中国农业科学 ›› 2026, Vol. 59 ›› Issue (14): 3185-3202.doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2026.14.014

• 食品科学与工程 • 上一篇    下一篇

鸡源培养肉的营养与加工特性评价及蛋白质组学分析

段瑞培(), 夏双梅, 张艺, 郭玉杰, 张兴(), 张春晖   

  1. 中国农业科学院农产品加工研究所/农业农村部农产品加工综合性重点实验室, 北京 100193
  • 收稿日期:2025-12-19 接受日期:2026-04-27 出版日期:2026-07-16 发布日期:2026-07-21
  • 通信作者:
    张兴,E-mail:
  • 联系方式: 段瑞培,E-mail:1738958080@qq.com。
  • 基金资助:
    农业科技重大项目

Nutritional and Processing Characteristic Evaluation and Proteomics Analysis of Chicken Cultured Meat

DUAN RuiPei(), XIA ShuangMei, ZHANG Yi, GUO YuJie, ZHANG Xing(), ZHANG ChunHui   

  1. Institute of Agro-Products Processing Science and Technology, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences/Comprehensive Key Laboratory of Agro-Products Processing, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Beijing 100193
  • Received:2025-12-19 Accepted:2026-04-27 Published:2026-07-16 Online:2026-07-21

摘要:

【目的】明确培养肉(cultured meat,CM)与鸡胸肉(chicken breast,CB)、鸡腿肉(chicken thigh,CT)营养品质和加工品质的差异,利用蛋白组学技术解析造成培养肉与鸡胸肉、鸡腿肉品质差异的原因,为培养肉的食品化加工提供理论依据。【方法】评估培养肉与鸡胸肉、鸡腿肉在蛋白质、水分、脂肪、维生素、矿物质、脂肪酸、氨基酸方面的组成差异,并对培养肉的以上营养品质进行评价;测定培养肉与鸡胸肉、鸡腿肉的pH、色差、保水性,并对培养肉的以上加工品质进行评价;最后利用蛋白组学对培养肉与鸡胸肉、鸡腿肉差异表达的蛋白质进行探究,通过Gene Ontology(GO)和Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes(KEGG)方法注释差异蛋白的代谢通路,从而解释造成培养肉与鸡胸肉、鸡腿肉蛋白质组成差异的原因。【结果】培养肉水分含量较高,蛋白质含量偏低,培养肉的脂肪酸、维生素、氨基酸等营养成分与鸡胸肉、鸡腿肉存在差异。培养肉的主要脂肪酸为油酸(C18:1),其饱和脂肪酸(SFA)含量低于鸡胸肉、鸡腿肉;主要氨基酸为谷氨酸(99.55 mg/100 g),半胱氨酸、酪氨酸含量均高于鸡胸肉、鸡腿肉,但必需氨基酸的比例(34.99%)较低。培养肉中维生素B1含量(0.09 mg/100 g)介于鸡胸肉和鸡腿肉之间,维生素E含量(0.01 mg/100 g)低于鸡胸肉和鸡腿肉;钾含量低于鸡胸肉和鸡腿肉;铝、铁、硒含量高于鸡胸肉和鸡腿肉。加工品质中,培养肉的硬度、咀嚼性等低于鸡胸肉、鸡腿肉;离心损失率(53.53%)高于鸡胸肉(14.57%)和鸡腿肉(12.56%),蒸煮损失率与鸡胸肉基本持平,显著低于鸡腿肉(P<0.05)。从蛋白质组学的角度分析,根据VIP>1在CB、CT、CM之间筛选鉴定到的76种最具差异性的蛋白质主要包含与糖酵解、糖异生相关的果糖二磷酸醛缩酶(ALDOC)、肌球蛋白轻链(MYL1)等;培养肉中肌原纤维蛋白等结构性蛋白、与肌肉系统过程及骨骼肌组织发育相关的蛋白质下调表达;KANK1、TPM2、COL5A1等部分与纤维组织相关的蛋白质上调表达。【结论】培养肉与饲养肉的营养品质存在一定差距,其蛋白质和必需氨基酸比例较低,钠含量高于饲养肉,饱和脂肪酸(SFA)含量较低且含有不饱和脂肪酸;铁、硒等微量元素含量更高,具备营养强化潜力。培养肉质地较软,保水性与饲养肉也有一定差距,更适宜加工乳化香肠等肉糜类制品。质构差异的主要原因是培养肉中肌原纤维蛋白等结构性蛋白表达下调,导致其热凝胶形成能力与持水力较弱。

关键词: 鸡肉, 培养肉, 营养品质, 加工品质, 品质差异

Abstract:

【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.

Key words: chicken, cultured meat, nutritional quality, processing quality, quality difference