Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2023 Apr;62(3):1479-1492.
doi: 10.1007/s00394-023-03088-x. Epub 2023 Jan 18.

Substituting meat for mycoprotein reduces genotoxicity and increases the abundance of beneficial microbes in the gut: Mycomeat, a randomised crossover control trial

Dominic N Farsi  1 , Jose Lara Gallegos  2 , Georgios Koutsidis  2 , Andrew Nelson  2 , Tim J A Finnigan  3 , William Cheung  2 , Jose L Muñoz-Muñoz  2 , Daniel M Commane  2
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Substituting meat for mycoprotein reduces genotoxicity and increases the abundance of beneficial microbes in the gut: Mycomeat, a randomised crossover control trial

Dominic N Farsi et al. Eur J Nutr. 2023 Apr.

Abstract

Purpose: The high-meat, low-fibre Western diet is strongly associated with colorectal cancer risk. Mycoprotein, produced from Fusarium venanatum, has been sold as a high-fibre alternative to meat for decades. Hitherto, the effects of mycoprotein in the human bowel have not been well considered. Here, we explored the effects of replacing a high red and processed meat intake with mycoprotein on markers of intestinal genotoxicity and gut health.

Methods: Mycomeat (clinicaltrials.gov NCT03944421) was an investigator-blind, randomised, crossover dietary intervention trial. Twenty healthy male adults were randomised to consume 240 g day-1 red and processed meat for 2 weeks, with crossover to 2 weeks 240 g day-1 mycoprotein, separated by a 4-week washout period. Primary end points were faecal genotoxicity and genotoxins, while secondary end points comprised changes in gut microbiome composition and activity.

Results: The meat diet increased faecal genotoxicity and nitroso compound excretion, whereas the weight-matched consumption of mycoprotein decreased faecal genotoxicity and nitroso compounds. In addition, meat intake increased the abundance of Oscillobacter and Alistipes, whereas mycoprotein consumption increased Lactobacilli, Roseburia and Akkermansia, as well as the excretion of short chain fatty acids.

Conclusion: Replacing red and processed meat with the Fusarium-based meat alternative, mycoprotein, significantly reduces faecal genotoxicity and genotoxin excretion and increases the abundance of microbial genera with putative health benefits in the gut. This work demonstrates that mycoprotein may be a beneficial alternative to meat within the context of gut health and colorectal cancer prevention.

Keywords: Colorectal cancer risk; Genotoxicity; Meat; Microbiome; Mycoprotein; Quorn.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

This work was part funded by Marlow foods Ltd. TJAF is an employee of Marlow Foods. DNF, JLG, GK, AN, WC, JLMM and DMC are employees of Northumbria University. TJAF contributed to the project through regular discussion and by providing logistical support enabling effective study blinding. The research team at Northumbria University was responsible for the research design, data collection and analysis, and preparation of the manuscript. Aside from those mentioned above, the authors report no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Mycomeat study design. Mycomeat was an investigator-blind randomised crossover design comprising two study phases (2 weeks) separated by a washout period (4 weeks). During the study phases, participants supplemented habitual diet with either 240 g/day of red and processed meat (Meat), or mycoprotein-based foods (Mycoprotein)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Effects of Meat and Mycoprotein phases on faecal genotoxicity, assessed by percentage (%) DNA in tail following exposure to faecal water. Data represent a mean of four wells per treatment. 50 uM H2O2 and a carrier control were included as inter-assay controls, and t tests revealed a significant difference between 50 uM H2O2 and carrier control (P = 0.02). Mycoprotein phase: change from baseline, − 8.28 ± 3.60%, P = 0.05. Meat phase: change from baseline, + 4.91 ± 2.65%, P = 0.09; Difference in study phase effects, 13.19 ± 4.41%, P = 0.01. Error bars represent standard deviation. Changes within study phases and differences between study phases assessed using mixed-effects models (P ˂0.05 considered significant). *Indicates significant difference from baseline within the Mycoprotein study phase. #Indicates significant difference from baseline within the Meat study phase. †Indicates significant difference between the Mycoprotein and Meat study phase effects. §Indicates significant difference between 50 uM H2O2 and carrier control
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Effects of Meat and Mycoprotein phases on potential genotoxins. a Faecal nitroso compounds. Presented in nmol. Mycoprotein phase: change from baseline, − 1044.00 ± 377.00 nmol, P = 0.02. Meat phase: change from baseline, + 609.50 ± 541.00 nmol, P = 0.20; Difference in the study phase effects, 1653.50 ± 677.00 nmol, P = 0.01. b Urinary P-cresol sulphate. Presented in intensity. Mycoprotein phase: change from baseline, -3.35 × 108 ± 9.8 × 108intensity, P = 0.002; Meat phase: change from baseline, + 1.19 × 108 ± 1.41 × 108intensity, P = 0.40. Difference in study phase effects, 4.54 × 108 ± 1.89 × 108intensity, P = 0.02. c Faecal apocholic acid. Presented in intensity. Mycoprotein phase: change from baseline, + 2.23 × 107 ± 2.01 × 107intensity, P = 0.27. Meat phase: change from baseline, −2.70 × 107 ± 2.42 × 107intensity, P = 0.27. Difference in study phase effects, 4.93 × 107 ± 3.37 × 107intensity, P = 0.15. d Faecal 7-ketodeoxycholic acid. Presented in intensity. Mycoprotein phase: change from baseline, + 2.86 × 107 ± 1.89 × 107intensity, P = 0.82. Meat phase: change from baseline,  −8.03 × 106 ± 2.91 × 106intensity, P = 0.009. Difference in study phase effects, 3.66 × 107 ± 2.00 × 107intensity, P = 0.17. Error bars represent standard deviation. For all data, changes within study phases and differences between study phases assessed using mixed-effects models (P ˂0.05 considered significant). *Indicates significant difference from baseline within the Mycoprotein study phase. #Indicates significant difference from baseline within the Meat study phase. †Indicates significant difference between Mycoprotein and Meat study phase effects
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Effects of Meat and Mycoprotein phases on gut microbial phylum composition. Gut microbial phylum composition at baseline and completion for both Meat and Mycoprotein phases. There were significant increases in Proteobacteria (P = 0.004) and Verrucomicrobia (P = 0.02) following the Mycoprotein phase and a significant reduction in Verrucomicrobia (P = 0.04) after the Meat phase. The difference in diet effects on Verrucomicrobia (P = 0.03) was also significant. Changes within study phases and differences between study phases assessed using generalised mixed-effects models (P ˂0.05 considered significant)
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Effects of Meat and Mycoprotein phases on gut microbial genera. Gut microbial genera identified as significant for difference between study phase effects. Differences between study phases assessed using generalised mixed-effects models (P ˂0.05 considered significant)
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Effects of Meat and Mycoprotein phases on gut microbial genera. a Gut microbial genera identified as significant for change in abundance from baseline after the Mycoprotein phase. b Gut microbial genera identified as significant for change in abundance from baseline after the Meat phase. Changes within study phases assessed using generalised mixed-effects models (P ˂0.05 considered significant)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bernstein AM, Song M, Zhang X, Pan A, Wang M, Fuchs CS, et al. Processed and unprocessed red meat and risk of colorectal cancer: analysis by tumor location and modification by time. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(8):e0135959. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0135959. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Carr PR, Holleczek B, Stegmaier C, Brenner H, Hoffmeister M. Meat intake and risk of colorectal polyps: results from a large population-based screening study in Germany. Am J Clin Nutr. 2017;105(6):1453–1461. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.116.148304. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cross AJ, Leitzmann MF, Gail MH, Hollenbeck AR, Schatzkin A, Sinha R. A prospective study of red and processed meat intake in relation to cancer risk. PLoS Med. 2007;4(12):e325. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040325. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Key TJ, Bradbury KE, Murphy N. Diet and colorectal cancer in UK Biobank: a prospective study. Int J Epidemiol. 2019 doi: 10.1093/ije/dyz064. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hughes R, Pollock JR, Bingham S. Effect of vegetables, tea, and soy on endogenous N-nitrosation, fecal ammonia, and fecal water genotoxicity during a high red meat diet in humans. Nutr Cancer. 2002;42(1):70–77. doi: 10.1207/s15327914nc421_10. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data