Genetically engineering koji mold to create a meat alternative
newscenter.lbl.gov
newscenter.lbl.gov
Filamentous fungi (featured here) are even more interesting. The filaments are called hyphae, and you can think of them as microtubules for nutrient scavenging. Some filamentous fungi can grow hyphae and penetrate them into the exoskeletons of insects. Hyphae are almost pure fiber and protein, in about a 50/50 ratio. One of the most complete nutritional sources in a single organism. Combined with the fact you can grow them at scale in industrial fermentation processes, they have the potential to be the most economical source of protein in the world.
Even the dangerous fungi are typically that way because of posthumous revenge-poison stocked up in their tissues, which is not a feature anybody should be permitting in their production process anyway.
Fat is missing though, and there is no essential need for fiber.
And what about vitamines? Water-soluble and fat-soluble vitamines? The latter of which are probably totally missing. All of those are found in good meat, however.
> there is no essential need for fiber
Thinking of food only on its nutritional aspects is reductive
From a health point of view, fiber is a necessity
The comment is literally regarding its nutritional aspect. "One of the most complete nutritional sources".
A reductive approach seems to be the problem of artificial meat, in the first place.
> From a health point of view, fiber is a necessity
If there is a healthy microbiome to digest the fiber, you may want to feed that microbiome with fiber so it stays alive, and even improve the population that way. And I see that fiber can mitigate blood sugar spikes. However, fiber also takes up valuable minerals, prohibiting their uptake. I do not think that the situation is as clear cut as you present it.
>However, fiber also takes up valuable minerals, prohibiting their uptake. I do not think that the situation is as clear cut as you present it.
If this were actually a concern, it would be beneficial to extract all nutrients from whole foods and consume them as a pill (vitamin) instead of eating our nutrition. This has not borne out in extensive research despite billions of dollars invested into developing and marketing nutrient supplements.
Completely wrong.
Fiber is critical.
I know it is a social norm on HN to provide links. But come on, you can just search and find a hundred studies. At some point, just go read them.
in Cell Host & Microbe: https://www.cell.com/cell-host-microbe/abstract/S1931-3128(2...
> we found that a fiber-free diet ameliorates colitis by altering the intestinal localization of a specific gut pathobiont that is required to trigger CD-like disease in genetically susceptible mice. Mechanistically, fiber-free diet inhibited the ability of mucin-degrading microbes to supply critical molecules that are required for the metabolism and maintenance of the disease-causing pathobiont in the mucus layer.
or in Gastroenterology: https://www.gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085(23)05306-4/...
> Fiber free exclusive enteral nutrition (EEN) is an effective steroid-sparing treatment used to induce clinical remission in children with Crohn’s disease (CD).
I hope it becomes apparent that having fiber is not the solution to everything. Above papers administer fiber-free diets for treatment.
Other diets focus on the exclusion of certain fibers, like for example, in the widespread and clinically approved FODMAP diet. Hence, it also depends on the type of fiber.
You are citing studies on specific narrow medical conditions where a limiting of fiber had some impact. Yes, you can probably find narrow medical conditions that would benefit from any diet you want to support. You can find medical conditions that support 100% fat, 100% carb, 100% protein. Those are niche cases with specific needs.
That isn't what the general regular human would need.
This is like saying, "we've found that in some specific cases, excess water leads to drowning, thus we recommend a water free diet."
Maybe not you. But it is really awful how many people are really eating unhealthily based on this kind of miss-interpretations, and in some cases out right marketing manipulation.
Yes it is a huge field, and there are a lot of different types of fibers, with hundreds of knock on effects. This is one of those fields where there a lot of variables, it is complex, so super easy to purposely confuse people. To then say, we don't need it?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9511151/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29566200/
https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/advance-article/do...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026156142...
One that is balanced on Pro/Con in different situations
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/13/2641
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000291652...
Finally, the low FODMAP diet is not intended to eliminate FODMAPs nor is it intended to be used long term. From the inventors of the low FODMAP diet:
"Given the adverse changes in gut microbial populations associated with long-term adherence to a low FODMAP diet, we always encourage people to enter a re-challenge phase and under the guidance of a dietitian, find an acceptable balance between the occasional inclusion of moderate and high FODMAP foods (naturally rich in healthy prebiotics) and adequate symptom control. In the long-term, we advocate people follow the least restrictive diet necessary. Further research into the rechallenge and long-term maintenance phases of the diet is warranted."
https://www.monashfodmap.com/blog/low-fodmap-diet-provides-b...
Modified plant proteins like Beyond Meat and/or the kinds of organisms you describe seem to be a much closer, easier, and more likely near-to-medium term solutions. And I say that as someone who would love nothing more than for lab grown meat to succeed and someone who has made a variety of sacrifices and to both eat less meat and when I do eat more sustainable and ethical meat (to the satisfaction of my own personal morals).
This is the first use case I've seen that makes sense.
Other types of meat that make sense are high end sushi fish etc. where again the conventional price they compete against is high enough that it makes it economically possible to grow it in a lab.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/28/meatball...
Secondly, I have heard that mushrooms are relatively poor for nutritional content, excepting B vitamins. Will there be an enormous amount of nutrition to add to make this viable?
Proof for first point: "Even the cultivated A. bisporus contains small amounts of hydrazines, the most abundant of which is agaritine (a mycotoxin and carcinogen). However, the hydrazines are destroyed by moderate heat when cooking."
Proof for second point: "Riboflavin (B2) 42% 0.5 mg, Pantothenic acid (B5) 30% 1.5 mg" - all other parameters on the wiki under 20%.
Grocery store mushrooms don't need to be boiled. If you're dealing with mushrooms and don't know whether they should be boiled, play it safe and don't eat them or serve them.
The sidebar there has daily percentages, and the only entries above 20% are B vitamins.
Do you have a similar RDA analysis for this fungus?
This appears to be the wiki for the subject of the article:
Not sure where you read that. Some mushrooms can be eaten raw. Some should not be eaten raw, but can be eaten cooked. _Many cannot be eaten even cooked, and may kill you if you try._
The article’s generally talking about single-cell fungus, not mushrooms, in any case. As a concept, mycoprotein for food has been around in a while; notably quorn showed up in 1985.
> Although recognized as an experimental carcinogen when used in high laboratory doses, there is inadequate evidence to classify Agaritine as carcinogenic to humans in amounts ingested from consuming mushrooms
I mean, if you wanted to be ultra-cautious you might avoid it, but it’s IARC Group 3. Unless you have a _very_ carefully controlled diet, it’s should probably not be high on your list of concerns, carcinogen-wise.
YMMV as is often said here.
> warning labels on synthetic foods.
We’re talking about mushrooms here; mushrooms aren’t synthetic.
Seems like a product that tasted mostly like a burger or was at least "meaty" and "tasty" would also be valuable. Generally I feel like I'm getting more than enough nutrition (i.e. calories and stuff)
I realize that the subject fungus, aspergillus oryzae, is not a mushroom. They are, however, related.
I wonder if anything with a statistically similar nutritional profile can satiate hunger cravings. That would be a surprise.
Brewer's yeast is also related, and it's chock-full of B vitamins (other than B12, which is pretty scarce in anything other than animal tissue). Also protein.
Nothing beats getting a metric shit tonne of chanterelles or similar for free after a nice days exercise in the outdoors.
Don't get me wrong it's a great hobby, but this isn't something that would heal all social ills if we somehow got everybody or near everybody out doing it.
Koji is relatively well-known even outside of Japan these days I believe, even Fedora's build system is named after it.
Lots of people do question it.
Second, 7% manganese, 17% phosphorus, 15% potassium, and 12% zinc per 3.5oz serving representing 22 calories (or ~1/100 of your daily caloric intake) is nothing to sneeze at.
Go check out 100g servings of various other veggies to get a baseline. It is also likely that these nutrients are far more bioavailable in mushrooms than they are in, for instance, brassica veggies, due to lack of phytates and other uptake inhibiting molecules (so called "anti-nutrients").
FYI, 3.5oz of mushrooms will cook down into less than 1/4 cup, so if you desire, you can eat substantially more than this incorporated into a dish without it necessarily overpowering flavor or texture.
Finally, mushrooms are chock full of other hugely beneficial (but under-studied) dietary compounds such as beta-glycans, triterpenoids, ergosterol, and all manner of immune-modulating tryptophan metabolites such as indole-3-proprionic acid.
I notice very distinct effects on satiety perception and physical outcomes across eating seafood, poultry, or ruminant meat.
(Note that this is data from the manufacturer.)
I mean, you can find negative health claims, albeit often of dubious value, for _literally anything_, so, absent more context, I wouldn't take that at all seriously.
> Stuff like this is very cool scientifically - but - cherrypicking stuff and ramming it into a fungus "because meat" doesnt fill me with confidence that this is healthy to eat at all.
That isn't what quorn was; it's not genetically modified (given that it's from the _early 60s_, it'd be a very good trick if it was).
Well, that surely settles it.
- Essential Amino Acid - Quorn - Chicken
- Histidine - 22 - 27
- Isoleucine - 46 - 52
- Leucine - 82 - 81
- Lysine - 83 - 85
- Methionine + Cysteine - 31 - 41
- Phenylalanine + Tyrosine - 61 - 73
- Threonine - 47 - 44
- Tryptophan - 14 - 12
- Valine - 53 - 49
Unfortunately they both sorely lack in protein content, so for a meal to be balanced, the protein needs to be made up through other parts of a dish. I'm slightly skeptical about how much protein the fungi in TFA produce.
Humans don't have that.
Forget about humans. Do you think a horse has problems maintaining muscle mass? We're opportunistic scavengers. We run on nearly anything.
As mentioned down-thread, gaining and maintaining muscle mass is not just for bodybuilders, it's incredibly important as we age to maintain quality of life. Sarcopenia as a result of disuse is one of the plagues of our modern times, and contributes to huge quality of life declines as we age.
It's ridiculously easy to get your recommended daily averages even as a vegetarian without thinking about it. Rice and beans? Complete amino acid profile. Same with bread and butter. But let's get into statistics and leave the anecdata behind us! Most Americans are consuming double their recommended protein intake, but half the fiber: https://www.deseret.com/2024/1/30/24055585/americans-eating-...
Aside from that, there is plenty of evidence that the RDA is woefully insufficient, e.g.:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9963165/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26960445/
That second article says in its summary: "Current evidence indicates intakes in the range of at least 1.2 to 1.6 g/(kg·day) of high-quality protein is a more ideal target for achieving optimal health outcomes in adults". That's slightly lower than Examine's figure of 1.2 to 1.6, but whatever. Even assuming the lower figure of 1.2, 56g would be sufficient for a 46.7kg man. I don't know many of them.
That's just after a 30 second search. I can't find the study right now, but if you lock people in a metabolic ward and only give them the RDA of protein, they lose muscle mass. It's not even sufficient for maintenance.
I'm not a bodybuilder, and I'm not "cutting", I'm just losing some weight and want to make sure that what I lose is fat, not muscle. Again, maintaining muscle is about much more than bodybuilding, maintaining basic strength is essential to living a pain- and restriction-free life. I'm more systematic than most because I know that makes it more effective, but wanting to lose weight is not a niche use case. I'm also trying to get my parents to eat more protein because they're older and there's plenty of evidence that their needs are higher, and it's very difficult for them as vegetarians (partly because they resist lifestyle change, admittedly).
Balanced diets are important, but your digestion and satiety are almost certainly better served by varying what they're tasked with for individual meal.
It's also a good way to start of with veganism, because you don't need to instantly replace all of your old recepies.
- You like meat, but don’t want to eat it for religious reasons.
- You like meat, but don’t want to eat it for environmental/sustainability reasons (this is arguably a subset of the ‘ethical reasons’ one)
- You like meat, but it is too expensive (expect this one to get more common as water shortages and emissions reduction initiatives bite; it takes a _hell_ of a lot of water to produce a kilo of beef…)
- You like meat, but it is too high-risk (we keep having these run-ins with zoonotic diseases, you will note; what if cows are an ideal carrier for the next COVID? If we were in the habit of eating mustelids we’d probably already be having that conversation.)
I mean, there are _lots_ of potential reasons.
If I order a veg burger, and I can’t tell if it is meat or not, I might be getting meat. And tbh after decades of no meat, I’m not interested. All y’all can eat whatever you want, it’s just not for me.
Other vegetarians/vegans feel differently. It’s not always a logical thing, food is so primal that explanations only go so far.
I wouldn't say the texture resembles pulled pork though. Maybe visually if you squint a little.
The main challenge with unripe jackfruit is that it's difficult to cut and prepare without making a mess. There's a sort of extremely sticky glue that comes out of it. It will ruin your kitchen if you're unprepared. It's best to buy it at the market where it has been freshly cut and sliced for you.
I very much enjoyed Nasi Gudeg in Yogyakarta, Indonesia where it is also treated as a traditional ingredient rather than a meat replacement.
The food there is a very interesting mix of French, Chinese, Malaysian, Vietnamese, Indian and Malagasy cuisine. Pretty unique.
In most countries you can find cows that graze in national parks and order ground beef & organs in bulk. But even with a bad diet those animals will be "healthier" to consume.
In any case, this appears to only cover cultured meat, which is not commercially available in significant quantity anywhere, and likely won't be for some time. It doesn't cover quorn and the like (the koji mold product is very much in the quorn category, not the cultured meat category).
Uhh.. what?
I think this is the main practical difference; more aesthetics than anything else. Of course, for food, aesthetics are all-important; realistically, people will only accept a meat substitute if it tastes as they expect.
Yes it's a different fungus, but still?
Soy produced in the US and China (the major non-former-forest-oriented producers) is pretty environmentally friendly, certainly moreso than any animal protein production. However, as you say, it mostly goes to livestock feed anyway.
2. it is an androgen disrupter. there's a lot of denialism about it from the food industry (soybean oil and soy protein are everywhere in processed foods) and a few very vocal groups, but most normal men would think twice about consuming it if they were told what we currently know about phytoestrogens and their effect.
This is, of course, a concern if you're allergic to soy. However, if you avoid everything that anyone's allergic to, you're not going to be eating much. Even avoiding the EU's 14 notifiable allergens, say, would leave you able to eat very little.
> but most normal men would think twice about consuming it if they were told what we currently know about phytoestrogens and their effect.
Does "what we currently know", here, refer to what conspiracy theorists currently know? General consensus is no known effect (from phytoestrogens; some other substances in soy do have known health effects, particularly in terms of drug interactions).
Interestingly, people rarely have the same concern about _cow's milk_, which of course actually does contain mammalian estrogen (there's some evidence that this may be carcinogenic, but I don't think it's particularly strong). One assumes the milk lobby have a bigger advertising budget...
here you go: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2834330/
(and I could find ten more studies like that in 15 minutes if you wish to engage in this argument further)
>The serum levels of sex hormone-binding globulin significantly increased, and the serum levels of free testosterone and dihydrotestosterone (DHT) decreased significantly after 3-month supplementation. Among the 10 equol non-producers, equol became detectable in the serum of two healthy volunteers after 3-month supplementation. This study revealed that short-term administration of soy isoflavones stimulated the production of serum equol and decreased the serum DHT level in Japanese healthy volunteers. These results suggest the possibility of converting equol non-producers to producers by prolonged and consistent soy isoflavones consumption.
now feel free to pivot and say that it doesn't matter and/or it is a good thing, "dude".
Phytoestrogens are a fun bogeyman for mostly conservative "macho men". The Harvard School for Public Health has a decent springboard of research to start from: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/soy/
More generally, fermentation and bacteria are essential to most cuisines in the world.
If you feel put off by the idea of eating mold, I feel sad for your taste buds.
But that's besides the point, I mainly meant his needs to be rebranded ;)
It feels very much like saying that a car would be more efficient if it had no wheels or if it ran on rails. It's true but also misses the point entirely.
I don't live purely to breathe, good food is up there in the top tier of delights in life, along with family, travel, etc. Those are the motivating factors that get me up in the morning.
It all just feels like a huge psychological operation. Consume less, so that someone else can consume more. Why would I willingly give up on everything I enjoy and make myself depressed?
This is a very dramatic take. Where in the article is anything even remotely approaching that implied?
This is just another form of protein that could be good, tasty, and healthy, and doesn't require animals to produce. There are many reasons this is a good alternative to have.
You could eat this for one meal a week, while still eating "real" meat the rest of the time, and help reduce the pressure on our ecosystem just a tiny bit.
But priority 0 remains quality of life. If fungi are not as liked as natural meat, what we need is sustainable meat, not sustainable other.
Quality of life now means beef. When beef will not be available, this crap will make sense.
Anyway, soy sauce is something that people _added_ to their diet. The article is about _substituting_ an important part of the diet.
There are groups around the world that eat vastly different diets than a typical westerner diet. Including ones that are vegetarian, and have been for a lot longer than you might expect.