century,12 with advances in high-throughput sequencing generating large amounts of meaningful DNA sequencing. Recent phylogenetic analysis has proposed 18 phyla, nested in 9 subkingdoms of fungi (Table 1).17 Within the fungi kingdom, the two main phyla most commonly used in food production are Basidiomycota and Ascomycota; however, some members of the lesser-known Mucoromycota such as Mucor species and Rhizopus species are also used in the production of fermented food products.

Table 1. 9 Subkingdoms and 18 Phyla of Fungi Proposed in 2018 by Tedersoo et al.17.

subkingdom phylum
holomycota rozellomycota
aphelidiomyceta aphelidiomycota
blastocladiomyceta blastocladiomycota
chytridiomyceta chytridiomycota
monoblepharomycota
neocallimastigomycota
olpidiomyceta olpidiomycota
basidiobolomyceta basidiobolomycota
zoopagomyceta entomophthoromycota
kickxellomycota
zoopagomycota
mucoromyceta mucoromycota
mortierellomycota
calcarisporiellomycota
glomeromycota
dikarya entorrhizomycota
basidiomycota
ascomycota

Historical Perspective of Mycelium

Fungi have been identified in the fossil record that spans many different time periods in earth’s geological history. There are many reports of fungi in fossil records. Recently, fossilized fungal mycelium was discovered in sedimentary rocks in the Doushantuo Formation in Guizhou Province of China, from the Ediacaran period which is estimated to be from approximately 635 to 541 million years ago.18 In another study, fossilized structures were described that were morphologically consistent with that of fungi, preserved in the shale of the Grassy Bay Formation in Arctic Canada. These specimens were estimated to be possibly over 1 billion years old.19 In addition to the various ecological roles that fungi play, such as nutrient and carbon cycling, fungi provide a source of food for a diversity of organisms. There are many examples of fungi as a food source for organisms including plants, microbes such as bacteria, fungi, and ciliates, and animals including mollusks, insects, birds, and mammals. Fungi, such as truffles and mushrooms, may have once played a greater role as food for vertebrates; however, it has been hypothesized that as the chemical diversity of toxins in some fungal species increased, some mammals may have diversified their food sources to reduce fungal intake.20

Fungi play a major role in traditional food culture and society, with a long-documented history of intake of a variety of fungi by humans. As microfungi produce a suite of functional metabolites, fermented foods are a primary source of intake. Fermenting microfungi such as Aspergillus oryzae and yeasts such as Zygosaccharomyces sp., Brettanomyces sp., and Saccharomyces sp. often produce metabolites that preserve food that can increase food safety, such as ethanol, 2,3 -butanediol, and 2-phenylethanol. They can also produce various organic acids, such acetic acid, propanoic acid, and butanoic acid. These metabolites not only inhibit spoilage and pathogenic microorganisms but also often impart desirable sensory characteristics to the food. Yeasts have a long history of use in the production of different types of breads and fermented beverages including wine and beer. Some other examples of microfungi used in traditional foods include Rhizopus species to produce tempe and koji, Aspergillus species to produce miso and soy sauce, and Penicillium species to produce cheeses, such as Roquefort and Camembert (Table 2).

Table 2. List of Some Fungal Species Historically Used in Foods.

phylum genus species food product
mucoromycota Mucor M. circinelloides, M. rouxii, M. indicus ragi, murcha, tempe
Rhizopus R. microsporus, R. oligosphorus, R. oryzae tempeh, koji, nuruk, chu, murcha, tempe
ascomycota Neurospora N. sitophila, N. intermedia oncom
Aspergillus A. oryzae koji, miso, soy sauce, textured meat alternative
Fusarium F. venenantum textured meat alternative (mycoprotein)
Penicillium P. roquefortii, P. camembertii cheese
Tuber T. magnatum, T. melanosporum, T. lyonii truffles
Morchella M. esculenta, M. elata, M. rufobrunnea morel mushrooms
basidiomycota Agaricus A. bisporus button mushrooms
Lentinula L. edodes shiitake mushrooms
Boletus B. edulis porcini mushrooms

The consumption of macrofungi, which include mushroom-forming fungi, also has a long history of human consumption and is still a major food source throughout the world. Mushrooms, including wild and cultivated mushrooms, are the fleshy reproductive structure of some macrofungi, most commonly from Basidiomycota including the common button and shitake mushrooms but also from Ascomycota, which includes morel mushrooms and truffles. In 2019–2020, alone, the U.S. mushroom crop totaled 816 million pounds, with a total sales value of $1.15 billion USD.21 Mushrooms are an abundant source of vitamins and other nutrients and are an important contributor to a healthy diet. Mushrooms are low in calories, fat, and sodium and are rich sources of beneficial food constituents such as fiber, selenium, potassium, riboflavin, niacin, and ergosterol that with ultraviolet (UV) light exposure produces vitamin D2.22

In addition to the well-known traditional fungi-based foods (i.e., mushrooms, some cheeses, and soy sauce), the use of fungal mycelium as a food source has been of increasing scientific and commercial interest, especially for certain species that have a good safety profile and can be utilized as a source of high-quality protein and desirable nutrient profile (Table 3). Moreover, mycelial species promoted for commercialization have fast growth rates, good texture, and flavor profile and can be produced in a sustainable and environmentally friendly manner. Thus far, commercially produced mycelium is most commonly derived from the cultivation of microfungi from Ascomycota; however, there are some examples of the utilization of mycelium from mushroom-forming macrofungi from Basidiomycota, such as Lentinula edodes, which produce shitake mushrooms. In this example, since the mycelium or vegetative growth form of the fungus is used in the food product, the product is not referred to as a mushroom, but rather a mycelium. The same is true for mold-forming microfungi used in food products. A mold is a reproductive structure of some microfungi, analogous to a mushroom being the reproductive structure of some macrofungi. If the mycelium of a microfungus is used in the food product, the product itself is not a mold, but rather mycelium from a mold-forming fungus. In contrast, a mold may form on some cheeses, so the term mold is accurate in those cases. Further complicating the nomenclature, the term mold often has negative connotations since most consumers associate the term mold with mycotoxins and mold allergies, even though edible mold-forming fungi are used to produce many commonly consumed foods, such as tempeh, miso, soy sauce, and some cheeses. Thus, there will be a need for consumer education on the differences between toxic molds, edible molds, and mycelium from mold-forming fungi. Moreover, as new mycofoods emerge, the documentation of their safety23,24 will further aid in consumer acceptance of these foods into the mainstream global food market.

Table 3. Commercial Examples of Protein-Rich Mycofoods Marketed as Meat Alternatives83.

species business founding business location company name brand name application
Fusarium venenatum 1985 United Kingdom Marlow Foods Ltd.84 Quorn textured meat alternatives
Fusarium strain flavolapis 2009 United States Nature’s Fynd (Formerly Sustainable Bioproducts, Inc.)84 Fy Protein textured meat alternatives cream cheese alternatives
Fy
Neurospora crassa 2014 United States Emergy Inc. (Formerly Emergy LLC)84 Meati whole-cut meat alternatives
EatMeati
Aspergillus oryzae 2017 United States Prime Roots (formerly known as Terramino Foods)84 Koji textured meat alternatives
Lentinula edodes 2017 Vietnam Emmay84 Smiley Mushroom whole-cut and textured meat alternatives

Mycelium Flavor

Innovative approaches in food chemistry, including textural modifications and in-process flavor development, present an opportunity to design novel mycelium-based food products with enhanced flavor and texture. These technologies can help meet the consumer’s “flavor” and “texture” expectations of mycelium-based food products in a sustainable and environmentally friendly manner. Mycelium-based food products typically have a bland or slightly mushroom-like flavor profile, and as a result, most commercial products have added ingredients such as spices, yeast extract, or natural flavors added (i.e., chicken, beef, etc.). Accordingly, there is an opportunity for more consumer research to determine optimized flavor profiles that are the most appealing to consumers and develop technologies to enhance the flavor without the addition of natural flavors. One current area of research is the development of desirable in-process flavor, utilizing the knowledge of the fundamental biochemistry and flavor chemistry naturally present in different fungi. For example, different species of mushrooms can produce a wide variety of flavors such as Boletus pallidoroseus, with the aroma of beef bouillon, Laetiporus sulphureus, with the flavor and texture of chicken, Boletus sensibilis that smells like curry, andLactarius camphoratus with a maple syrup aroma. Raw mushrooms contain a pool of aroma precursors (i.e., amino acids, peptides, and sugars) that when cooked react to generate odorants that elicit the unique flavor of the cooked mushroom. For example, the lobster mushroom, which is a Russula or Lactarius species of mushroom that has been parasitized byHypomyces lactifluorum, has a prominent seafood-like flavor that develops after only after thermal treatment. The seafood-like flavor is hypothesized to be derived from odorless precursors present in the raw mushroom that upon heating generate seafood-like flavors. Slight differences in the amino acid composition can drastically affect the final flavor chemistry of the cooked product. Many fungi contain the flavor chemistry potential to generate a wide variety of flavors both endogenously and through thermal treatment. This knowledge may also be applied to mycelium-based food products; however, further research is needed in this area.

Mycelium Composition

The Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2020–2025 recommends that an individual’s diet contain a variety of protein foods from both animal and nonanimal sources.6 Foods within the latter are complex whole foods, considerably lower in saturated fat and sodium, while providing dietary fiber, vitamins and minerals, and additional nonessential bioactives. While increased intakes of plant-based foods lower the risk for the development of chronic disease,25 protein quality can be a concern as the cell wall structure and the presence of antinutritional factors can limit both micronutrient and amino acid availability.26,27 The intake of a variety of nonanimal source proteins that ensure completeness of overall essential amino acid intake may overcome these issues. In addition, the provision of protein isolates can improve amino acid availability, but may lower the content of fiber and other beneficial nutrients and bioactives in comparison to the whole food source.26,28

Within the nonanimal protein realm, mycelium research to date shows promise for this food’s incorporation into a healthy diet. Similar to plant proteins, mycelium is low in total fat, which is primarily unsaturated, and a source of fiber (Table 4). On a dry matter basis, the protein content of fungi such as mycelium is on the order of 20–30%.29 Moreover, commercialized species such as Fusarium venenatum and Neurospora crassa are considered high quality in protein with a company-reported protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score (PDCAAS) at or near 1.0.23,30 This indicates that 100 g of protein from these products provide at or near 100% of the essential amino acids31 (Table 5). Moreover, the filamentous nature of mycelium allows for food production via fermentation into products that mimic the texture of meat.32 Mycelial protein is incorporated into a multilayered cellular wall structure of polysaccharides, predominately consisting of β-glucan and a smaller proportion of chitin in the innermost layer near the plasma membrane.33 Chitin, a homopolymer of β-1,4-linked N-acetyl glucosamine units, is the main fibrous polysaccharide found in insect cytoskeletons, fish scales, and fungi.34 The soluble fiber β-glucan from cereals comprise β-1,4 and β-1,3 linked glucose units, with the cholesterol-lowering effects of cereal β-glucan intake being well documented.35 For mycelium, the innermost cell wall predominately consists of either lineal β-1,3 glucan units or β-1,3 glucan units with β-1,6 linkages at branching points.33

Table 4. Raw Ingredient Comparison of Whole Mycelium, Whole Plants, and Animal Foods per 100 ga.

    FAO/WHO 2013 PDCAAS scoring mycofoods
plants
animals
mycoprotein30 mycelium, whole39Neurospora crassa) portabella mushroom, raw85 chickpea, boiled (canned and rinsed)86 soybean raw87 beef, raw (filet)88 chicken, raw, breast meat only89
amount g   100 100 100 100 100 100 100
water g   NR NR 92.8 66.9 67.5 72.5 73.9
calories kcal   86 95 22 138 147 125 120
total fat g   2.9 1.0 0.4 6.0 6.8 3.7 2.6
sat fat g   0.6 0 0 0.2 0.8 1.3 0.6
mono Fat g   0.5 NR 0.04 0.49 1.28 1.76 0.69
poly Fat g   1.8 NR 0.30 0.96 3.2 0.15 0.42
sodium mg   5.0 6.0 9.0 212 15.0 57.0 45.0
carbohydrates g   3 7.4 3.9 22.9 11.0 0 0
fiber g   6 5.3 1.3 6.3 4.2 0 0
sugar g   0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0
protein g   11 12.6 2.1 7.0 13.0 22.9 22.5
EAA
histidine mg/g protein 20 35.5 25.8 27.488 27.7 26.8 43.1 37.3
isoleucine mg/g protein 32 51.8 43.2 38.9 43.0 43.8 52.8 48.9
leucine mg/g protein 66 86.4 74.9 61.6 71.4 71.2 98.3 82.7
lysine mg/g protein 57 82.7 79.5 57.8 67.2 59.6 110.0 96.0
methionine + cysteine mg/g protein 27 NR 32.5 18.5 26.8 21.2 41.7 36.5
phenylalanine + tyrosine mg/g protein 52 NR 70.7 42.7 78.8 80.8 87.6 76.4
threonine mg/g protein 31 55.5 49.4 47.9 37.4 39.7 53.3 44.9
tryptophan mg/g protein 8.5 16.4 15.1 16.6 9.8 12.1 12.4 12.6
valine mg/g protein 43 54.5 63.1 36.0 42.3 44.3 55.5 51.6
PDCAAS     0.99 1.0 N/A 0.590 0.8591 1.0 1.0
calcium mg   48 15.0 3.0 43.0 197.0 5.0 5.0
iron mg   0.39 0.9 0.3 1.0 3.5 2.2 0.4
magnesium mg   NR 23.0 NR 24.0 65.0 26.0 28.0
phosphorus mg   290 340.0 108.0 80.0 194.0 233.0 213.0
potassium mg   71 315.0 364.0 109.0 620.0 389.0 334.0
zinc mg   7.6 4.5 0.5 0.6 1.0 6.1 0.7
thiamin mg   0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0.4 0.1 0.1
riboflavin mg   0.3 0.9 0.1 0 0.2 0.2 0.2
niacin mg   NR 6.7 4.5 0.1 1.7 5.7 9.6
pantothenic acid mg   NR 3.2 1.1 NR 0.1 NR 1.5
folate μg   114 150.0 28.0 41.0 165.0 4.0 9.0
choline mg   180 80.0 21.2 NR NR NR 82.1
vitamin B12 μg   0.71 NR 0.1 0 0 2.7 0.2
a

EAA, essential amino acids; mono fat, monounsaturated fat; NR, not reported; poly fat, polyunsaturated fat; PDCAAS, protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score; sat fat, saturated fat.

Table 5. Self-Reported Mycelium Protein Digestibility-Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS)a.

company brand name mycelium species reported PDCAAS
EatMeati Mushroom Root Protein Neurospora crassa(84) 1.00
MYCO Technology FermentIQ Protein pea and rice protein fermented with shiitake mycelium92 1.00
Quorn Mycoprotein Fusarium venenatum(92) 0.99
Eternal Mycofoods N/A Fusarium venenatum(92) 0.92
Nature’s Fynd Fermented Microbial Protein or Fy Protein Fusarium strain flavolapis 0.92
Fusarium novum. yellowstonensis(84)
a

N/A = not applicable.

Depending on the growth substrate, the micronutrient profiles of mycelium can vary (Table 4), yet may be a dietary vehicle for the delivery of a number of essential micronutrients of concern, particularly for population groups that solely consume a plant-based diet, and includes iron, zinc, and vitamin B12.36,37 Indeed, a serving of certain commercially available mycelial products can be considered a high source of zinc, folate, copper, riboflavin, niacin, and pantothenic acid, providing at least 20% of the daily value, while a good source of iron (Table 4).30,38,39 Additionally, mycelium is low in phytate, which can make it a more bioavailable nonanimal protein source of micronutrients such as zinc.40 Although promising, data from dietary intervention trials are needed to confirm the bioaccessibility of essential micronutrients from mycelium.

Depending on the species and growing conditions, mycelium can be a source of a number of bioactive compounds. This includes ergothioneine, a derivative of histidine and betaine that exists as a tautomer of thiol and thione. At physiological pH, thione is dominant, making ergothioneine less reactive and resistant to autoxidation.41 Ergothioneine can be found in a variety of foods, most likely derived from the presence of fungi either near or at the root level.42 While the biological role of ergothioneine is still being defined, low ergothioneine levels have been associated with age-related chronic and neurodegenerative diseases.41 Both macro- and micro fungi produce additional bioactives and pigments as a protective response against UV-light-induced oxidative stress. This includes carotenoids, such as neurosporaxanthin and γ-carotene, produced from Neurospora43,44 and ergosterol or vitamin D2.29

On a global basis, reducing food waste and loss is of interest for long-term environmental sustainability as well as food and health security. Upcycling of food waste streams provides for the reincorporation of nutrients into the food system, and for an industry sector, creates a resilient circular bioeconomy.45 Examples include the mycelial fermentation of soybean cake and tofu waste, into oncom and tempeh, resulting in increased protein content and nutrient bioaccessibilty.46 For livestock, mycelial fermentation of agricultural waste streams reintroduces fiber and protein back into the food system.47 Moreover, depending on the waste stream, mycelial fermentation allows for the incorporation of bioactive peptides and plant-derived secondary metabolites, such as flavonoids, known for their health-promoting properties into mycofoods.48,49

Mycelium and Health

A number of studies have reported positive impacts of mycelial extracts on the immune system, cancer, and cirrhosis in in vitro and animal models and human participants.29,47,50,51 Focusing specifically on mycelial intake as a whole food, a limited number of dietary intervention trials suggest positive impacts on glycemic response.52 In an oral glucose tolerance test, healthy participants consumed either a beverage providing 17 g of mycoprotein and 75 g of carbohydrate (50 g as glucose) or an energy, protein, and carbohydrate-matched control beverage. From baseline to 60 min post beverage intake, the participants had an 8.75 and 20% reduction in their area under the curve (AUC) glucose and insulin responses, respectively.53 No significant intervention effects for postprandial glucose were observed when healthy men consumed beverages providing 20 g of milk or mycoprotein (0.7 and 4.0 g total carbohydrate, respectively). However, plasma hyperinsulinemia was slower and more sustained compared to a similar amount of milk protein.54 Similar to this, postprandial glucose response was not significantly impacted in individuals with an overweight or obese BMI who were provided several different levels of mycoprotein (at 44, 88, and 132 g) or a protein-matched and isoenergetic amount of chicken in risotto (delivering 25–30 g of total carbohydrate).55 In the same trial, insulin sensitivity as measured by the Matsuda index was significantly greater at the highest level of mycoprotein intake compared to the same amount of chicken, while the insulinogenic index, a measure of beta-cell output, was 18, 15, and 30% lower with low, medium, and high intakes of mycoprotein, respectively, compared to chicken.55

Beyond metabolic responses, mycelium intake suppresses appetite and energy intake,52 with a noted need for data over prolonged periods of intake.52 In this regard, early dietary intervention trials enrolling individuals with slightly elevated cholesterol levels demonstrate the potential of mycelium intake to lower cholesterol levels. In a 3-week metabolic study, diets providing 190 g of mycelium (Fusarium venenatum) per day significantly lowered LDL cholesterol by a mean difference of 21% for those consuming a diet matched for calories with the provision of animal protein.56 Similar results were observed in a follow-up trial of free living adults, who consumed cookies with or without approximately 130 g of mycelium equivalents for 8 weeks.57 Taken together, these data suggest the potential of mycelium to have positive impacts on cardiometabolic health; however, these studies are limited to one mycelial species and will need confirmation as products are developed from additional species.58 Moreover, for the most part, studies to date have been under controlled dietary conditions, with more data needed on the potential health impacts of currently available commercial products when they are incorporated into the daily diet.

The abovementioned lipid-lowering effects may be due to increased intakes of the mycelium-derived fiber. Improvements in gut health and lower LDL cholesterol levels have been reported with chitin supplementation. Toward this end, there is considerable interest in fungi-derived chitin-glucan complexes.34,59 Animal models to date suggest that fungal-derived β-glucan may produce similar results as their cereal-derived counterparts.60 Fermentable fibers such as β-glucan can produce short-chain fatty acids that suppress 3-hydroxy-3-methyl-glutaryl-CoA reductase (HMGR), the rate-limiting enzyme for cholesterol synthesis, along with activating sterol regulatory element-binding proteins (SREBP)-2 to increase hepatic LDL-receptor gene expression that helps clear cholesterol.45 Both mycelium and mycelium-derived fiber increased propionate and butyrate production in an in vitro fermentation model.61 It is important to note that the glycosidic bonds can differ between plant fungi kingdoms, and food processing may influence any functional effect. Indeed, recent in vitro data suggest that although β-glucans are released to a greater extent from plants, β-glucan release from mycelium can be enhanced with cooking.62

The anabolic response, or muscle protein synthesis, is stimulated with the rise of plasma essential amino acids, particularly leucine, while muscle protein breakdown (catabolism) is inhibited by hyperinsulinemia in the postprandial period.54 Data collected to date suggest that amino acid bioavailability, and ultimately the stimulation of muscle protein synthesis, is considerably different with mycelium intake compared to that of animal-based protein. First, animal proteins such as milk produce a rapid (within 30 min) rise in essential amino acids coupled with hyperinsulinemia. In contrast, 18 g of protein from Fusarium venenatum produces a similar but more sustained hyperinsulinemia and hyperaminoacidemia compared to 16 g of milk protein intake.54 These observations are potentially functionally significant, as resting and post exercise muscle protein synthesis rates were indeed greater with mycelium protein intake compared to milk protein intake.63

Mycelium and Environmental Impact

The UNSDG2 aims to end hunger, and achieve food and nutrition security within a sustainable agricultural system by 2030.64 Achievement of this goal was already off track prior to the COVID-19 pandemic that escalated already deteriorating food security, with 12% of the global population estimated as severely food insecure in 2020.64 The multidisciplinary approach of UNSDG2 to address worldwide hunger includes the development of agricultural systems that are sustainable and regenerative, in that they maintain ecosystems and protects resources as opposed to industrial agricultural systems that lead to environmental degradation, including air and water pollution, soil depletion, and diminishing of biodiversity.65 For protein, forecasts are for a 50% increase in meat production on twice as less arable land by 2050 in order to supply global nutritional demand.66 To meet both growing demand and increasingly severe constraints, food companies must drive sustainable innovation to produce large amounts of high-quality, safe protein that preserves limited resources, including land and water. Moreover, the developed products will need to be accessible and affordable to the global population, with the goal of decoupling the cost and ability to eat a healthy diet with persistent high levels of income inequality.64

The term novel and future foods (NFFs) describes a group of foods that utilize nontraditional agricultural practices to produce a source of protein that addresses the environmental impacts of food. Ingredients grouped under this category include but are not limited to mycelium, insect meal, microalgae, and cell-cultured meat.67 In a recent environmental impact model that also optimized for nutritional adequacy and feasibility of intake, NNFs yielded substantial reductions in environmental pressures related to land use (LU), water use (WU), and global warming potential (GW) when compared to traditional European dietary patterns.68 Environmental pressures against the traditional European diets, when including insect meal, cultured meat and milk, algae protein, mycelium, and bacteria as NFFs, had a predicted mitigation of 87% LU, 84% WU, and 83% GW. Although an optimized vegan diet (VEG) had the largest impact on GW (85% mitigation), NFFs had a greater impact on WU and LU compared to VEG (83% and 81%, respectively).69 However, this study represents the eating habits of 8% of the worldwide population, demonstrating the need for research that includes the impact of NFFs within other dietary patterns, societies, and ethnicities.68

When one aims to reduce the environmental impact of a diet, nutrition quality can be a concern, particularly when one food group for another. Shifting diets away from animal-sourced foods (ASFs) to a more plant-based diet may provide less stress to environmental resources. However, plant foods can be less favorable in their essential nutrient composition and bioaccessibility compared to ASFs.70,71 One option to overcome this limitation is the incorporation of NFFs into a plant-based or a limited ASF dietary pattern that still promotes a reduction in environmental stress.69 In the aforementioned study by Mazac et al., replacing ASFs with NFFs in a traditional European dietary pattern not only reduced environmental impacts but also met nutrient needs.69 This study also indicates that the inclusion of smaller amounts of ASFs by optimizing the current diet to recommended levels of intake will also lower the environmental impact, and minimal inclusion of NFFs will help meet nutrition needs. For the NSFs utilized in this study, mainly insect meal, cultured milk, microbial protein, and mycelium demonstrated the best nutrition content and environmental impact; however, lifecycle analysis assessments on NFFs are limited at this time and further research is recommended.

As described above, mycelium is a good quality protein, providing essential micronutrients similar to those of meat. Current modeling also suggests that replacing ASFs with mycelium can have a positive impact on the environment.72,73 Accounting for all outputs of food production—feed production, manure storage/spreading, enteric methane, and processing and packaging of the finished product—carbon footprint estimates of mycofoods were 10 and 4 times less compared to beef or chicken, respectively.72 For WU per gram of protein produced, mycelium was 10 and 3 times less than beef and chicken, respectively, along with 10 and 2 times less LU than beef and chicken, respectively.72 More recently, Humpenöder et al. estimated that the per capita substitution of 20% of ruminant-derived protein for mycoprotein offsets future LU and CO2 emissions by half by 2050, while also lowering methane emissions.73 While promising, studies are limited to one species of mycelium and will need to account for variations in the technologies utilized to grow mycelial protein and the ingredients used in their production.

Data to date suggest that the incorporation of mycelium into a dietary pattern can lend toward reducing the negative impacts of the food system on the environment. However, world hunger and food insecurity are inextricably linked between social inequality and access to healthy food options; therefore, the key to replacing ASFs within the food system will be the availability and affordability of any alternative protein source. While healthy and sustainable diets, such as the EAT-Lancet have been proposed, the cost of such a diet is predominately driven by plant-based foods, with a large percentage of per capita household income (up to 89%) needed to afford this dietary pattern in lower versus higher income countries.74 Protein affordability is dependent on costs of production; ASF can take several weeks to years, while the production of plant-sourced proteins through traditional agricultural practices can take several months with the potential for weather-related loss in crop production (Table 6). Given the nutritional value that is comparable to that of ASF, but with reduced environmental impact, NFFs such as mycelium are an appealing option. As innovations in this field work toward the production of these products at scale and at a lower cost, mycelium is appealing as a nutrient dense source of protein providing fiber and essential micronutrients that can be grown in a relatively short period. Indeed mycelium research indicates that protein production can happen in days instead of months or years; however, the strain, media, and growing conditions all play a role in predicting the growth rate.75

Table 6. Production Cycle for the Source of Protein.

protein time influence production cycle source
beef cattle, average age at slaughter 1.8 years average (up to 3 years) feed, breed, pastures, vaccinations/dz management (93,94)
pork 6 months feed, breed (95)
chicken 7 weeks to 3–5 mo feed, breed (96)
rice protein 120 days consistent irrigation, soil health, planting timing, variety (97)
pea protein (yellow peas) 80–90 days rain, irrigation, temperature, soil health, sunlight (98)
soybean (relative maturity is dependent on time of planting, phenotype, and seasonal influences) 45–65 days rainfall, climate (99)
chickpea 100 days average (83–125) rainfall, climate, variety dependent (100)
almonds 3 years for first crop from planting and harvest once a year rainfall, temperature, variety (101)
peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.; Virgínia group) 140–150 days planting timing, day length, temp, rain, wind, variety (102)
mycelium 2–6 days species, growing method

For NFFS such as mycelium to be part of the solution to solve hunger and food insecurity, there is a need for an investment in resources and infrastructure to scale production. These resources include finding ways to reduce production costs to make these ingredients affordable to all, in addition to interventions that educate and promote the use of these ingredients as a staple in the diet.61 A recent survey of European consumers reports that 56% of respondents had not heard of the term “fungal or mycoprotein”.76

Mycelium and Food Technology To Grow Mycofoods

Cultivating mycelium offers a variety of different technologies and methods, some having been used for hundreds of years and others having been developed in the past century. The two most common mycelium production systems are solid-state and submerged fermentation.11 In solid-state fermentation, mycelium is grown on a solid substrate that is usually a food source such as a grain or a legume, with the mycelium-permeated substrate harvested and used as is or processed further. This method has been commonly employed to make products such as tempeh.77 In submerged fermentation, mycelium is grown primarily in liquid media with specific nutrients, and often separated by filtration or by other means prior to use or can undergoes further processing.11 Large-scale submerged fermentation has been practiced with mycelium starting with the manufacturing of penicillin and has progressed with developments in fermentation for more advanced products such as food additives and enzymes.78 Some practices of mycelium submerged fermentation are being used for direct human food cultivation.79

Solid-state, submerged, or other hybrid methods each have their own advantages. For instance, while solid-state systems are generally thought to have lower upfront capital investments, the volumetric productivities and speed of growth in submerged fermentation makes this to be the mycelium cultivation technology of choice. In order for mycelium to become a sustainable human nutrition solution and alleviate global hunger, there is a need for substantial investment in both solid-state and submerged fermentation to unlock significantly more mycelium production capacity. With this said, a recent techno-economic analysis suggests that mycoprotein production can be on par with globally relevant sources, such as beef, utilizing existing manufacturing technologies.80 Therefore, further advances may enable mycoprotein production to surpass beef and approach even cheaper animal-based commodity proteins such as poultry. Thus, the opportunity to improve global health outcomes through nutrition that achieves key measures of environmental sustainability via increased production of mycoprotein seems to be based on a firm foundation regarding economics and positive returns on related investments.

Technology advances have enabled the production of mycelium into scalable biomass for use as an alternative sustainable food product. With its quality protein, essential micronutrient profile, and lower impacts on land and water, plus reduced greenhouse gas production, incorporation of mycofoods into food systems can aid in the achievement of UNSDG2 goals to end hunger and achieve food and nutrition security within a sustainable and regenerative agricultural system. Although promising, the limited data on the potential health impacts of mycelium intake need to include confirmatory data across mycelial species. This includes data from diverse population groups across the lifespan. In this regard, while initial studies on the anabolic effects of mycelium are promising, there is also a need for data on the ability of mycelium protein intake in support of human growth. Future considerations also include adapting production of mycofoods to utilize local resources and create education programs that demonstrate how these ingredients can fit with current cultural practices and meet consumer taste preferences. The ultraprocessed nature of many current plant-based meat mimetics including the addition of sodium, sugar, saturated fat, and additives to enhance flavor, texture, and color is a concern for both health professionals and consumers.81,82 The filamentous nature and nutrient density of certain types of mycelium, coupled with the potential for innovations in fungi flavor, can enable mimetic product development that requires fewer additives for flavor and texture, with less sodium and low saturated fat. Moreover, mycelium’s unique properties enable its use as an ingredient in other product formulations and represent an opportunity to reduce the need for other additives within alternative plant protein-based recipes. Therefore, mycelium represents a significant opportunity to help usher in a new era of product development produced at scale that is considered healthy yet with fewer ingredients and has a sensory profile that is complex with depth. Once achieved, mycelium will certainly be appealing as an environmentally friendly, nutrient dense protein source that can aid in the reduction of global hunger.

Author Contributions

All authors provided their input on the structure along with editing of the manuscript. R.R.H., J.P.M., and J.S. wrote the initial draft of text. J.P.M. and J.S. created the tables.

R.R.H., J.P.M., C.L.K., and H.H.S. are members of the Scientific Board for Meati Foods, J.S. is a consultant for Meati Foods, and B.S.M. and J.M.W. are both employees of Meati Foods.

The authors declare the following competing financial interest(s): R.R.H., J.P.M. Jr., C.L.K., and H.H.S. are members of the Scientific Board for Emergy, Inc., J.S. is a consultant for Emergy, Inc., B.S.M. and J.M.W. are both employees of Emergy, Inc. This work was supported in part by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture Hatch Project #7004508.

Special Issue

Published as part of Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistryvirtual special issue “The Future of Agriculture and Food: Sustainable Approaches to Achieve Zero Hunger”.

References

  1. Blesh J.; Hoey L.; Jones A. D.; Friedmann H.; Perfecto I. Development pathways toward “zero hunger”. World Development 2019, 118, 1–14. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.02.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. The Sustainable Development Goals Report. Goal 2: Zero Hunger. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/hunger/.
  3. Williams A. M.; Guo J.; Addo O. Y.; Ismaily S.; Namaste S. M. L.; Oaks B. M.; Rohner F.; Suchdev P. S.; Young M. F.; Flores-Ayala R.; et al. Intraindividual double burden of overweight or obesity and micronutrient deficiencies or anemia among women of reproductive age in 17 population-based surveys. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2020, 112 (Supplement_1), 468S–477S. 10.1093/ajcn/nqaa118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Myers C. A.; Mire E. F.; Katzmarzyk P. T. Trends in adiposity and food insecurity among US adults. JAMA network open 2020, 3 (8), e2012767–e2012767. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.12767. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations . Sustainable Development Goals: Indicator 2.4.1 - Proportion of agricultural area under productive and sustainable agriculture. https://www.fao.org/sustainable-development-goals/indicators/241/en/.
  6. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020–2025. 9th ed.; Services., U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Ed.: 2020. [Google Scholar]
  7. Mozaffarian D. Dietary and Policy Priorities for Cardiovascular Disease, Diabetes, and Obesity: A Comprehensive Review. Circulation 2016, 133 (2), 187–225. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.018585. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Willett W.; Rockström J.; Loken B.; Springmann M.; Lang T.; Vermeulen S.; Garnett T.; Tilman D.; DeClerck F.; Wood A.; et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet (London, England) 2019, 393 (10170), 447–492. 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Tuomisto H. L. The complexity of sustainable diets. Nature Ecology & Evolution 2019, 3 (5), 720–721. 10.1038/s41559-019-0875-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Souza Filho P. F.; Andersson D.; Ferreira J. A.; Taherzadeh M. J. Mycoprotein: environmental impact and health aspects. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2019, 35 (10), 147. 10.1007/s11274-019-2723-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Barzee T. J.; Cao L.; Pan Z.; Zhang R. Fungi for future foods. J Journal of Future Foods 2021, 1 (1), 25–37. 10.1016/j.jfutfo.2021.09.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Webster J.; Weber R., Introduction to fungi; Cambridge university press: 2007. [Google Scholar]
  13. http://www.speciesfungorum.org/ (accessed Mar 3).
  14. Lücking R.; Aime M. C.; Robbertse B.; Miller A. N.; Aoki T.; Ariyawansa H. A.; Cardinali G.; Crous P. W.; Druzhinina I. S.; Geiser D. M.; et al. Fungal taxonomy and sequence-based nomenclature. Nature Microbiology 2021, 6 (5), 540–548. 10.1038/s41564-021-00888-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Hawksworth D. L.; Lücking R.. Fungal diversity revisited: 2.2 to 3.8 million species. Microbiol. Spectr. 2017, 5( (4), ), 10.1128/microbiolspec.FUNK-0052-2016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  16. Wu B.; Hussain M.; Zhang W.; Stadler M.; Liu X.; Xiang M. Current insights into fungal species diversity and perspective on naming the environmental DNA sequences of fungi. Mycology 2019, 10 (3), 127–140. 10.1080/21501203.2019.1614106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Tedersoo L.; Sánchez-Ramírez S.; Koljalg U.; Bahram M.; Döring M.; Schigel D.; May T.; Ryberg M.; Abarenkov K. High-level classification of the Fungi and a tool for evolutionary ecological analyses. Fungal diversity 2018, 90, 135–159. 10.1007/s13225-018-0401-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Gan T.; Luo T.; Pang K.; Zhou C.; Zhou G.; Wan B.; Li G.; Yi Q.; Czaja A. D.; Xiao S. Cryptic terrestrial fungus-like fossils of the early Ediacaran Period. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12 (1), 641. 10.1038/s41467-021-20975-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Loron C. C.; François C.; Rainbird R. H.; Turner E. C.; Borensztajn S.; Javaux E. Early fungi from the Proterozoic era in Arctic Canada. Nature 2019, 570 (7760), 232–235. 10.1038/s41586-019-1217-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Sherratt T. N.; Wilkinson D. M.; Bain R. S. Explaining Dioscorides’“double difference”: why are some mushrooms poisonous, and do they signal their unprofitability?. The American Naturalist 2005, 166 (6), 767–775. 10.1086/497399. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Mushrooms (August 2022); August 26, 2022.
  22. Cardwell G.; Bornman J. F.; James A. P.; Black L. A review of mushrooms as a potential source of dietary vitamin D. Nutrients 2018, 10 (10), 1498. 10.3390/nu10101498. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Bartholomai B. M.; Ruwe K. M.; Thurston J.; Jha P.; Scaife K.; Simon R.; Abdelmoteleb M.; Goodman R. E.; Farhi M. Safety evaluation of Neurospora crassa mycoprotein for use as a novel meat alternative and enhancer. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2022, 168, 113342 10.1016/j.fct.2022.113342. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Lozy F.; Meetro J.; Simon R.; Calabrese P.; Whiteley J. M. Genotoxicity, acute, and subchronic toxicity evaluation of dried Neurospora crassa protein-rich biomass. Toxicology Research 2022, 11 (6), 1003–1017. 10.1093/toxres/tfac069. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Hemler E. C.; Hu F. B. Plant-Based Diets for Personal, Population, and Planetary Health. Adv. Nutr. 2019, 10 (Suppl_4), S275–S283. 10.1093/advances/nmy117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Pinckaers P. J. M.; Trommelen J.; Snijders T.; van Loon L. J. C. The Anabolic Response to Plant-Based Protein Ingestion. Sports Medicine 2021, 51 (1), 59–74. 10.1007/s40279-021-01540-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Sá A. G. A.; Moreno Y. M. F.; Carciofi B. A. M. Food processing for the improvement of plant proteins digestibility. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 2020, 60 (20), 3367–3386. 10.1080/10408398.2019.1688249. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Katz D. L.; Doughty K. N.; Geagan K.; Jenkins D. A.; Gardner C. D. Perspective: The Public Health Case for Modernizing the Definition of Protein Quality. Advances in Nutrition 2019, 10 (5), 755–764. 10.1093/advances/nmz023. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Rathore H.; Prasad S.; Kapri M.; Tiwari A.; Sharma S. Medicinal importance of mushroom mycelium: Mechanisms and applications. Journal of Functional Foods 2019, 56, 182–193. 10.1016/j.jff.2019.03.016. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Derbyshire E. J. Is There Scope for a Novel Mycelium Category of Proteins alongside Animals and Plants?. Foods 2020, 9 (9), 1151. 10.3390/foods9091151. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Schaafsma G. The protein digestibility–corrected amino acid score. J. Nutr. 2000, 130 (7), 1865S–1867S. 10.1093/jn/130.7.1865S. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Derbyshire E. J.; Delange J., Fungal Protein – What Is It and What Is the Health Evidence? A Systematic Review Focusing on Mycoprotein. Front. Sustainable Food Syst. 2021, 5, 10.3389/fsufs.2021.581682. [DOI]
  33. Verdín J.; Sánchez-León E.; Rico-Ramírez A. M.; Martínez-Núñez L.; Fajardo-Somera R. A.; Riquelme M. Off the wall: The rhyme and reason of Neurospora crassa hyphal morphogenesis. The Cell Surface 2019, 5, 100020 10.1016/j.tcsw.2019.100020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Lopez-Santamarina A.; Mondragon A. D.; Lamas A.; Miranda J. M.; Franco C. M.; Cepeda A. Animal-Origin Prebiotics Based on Chitin: An Alternative for the Future?. A Critical Review Foods [Online] 2020, 9, 782. 10.3390/foods9060782. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Othman R. A.; Moghadasian M. H.; Jones P. J. Cholesterol-lowering effects of oat β-glucan. Nutrition Reviews 2011, 69 (6), 299–309. 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2011.00401.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Bruins M. J.; Van Dael P.; Eggersdorfer M.. The Role of Nutrients in Reducing the Risk for Noncommunicable Diseases during Aging Nutrients [Online], 2019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  37. Kiely M. E. Risks and benefits of vegan and vegetarian diets in children. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 2021, 80 (2), 159–164. 10.1017/S002966512100001X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Furey B.; Slingerland K.; Bauter M. R.; Dunn C.; Goodman R. E.; Koo S. Safety evaluation of Fy Protein (Nutritional Fungi Protein), a macroingredient for human consumption. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2022, 166, 113005 10.1016/j.fct.2022.113005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Meati Eat Meati - Nutrition guide 2023. https://meati.com/files/meati-nutrition-guide.pdf.
  40. 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 (19), 3903. 10.3390/nu14193903. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Halliwell B.; Tang R. M. Y.; Cheah I. K., Diet-Derived Antioxidants: The Special Case of Ergothioneine. Annu. Rev. Food Sci. Technol. 2023, 14, 323, 10.1146/annurev-food-060822-122236. [DOI] [PubMed]
  42. Paul B. D. Ergothioneine: a stress vitamin with antiaging, vascular, and neuroprotective roles?. Antioxidants Redox Signaling 2022, 36 (16–18), 1306–1317. 10.1089/ars.2021.0043. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Luque E. M.; Gutierrez G.; Navarro-Sampedro L.; Olmedo M.; Rodriguez-Romero J.; Ruger-Herreros C.; Tagua V. G.; Corrochano L. A relationship between carotenoid accumulation and the distribution of species of the fungus Neurospora in Spain. PLoS One 2012, 7 (3), e33658 10.1371/journal.pone.0033658. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Gmoser R.; Ferreira J. A.; Lennartsson P. R.; Taherzadeh M. J. Filamentous ascomycetes fungi as a source of natural pigments. Fungal Biol. Biotechnol. 2017, 4 (1), 4. 10.1186/s40694-017-0033-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Holt R. R.; Barile D.; Wang S. C.; Munafo J. P. Jr; Arvik T.; Li X.; Lee F.; Keen C. L.; Tagkopoulos I.; Schmitz H. H. Chardonnay Marc as a New Model for Upcycled Co-products in the Food Industry: Concentration of Diverse Natural Products Chemistry for Consumer Health and Sensory Benefits. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2022, 70 (48), 15007–15027. 10.1021/acs.jafc.2c04519. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Wikandari R.; Hasniah N.; Taherzadeh M. J. The role of filamentous fungi in advancing the development of a sustainable circular bioeconomy. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 345, 126531 10.1016/j.biortech.2021.126531. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Strong P. J.; Self R.; Allikian K.; Szewczyk E.; Speight R.; O’Hara I.; Harrison M. D. Filamentous fungi for future functional food and feed. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 2022, 76, 102729 10.1016/j.copbio.2022.102729. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Yao H.; Yuan J.; Chen R.; Kang X.; Duan Y.; Lei C. Differential analysis and bioactivity identification of Neurospora crassa metabolites based on okara by widely-targeted metabolomics. LWT 2023, 174, 114441 10.1016/j.lwt.2023.114441. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Rousta N.; Aslan M.; Yesilcimen Akbas M.; Ozcan F.; Sar T.; Taherzadeh M. J. Effects of fungal based bioactive compounds on human health: Review paper. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 2023, 1–24. 10.1080/10408398.2023.2178379. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Sumiyoshi Y.; Hashine K.; Kakehi Y.; Yoshimura K.; Satou T.; Kuruma H.; Namiki S.; Shinohara N. Dietary Administration of Mushroom Mycelium Extracts in Patients with Early Stage Prostate Cancers Managed Expectantly: A Phase II Study. Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology 2010, 40 (10), 967–972. 10.1093/jjco/hyq081. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Shin M. S.; Park H.-J.; Maeda T.; Nishioka H.; Fujii H.; Kang I. The Effects of AHCC®, a Standardized Extract of Cultured Lentinura edodes Mycelia, on Natural Killer and T Cells in Health and Disease: Reviews on Human and Animal Studies. J. Immunol. Res. 2019, 2019, 3758576 10.1155/2019/3758576. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Cherta-Murillo A.; Lett A. M.; Frampton J.; Chambers E. S.; Finnigan T. J. A.; Frost G. S. Effects of mycoprotein on glycaemic control and energy intake in humans: a systematic review. Br. J. Nutr. 2020, 123 (12), 1321–1332. 10.1017/S0007114520000756. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Turnbull W. H.; Ward T. Mycoprotein reduces glycemia and insulinemia when taken with an oral-glucose-tolerance test. The American journal of clinical nutrition 1995, 61 (1), 135–140. 10.1093/ajcn/61.1.135. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Dunlop M. V.; Kilroe S. P.; Bowtell J. L.; Finnigan T. J. A.; Salmon D. L.; Wall B. T. Mycoprotein represents a bioavailable and insulinotropic non-animal-derived dietary protein source: a dose-response study. The British journal of nutrition 2017, 118 (9), 673–685. 10.1017/S0007114517002409. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Bottin J. H.; Swann J. R.; Cropp E.; Chambers E. S.; Ford H. E.; Ghatei M. A.; Frost G. S. Mycoprotein reduces energy intake and postprandial insulin release without altering glucagon-like peptide-1 and peptide tyrosine-tyrosine concentrations in healthy overweight and obese adults: a randomised-controlled trial. The British journal of nutrition 2016, 116 (2), 360–374. 10.1017/S0007114516001872. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Turnbull W. H.; Leeds A. R.; Edwards G. D. Effect of mycoprotein on blood lipids. The American journal of clinical nutrition 1990, 52 (4), 646–650. 10.1093/ajcn/52.4.646. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Turnbull W. H.; Leeds A. R.; Edwards D. G. Mycoprotein reduces blood lipids in free-living subjects. The American journal of clinical nutrition 1992, 55 (2), 415–419. 10.1093/ajcn/55.2.415. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Udall J. N.; Lo C. W.; Young V. R.; Scrimshaw N. S. The tolerance and nutritional value of two microfungal foods in human subjects. The American journal of clinical nutrition 1984, 40 (2), 285–292. 10.1093/ajcn/40.2.285. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Ranaivo H.; Zhang Z.; Alligier M.; Van Den Berghe L.; Sothier M.; Lambert-Porcheron S.; Feugier N.; Cuerq C.; Machon C.; Neyrinck A. M.; et al. Chitin-glucan supplementation improved postprandial metabolism and altered gut microbiota in subjects at cardiometabolic risk in a randomized trial. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12 (1), 8830. 10.1038/s41598-022-12920-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Khan A. A.; Gani A.; Khanday F. A.; Masoodi F. A. Biological and pharmaceutical activities of mushroom β-glucan discussed as a potential functional food ingredient. Bioactive Carbohydrates and Dietary Fibre 2018, 16, 1–13. 10.1016/j.bcdf.2017.12.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Harris H. C.; Edwards C. A.; Morrison D. J., Short Chain Fatty Acid Production from Mycoprotein and Mycoprotein Fibre in an In Vitro Fermentation Model. Nutrients 2019, 11 ( (4), ), 800, 10.3390/nu11040800. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  62. Colosimo R.; Mulet-Cabero A.-I.; Cross K. L.; Haider K.; Edwards C. H.; Warren F. J.; Finnigan T. J. A.; Wilde P. J. β-glucan release from fungal and plant cell walls after simulated gastrointestinal digestion. Journal of Functional Foods 2021, 83, 104543 10.1016/j.jff.2021.104543. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Monteyne A. J.; Coelho M. O. C.; Porter C.; Abdelrahman D. R.; Jameson T. S. O.; Jackman S. R.; Blackwell J. R.; Finnigan T. J. A.; Stephens F. B.; Dirks M. L.; et al. Mycoprotein ingestion stimulates protein synthesis rates to a greater extent than milk protein in rested and exercised skeletal muscle of healthy young men: a randomized controlled trial. The American journal of clinical nutrition 2020, 112 (2), 318–333. 10.1093/ajcn/nqaa092. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. FAO I., UNICEF, WFP and WHO . The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2021. Transforming food systems for food security, improved nutrition and affordable healthy diets for all; 2021.
  65. Horrigan L.; Lawrence R. S.; Walker P. How sustainable agriculture can address the environmental and human health harms of industrial agriculture. Environ Health Perspect 2002, 110 (5), 445–456. 10.1289/ehp.02110445. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Kurt E.; Klont E.; Ergün Ö., White paper-plant based meat-texturizing plant proteins. Austin Food Sci. 2021, 6, 1043,
  67. Parodi A.; Leip A.; De Boer I.; Slegers P.; Ziegler F.; Temme E. H.; Herrero M.; Tuomisto H.; Valin H.; Van Middelaar C. The potential of future foods for sustainable and healthy diets. Nat. Sustainability 2018, 1 (12), 782–789. 10.1038/s41893-018-0189-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  68. Tzachor A. Novel foods for human and planetary health. Nature Food 2022, 3 (4), 247–248. 10.1038/s43016-022-00492-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Mazac R.; Meinilä J.; Korkalo L.; Järviö N.; Jalava M.; Tuomisto H. L. Incorporation of novel foods in European diets can reduce global warming potential, water use and land use by over 80%. Nature food 2022, 3 (4), 286–293. 10.1038/s43016-022-00489-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Rousseau S.; Kyomugasho C.; Celus M.; Hendrickx M. E.; Grauwet T. Barriers impairing mineral bioaccessibility and bioavailability in plant-based foods and the perspectives for food processing. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 2020, 60 (5), 826–843. 10.1080/10408398.2018.1552243. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Bakaloudi D. R.; Halloran A.; Rippin H. L.; Oikonomidou A. C.; Dardavesis T. I.; Williams J.; Wickramasinghe K.; Breda J.; Chourdakis M. Intake and adequacy of the vegan diet. A systematic review of the evidence. Clinical nutrition 2021, 40 (5), 3503–3521. 10.1016/j.clnu.2020.11.035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Finnigan T.; Needham L.; Abbott C., Chapter 19 - Mycoprotein: A Healthy New Protein With a Low Environmental Impact. In Sustainable Protein Sources; Nadathur S. R.; Wanasundara J. P. D.; Scanlin L., Eds.; Academic Press: San Diego, 2017; pp 305-325. [Google Scholar]
  73. Humpenöder F.; Bodirsky B. L.; Weindl I.; Lotze-Campen H.; Linder T.; Popp A. Projected environmental benefits of replacing beef with microbial protein. Nature 2022, 605 (7908), 90–96. 10.1038/s41586-022-04629-w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Hirvonen K.; Bai Y.; Headey D.; Masters W. A. Affordability of the EAT-Lancet reference diet: a global analysis. The Lancet. Global health 2020, 8 (1), e59–e66. 10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30447-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Antinori M. E.; Ceseracciu L.; Mancini G.; Heredia-Guerrero J. A.; Athanassiou A. Fine-Tuning of Physicochemical Properties and Growth Dynamics of Mycelium-Based Materials. ACS Appl Bio Mater 2020, 3 (2), 1044–1051. 10.1021/acsabm.9b01031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Chezan D.; Flannery O.; Patel A. Factors affecting consumer attitudes to fungi-based protein: A pilot study. Appetite 2022, 175, 106043 10.1016/j.appet.2022.106043. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Romulo A.; Surya R. Tempe: A traditional fermented food of Indonesia and its health benefits. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science 2021, 26, 100413 10.1016/j.ijgfs.2021.100413. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  78. Subramaniyam R.; Vimala R. Solid state and submerged fermentation for the production of bioactive substances: a comparative study. Int. J. Sci. Nat. 2012, 3, 480–486. [Google Scholar]
  79. Bakratsas G.; Polydera A.; Katapodis P.; Stamatis H. Recent trends in submerged cultivation of mushrooms and their application as a source of nutraceuticals and food additives. Future Foods 2021, 4, 100086 10.1016/j.fufo.2021.100086. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  80. Risner D.; McDonald K. A.; Jones C.; Spang E. S., A techno-economic model of mycoprotein production: achieving price parity with beef protein. Front. Sustainable Food Syst. 2023, 7, 1204307, 10.3389/fsufs.2023.1204307. [DOI]
  81. Hu F. B.; Otis B. O.; McCarthy G. Can Plant-Based Meat Alternatives Be Part of a Healthy and Sustainable Diet?. JAMA 2019, 322 (16), 1547–1548. 10.1001/jama.2019.13187. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Knorr D.; Watzke H., Food Processing at a Crossroad. Front. Nutr. 2019, 6, 85, 10.3389/fnut.2019.00085. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  83. Lübeck M.; Lübeck P. S. Fungal cell factories for efficient and sustainable production of proteins and peptides. Microorganisms 2022, 10 (4), 753. 10.3390/microorganisms10040753. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. https://patents.google.com/patent/EP3801554A1/en.
  85. ARS U.Mushrooms, portabella, raw. https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/169255/nutrients.
  86. ARS U.Chickpeas (garbanzo beans, bengal gram), mature seeds, canned, drained, rinsed in tap water. https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/173801/nutrients.
  87. ARS U.Soybeans, green, raw. https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/169282/nutrients.
  88. ARS U.Beef, ribeye petite roast/filet, boneless, separable lean only, trimmed to 0″ fat, select, raw. https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/174698/nutrients.
  89. ARS U.Chicken, broiler or fryers, breast, skinless, boneless, meat only, raw. https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/171077/nutrients.
  90. Nosworthy M. G.; Medina G.; Franczyk A. J.; Neufeld J.; Appah P.; Utioh A.; Frohlich P.; Tar’an B.; House J. D. Thermal processing methods differentially affect the protein quality of Chickpea (Cicer arietinum). Food Science & Nutrition 2020, 8 (6), 2950–2958. 10.1002/fsn3.1597. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  91. 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, 1004754, 10.3389/fnut.2022.1004754. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  92. https://www.quornnutrition.com/essential-amino-acids (accessed Jan 27, 2023).
  93. Pritchard T.; Wall E.; Coffey M. Genetic parameters for carcase measurements and age at slaughter in commercial cattle. Animal 2021, 15 (2), 100090 10.1016/j.animal.2020.100090. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  94. United States Department of Agriculture . Slaughter Cattle Grades and Standards. https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/slaughter-cattle-grades-and-standards#:%7E:text=Primehttps://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/slaughter-cattle-grades-and-standards#:%7E:text=Prime.,the%20muscling%20is%20very%20firm.
  95. FAO , Meat cutting and utilization of meat cuts.
  96. United States Department of Agriculture . Ask a question. https://ask.usda.gov/s/article/How-old-are-chickens-used-for-meat#:%7E:text=Chickens%20labeled%20as%20%22Broiler%2Dfryershttps://ask.usda.gov/s/article/How-old-are-chickens-used-for-meat#:%7E:text=Chickens%20labeled%20as%20%22Broiler%2Dfryers,Chicken%20from%20Farm%20to%20Table.
  97. Rice U.How rice grows. https://www.usarice.com/thinkrice/discover-us-rice/how-rice-grows.
  98. Pulses U.Processing information and technical manual. https://www.usapulses.org/technical-manual/introduction#:~:text=Determinate%20varieties%20mature%20in%2080.
  99. Purcell L. C.; Salmeron M.; Ashlock L.. Soybean growth and development. In Arkansas soybean production handbook; 2014; Vol. 197, pp 1–8.
  100. Corp M.; S M.; Ball D.; Smiley R.; Petrie S.; Siemens M.; Gu S.. Chickpea production guide; Oregon State University: 2004. [Google Scholar]
  101. Almonds C.Almond life cycle. https://www.almonds.com/why-almonds/almond-lifecycle.
  102. Okada M. H.; Oliveira G. R. F. D.; Sartori M. M. P.; Crusciol C. A. C.; Nakagawa J.; Amaral da Silva E. A. Acquisition of the physiological quality of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) seeds during maturation under the influence of the maternal environment. PLoS One 2021, 16 (5), e0250293 10.1371/journal.pone.0250293. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry are provided here courtesy of American Chemical Society

RESOURCES