Summary of Study ST003600
This data is available at the NIH Common Fund's National Metabolomics Data Repository (NMDR) website, the Metabolomics Workbench, https://www.metabolomicsworkbench.org, where it has been assigned Project ID PR002228. The data can be accessed directly via it's Project DOI: 10.21228/M8MZ51 This work is supported by NIH grant, U2C- DK119886.
See: https://www.metabolomicsworkbench.org/about/howtocite.php
This study contains a large results data set and is not available in the mwTab file. It is only available for download via FTP as data file(s) here.
| Study ID | ST003600 |
| Study Title | Development of Food Material Source Technology for Future Alternative Meats (Including Cultured Meat) |
| Study Summary | The growing demand for sustainable food sources has accelerated the development of cultured meat as an alternative to traditional meat products. This study aims to predict the safety and nutritional equivalence of cultured meat compared to conventional meat using a comprehensive metabolomics approach. In this study, we conducted a comparative metabolomic analysis of conventional chicken meat, muscle satellite cells, and differentiated cells. Our findings reveal that while the overall metabolic profiles of cultured and original meats are comparable, significant differences are observed in specific metabolites. Notably, metabolites associated with nutrient metabolism and synthesis display substantial variations among the samples. These differences suggest that the nutritional content of cultured meat may differ from that of traditional meat, potentially affecting its dietary value. Despite these differences in metabolic profiles, our analysis indicates that there is no significant impact on the safety of cultured meat itself. The safety of cultured meat remains within acceptable limits, and no adverse health risks were identified in the context of this study. However, the observed variations in nutrient-related metabolites highlight the need for further investigation to fully understand their implications. Our study contributes to the ongoing evaluation of cultured meat as a viable and safe alternative in the pursuit of sustainable food sources. |
| Institute | Sangmyung University |
| Last Name | Ihyeon |
| First Name | Cho |
| Address | Jongno-gu, Seoul, 서울, 03057, South Korea |
| mukuro259@gmail.com | |
| Phone | 01021146997 |
| Submit Date | 2024-11-19 |
| Raw Data Available | Yes |
| Raw Data File Type(s) | mzML |
| Analysis Type Detail | LC-MS |
| Release Date | 2024-12-06 |
| Release Version | 1 |
Select appropriate tab below to view additional metadata details:
Project:
| Project ID: | PR002228 |
| Project DOI: | doi: 10.21228/M8MZ51 |
| Project Title: | Metabolomic Insights of Cultured Meat |
| Project Summary: | The growing demand for sustainable food sources has accelerated the development of cultured meat as an alternative to traditional meat products. This study aims to predict the safety and nutritional equivalence of cultured meat compared to conventional meat using a comprehensive metabolomics approach. In this study, we conducted a comparative metabolomic analysis of conventional chicken meat, muscle satellite cells, and differentiated cells. Our findings reveal that while the overall metabolic profiles of cultured and original meats are comparable, significant differences are observed in specific metabolites. Notably, metabolites associated with nutrient metabolism and synthesis display substantial variations among the samples. These differences suggest that the nutritional content of cultured meat may differ from that of traditional meat, potentially affecting its dietary value. Despite these differences in metabolic profiles, our analysis indicates that there is no significant impact on the safety of cultured meat itself. The safety of cultured meat remains within acceptable limits, and no adverse health risks were identified in the context of this study. However, the observed variations in nutrient-related metabolites highlight the need for further investigation to fully understand their implications. Our study contributes to the ongoing evaluation of cultured meat as a viable and safe alternative in the pursuit of sustainable food sources. |
| Institute: | Sangmyung University |
| Department: | Department of Foodservice Management and Nutrition |
| Last Name: | Ihyeon |
| First Name: | Cho |
| Address: | Jongno-gu, Seoul, 서울, 03057, South Korea |
| Email: | mukuro259@gmail.com |
| Phone: | 01021146997 |
Subject:
| Subject ID: | SU003729 |
| Subject Type: | Other organism |
| Subject Species: | Gallus gallus |
| Taxonomy ID: | 9031 |
| Species Group: | Birds |
Factors:
Subject type: Other organism; Subject species: Gallus gallus (Factor headings shown in green)
| mb_sample_id | local_sample_id | Sample source | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| SA392480 | CON_2_pos | chicken meat | traditional meat |
| SA392481 | CON_3_neg | chicken meat | traditional meat |
| SA392482 | CON_2_neg | chicken meat | traditional meat |
| SA392483 | CON_1_pos | chicken meat | traditional meat |
| SA392484 | CON_3_pos | chicken meat | traditional meat |
| SA392485 | CON_1_neg | chicken meat | traditional meat |
| SA392486 | CAC_1_pos | muscle cell | cultured meat |
| SA392487 | CAC_2_pos | muscle cell | cultured meat |
| SA392488 | CAC_3_pos | muscle cell | cultured meat |
| SA392489 | CAC_1_neg | muscle cell | cultured meat |
| SA392490 | CAC_2_neg | muscle cell | cultured meat |
| SA392491 | CAC_3_neg | muscle cell | cultured meat |
| SA392492 | CIC_3_pos | muscle satellite cell | cultured meat |
| SA392493 | CIC_2_pos | muscle satellite cell | cultured meat |
| SA392494 | CIC_1_pos | muscle satellite cell | cultured meat |
| SA392495 | CIC_1_neg | muscle satellite cell | cultured meat |
| SA392496 | CIC_2_neg | muscle satellite cell | cultured meat |
| SA392497 | CIC_3_neg | muscle satellite cell | cultured meat |
| Showing results 1 to 18 of 18 |
Collection:
| Collection ID: | CO003722 |
| Collection Summary: | Cultured meat obtained from leading commercial producers (Neocrema, Seongnam, Korea). Original meat sourced from conventional farming (Harim, Iksan, Korea). |
| Sample Type: | Cultured cells |
Treatment:
| Treatment ID: | TR003738 |
| Treatment Summary: | No treatment |
Sample Preparation:
| Sampleprep ID: | SP003736 |
| Sampleprep Summary: | The samples were suspended in lysis buffer (50 mM ammonium bicarbonate), followed by sonication for 12 min at 15°C using Covaris S2 Focused-Ultrasonicator (Covaris, Woburn, MA, USA). The concentration of protein was quantified using the Pierce BCA Protein Assay Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). Metabolites were extracted from each 100 µg of protein sample by incubation with 4 volumes of cold methanol solution at -20°C for 2 hours. After centrifugation at 14,000×g for 10 min, the supernatant was transferred to a new 1.5 mL tube and completely dried using a speed-vac centrifugal vacuum concentrator(Vision Scientific, Daejeon, Korea). Dried metabolite contents were reconstituted in 100 µL of 0.1% formic acid in water. Reconstituted samples were transferred to autosampler vials and then subjected to LC-MS/MS analysis. |
Chromatography:
| Chromatography ID: | CH004492 |
| Chromatography Summary: | LC-MS/MS analysis for metabolomics was performed using a Q-Exactive Orbitrap hybrid mass spectrometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) along with a Vanquish UHPLC system (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). A 5 μL sample solution was injected into an Eclipse Plus C18 RRHD column (50 × 2.1 mm; id. 1.8 μm; Agilent, CA, USA) at 40°C. The flow rate of the mobile phase was 0.2 mL/min. Analytes were eluted from the column under a gradient (solvent A, 0.1% formic acid in water; solvent B, 0.1% formic acid in 80% acetonitrile). The elution gradient was as follows: 2.5% B for 2 min, 2–12% B over 2–11 min, 12–28% B over 11–15 min; 28–60% B over 15–22 min; 96% B over 22–26 min; returned to 2.5% B for 5 min. Solvent A was run every sample as a blank solution. |
| Instrument Name: | Thermo Vanquish |
| Column Name: | Agilent Eclipse Plus C18 RRHD (50 × 2.1mm, 1.8um) |
| Column Temperature: | 40°C |
| Flow Gradient: | 2.5% B for 2 min, 2.0–12% B over 2–11 min, 12–28% B over 11–15 min; 28–60% B over 15–22 min; 96% B over 22–26 min; returned to 2.5% B for 5 min |
| Flow Rate: | 0.2 mL/min |
| Solvent A: | 100% water; 0.1% formic acid |
| Solvent B: | 80% acetonitrile/20% water; 0.1% formic acid |
| Chromatography Type: | Reversed phase |
Analysis:
| Analysis ID: | AN005915 |
| Analysis Type: | MS |
| Chromatography ID: | CH004492 |
| Num Factors: | 3 |
| Num Metabolites: | 321 |
| Rt Units: | Minutes |
| Units: | peak area |
| Analysis ID: | AN005916 |
| Analysis Type: | MS |
| Chromatography ID: | CH004492 |
| Num Factors: | 3 |
| Num Metabolites: | 121 |
| Rt Units: | Minutes |
| Units: | peak area |
