Development and Evaluation of Vegan Yogurts and Sour Milk Alternatives from White Lupin

Development and Evaluation of Vegan Yogurts and Sour Milk Alternatives from White Lupin | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Development and Evaluation of Vegan Yogurts and Sour Milk Alternatives from White Lupin András Misz, Csaba Vágvölgyi, Csaba Csutorás This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3853374/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract A method to produce white lupin milk was devised, leading to the creation of fermented, dairy-like products. We developed vegan yogurt and sour milk alternatives using white lupin milk. Two mesophilic (CHN-11, CHN-22) and two thermophilic (YC-380, YC-X11) commercial yoghurt cultures were tested, with thermophilic ones yielding superior sensory outcomes for lupin-based yogurt alternatives. The sensory appeal of these products improved with inulin addition. Fourteen panelists assessed the products using a nine-point hedonic scale. Strawberry and peach-flavored white lupin yogurt alternatives achieved sensory scores comparable to cow milk yogurts, suggesting their potential as true substitutes. The sensory values of strawberry and peach-flavored white lupin-based yogurt alternatives closely matched those of cow milk yogurts, positioning them as viable alternatives. These lupin-based products could serve as functional foods for individuals with cow milk allergy or lactose intolerance. While current literature lacks reports on cross-reactivity between milk proteins and white lupin proteins, the potential allergenic proteins in white lupin do pose constraints on their broader application. lupin vegan yogurt alternatives functional food sensory evaluation Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Introduction Cow milk allergy (CMA) represents a clinical abnormal immunological response to cow milk proteins, stemming from interactions between certain milk proteins and various immune mechanisms, which can cause immediate IgE-mediated reactions [ 1 , 2 ]. Differently, reactions that do not involve the immune system are classified as cow milk protein intolerance. CMA is particularly prominent in early childhood, affecting 2–3% of infants in developed countries. However, it is notable that approximately 85–90% of affected children outgrow this sensitivity by the age of three. Cow milk is composed of over 20 proteins (allergens) capable of inciting allergic reactions, with most research identifying casein and β-lactoglobulin as the primary allergens [ 2 ]. Numerous studies have delved into the potential of milk from varied animals, such as goats [ 3 , 4 , 5 ], camels [ 6 ], sheep [ 3 ], mares, donkeys [ 5 , 7 ], and buffalos [ 3 ], as alternatives. The literature provides mixed outcomes. While some research points to the hypoallergenic properties of goat [ 8 ], mare, donkey [ 7 ], and camel milk [ 6 ], other studies indicate that milks from goats, sheep, and buffalo might elicit allergic reactions like cow milk. Intriguingly, even soy milk has been associated with allergic reactions in certain instances [ 9 ]. Beyond animal-derived alternatives, plant proteins are emerging as potential substitutes for CMA patients. Commercial milk alternatives like rice, soy, oat, coconut, and almond milk are available, yet are not always suitable for infants. Conversely, specialized infant formulas based on soy, rice, almonds, or carob seeds are accessible, along with plant protein-based products, such as soy yogurts and those with inulin [ 10 ] or derived from peanut milk [ 11 ]. Aside from CMA, a significant population segment grapples with lactose intolerance, a digestive issue arising from the body's inability to process lactose found predominantly in dairy. Plant-based dairy substitutes offer potential remedies [ 12 , 13 ]. Lupin seeds, boasting a 40–45% protein content, have emerged as a promising alternative. Comparable to soybeans in their protein-to-oil ratio, lupins have fewer anti-nutritional components. They offer not just proteins but a spectrum of nutrients: lipids, dietary fiber, minerals, vitamins [ 14 ], and phytochemicals like polyphenols [ 15 ]. The study here utilizes white lupin seeds to design yogurt alternatives devoid of cow milk, focusing on their development and key characteristics. Materials and Methods Raw materials White Lupin seeds ( Lupinus albus cv. Nelly) were sourced from The Center for Agricultural and Applied Economic Sciences at the University of Debrecen (Nyíregyháza, Hungary). Four different freeze-dried DVS commercial yogurt starter cultures were tested: YC-380 (thermophilic; Lactobacillus delbrueckii sp. bulgaricus, Streptococcus thermophilus ), YC-X11 (thermophilic; Lactobacillus delbrueckii sp. bulgaricus, Streptococcus thermophilus ), CHN-11 (mesophilic; Lactococcus lactis subsp. cremoris , Lactococcus lactis subsp. lactis , Leuconostoc mesenteroides subsp. cremoris , Lactococcus lactis subsp. diacetylactis ), and CHN-22 ( Lactococcus lactis subsp. lactis , Lactococcus lactis subsp. cremoris , Lactococcus lactis subsp. lactis biovar. diacetylactis , Leuconostoc mesenteroides subsp. cremoris , Leuconostoc pseudomesenteroides ). Production of Lupin milk The production procedure mirrored the domestic method for soymilk. Specifically: 100 g of white lupin seeds were soaked in 500 mL of water overnight, with water changes twice. The soaked seeds were blended thoroughly with the water. The resulting puree was boiled for 30 minutes, followed by the addition of another 500 mL of water. Post boiling, the puree was allowed to cool down before filtering through a cheesecloth and a 0.5 mm sieve. The produced lupin milk can be refrigerated for up to 3 days. The milk's light bitter flavor can be minimized by increasing the number of rinses during soaking and maintaining a low boiling state for 30 minutes. Lupin milk's chemical composition was previously evaluated by Elsamani et al. [ 16 ]. Production of White Lupin yogurt alternatives (WLY) Vegan yogurt-like beverages were crafted using white lupin milk. The process involved treating 0.5 L of white lupin milk with various cultures: CHN-11, CHN-22, YC-380, and YC-X11. For comparison, cow milk yogurt (CMY) was produced using the YC-X11 culture. Culture amounts varied from 4 mg to 20 mg. Mesophilic cultures incubated at 37°C, while thermophilic ones at 44°C. Incubation duration was shortened with increased culture amounts (around 3–4 hours). Post incubation, 20 gL − 1 of inulin was introduced for a sweeter taste. The yogurts were then flavored (strawberry and peach) and stored at 5°C for 24 hours. Water holding capacity (WHC) The WHC of the formulated yogurt-like products was assessed based on a modified method from Harte et al. [ 17 ]. The process consisted of centrifuging the stirred yogurt for 15 minutes at 8000 rpm, 4°C. WHC was calculated using the formula: WHC (%) = (1-W 1 /W 2 ) x 100, where W 1 is the whey weight post-centrifugation and W 2 is the yogurt weight. These measurements were conducted thrice, and WHC was determined after a 24-hour cold storage at 5°C. Susceptibility to syneresis Syneresis susceptibility was assessed by draining 100 mL yogurt sample on filter paper for 6 hours. The whey volume collected helped gauge syneresis using: STS (%) = (V 1 /V 2 ) x 100, where V 1 is the whey volume post-drainage and V 2 is the initial yogurt sample volume. This evaluation was done post a 24-hour 5°C storage. Fatty acid composition The fatty acid composition of the samples was ascertained using Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC–MS). Preparation began with the formation of fatty acid methyl esters from the sample extracts. For the extraction process, both White Lupin Yogurt (WLY) and Cow Milk Yogurt (CMY) samples underwent oil extraction through an adaptation of the Rose-Gottlieb method [ 18 ]: 30 g of the milk or yogurt sample was precisely measured and placed into a Rose-Gottlieb extraction flask. 3.75 mL of ammonia solution was introduced, after which the flask was securely closed and shaken vigorously. This mixture was subsequently heated in a 60°C water bath for 5 minutes. Following the heating, the mixture was agitated for an additional 2 minutes, post which 30 mL of 95% ethanol was added. After a series of shakes, the concoction was cooled to ambient temperature using cold water. 75 mL of diethyl ether was then poured into the mixture, followed by a 30-second shake. An equivalent volume (75 mL) of petroleum ether was subsequently added. Following a final series of shakes, the mixture was left undisturbed, allowing for the complete separation of the etheric layer, a process taking approximately 30 minutes. The distinct etheric layer was carefully siphoned off and transferred to a distillation flask. Employing a vacuum, the solvent was thoroughly evacuated. A 1 mL aliquot of the residue was solubilized in isooctane. The ester derivative was then crafted using 2M KOH in methanol, which was later neutralized with sodium bisulfate (NaHSO4). The resultant fatty acid methyl esters were then analyzed with a Shimadzu 2010 GC-MS, utilizing a Supelco-wax column. For accurate calibration and comparison, FAME-mix and Grain-mix standards from Sigma-Aldrich were employed. The entire analytical procedure was reiterated three times across different yogurt samples. The reported results represent the mean values of these three separate runs. Sensory evaluation After being stored overnight at 5°C, both yogurt-like beverages and traditional yogurt samples were subjected to a sensory evaluation, focusing on attributes such as appearance (encompassing color and texture), mouthfeel, flavor, and general acceptability. A group of fourteen volunteer panelists, proficient in food science and familiar with sensory evaluation techniques for yogurt, assessed the samples. Their evaluations used the nine-point hedonic scale, as defined by Stone and Sidel [ 19 ]. For the evaluation, panelists were provided two distinct samples, each presented in cups labeled with a unique three-digit number, containing roughly 25 mL of the product. The samples comprised a mix of White Lupin yogurt-like products and traditional cow milk yogurts. The hedonic scale ratings were as follows: 9: Like extremely 8: Like very much 7: Like moderately 6: Like slightly 5: Neither like nor dislike 4: Dislike slightly 3: Dislike moderately 2: Dislike very much 1: Dislike extremely Alongside their ratings, panelists were encouraged to provide additional comments or suggestions, particularly concerning the sensory texture, mouthfeel, and flavor profiles of the samples under evaluation. Results and Discussion Water holding capacity The water holding capacity (WHC) of White Lupin yogurt-like products surpassed that of Cow Milk yogurt (CMY), registering at 42.35 g / 100 g (Table 1 ). Table 1 WHC (water holding capacity) and STS (susceptibility to syneresis) values of White Lupin-based yogurt alternatives compared with cow milk yogurt (CMY) Examined parameter * CHN-11 * CHN-22 * YC-380 * YC-X11 CMY WHC (g/100 g) 46.61 ± 0.21 46.45 ± 0.27 47.03 ± 0.38 47.11 ± 0.35 42.35 ± 0.18 STS (mL/100 mL) 43.29 ± 0.19 43.45 ± 0.15 43.12 ± 0.22 43.07 ± 0.17 46.74 ± 0.26 *Two mesophilic (CHN−11, CHN−22) and two thermophilic (YC−380, YC−X11) cultures were applied to produce lupin−based sour milk and yogurt alternatives. CMY is cow milk yogurt . Values are means ±SD based on 3 observations . This variation in WHC between the yogurts can be credited to the differing properties of proteins and carbohydrates within them. The bond between proteins and water plays a pivotal role in fermented products, influencing their viscosity, mouthfeel, texture, and flavor [ 20 ]. Factors intrinsic to food proteins that affect WHC encompass amino acid composition, protein conformation, and attributes like surface polarity and hydrophobicity [ 21 ]. Another influencing element for the elevated WHC in White Lupin products could be the presence of inulin, known for its remarkable water retention ability. It also acts as a thickener, forming complexes with proteins through hydrogen bonds [ 22 ]. The incorporation of stabilizers can further enhance WHC values. These stabilizers serve dual purposes: they mitigate water movement in the yogurt matrix due to their water-binding ability, and they enhance texture and hydration by interacting with proteins [ 23 ]. Susceptibility to Syneresis White Lupin yogurt-like products exhibited lower Susceptibility to Syneresis (STS) compared to CMY, with a value of 46.74 mL/100 mL (Table 1 ). This reduced STS can be attributed to the richer fat content in White Lupin seeds (9–10%) in contrast to cow milk (3–4%). Typically, low-fat yogurts demonstrate a higher degree of Syneresis compared to their high-fat counterparts [ 24 ]. The fat globules in milk might operate as a copolymer alongside proteins, fortifying the gel network. Added inulin exerts a similar effect [ 22 ]. Fatty acid composition Yogurt-like beverages derived from lupin boast a superior fatty acid profile when juxtaposed with cow milk yogurts (Table 2 ). While the ratio of saturated to unsaturated fatty acids remains consistent across both yogurt types, the composition of unsaturated fatty acids in lupin-based yogurts is more beneficial nutritionally. The considerable quantities of n-3 and n-6 fatty acids present enrich their nutritional value. Lupin-based yogurt alternatives predominantly consist of saturated stearic acid (42.53%), palmitic acid (16.79%), and myristic acid (12.0%), but are also enhanced by essential unsaturated acids like linoleic acid (10.15%) and linolenic acid (8.43%). Table 2 Fatty acid composition of cow milk yogurt (CMY) and white lupin-based yogurt alternative (WLY) Fatty acid methyl ester * Tr (min) WLY (%) CMY (%) lauric acid methyl ester 7.7 - 2.38 ± 0.03 myristic acid methyl ester 12 0.26 ± 0.01 9.15 ± 0.09 palmitic acid methyl ester 16.3 16.79 ± 0.15 39.39 ± 0.24 palmitoleic acid methyl ester 17.1 0.38 ± 0.01 0.65 ± 0.01 cis-10-heptadecenoic acid methyl ester 20.7 2.06 ± 0.03 - stearic acid methyl ester 24.2 42.53 ± 0.21 14.25 ± 0.14 oleic acid methyl ester 25.3 1.8 ± 0.02 29.52 ± 0.20 linoleic acid methyl ester 28 10.15 ± 0.10 4.34 ± 0.05 linolenic acid methyl ester 32.7 8.43 ± 0.08 - arachidic acid methyl ester 39.5 6.9 ± 0.06 0.32 ± 0.01 cis-11-eicosenoic acid methyl ester 41.2 3.44 ± 0.04 - behenic acid methyl ester 52.4 6.6 ± 0.06 - erucic acid methyl ester 53.7 0.66 ± 0.01 - *Tr: retention time of different methyl esters in GC . Values are means ± SD based on 3 observations . Sensory evaluation The sensory evaluation outcomes of yogurts and yogurt-like beverages, categorized by appearance, texture, and flavor, are consolidated in Figs. 1 – 3 . All ratings for the assessed sensory attributes remained within the commercially accepted range, which is between 4 and 9 scores. Unflavored yogurt-like products scored lower in aspects like mouthfeel, flavor, and overall appeal when pitted against CMY. This difference can be attributed to the distinct lupin flavor. While heat-treating the lupin milk mitigates this pronounced flavor, its complete elimination remains challenging. Some test participants expressed aversion to this specific taste. However, flavor enhancements using fruit concentrates from strawberries and peaches led to improved flavor scores for lupin-based yogurt alternatives. White lupin sour milk products formulated with CHN-11 and CHN-22 mesophilic cultures generally garnered lower scores for mouthfeel, suggesting these cultures might be less optimal for lupin yogurt production compared to the YC-380 and YC-X11 cultures. Conclusions White lupin emerges as a promising alternative protein source for human nutrition. We developed a straightforward procedure to produce white lupin milk. From this milk, we formulated fermented dairy-like products. Our research indicates that various starter cultures can be employed, and the sensory attributes of lupin-based yogurt and sour milk alternatives can be enhanced using inulin. All the products we crafted exhibited satisfactory physico-chemical and sensory properties. The most favorable sensory outcomes were achieved with the YC-X11 yogurt culture. Notably, the sensory values of strawberry and peach-flavored white lupin-based yogurt alternatives closely matched those of cow milk yogurts, positioning them as viable alternatives. White lupin-based yogurt alternatives hold potential as functional foods, particularly for individuals with cow milk allergies or lactose intolerance. While current literature lacks reports on cross-reactivity between milk proteins and white lupin proteins, the potential allergenic proteins in white lupin do pose constraints on their broader application. Declarations Author contributions András Misz: investigation, methodology, writing original draft. Csaba Vágvölgyi: conceptualization, methodology, writing-review, project administration. Csaba Csutorás: investigation, conceptualization, methodology, writing-review, project administration. Consent to Participate All participants agreed to participate in the research and to publish the results in Plant Foods for Human Nutrition. Research funding This research was supported by a KFI-2020-1.1.2. Grant from the Hungarian Government. Additional backing came from the Doctoral Student Scholarship Program of the Co-operative Doctoral Program of the Ministry of Innovation and Technology, funded by the National Research, Development and Innovation Fund (KDP-2021-C1764158, to A. Misz). Data availability The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Ethics approval All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments. References Zepeda-Ortega B, Goh A, Xepapadaki P, Sprikkelman A, Nicolaou N, Hernandez REH, Latiff AHA, Yat MT, Diab M, Hussaini BA, Setiabudiawan B, Kudla U, van Neerven RJJ, Muhardi L, Warner JO (2021) Strategies and future opportunities for the prevention, diagnosis, and management of cow milk allergy. Front Immunol 12:608372. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2021.608372 Vandenplas Y, Brough HA, Fiocchi A, Miqdady M, Munasir Z, Salvatore S, Thapar N, Venter C, Vieira MC, Meyer R (2021) Current guidelines and future strategies for the management of cow’s milk allergy. J Asthma Allergy 14:1243-1256. https://doi.org/10.2147/JAA.S276992 Restani P, Beretta B, Fiocchi A, Ballabio C, Galli CL (2002) Cross-reactivity between mammalian proteins. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 89:11-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1081-1206(10)62116-3 Alvarez MJ, Lombardero M (2002) IgE-mediated anaphylaxis to sheep’s and goat’s milk. Allergy 57(11):1091-1092. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1398-9995.2002.23836_13.x Clark S, García MBM (2017) A 100-Year Review: Advances in goat milk research. J Dairy Sci 100(12):10026-10044. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13287 El-Agamy EI, Nawar M, Shamsia SM, Awad S, Haenlein GFW (2009) Are camel milk proteins convenient to the nutrition of cow milk allergic children? Small Rumin Res 82:1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2008.12.016 Sarti L, Martini M, Brajon G, Barni S, Salari F, Altomonte I, Ragona G, Mor, F, Pucci N, Muscas G, Belli F, Corrias F, Novembre E (2019) Donkey’s milk in the management of children with cow’s milk protein allergy: nutritional and hygienic aspects. Ital J Pediatr 45:102. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13052-019-0700-4 Wang Z, Jiang S, Ma C, Huo D, Peng Q, Shao Y, Zhang J (2018) Evaluation of the nutrition and function of cow and goat milk based on intestinal microbiota by metagenomic analysis. Food Funct 9(4):2320-2327. https://doi.org/10.1039/c7fo01780d Katz Y, Gutierrez-Castrellon P, González MG, Rivas R, Lee BW, Alarcon P (2014) A comprehensive review of sensitization and allergy to soy-based products. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol 46:272–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12016-013-8404-9 Rinaldoni AN, Campderrós ME, Padilla AP (2012) Physico-chemical and sensory properties of yoghurt from ultrafiltered soymilk concentrate added with inulin. LWT - Food Sci Technol 45:142-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2011.09.009 Isanga J, Zhang G (2009) Production and evaluation of some physicochemical parameters of peanut milk yoghurt. LWT - Food Sci Technol 42:1132-1138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2009.01.014 Mäkinen OE, Wanhalinna V, Zannini E, Arendt EK (2016) Foods for special dietary needs: non-dairy plant-based milk substitutes and fermented dairy-type products. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 56:339-349. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2012.761950 Silva ARA, Silva MMN, Ribeiro BD (2020) Health issues and technological aspects of plant-based alternative milk. Food Res Int 131:108972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2019.108972 Martínez-Villaluenga C, Frías J, Vidal-Valverde C (2006) Functional lupin seeds ( Lupinus albus and Lupinus luteus ) after extraction of a-galactosides, Food Chem 98:291-299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2005.05.074 Oomah BD, Tiger N, Olson M, Balasubramanian P (2006) Phenolics and antioxidative activities in narrow-leafed lupins ( Lupinus angustifolius L.). Plant Foods Hum Nutr 61:91-97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11130-006-0021-9 Elsamani MO, Habbani SS, Babiker EE, Ahmed IAM (2014) Biochemical, microbial and sensory evaluation of white soft cheese made from cow and lupin milk. LWT - Food Sci Technol 59(1):553-559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2014.04.027 Harte F, Luedecke L, Swanson B, Barbosa-Canovas GV (2003) Low-fat set yogurt made from milk subjected to combinations of high hydrostatic pressure and thermal processing. J Dairy Sci 86(4):1074-1082. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)73690-X Ceirwyn SJ (1995) Analytical Chemistry of Foods. Chapman and Hall Publisher, London Stone H, Sidel JL (1993) Sensory Evaluation Practices. Academic Press Inc., New York Yu J, Ahmedna M, Goktepe I (2007) Peanut protein concentrates: production and functional properties as affected by processing. Food Chem 103(1):121-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2006.08.012 Barbut S (1999) Determining water and fat holding. In: Hall GM (ed), Methods of Testing Protein Functionality, Blackie Academic and Professional, New York pp 186-225 Aryana KJ, McGrew P (2007) Quality attributes of yogurt with Lactobacillus casei and various prebiotics. LWT - Food Sci Technol 40:1808-1814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2007.01.008 Thaiudom S, Goff HD (2003) Effect of κ-carrageenan on milk protein polysaccharide mixtures. Int Dairy J 13:763-771. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0958-6946(03)00097-9 Staff MC (1998) Cultured milk and fresh cheese. In: Early R (ed.), The Technology of Dairy Products, Chapman and Hall, New York pp 123-157 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-3853374","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":267262029,"identity":"ddc87530-5d9c-4ff5-8168-47dd0f05c71e","order_by":0,"name":"András Misz","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"New Champignons Ltd","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"András","middleName":"","lastName":"Misz","suffix":""},{"id":267262030,"identity":"5dece714-92bb-419e-b224-dd624bba8ae8","order_by":1,"name":"Csaba Vágvölgyi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Szeged","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Csaba","middleName":"","lastName":"Vágvölgyi","suffix":""},{"id":267262031,"identity":"d64d05a4-9dc2-4a57-810c-eed4f63f3ae9","order_by":2,"name":"Csaba Csutorás","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Eszterhazy Karoly Catholic University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Csaba","middleName":"","lastName":"Csutorás","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-01-11 12:14:14","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3853374/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3853374/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":49767937,"identity":"1a2b610b-f8ae-49da-bb6e-258a58034e1c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-01-17 17:18:49","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":17126,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSensory evaluation of unflavored lupin-based yogurt alternatives.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCHN-11, CHN-22, YC-380, YC-X11 are different starter cultures for the production of lupin-based yogurt alternatives, CMY is cow milk yogurt. Bars are means ±SD based on 3 observations.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3853374/v1/668a6e72b0e384eb3e5fada6.png"},{"id":49767938,"identity":"46f15a3b-f2b0-4bb8-a5be-9657b5001680","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-01-17 17:18:49","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":17729,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSensory evaluation of strawberry flavored lupin-based yogurt alternatives.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCHN-11, CHN-22, YC-380, YC-X11 are different starter cultures for the production of lupin-based yogurt alternatives, CMY is cow milk yogurt. Bars are means ±SD based on 3 observations.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3853374/v1/f6638e21e15658304adab362.png"},{"id":49767939,"identity":"2e3e5cd8-bcb1-4e03-b77b-28eeef4a6d52","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-01-17 17:18:50","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":17777,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSensory evaluation of peach flavored lupin-based yogurt alternatives.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCHN-11, CHN-22, YC-380, YC-X11 are different starter cultures for the production of lupin-based yogurt alternatives, CMY is cow milk yogurt. Bars are means ±SD based on 3 observations.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3853374/v1/523a5a4110c8921082b017b1.png"},{"id":49878837,"identity":"9b692db9-b7a3-408b-a546-62eb3fa0dbfb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-01-19 14:52:28","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":340436,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3853374/v1/db7a4b1b-7427-49bf-95c4-fbdc57e9f00d.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Development and Evaluation of Vegan Yogurts and Sour Milk Alternatives from White Lupin","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eCow milk allergy (CMA) represents a clinical abnormal immunological response to cow milk proteins, stemming from interactions between certain milk proteins and various immune mechanisms, which can cause immediate IgE-mediated reactions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]. Differently, reactions that do not involve the immune system are classified as cow milk protein intolerance. CMA is particularly prominent in early childhood, affecting 2\u0026ndash;3% of infants in developed countries. However, it is notable that approximately 85\u0026ndash;90% of affected children outgrow this sensitivity by the age of three. Cow milk is composed of over 20 proteins (allergens) capable of inciting allergic reactions, with most research identifying casein and β-lactoglobulin as the primary allergens [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNumerous studies have delved into the potential of milk from varied animals, such as goats [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e], camels [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e], sheep [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e], mares, donkeys [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e], and buffalos [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e], as alternatives. The literature provides mixed outcomes. While some research points to the hypoallergenic properties of goat [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e], mare, donkey [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e], and camel milk [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e], other studies indicate that milks from goats, sheep, and buffalo might elicit allergic reactions like cow milk. Intriguingly, even soy milk has been associated with allergic reactions in certain instances [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBeyond animal-derived alternatives, plant proteins are emerging as potential substitutes for CMA patients. Commercial milk alternatives like rice, soy, oat, coconut, and almond milk are available, yet are not always suitable for infants. Conversely, specialized infant formulas based on soy, rice, almonds, or carob seeds are accessible, along with plant protein-based products, such as soy yogurts and those with inulin [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e] or derived from peanut milk [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAside from CMA, a significant population segment grapples with lactose intolerance, a digestive issue arising from the body's inability to process lactose found predominantly in dairy. Plant-based dairy substitutes offer potential remedies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLupin seeds, boasting a 40\u0026ndash;45% protein content, have emerged as a promising alternative. Comparable to soybeans in their protein-to-oil ratio, lupins have fewer anti-nutritional components. They offer not just proteins but a spectrum of nutrients: lipids, dietary fiber, minerals, vitamins [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e], and phytochemicals like polyphenols [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]. The study here utilizes white lupin seeds to design yogurt alternatives devoid of cow milk, focusing on their development and key characteristics.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Materials and Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eRaw materials\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhite Lupin seeds (\u003cem\u003eLupinus albus\u003c/em\u003e cv. Nelly) were sourced from The Center for Agricultural and Applied Economic Sciences at the University of Debrecen (Ny\u0026iacute;regyh\u0026aacute;za, Hungary). Four different freeze-dried DVS commercial yogurt starter cultures were tested: YC-380 (thermophilic; \u003cem\u003eLactobacillus delbrueckii\u003c/em\u003e sp. \u003cem\u003ebulgaricus, Streptococcus thermophilus\u003c/em\u003e), YC-X11 (thermophilic; \u003cem\u003eLactobacillus delbrueckii\u003c/em\u003e sp. \u003cem\u003ebulgaricus, Streptococcus thermophilus\u003c/em\u003e), CHN-11 (mesophilic; \u003cem\u003eLactococcus lactis\u003c/em\u003e subsp. \u003cem\u003ecremoris\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eLactococcus lactis\u003c/em\u003e subsp. \u003cem\u003elactis\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eLeuconostoc mesenteroides\u003c/em\u003e subsp. \u003cem\u003ecremoris\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eLactococcus lactis\u003c/em\u003e subsp. \u003cem\u003ediacetylactis\u003c/em\u003e), and CHN-22 (\u003cem\u003eLactococcus lactis\u003c/em\u003e subsp. \u003cem\u003elactis\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eLactococcus lactis\u003c/em\u003e subsp. \u003cem\u003ecremoris\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eLactococcus lactis\u003c/em\u003e subsp. \u003cem\u003elactis\u003c/em\u003e biovar. \u003cem\u003ediacetylactis\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eLeuconostoc mesenteroides\u003c/em\u003e subsp. \u003cem\u003ecremoris\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eLeuconostoc pseudomesenteroides\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eProduction of Lupin milk\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe production procedure mirrored the domestic method for soymilk. Specifically: 100 g of white lupin seeds were soaked in 500 mL of water overnight, with water changes twice. The soaked seeds were blended thoroughly with the water. The resulting puree was boiled for 30 minutes, followed by the addition of another 500 mL of water. Post boiling, the puree was allowed to cool down before filtering through a cheesecloth and a 0.5 mm sieve. The produced lupin milk can be refrigerated for up to 3 days. The milk's light bitter flavor can be minimized by increasing the number of rinses during soaking and maintaining a low boiling state for 30 minutes. Lupin milk's chemical composition was previously evaluated by Elsamani et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eProduction of White Lupin yogurt alternatives (WLY)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eVegan yogurt-like beverages were crafted using white lupin milk. The process involved treating 0.5 L of white lupin milk with various cultures: CHN-11, CHN-22, YC-380, and YC-X11. For comparison, cow milk yogurt (CMY) was produced using the YC-X11 culture.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCulture amounts varied from 4 mg to 20 mg. Mesophilic cultures incubated at 37\u0026deg;C, while thermophilic ones at 44\u0026deg;C. Incubation duration was shortened with increased culture amounts (around 3\u0026ndash;4 hours). Post incubation, 20 gL\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e of inulin was introduced for a sweeter taste. The yogurts were then flavored (strawberry and peach) and stored at 5\u0026deg;C for 24 hours.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eWater holding capacity (WHC)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe WHC of the formulated yogurt-like products was assessed based on a modified method from Harte et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e]. The process consisted of centrifuging the stirred yogurt for 15 minutes at 8000 rpm, 4\u0026deg;C. WHC was calculated using the formula:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWHC (%) = (1-W\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e/W\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e) x 100,\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ewhere W\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e is the whey weight post-centrifugation and W\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e is the yogurt weight. These measurements were conducted thrice, and WHC was determined after a 24-hour cold storage at 5\u0026deg;C.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSusceptibility to syneresis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSyneresis susceptibility was assessed by draining 100 mL yogurt sample on filter paper for 6 hours. The whey volume collected helped gauge syneresis using:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSTS (%) = (V\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e/V\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e) x 100,\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ewhere V\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e is the whey volume post-drainage and V\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e is the initial yogurt sample volume. This evaluation was done post a 24-hour 5\u0026deg;C storage.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eFatty acid composition\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe fatty acid composition of the samples was ascertained using Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC\u0026ndash;MS). Preparation began with the formation of fatty acid methyl esters from the sample extracts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor the extraction process, both White Lupin Yogurt (WLY) and Cow Milk Yogurt (CMY) samples underwent oil extraction through an adaptation of the Rose-Gottlieb method [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e]: 30 g of the milk or yogurt sample was precisely measured and placed into a Rose-Gottlieb extraction flask. 3.75 mL of ammonia solution was introduced, after which the flask was securely closed and shaken vigorously. This mixture was subsequently heated in a 60\u0026deg;C water bath for 5 minutes. Following the heating, the mixture was agitated for an additional 2 minutes, post which 30 mL of 95% ethanol was added. After a series of shakes, the concoction was cooled to ambient temperature using cold water. 75 mL of diethyl ether was then poured into the mixture, followed by a 30-second shake. An equivalent volume (75 mL) of petroleum ether was subsequently added. Following a final series of shakes, the mixture was left undisturbed, allowing for the complete separation of the etheric layer, a process taking approximately 30 minutes. The distinct etheric layer was carefully siphoned off and transferred to a distillation flask. Employing a vacuum, the solvent was thoroughly evacuated. A 1 mL aliquot of the residue was solubilized in isooctane. The ester derivative was then crafted using 2M KOH in methanol, which was later neutralized with sodium bisulfate (NaHSO4).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe resultant fatty acid methyl esters were then analyzed with a Shimadzu 2010 GC-MS, utilizing a Supelco-wax column. For accurate calibration and comparison, FAME-mix and Grain-mix standards from Sigma-Aldrich were employed. The entire analytical procedure was reiterated three times across different yogurt samples. The reported results represent the mean values of these three separate runs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSensory evaluation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAfter being stored overnight at 5\u0026deg;C, both yogurt-like beverages and traditional yogurt samples were subjected to a sensory evaluation, focusing on attributes such as appearance (encompassing color and texture), mouthfeel, flavor, and general acceptability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA group of fourteen volunteer panelists, proficient in food science and familiar with sensory evaluation techniques for yogurt, assessed the samples. Their evaluations used the nine-point hedonic scale, as defined by Stone and Sidel [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]. For the evaluation, panelists were provided two distinct samples, each presented in cups labeled with a unique three-digit number, containing roughly 25 mL of the product. The samples comprised a mix of White Lupin yogurt-like products and traditional cow milk yogurts. The hedonic scale ratings were as follows:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e9: Like extremely\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e8: Like very much\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e7: Like moderately\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e6: Like slightly\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e5: Neither like nor dislike\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4: Dislike slightly\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3: Dislike moderately\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2: Dislike very much\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1: Dislike extremely\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlongside their ratings, panelists were encouraged to provide additional comments or suggestions, particularly concerning the sensory texture, mouthfeel, and flavor profiles of the samples under evaluation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results and Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eWater holding capacity\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe water holding capacity (WHC) of White Lupin yogurt-like products surpassed that of Cow Milk yogurt (CMY), registering at 42.35 g / 100 g (Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003ctable id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWHC (water holding capacity) and STS (susceptibility to syneresis) values of White Lupin-based yogurt alternatives compared with cow milk yogurt (CMY)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExamined parameter\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003eCHN-11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003eCHN-22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003eYC-380\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003eYC-X11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCMY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWHC (g/100 g)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e46.61\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e46.45\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e47.03\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e47.11\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e42.35\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSTS (mL/100 mL)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e43.29\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e43.45\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e43.12\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e43.07\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e46.74\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"6\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e*Two mesophilic (CHN\u0026minus;11, CHN\u0026minus;22) and two thermophilic (YC\u0026minus;380, YC\u0026minus;X11) cultures\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003ewere applied to produce lupin\u0026minus;based sour milk and yogurt alternatives. CMY is cow milk yogurt\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003eValues are means \u0026plusmn;SD based on 3 observations\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThis variation in WHC between the yogurts can be credited to the differing properties of proteins and carbohydrates within them. The bond between proteins and water plays a pivotal role in fermented products, influencing their viscosity, mouthfeel, texture, and flavor [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e]. Factors intrinsic to food proteins that affect WHC encompass amino acid composition, protein conformation, and attributes like surface polarity and hydrophobicity [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]. Another influencing element for the elevated WHC in White Lupin products could be the presence of inulin, known for its remarkable water retention ability. It also acts as a thickener, forming complexes with proteins through hydrogen bonds [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. The incorporation of stabilizers can further enhance WHC values. These stabilizers serve dual purposes: they mitigate water movement in the yogurt matrix due to their water-binding ability, and they enhance texture and hydration by interacting with proteins [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eSusceptibility to Syneresis\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWhite Lupin yogurt-like products exhibited lower Susceptibility to Syneresis (STS) compared to CMY, with a value of 46.74 mL/100 mL (Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). This reduced STS can be attributed to the richer fat content in White Lupin seeds (9\u0026ndash;10%) in contrast to cow milk (3\u0026ndash;4%). Typically, low-fat yogurts demonstrate a higher degree of Syneresis compared to their high-fat counterparts [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e]. The fat globules in milk might operate as a copolymer alongside proteins, fortifying the gel network. Added inulin exerts a similar effect [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eFatty acid composition\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYogurt-like beverages derived from lupin boast a superior fatty acid profile when juxtaposed with cow milk yogurts (Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWhile the ratio of saturated to unsaturated fatty acids remains consistent across both yogurt types, the composition of unsaturated fatty acids in lupin-based yogurts is more beneficial nutritionally. The considerable quantities of n-3 and n-6 fatty acids present enrich their nutritional value. Lupin-based yogurt alternatives predominantly consist of saturated stearic acid (42.53%), palmitic acid (16.79%), and myristic acid (12.0%), but are also enhanced by essential unsaturated acids like linoleic acid (10.15%) and linolenic acid (8.43%).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003ctable id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFatty acid composition of cow milk yogurt (CMY) and white lupin-based yogurt alternative (WLY)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFatty acid methyl ester\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003eTr (min)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWLY (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCMY (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003elauric acid methyl ester\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.38\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003emyristic acid methyl ester\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.26\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.15\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003epalmitic acid methyl ester\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.79\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e39.39\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003epalmitoleic acid methyl ester\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.38\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.65\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ecis-10-heptadecenoic acid methyl ester\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.06\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003estearic acid methyl ester\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e42.53\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.25\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eoleic acid methyl ester\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.8\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29.52\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003elinoleic acid methyl ester\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.15\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.34\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003elinolenic acid methyl ester\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.43\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003earachidic acid methyl ester\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e39.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.9\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.32\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ecis-11-eicosenoic acid methyl ester\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e41.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.44\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ebehenic acid methyl ester\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e52.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.6\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eerucic acid methyl ester\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e53.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.66\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e*Tr: retention time of different methyl esters in GC\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003eValues are means \u0026plusmn; SD based on 3 observations\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eSensory evaluation\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe sensory evaluation outcomes of yogurts and yogurt-like beverages, categorized by appearance, texture, and flavor, are consolidated in Figs. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e. All ratings for the assessed sensory attributes remained within the commercially accepted range, which is between 4 and 9 scores. Unflavored yogurt-like products scored lower in aspects like mouthfeel, flavor, and overall appeal when pitted against CMY. This difference can be attributed to the distinct lupin flavor. While heat-treating the lupin milk mitigates this pronounced flavor, its complete elimination remains challenging. Some test participants expressed aversion to this specific taste. However, flavor enhancements using fruit concentrates from strawberries and peaches led to improved flavor scores for lupin-based yogurt alternatives. White lupin sour milk products formulated with CHN-11 and CHN-22 mesophilic cultures generally garnered lower scores for mouthfeel, suggesting these cultures might be less optimal for lupin yogurt production compared to the YC-380 and YC-X11 cultures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eWhite lupin emerges as a promising alternative protein source for human nutrition. We developed a straightforward procedure to produce white lupin milk. From this milk, we formulated fermented dairy-like products. Our research indicates that various starter cultures can be employed, and the sensory attributes of lupin-based yogurt and sour milk alternatives can be enhanced using inulin. All the products we crafted exhibited satisfactory physico-chemical and sensory properties. The most favorable sensory outcomes were achieved with the YC-X11 yogurt culture. Notably, the sensory values of strawberry and peach-flavored white lupin-based yogurt alternatives closely matched those of cow milk yogurts, positioning them as viable alternatives. White lupin-based yogurt alternatives hold potential as functional foods, particularly for individuals with cow milk allergies or lactose intolerance. While current literature lacks reports on cross-reactivity between milk proteins and white lupin proteins, the potential allergenic proteins in white lupin do pose constraints on their broader application.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndr\u0026aacute;s Misz: investigation, methodology, writing original draft. Csaba V\u0026aacute;gv\u0026ouml;lgyi: conceptualization, methodology, writing-review, project administration. Csaba Csutor\u0026aacute;s: investigation, conceptualization, methodology, writing-review, project administration.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll participants agreed to participate in the research and to publish the results in Plant Foods for Human Nutrition.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch funding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research was supported by a KFI-2020-1.1.2. Grant from the Hungarian Government. Additional backing came from the Doctoral Student Scholarship Program of the Co-operative Doctoral Program of the Ministry of Innovation and Technology, funded by the National Research, Development and Innovation Fund (KDP-2021-C1764158, to A. Misz).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col start=\"1\" type=\"1\"\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZepeda-Ortega B, Goh A, Xepapadaki P, Sprikkelman A, Nicolaou N, Hernandez REH, Latiff AHA, Yat MT, Diab M, Hussaini BA, Setiabudiawan B, Kudla U, van Neerven RJJ, Muhardi L, Warner JO (2021) Strategies and future opportunities for the prevention, diagnosis, and management of cow milk allergy. Front Immunol 12:608372. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2021.608372\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVandenplas Y, Brough HA, Fiocchi A, Miqdady M, Munasir Z, Salvatore S, Thapar N, Venter C, Vieira MC, Meyer R (2021) Current guidelines and future strategies for the management of cow\u0026rsquo;s milk allergy. J Asthma Allergy 14:1243-1256. https://doi.org/10.2147/JAA.S276992\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRestani P, Beretta B, Fiocchi A, Ballabio C, Galli CL (2002) Cross-reactivity between mammalian proteins. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 89:11-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1081-1206(10)62116-3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlvarez MJ, Lombardero M (2002) IgE-mediated anaphylaxis to sheep\u0026rsquo;s and goat\u0026rsquo;s milk. Allergy 57(11):1091-1092. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1398-9995.2002.23836_13.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClark S, Garc\u0026iacute;a MBM (2017) A 100-Year Review: Advances in goat milk research. J Dairy Sci 100(12):10026-10044. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13287\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEl-Agamy EI, Nawar M, Shamsia SM, Awad S, Haenlein GFW (2009) Are camel milk proteins convenient to the nutrition of cow milk allergic children? Small Rumin Res 82:1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2008.12.016\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSarti L, Martini M, Brajon G, Barni S, Salari F, Altomonte I, Ragona G, Mor, F, Pucci N, Muscas G, Belli F, Corrias F, Novembre E (2019) Donkey\u0026rsquo;s milk in the management of children with cow\u0026rsquo;s milk protein allergy: nutritional and hygienic aspects. Ital J Pediatr 45:102. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13052-019-0700-4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang Z, Jiang S, Ma C, Huo D, Peng Q, Shao Y, Zhang J (2018) Evaluation of the nutrition and function of cow and goat milk based on intestinal microbiota by metagenomic analysis. Food Funct 9(4):2320-2327. https://doi.org/10.1039/c7fo01780d\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKatz Y, Gutierrez-Castrellon P, Gonz\u0026aacute;lez MG, Rivas R, Lee BW, Alarcon P (2014) A comprehensive review of sensitization and allergy to soy-based products. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol 46:272\u0026ndash;281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12016-013-8404-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRinaldoni AN, Campderr\u0026oacute;s ME, Padilla AP (2012) Physico-chemical and sensory properties of yoghurt from ultrafiltered soymilk concentrate added with inulin. LWT - Food Sci Technol\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003e45:142-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2011.09.009\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIsanga J, Zhang G (2009) Production and evaluation of some physicochemical parameters of peanut milk yoghurt. LWT - Food Sci Technol 42:1132-1138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2009.01.014\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eM\u0026auml;kinen OE, Wanhalinna V, Zannini E, Arendt EK (2016) Foods for special dietary needs: non-dairy plant-based milk substitutes and fermented dairy-type products. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 56:339-349. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2012.761950\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSilva ARA, Silva MMN, Ribeiro BD (2020) Health issues and technological aspects of plant-based alternative milk. Food Res Int 131:108972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2019.108972\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMart\u0026iacute;nez-Villaluenga C, Fr\u0026iacute;as J, Vidal-Valverde C (2006) Functional lupin seeds (\u003cem\u003eLupinus albus\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eLupinus luteus\u003c/em\u003e) after extraction of a-galactosides, Food Chem 98:291-299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2005.05.074\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOomah BD, Tiger N, Olson M, Balasubramanian P (2006) Phenolics and antioxidative activities in narrow-leafed lupins (\u003cem\u003eLupinus angustifolius\u003c/em\u003e L.). Plant Foods Hum Nutr 61:91-97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11130-006-0021-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eElsamani MO, Habbani SS, Babiker EE, Ahmed IAM (2014) Biochemical, microbial and sensory evaluation of white soft cheese made from cow and lupin milk. LWT - Food Sci Technol 59(1):553-559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2014.04.027\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarte F, Luedecke L, Swanson B, Barbosa-Canovas GV (2003) Low-fat set yogurt made from milk subjected to combinations of high hydrostatic pressure and thermal processing. J Dairy Sci 86(4):1074-1082. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)73690-X\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCeirwyn SJ (1995) Analytical Chemistry of Foods. Chapman and Hall Publisher, London\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStone H, Sidel JL (1993) Sensory Evaluation Practices. Academic Press Inc., New York\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYu J, Ahmedna M, Goktepe I (2007) Peanut protein concentrates: production and functional properties as affected by processing. Food Chem 103(1):121-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2006.08.012\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarbut S (1999) Determining water and fat holding. In: Hall GM (ed), Methods of Testing Protein Functionality, Blackie Academic and Professional, New York pp 186-225\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAryana KJ, McGrew P (2007) Quality attributes of yogurt with Lactobacillus casei and various prebiotics. LWT - Food Sci Technol 40:1808-1814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2007.01.008\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThaiudom S, Goff HD (2003) Effect of \u0026kappa;-carrageenan on milk protein polysaccharide mixtures. Int Dairy J 13:763-771. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0958-6946(03)00097-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStaff MC (1998) Cultured milk and fresh cheese. In: Early R (ed.), The Technology of Dairy Products, Chapman and Hall, New York pp 123-157\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"lupin, vegan yogurt alternatives, functional food, sensory evaluation","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3853374/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3853374/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eA method to produce white lupin milk was devised, leading to the creation of fermented, dairy-like products. We developed vegan yogurt and sour milk alternatives using white lupin milk. Two mesophilic (CHN-11, CHN-22) and two thermophilic (YC-380, YC-X11) commercial yoghurt cultures were tested, with thermophilic ones yielding superior sensory outcomes for lupin-based yogurt alternatives. The sensory appeal of these products improved with inulin addition. Fourteen panelists assessed the products using a nine-point hedonic scale. Strawberry and peach-flavored white lupin yogurt alternatives achieved sensory scores comparable to cow milk yogurts, suggesting their potential as true substitutes. The sensory values of strawberry and peach-flavored white lupin-based yogurt alternatives closely matched those of cow milk yogurts, positioning them as viable alternatives. These lupin-based products could serve as functional foods for individuals with cow milk allergy or lactose intolerance. While current literature lacks reports on cross-reactivity between milk proteins and white lupin proteins, the potential allergenic proteins in white lupin do pose constraints on their broader application.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Development and Evaluation of Vegan Yogurts and Sour Milk Alternatives from White Lupin","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-01-17 17:18:45","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3853374/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"9cdaab9d-36bd-43db-b462-feb32b5249e5","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 17th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-01-19T14:44:21+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-01-17 17:18:45","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-3853374","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-3853374","identity":"rs-3853374","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}