Understanding differences in protein fractionation from conventional crops, and herbaceous and aquatic biomass - consequences for industrial use

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Alternative protein sources are constantly explored to secure the future food and protein demand. Among these sources, biomasses originating from algae, seaweed or leaves receive lots of attention. However, when the yields and purities of protein extracted from these sources are compared to the corresponding data for protein crops such as soy, lupine and pulses, much lower yields are reported for alternative biomasses.
Scope and approach
In this overview paper, we analyse whether this difference is due to lack of scientific insight and technology or that more fundamental reasons are behind the variations in the extraction behaviour. For this purpose, we prepared a description of herbaceous and aquatic biomasses (denoted as green biomass/sources) and their protein extraction practices, final products, and common trends and challenges. The discussion continues with a general comparison to protein crops and the implications for future research.
Key Findings and Conclusions
Overviewing the state of the art, we tend to conclude that physiological and biochemical factors hinder efficient fractionation of green sources. Such factors include cell architecture and high interconnection between cell components; and biochemical differences, in particular the type of proteins present. These fundamental differences imply that green sources should be explored in a different manner, with higher emphasis on the interesting functional properties of enriched fractions and less on their purity. This approach is further encouraged by highlighting examples where the intricate structures found in green biomass can give rise to positive effects (e.g. health, food structure) when integrally applied in food products.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)235-245
JournalTrends in Food Science and Technology
Volume71
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2018

Fingerprint

Biomass
fractionation
biomass
crops
Proteins
proteins
algae
purity
Food
edible seaweed
Lupinus
health foods
Seaweed
protein sources
functional properties
Cellular Structures
foods
legumes
cells
Technology

Cite this

@article{b1cc08fb63b743eeb5d25c94cf03226c,
title = "Understanding differences in protein fractionation from conventional crops, and herbaceous and aquatic biomass - consequences for industrial use",
abstract = "Alternative protein sources are constantly explored to secure the future food and protein demand. Among these sources, biomasses originating from algae, seaweed or leaves receive lots of attention. However, when the yields and purities of protein extracted from these sources are compared to the corresponding data for protein crops such as soy, lupine and pulses, much lower yields are reported for alternative biomasses.Scope and approachIn this overview paper, we analyse whether this difference is due to lack of scientific insight and technology or that more fundamental reasons are behind the variations in the extraction behaviour. For this purpose, we prepared a description of herbaceous and aquatic biomasses (denoted as green biomass/sources) and their protein extraction practices, final products, and common trends and challenges. The discussion continues with a general comparison to protein crops and the implications for future research.Key Findings and ConclusionsOverviewing the state of the art, we tend to conclude that physiological and biochemical factors hinder efficient fractionation of green sources. Such factors include cell architecture and high interconnection between cell components; and biochemical differences, in particular the type of proteins present. These fundamental differences imply that green sources should be explored in a different manner, with higher emphasis on the interesting functional properties of enriched fractions and less on their purity. This approach is further encouraged by highlighting examples where the intricate structures found in green biomass can give rise to positive effects (e.g. health, food structure) when integrally applied in food products.",
author = "{Tamayo Tenorio}, A. and K. Kyriakopoulou and {Suarez Garcia}, E. and {van den Berg}, C. and {van der Goot}, A.J.",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.tifs.2017.11.010",
language = "English",
volume = "71",
pages = "235--245",
journal = "Trends in Food Science and Technology",
issn = "0924-2244",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Understanding differences in protein fractionation from conventional crops, and herbaceous and aquatic biomass - consequences for industrial use

AU - Tamayo Tenorio, A.

AU - Kyriakopoulou , K.

AU - Suarez Garcia, E.

AU - van den Berg, C.

AU - van der Goot, A.J.

PY - 2018/1

Y1 - 2018/1

N2 - Alternative protein sources are constantly explored to secure the future food and protein demand. Among these sources, biomasses originating from algae, seaweed or leaves receive lots of attention. However, when the yields and purities of protein extracted from these sources are compared to the corresponding data for protein crops such as soy, lupine and pulses, much lower yields are reported for alternative biomasses.Scope and approachIn this overview paper, we analyse whether this difference is due to lack of scientific insight and technology or that more fundamental reasons are behind the variations in the extraction behaviour. For this purpose, we prepared a description of herbaceous and aquatic biomasses (denoted as green biomass/sources) and their protein extraction practices, final products, and common trends and challenges. The discussion continues with a general comparison to protein crops and the implications for future research.Key Findings and ConclusionsOverviewing the state of the art, we tend to conclude that physiological and biochemical factors hinder efficient fractionation of green sources. Such factors include cell architecture and high interconnection between cell components; and biochemical differences, in particular the type of proteins present. These fundamental differences imply that green sources should be explored in a different manner, with higher emphasis on the interesting functional properties of enriched fractions and less on their purity. This approach is further encouraged by highlighting examples where the intricate structures found in green biomass can give rise to positive effects (e.g. health, food structure) when integrally applied in food products.

AB - Alternative protein sources are constantly explored to secure the future food and protein demand. Among these sources, biomasses originating from algae, seaweed or leaves receive lots of attention. However, when the yields and purities of protein extracted from these sources are compared to the corresponding data for protein crops such as soy, lupine and pulses, much lower yields are reported for alternative biomasses.Scope and approachIn this overview paper, we analyse whether this difference is due to lack of scientific insight and technology or that more fundamental reasons are behind the variations in the extraction behaviour. For this purpose, we prepared a description of herbaceous and aquatic biomasses (denoted as green biomass/sources) and their protein extraction practices, final products, and common trends and challenges. The discussion continues with a general comparison to protein crops and the implications for future research.Key Findings and ConclusionsOverviewing the state of the art, we tend to conclude that physiological and biochemical factors hinder efficient fractionation of green sources. Such factors include cell architecture and high interconnection between cell components; and biochemical differences, in particular the type of proteins present. These fundamental differences imply that green sources should be explored in a different manner, with higher emphasis on the interesting functional properties of enriched fractions and less on their purity. This approach is further encouraged by highlighting examples where the intricate structures found in green biomass can give rise to positive effects (e.g. health, food structure) when integrally applied in food products.

U2 - 10.1016/j.tifs.2017.11.010

DO - 10.1016/j.tifs.2017.11.010

M3 - Article

VL - 71

SP - 235

EP - 245

JO - Trends in Food Science and Technology

JF - Trends in Food Science and Technology

SN - 0924-2244

ER -