Next Article in Journal
Quantitative Reliability Evaluation for Cryogenic Impact Test Equipment
Previous Article in Journal
Gamut Boundary Distortion Arises from Quantization Errors in Color Conversion
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Incorporation of Protein Alternatives in Bakery Products: Biological Value and Techno-Functional Properties

by
Carlos Daniel Perea-Escobar
1,
Liliana Londoño-Hernández
2,
Juan Roberto Benavente-Valdés
3,
Nagamani Balagurusamy
4,
Juan Carlos Contreras Esquivel
5 and
Ayerim Y. Hernández-Almanza
1,*
1
Food Products Research and Development Lab, School of Biological Sciences, Universidad Autonoma de Coahuila, Unidad Torreón, Torreón 27276, Coahuila, Mexico
2
School of Basic Sciences, Technology and Engineering, Universidad Nacional Abierta y a Distancia—UNAD, Palmira 763531, Colombia
3
Departamento de Ingeniería Química, Facultad de Ciencias Químicas, Universidad Autónoma de Coahuila, Saltillo 25280, Coahuila, Mexico
4
Laboratorio de Biorremediación, Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas, Universidad Autónoma de Coahuila, Torreón 27000, Coahuila, Mexico
5
Laboratorio de Glicobiotecnología Aplicada, Facultad de Ciencias Químicas, Universidad Autónoma de Coahuila, Saltillo 25280, Coahuila, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(20), 11279; https://doi.org/10.3390/app152011279
Submission received: 11 September 2025 / Revised: 6 October 2025 / Accepted: 8 October 2025 / Published: 21 October 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Food Science and Technology)

Abstract

Wheat-based bakery products are important sources of energy and micronutrients; however, their protein content is lower than that of animal-based foods, and they generally have a high glycemic index. Therefore, incorporating other ingredients could improve the nutritional properties of this type of product. The partial replacement of wheat flour with flours made from other cereals, legumes, and oilseeds has been evaluated, which complements the amino acid profile, improves the rheological properties of the dough, and increases the content of polyunsaturated fatty acids, fiber, vitamins, and minerals. Similarly, the addition of flour from insects has recently gained relevance due to its high biological value protein content, as well as its low production costs and reduced environmental impact. On the other hand, the use of agro-industrial residues such as cheese whey has stood out for its potential for addition to some bread and pastry products, increasing their nutritional value. Therefore, the incorporation of alternative proteins is becoming a valuable tool for developing these types of products, improving their nutritional properties to prevent or control chronic diseases such as obesity, diabetes, hypertension, etc. However, it is important to analyze the incorporation of these ingredients at each stage of production to achieve adequate rheological properties. Likewise, it is necessary to evaluate consumer acceptance, product safety, and the corresponding regulations. This review will address different options for alternative ingredients that can partially replace wheat-based formulations, as well as how they impact the nutritional value and techno-functional properties of these products.

1. Introduction

Today, consumers are increasingly interested in foods that provide health benefits, including ingredients considered functional or that add value to products [1,2]. Therefore, these foods have become the main focus of the growing food industry and the subject of numerous research studies [3,4]. A particularly important aspect within the field of functional foods is the incorporation of proteins of high biological value due to the numerous health benefits associated with the consumption of these proteins [5,6,7]. Such is their essential role in maintaining muscle mass and bone structure, immune response, recovery from illness, and the production of hormones and enzymes [8,9,10].
They are considered proteins of high biological value because they contain all the essential amino acids (histidine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine, threonine, tryptophan, and valine), and they provide them in adequate proportions to meet human physiological needs. They also have high bioavailability [11,12]. These proteins come mainly from animal-based foods and are considered to be of high biological value due to their complete amino acid profile [5,6]. In particular, bakery products use wheat as their main ingredient, a cereal rich in carbohydrates that provides essential energy to millions of people every day. However, it has a low amino acid profile as it is limited in lysine, threonine, and tryptophan content [8,13,14].
From this perspective, enriching or fortifying bakery products with alternative ingredients that complement their amino acid profile while reducing their glycemic index can become a strategic approach to developing functional foods that contribute to the prevention and treatment of non-communicable diseases [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. There are multiple options for fortifying bakery products and ensuring that they are enriched with the necessary nutrients. For example, alternative cereals to wheat such as oats, barley, millet, quinoa, or amaranth add protein, but also other functional nutrients such as fiber [26,27,28]. These plant proteins not only offer health benefits, but also have a positive impact on the environment, as plant-based diets are estimated to reduce greenhouse gases by 30–52%, land use by 20–45%, and water use by 14–27%, compared to diets based mainly on the consumption of animal products [29,30].
Likewise, the incorporation of legumes such as chickpeas, lentils, beans, and broad beans helps complement the amino acid profile with lysine and tryptophan [31]. The combination of cereals and legumes has been shown to play an important role in the diet in developing countries, as they complement each other to provide high-value proteins. Legumes are also particularly rich in fiber and vitamins [32,33,34]. These proteins can improve the techno-functional properties and shelf life of baked goods when added to them, due to their water retention capacity and the interaction between the proteins and wheat starch, which helps form a three-dimensional viscoelastic network, giving the dough and the final product better properties [35,36]. Furthermore, the incorporation of oilseeds and seeds such as chia, flaxseed, sesame, pumpkin, and sunflower seeds provides polyunsaturated fatty acids, antioxidants, etc., in addition to protein [37,38,39,40]. They also have structuring, emulsifying, and thickening properties, as well as water retention capacity due to the mucilage in the seeds [41,42,43].
Recently, insect flours have been introduced, offering high protein content with a lower environmental impact, since their production requires less water and land use [44,45]. For example, Xie et al., 2022 [46] evaluated the effects of adding mealworm flour (Tenebrio molitor L.). These authors made soda crackers, partially replacing wheat flour with mealworm flour at different levels: MO: 100% wheat, then successively replacing it with mealworm flour in different treatments: M5: 5%, M10: 10%, M15: 15%, and M20: 20%. They found that higher concentrations of mealworm flour significantly improved the nutritional properties, with M20 reaching up to 16.0% protein and 4.0% fiber. However, the color became increasingly darker and reddish as the substitution increased. Similarly, Ayustaningwarno et al., 2024 [47] explored the use of cricket flour (Acheta domesticus) to improve the sensory and nutritional properties of cookies, increasing iron and protein levels. They used different treatments using a 100% wheat control formula (F0), and then partially replaced the percentage with cricket flour: F1 (5%), F2 (10%), F3 (15%), and F4 (20%). The results showed that protein and fiber increased as the substitution level increased, reaching up to 11.64% and 5.67%, respectively, when 20% of the wheat flour was replaced with cricket flour. Insects are an alternative substitute for animal-based foods due to their nutritional benefits, representing an area of opportunity for developing enriched and sustainable foods [48,49].
There are also other alternative sources of protein that could be implemented, such as cheese whey, which is an important by-product of the dairy industry [50,51]. Previously known as industrial waste, it is now recognized for its high nutrient content, including proteins, vitamins, and minerals, and is used in various food industries, such as beverages, breads, jams, etc. [52,53]. Moura-Alves et al., 2025 [54], developed a functional bread using only rye from the region (Trás-os-Montes, Portugal) to which they added liquid cheese whey as a substitute for water. The authors evaluated three formulations: a traditional control recipe with rye flour, wheat, and water (CTR); another combined with the same rye and wheat base, but with water replaced by cheese whey (RW); and finally, a formulation made entirely of rye with cheese whey (FRW). The RW formulation had the highest protein content (~6.54 g/100 g), while the FRW had the highest fiber content (~6.96 g/100 g). However, the FRW received the highest score in the sensory evaluation because it had a firmer texture and a denser crumb. In particular, the addition of whey to bakery products provides important nutritional and techno-functional properties such as emulsifying and foaming capacity, solubility, and antimicrobial activity, which is why it has been used in baking in either liquid or powder form [55,56,57].
The addition of these protein ingredients to bakery products is emerging as a solid strategy for transforming an everyday food into a functional food capable of addressing nutritional deficiencies and preventing and treating chronic diseases [58]. It is important to take an interdisciplinary approach that combines food technology, nutrition, process engineering, and social sciences. The objective of this study is to analyze the technological trends and challenges of incorporating protein ingredients into bakery products for the development of functional breads that balance sensory acceptance, industrial viability, and a product with better nutritional properties.

2. Role of Proteins in Bakery Products

Proteins have essential technological characteristics that influence the dough and the final baked product. A key characteristic is their water retention capacity; when exposed to water, the hydrophilic parts of the polypeptide chains, particularly the ionizable carboxyl and amino groups, hydrate and unfold [59]. This swelling allows the glutenin and gliadin fractions to align and interact, forming a cohesive viscoelastic matrix. This matrix can resist deformation during kneading, traps carbon dioxide in the dough, and expands with oven steam, significantly affecting the final volume and uniformity of the crumb [60].
On the other hand, the elasticity and extensibility of wheat depend mainly on glutenins, which create elasticity through disulfide bonds, while gliadins improve extensibility due to their flexible structures and fewer disulfide bonds [61]. This balance is vital for kneading tolerance, gas retention, and dough stability during fermentation. Too much elasticity can result in dense products, while excessive extensibility can lead to structural failures during baking [62]. Similarly, protein solubility, which is affected by pH, ionic strength, and temperature, influences the availability of polar and nonpolar groups at air–water or oil–water interfaces [63]. Greater solubility improves emulsifying (stabilization of fats in dough) and foaming (incorporation of air into whipped dough) capabilities, which promotes a softer crumb with better texture [64,65].
Water retention occurs during cooling after baking, with proteins acting as water reservoirs, delaying starch retrogradation, which is the main cause of crumb hardening, and prolonging the sensory shelf life of bread [66]. Gelation creates cohesive networks at denaturation temperatures between 60 and 80 °C (Figure 1). These networks connect with gluten and gelatinized starch, improving structural support, clean cutting, and compressive strength in enriched breads or cakes. In gluten-free products, the gelation of plant or animal proteins is crucial to replace the structural function of gluten [67]. Moreover, proteins play a key role in film formation and crust development during baking and surface drying, as they create a semipermeable film that controls moisture migration and improves crispness [68]. This film, rich in reactive amino acids, is essential for the Maillard reaction with reducing sugars, which results in melanoidin compounds that provide a golden color and a desirable aroma. In addition, proteins can produce peptides with antioxidant and immunomodulatory properties during digestion or dough maturation. The selection of protein sources rich in limiting amino acids and the optimization of processing improve the functional value of the final product [69].

3. Techno-Functional Properties of Wheat Proteins

Wheat proteins, composed mainly of glutenins (polymeric) and gliadins (monomeric are the key functional and technological components of bakery product [70]. Upon hydration and mechanical energy input, the hydrophilic domains of these proteins unfold, enabling the formation of a cohesive three-dimensional network stabilized by disulfide, hydrogen, and hydrophobic bonds [71]. This viscoelastic matrix combines the elasticity provided by high molecular weight glutenins with the extensibility attributed to less cross-linked gliadins; the balance between these two characteristics is fundamental in determining kneading tolerance and CO2 retention capacity during fermentation [72]. In addition, these proteins exhibit emulsifying and foaming properties: their amphipathic regions align at the air–water or oil–water interface, reducing surface tension and stabilizing the fine gas bubbles that contribute to the formation of uniform crumbs with low bulk density (Figure 2). At the same time, their significant hydration capacity inhibits starch retrogradation, delaying hardening and preserving the softness of the bread throughout its shelf life [73].

4. Alternative Protein Sources in Bakery Products

It is important to analyze the nutritional deficiencies of wheat in order to complement it effectively. For this reason, it is essential to evaluate both the protein content and the amino acid profile of the ingredients (Table 1). This ensures that, upon addition, they can combine to form a protein of high biological value while simultaneously increasing the total protein content [74,75,76,77].

4.1. Cereals

Wheat is the main cereal used as flour in the production of bakery products. However, there has been growing interest in alternative plant-based flours (Table 2), and their use to replace wheat in the baking industry is a current research focus, mainly due to the rise in public demand for gluten-free breads [95]. In addition, in view of dietary trends, proteins free of the allergens present in wheat proteins are being sought to improve the nutritional value of bread [96].

4.1.1. Oat

In this case, oat flour is used in gluten-free formulations, but due to its high protein levels, its application as a partial replacement for wheat flour in bread making has been limited until now. A commercial oat bread made with yeast and containing up to 35% oat flour was acceptable to consumers in terms of taste, crumb softness, and appearance [97,134]. Interest in the use of thermally processed oat products as a functional replacement for wheat flour has grown along with a greater understanding of the flavor and texture profiles that oats can contribute to bakery products [98,135].
Oat flour has a total oil content of up to 7.8%. Ground oats, whether untreated or subjected to mild heat treatment, are rich in various essential nutrients, including a protein content ranging from 12.1% to 17.8%, approximately 4.7 mg of iron, and around 177 mg of zinc, along with β-glucan levels between 2.8% and 10% in the flakes [136,137]. As a result, oat flour has a higher protein content compared to other cereals and has a higher concentration of non-starch polysaccharides. These nutritional levels are significantly higher than the protein content found in refined wheat flour, which consists mainly of a mixture of the monomeric amino acids glutamic acid and proline [138,139,140]. Together, they form a cohesive network of soluble starch and glutenins in saline and alkaline solutions, allowing the formation of viscoelastic doughs suitable for bread production [141]. For example, Ivanišová et al., 2023 [142], used black oat flour (Norik and Hucul varieties) at concentrations of 3, 6, and 9% to replace wheat flour in bread, which had a significantly higher protein content (p < 0.05) with values between in which the formulation with up to 30% substitution had a protein content of 11.94% and a higher crude fiber content of 6.73% compared to the control bread. mineral levels also increased, especially magnesium (~73.00 mg/100 g), iron (~45.00 mg/100 g), and calcium (~40.00 mg/100 g). Likewise, in the sensory evaluation, the enriched formulations obtained a better score than the control formulation.
In this context, the addition of alternative plant-based flours is rapidly becoming an extremely popular and beneficial choice, due to their remarkable nutritional qualities and exceptional versatility as a replacement for half of the total amount of wheat flour traditionally used [106,143].

4.1.2. Rye

Similarly, rye can be an excellent addition to mixtures that replace refined wheat during bread production. Diets containing whole rye, whole rye grains, and bread made with whole rye have beneficial effects on weight loss, improved lipid profile, and reduced blood pressure in overweight and obese individuals with metabolic syndrome [54]. Most of these beneficial effects have been associated primarily with the high fiber content of rye, although other biologically active compounds present in rye may also contribute to these effects [99].
Rye flour has a good content of non-gluten proteins such as secalin. It has gluten and gliadin in proportions opposite to those of wheat, resulting in severe technological restrictions for its use in bread making [100]. Dough made with rye flour has a limited ability to form a viscoelastic dough that can expand and maintain its structure during the bread making and baking process. This creates the need to implement formulation, mixing, kneading, leavening, and baking techniques to develop a method that compensates for these effects that could negatively alter the final product [144].
For this reason, the best method for using rye is to prepare a natural sourdough starter for 20 h, which is then mixed with the main dough. Rye-based products depend more on how arabinoxylans contribute to the viscoelasticity of the dough and structure of the bread [145,146]. However, the flavor of rye flour can remain strong in bread, evoking the rural bakery of yesteryear. Bread made solely from rye has a tradition of intense flavor and color, resulting from a careful Maillard reaction during the prolonged steaming process of the dough [147]. The incorporation of rye flour in bread production offers numerous advantages, both in terms of nutritional and sensory benefits. Beyond its distinctive contributions to flavor and texture, rye’s high fiber content, low glycemic index, and potential biologically active compounds make it a valuable addition to diets focused on weight loss, improving lipid profiles, and lowering blood pressure [148,149]. By understanding and leveraging the natural characteristics of rye, bakers can create innovative bread options that address a wider range of dietary needs [150].

4.1.3. Rice

Rice is a staple food in most parts of the world, but its use in bakery products is relatively uncommon [151]. Rice is usually processed for consumption as boiled or steamed whole grains, or ground into rice flour and then processed into various forms, such as noodles, batter, vermicelli, pancakes, rolls, and cakes [152]. Rice-based bakery products can be combined with other cereal flours in compound flour formulations to produce a wide variety of bakery products [153]. Since rice flour lacks gluten, which gives leavened products a reticular structure, leavened products made from rice flour require viscoelastic properties; white rice does not provide this property [154].
For this reason, rice flour can be used as a substitute for wheat in the production of gluten-free bread. The protein content can be increased through additional extractions and by subjecting it to alkaline and acid treatments [101]. This improves the quality of the protein, making it more suitable for inclusion in wheat flour with the aim of improving the formation and structuring properties of the dough. These functional proteins play a key role in optimizing the characteristics of the final bakery product [155].
To further improve the protein content, ultra-fine rice flour can be produced using ultrasonic bath-assisted wet milling with extended milling times [156]. This process produces rice flour with the highest protein content, reaching 7.4%, along with a high mineral content. This specialized type of rice flour can effectively replace wheat flour and be combined with vegetable proteins to optimize the rheological properties and other desirable attributes of bread [157]. The design of formulations using novel techniques can contribute to achieving the desired parameters, ensuring the consistent production of gluten-free bread with excellent sensory properties and high protein content [158].

4.1.4. Quinoa

Additionally, quinoa flour offers a number of health benefits. In particular, its high protein content provides benefits in baking. The unique flavor of quinoa flour can be described as delicate, sweet, herbaceous, toasty, or nutty, with hints of cocoa and coffee. The inclusion of quinoa flour in bread resulted in a distinctive, though not unpleasant, flavor characteristic of quinoa. Its approximate protein content is between 13.57% and 16.5% [102]. For this reason, quinoa flour is a value-added ingredient to mix with wheat flour and maximize protein levels in bread. Quinoa protein is rich in all essential amino acids, making it a complete source of plant-based protein. The high protein or fiber content in the flour contributes to bread made with quinoa flour having a moisture absorption similar to wheat-based bread. This property influences the gelatinization and retrogradation properties of starch [159].
Quinoa protein is composed of 51% albumins and 39% globulins, both of which are hydrophilic proteins. Albumin protein can capture free radicals in the body, which are the result of oxidation reactions [160]. Globulins also have an antioxidant effect, but their main function is to play a key role in the body’s immune response. The free amino acids released from quinoa protein during the baking process contribute to the Maillard reaction, which generates the final color of the bread crust [103].
Quinoa flour is also a good source of vitamins and minerals, such as magnesium, zinc, potassium, and vitamins E and C. It has been classified as a “pseudocereal” because, although it is a grain-like seed, it is not a true cereal [161]. This means that flour obtained from quinoa seeds is naturally gluten-free, so it can be consumed by people with celiac disease. This is highly recommended for people with celiac disease who have various micronutrient deficiencies, as it is not overly processed and naturally contains nutrients such as protein, vitamins, and minerals [162,163].
Quinoa flour can be easily incorporated into many recipes, from gluten-free bakery products to traditional ones, to increase protein content while significantly improving texture and flavor [164]. It has been reported that adding quinoa flour at a concentration of 10% maximizes the protein content of bread that participants were more willing to consume. Furthermore, quinoa flour alone, at this tested percentage, could be a viable flour for increasing protein content and being accepted by consumers [165]. As demonstrated by Coţovanu et al., 2023 [161], who evaluated the baking characteristics of wheat bread supplemented with quinoa flour of various particle sizes (large, medium, and small), assessing the physical, textural, nutritional, and sensory aspects. The results reported by the authors indicate a reduction in the fall index, water absorption, dough stability, and dough extensibility, which resulted in breads with less volume and more compact doughs due to the weakening of the protein–starch–water network. Likewise, all bread samples enriched with quinoa had an improved nutritional profile with an increase in protein of up to 19% more compared to the control. However, the best nutritional level was achieved by the formulation with medium particles, with 13.89% protein and 1.59% fiber.

4.2. Legumes

The increase in world population and prosperity has led to higher protein consumption in the diet. For this reason, incorporating more plant-based proteins into our diet will reduce the use of agricultural resources and greenhouse gas emissions compared to animal proteins [166]. In this case, plant-based proteins such as peas, beans, chickpeas, and lentils can be a solution for increasing protein in bakery products, with their content varying between 17% and 46%, compared to cereals, which provide 8%. Incorporating these legume flours increases the protein, fiber, mineral, and vitamin content [32,167].
Adding legume flours to traditional wheat breads could contribute to developing a product with higher protein content and better quality, thanks to their balanced amino acid profile [168]. However, higher levels of ingredient replacement can reduce the stability and strength of the dough, leading to stiffer breads with lower volume due to reduced gluten and interactions between fiber and water [169]. For this reason, acceptable breads can be made with low levels of replacement, although ingredients that interact to avoid these negative effects can be used, and fermentation could also help mitigate these effects [170].
It is important to establish the formulation, as combining legume flour with cereals affects the properties of the dough, such as volume expansion, growth, and viscoelasticity [171]. Legume flour has recently been used in bakery products such as breads, cakes, and cookies, providing a wide range of nutritional and textural benefits. This depends mainly on the level of flour substitution. Adding 20% to 30% legume flour can increase the protein and dietary fiber content and reduce the glycemic index of bread. However, enriching them changes how they are processed and their properties, and predicting these changes is a challenge when formulating and baking [33,172]. It is important to mention that although legumes are highly nutritious, they generally contain antinutritional compounds. Legumes are rich in phytic acid, an antinutritional factor because it can chelate transition metal ions, which promotes mineral deficiencies. They also contain protease inhibitors, tannins, and oligosaccharides that can cause flatulence Legume flour requires pre-treatment before incorporation into formulations. These processes reduce oligosaccharides, eliminate bitter compounds, decrease antinutritional factors, and improve protein digestibility, ensuring higher nutritional value [173]. The incremental impact of legume-enriched bakery products is being specifically analyzed in relation to the potential generation of new applications for the development of low glycemic index bakery products. With the continuous development of new bread products, the industry and consumers have a greater variety and more specialized natural food options [174].
The introduction of legume flour into wheat flour can pose technological challenges such as a decrease in gluten due to its partial replacement by legume proteins and competition for water retention [175]. It should be noted that legume flour has a higher affinity for water due to the presence of a large number of hydroxyl groups in legume proteins, which improves its ability to retain moisture [176]. This characteristic is essential to ensure adequate hydration and the subsequent formation of cohesive dough matrices, especially in gluten-free formulations [177]. Likewise, the variation in protein and fiber content among different types of legumes can lead to unique emulsifying capabilities, which can improve product development [178]. This is mainly due to the protein fractions found in legumes, which can stabilize oil and water mixtures thanks to their hydrophilic and hydrophobic characteristics [179].
On the other hand, baking processes significantly influence the gelling behavior of legume flours [180]. As the temperature increases from 40 °C to 70 °C, a pronounced increase in the modulus of elasticity (G′) is observed, mainly due to water absorption and starch granule swelling [35,181]. This temperature-induced gelation is essential, as it facilitates the formation of a stable network within the matrix of bakery products. Further heating to around 95 °C causes an additional increase in G′, largely attributed to the denaturation of the globulin proteins present in these legumes. The denaturation process improves hydrophobic interactions, which are essential for the formation of the gel necessary for the textural integrity of food products [182]. The rheological characteristics of legume-based mixtures, supported by water retention capacity values, confirm the potential for improving gel strength, which is essential for innovations in both nutritional and functional food products [183].
Thus, the addition of legume flours has been associated with improved foaming capacity, due to their globular protein and albumin content. For example, soy protein has the highest foaming stability, exceeding 90%, closely followed by proteins from green lentils, peas, and red beans. These findings underscore the importance of selecting appropriate plant protein sources to optimize desirable foaming properties in bakery products [112].

4.3. Oilseeds

Seeds and nuts offer numerous benefits when used in bakery products. They contain high amounts of protein, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids, dietary fiber, vitamins, and minerals. In addition to these nutrients, seeds and nuts contain several non-nutritive components such as phytates, phenolic compounds, flavonoids, and saponins, collectively known as bioactive compounds [184].
The consumption of seeds and nuts in the diet can improve gastrointestinal function, relieving indigestion, and benefit heart health by reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. The inclusion of seeds and nuts in bakery products improves protein content and gluten levels, contributing to the maintenance of nutritional value and the improvement of textural aspects [104]. The most commonly used in the baking industry are: almonds, which are used raw or toasted, usually whole; walnuts, which are used raw or toasted, chopped or ground; as well as chia seeds, which are mainly used raw, and flax seeds, which can be used raw or with some heat treatment [41]. As described by Marpalle et al., 2014 [185], who developed a functional bread enriched with flaxseed flour, a control bread made with 100% wheat flour was used, which was then gradually replaced with raw and toasted flaxseed flour at 5%, 10%, and 15%. The results showed that the increase in flaxseed flour is directly proportional to the increase in protein and fiber, with the bread with the highest substitution obtaining up to 21.6% protein and 7.20% fiber compared to 10.55% protein and 3.40% fiber in the control. Similarly, higher levels of substitution resulted in darker dough and a denser product. On the other hand, Miranda-Ramos et al., 2020 [186], conducted tests substituting wheat-based bakery products with chia derivatives. Based on a 100% wheat control bread, they replaced 5 and 10% whole chia seeds, 5 and 10% whole chia flour, 5 and 10% semi-defatted chia flour, and 5 and 10% low-fat chia flour to evaluate how this affected the nutritional and functional value of the bread. The results showed that chia-enriched breads had higher protein levels, with bread enriched with 10% defatted chia flour having the highest level at 25.2%. In terms of fiber, bread enriched with 10% whole chia seeds had the highest content at 8.7%. The least commonly used seeds, in order of highest to lowest consumption, are: pumpkin seeds, which can be eaten raw or roasted, with or without their shells, and can be ground; sunflower seeds, which can be eaten raw or roasted, with or without their shells, and can also be ground [187].
On the other hand, walnuts are rich in alpha-linolenic acid, a plant-based omega-3 fatty acid. This particular acid is known to reduce the risk of heart disease, and studies have shown that it also supports cognitive function in people with cognitive impairment. Pecans are also an excellent source of monounsaturated fatty acids and contain phenolic antioxidants. Pecan consumption has shown positive effects in reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. In addition, pecans may contribute to the prevention of breast disease, gallstones, and certain types of cancer [39].
By incorporating natural ingredients such as seeds or nuts into these products, bakers can create new options with added functional characteristics. Some seeds, such as chia, flaxseed, and sesame seeds, have exceptional biological value, as they are not only rich in protein but also have high levels of fiber. These seeds have been shown to help lower blood cholesterol levels and promote digestive health [105]. To take advantage of these benefits, significant efforts have been made to incorporate these seeds into various semi-processed and baked goods. This approach not only improves the sensory characteristics of these products but also allows the market to offer a fresh alternative that promotes healthier and more natural food choices [109]. However, incorporating seeds into bakery products poses challenges for the industry. The high levels of polyunsaturated fatty acids present in these seeds can lead to rancidity issues, which are perceived through the smell of the bread [188]. This makes bread particularly susceptible to spoilage when stored at room temperature. By addressing these technical obstacles, the industry can continue to provide a wider range of options that meet growing demand [189]. From a biochemical perspective, proteins derived from oilseeds (mainly albumins and globulins) have amphipathic regions that allow them to function as emulsifying agents by adsorbing at the interface between water and fat. This process effectively reduces interfacial tension and stabilizes dispersed systems [190].
In addition, these proteins exhibit foaming capacity as a result of their migration to the air-water interface, where they can undergo partial denaturation and form cohesive films around gas bubbles [191]. Furthermore, thermal denaturation reveals reactive groups (-SH, -COOH, and -NH2), which play a fundamental role in the formation of three-dimensional gel networks through mechanisms such as hydrophobic interactions, disulfide bonds, and hydrogen bonds, improving the structure, cohesion, and elasticity of the crumb [192].
On the other hand, soluble fibers and polysaccharides, especially those found in seeds such as chia and flaxseed, show a high affinity for water due to their hydroxyl and carboxyl groups [193]. This affinity contributes to their exceptional water retention capacity and facilitates the formation of gels that stabilize the dough and improve the overall texture of the bread. It is hoped that bakery product formulations will be adaptable to increase protein content, thereby improving their nutritional profile while maintaining acceptable consumer perception [107].

5. Other Protein Sources

5.1. Insects

Population growth, water shortages, pollution, and high livestock costs have driven research into alternative sources of protein such as edible insects. For this reason, a line of research has been initiated with the aim of expanding and exploiting the potential of edible insects in human nutrition through innovative technological applications [125]. Adding insects as a source of protein in bread can increase the value of bakery products, increasing their protein content and transforming them into functional and beneficial foods. The introduction of insects into the culinary world presents an opportunity to explore new flavors, textures, and nutritional benefits, improving the overall dining experience [44]. Insects can be raised in small spaces and at low cost, even using organic waste for feed, which increases sustainability and reduces environmental impact compared to livestock farming. Therefore, these properties could meet the growing demand for protein while minimizing environmental impact, creating new economic opportunities, and supporting local communities [126]. However, it is essential to carefully select substrates, ensuring that they are free of animal remains, animal waste, residual antibiotics, and chemicals to guarantee microbiological safety and compliance with legal regulations, promoting a healthier and more sustainable approach to food production [127,128].
Insects are a rich source of protein, containing between 25% and 75%, and lipids between 10% and 70%, depending on the species. They are also rich in fiber and minerals such as iron, magnesium, and zinc [131]. However, despite all these benefits, there is still a rejection of these types of products in Western markets, as they tend to be considered pests. For this reason, incorporating them in more acceptable forms such as flour, pasta, or extracts could be a way to increase their consumption. Proteins from insects are considered better in terms of nutritional properties than legumes, as they contain all the essential amino acids and also contain more protein [132]. It is important to explore different formulations for incorporating insect flour into the development of bakery products in order to establish the right recipe that is acceptable to consumers while maintaining optimal nutritional quality [194].
Likewise, the most commonly consumed insects worldwide are beetles 31% (Coleoptera), caterpillars 18% (Lepidoptera), bees, wasps, and ants 14% (Hymenoptera), grasshoppers, locusts, and crickets 13% (Orthoptera), cicadas, mealybugs, and bedbugs 10% (Hemiptera), termites 3% (Isoptera), dragonflies 3% (Odonata), flies 2% (Diptera), among others 5%). Entomophagy is commonly practiced in many regions of the world and is influenced by the culture of each region [44,48,49,133]. Insects represent a remarkable opportunity as alternative protein sources in the modern era, extending their use beyond bread to a wide range of food products. Efforts are being made to increase the incorporation of cost-effective insect proteins into food preparation, developing insect-based recipes, cooking techniques, and farms dedicated to insect breeding to ensure consumer access to this protein source in a convenient and palatable manner [195]. On the other hand, the functional properties of insect-derived proteins make them valuable ingredients for various bakery products [196]. Insect flours containing negligible amounts of starch do not effectively reinforce the gluten network in dough; on the contrary, they tend to weaken the overall strength of the dough despite their remarkably high protein content, which is often considered advantageous [197]. However, the high protein content presents a large number of hydroxyl groups, which increases its water retention capacity, benefiting the rheological properties of bakery products [198].
Similarly, the proteins present in insect flours have emulsifying capacity, which is attributed to their hydrophobic domains, which are rich in amino acids such as leucine, isoleucine, or valine, and align with the fat phase, while their hydrophilic regions, which contain residues such as glutamic acid, lysine, and serine, align with the aqueous phase [199]. This unique structure facilitates rapid adsorption at the water–oil interface, leading to a reduction in interfacial tension and stabilization of the fat droplets in suspension [200]. Likewise, insect flours contain proteins with structural attributes that give them foaming capacity by acting as natural surfactants. This characteristic becomes evident when the proteins are adsorbed at the air-water interface, causing a reduction in surface tension and the formation of a viscoelastic film that envelops the gas bubbles [201].
Therefore, during the kneading and rising stages of aerated doughs, the proteins undergo partial denaturation, exposing the hydrophobic groups (–CH3, –CH2–) that are normally hidden within the tertiary structure [202]. The partially denatured proteins then migrate to the air-water interface, where they orient themselves amphipathically: the hydrophobic residues align toward the gas phase (air bubble), while the hydrophilic residues (–COOH, –NH2, –OH) position themselves toward the aqueous phase. The proteins fuse at the interface, forming a cohesive layer through the establishment of hydrogen bonds, hydrophobic interactions, and Van der Waals forces. This process stabilizes the bubbles, thus preventing their collapse or fusion [203].
Insect proteins also have moderate to high gelation capacity, which depends on factors such as processing methods, protein content, degree of denaturation, and environmental conditions, including pH, temperature, and humidity [204]. When subjected to temperatures between 55 and 95 °C, these proteins undergo the breakdown of non-covalent interactions, specifically hydrogen bonds, Van der Waals forces, and hydrophobic interactions, thus revealing the internal functional groups. In particular, sulfhydryl groups (–SH) are capable of forming disulfide bridges (S-S), while hydrophobic regions facilitate protein aggregation through nonpolar interactions [205]. In addition, polar groups such as hydroxyl (–OH), carboxyl (–COOH), and amino (–NH2) contribute to the establishment of cross-links through hydrogen bonds and electrostatic interactions [206]. These functional groups begin to associate systematically, resulting in the formation of a gelatinous matrix through the interactions mentioned above [207]. Therefore, it is important to highlight the importance of edible insects in the food industry, which represents an exciting frontier with great potential. From addressing global protein deficiency to promoting sustainability and supporting local communities, insects as a source of protein have the potential to revolutionize food production and consumption. Embracing innovation and new technologies can unlock the full potential of edible insects and create a more resilient and nutritious food system for future generations (Figure 3) [129].

5.2. Cheese Whey

The use of resources is a priority today. The circular economy emphasizes the reuse and recycling of waste, which allows it to be used to make value-added products in the food, pharmaceutical, and cosmetics industries. This not only benefits the economy but also biological systems [208]. Cheese whey is a by-product of dairy processing, mainly from cheese pressing. It is obtained when rennet is added to pasteurized milk, causing it to coagulate and form a semi-solid mass rich in casein and fat. After this mass has matured and dried, it becomes cheese [209]. What remains after this mass is removed is whey, a greenish-yellow liquid with a sour but pleasant taste. Previously, it was mainly used in animal nutrition, but recently, applications have been found in dry mixes, bakery products, and in the production of cheese and yogurt [209].
It should be noted that it is one of the largest wastes in the dairy industry, as approximately nine liters of effluent (85–90% of the volume of milk) are produced for every kilogram of cheese, and it retains approximately 55% of its nutrients, including 20% of the total protein. Its main components are water, accounting for 93% of the volume, lactose, accounting for 70–72% of the total solids, whey proteins, accounting for 8–10%, and minerals, accounting for 12–15%. These are mainly calcium, potassium, sodium, and magnesium salts, as well as traces of zinc and copper [210]. However, cheese whey proteins have been extensively studied for their significant ability to increase the protein content of bakery products, while also providing high biological value. These proteins have low moisture levels, which gives them exceptional hygroscopic rigidity. This is one of the reasons why they can be incorporated into foods such as bakery products, as they improve the structure of bread [121].
For this reason, the use of milk proteins in the baking industry has shown improvements in the rheological properties of bread, as whey proteins have the ability to form an intricate three-dimensional network through gluten bonds [211]. This network is primarily responsible for gas retention, thus determining the structure of the dough, volume expansion, and consequently influencing the softness and density of the bread [122]. The unique functional properties of whey proteins, such as their complete amino acid composition, allow for effective technological interventions in the formulation of bakery products, opening up opportunities for the use of dairy by-products. The bioavailability and bioactivity of whey protein-enriched bakery products contribute to the growth of the bakery sector [123,212]. Likewise, these proteins meet the essential amino acid requirements of the human body, as the body cannot produce them, relying on these proteins as a reliable source. Cheese whey has been successfully included in bakery products at levels of up to 4%, representing up to 20% of the total protein content. However, bakery products can only tolerate a maximum protein content of 6%, highlighting the importance of maintaining an optimal ratio [213]. Whey can be easily incorporated into bakery products to improve both their nutritional and functional properties, as it increases the amount of protein and in turn improves crust browning, crumb texture, and flavor. It also affects the rheological properties of the dough as it has properties as a foaming agent, emulsifier, gelling agent, and improves viscosity [124]. As demonstrated by Tsanasidou et al., 2021 [214], who conducted a study to evaluate the partial substitution of wheat-based bread; in which a 100% wheat control without whey was used, then the percentage of water replaced by whey was varied, with W25 replacing 25% of the total water, W50 replacing 50%, and W100 replacing 100% of the water with cheese whey. It was found that the whey-based formulations reduced the development time and stability of the dough in the farinograph, which could be due to their high salt and lactose content. Likewise, as the amount of whey increased, the volume of the bread decreased and the color of the crust became darker, mainly due to the Millard reaction. On the other hand, among the treatments, the one with the highest protein levels was W100 with 12.4% protein; however, W25 (11.4% protein) and W50 (11.9% protein) were well accepted by the evaluators in terms of flavor and texture.

5.3. Single-Cell Protein

Single-cell protein, derived from microbial biomass such as algae, fungi, bacteria, or yeast, has become a viable and sustainable alternative to address the growing global protein deficit [215]. The fermentation process required to produce it requires minimal space and water resources, can use waste substrates, and produces significantly lower carbon emissions compared to conventional animal protein sources. This form of protein has a protein content of between 45% and 70% and includes a full range of amino acid profiles, B vitamins, and essential trace elements [216]. When incorporated into cereal-based matrices, it effectively mitigates lysine and tryptophan deficiencies present in gluten, increases protein density by approximately 15%, and provides bioactive compounds with antioxidant and hypocholesterolemic properties [217]. For example, Mahmoud et al., 2024 [218] evaluated the incorporation of microalgae into a bakery product, in which wheat flour was replaced with 4% flour containing biomass from Chlorella vulgaris, Phaeodactylum tricornutum, and/or Tetraselmis chuii, A 100% wheat control bread was also evaluated. The aim was to assess the impact on the rheological behavior of the dough, its nutritional value, and its bioactive profile. Consequently, C. vulgaris weakened the dough matrix, resulting in a more compact and firm dough. On the other hand, T. chuii and P. tricornutum had no noticeable effect on the volume of the bread. Likewise, all species showed a dark green hue in the bread and increased its nutritional value in terms of protein by 12.18% for C. vulgaris, 11.08% for T. chuii, and 11.31% for P. tricornutum. Similarly, Hernández-López et al., 2023 [219] evaluated the effects of spirulina (Arthrospira sp.) in a bakery product made from four different types of flour: Manitoba (00/251), Ground-force whole wheat flour (whole/126), standard bakery flour (0/W105), and organic bakery flour (2/W66). The biomass partially replaced the wheat at two levels, 1.5% and 2.5%, for all wheat varieties. The results showed that antioxidant capacity increased as the addition of microalgae increased; however, this affected the volume of the bread and gave it a greenish hue. Likewise, in the sensory evaluation, the formulations with 2.5% were well accepted by consumers. On the other hand, formulations with spirulina showed an increase in their nutritional values, particularly the one made with Manitoba at 2.5% with up to 13.2% protein. Single-cell proteins are obtained from microbial cells, usually in dry or purified form, and are characterized by their high protein content and broad amino acid profile. For production, it is important to select strains that grow rapidly, accumulate high levels of protein, and are non-pathogenic [220]. Production also requires adequate substrate preparation, controlled bioreactor conditions, efficient protein separation from the medium, and post-harvest treatments such as enzyme reduction, thermal inactivation, and drying (Figure 4) [221].
Some types of GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) microorganisms used are: yeasts with a dry protein content of 40–55% (Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Candida utilis, Kluyveromyces marxianus), filamentous fungi with 43–48% (Fusarium venenatum, Rhizopus oligosporus), microalgae with 60–70% (Arthrospira/Spirulina, Chlorella, Scenedesmus), and bacteria with 50–80% protein (Cupriavidus necator, Methylococcus capsulatus) [222,223] (Table 3). Similarly, there is research in which microalgae have been used to enrich wheat-based breads with a substitution of between 1–6% spirulina; however, microalgae impart a green color, which affects consumer acceptance [224]. Microalgae or textured yeast have also been added to extruded snacks and energy bars. They have even been added to dairy products with the addition of casein from the single-cell protein Candida utilis [225]. These proteins serve to partially reinforce the protein network and improve water retention capacity [226]. However, excessive amounts can lead to a reduction in gluten concentration, which could cause a decrease in bread volume of up to 22% or an increase in crumb firmness. Nevertheless, these negative effects can be mitigated by making appropriate adjustments to hydration levels and kneading time [227].

6. Challenges in the Use of Alternative Protein Ingredients

Wheat-based formulations are widely studied and standardized and are considered the benchmark for textural and sensory properties in bakery products. For this reason, when developing products with alternative flours, the goal is to make them as similar as possible to traditional wheat bread [96,246]. Consequently, it is important to focus research on each stage of production—mixing, kneading, proofing, and baking—to determine the optimal point for obtaining the best rheological and flavor properties in the dough and the final product [247]. The partial replacement of wheat flour is mainly justified by sustainability and health considerations; however, this transition faces multiple technological, sensory, cultural, and regulatory obstacles [248,249]. It is widely reported that when bread is made with other types of flour, it exhibits increased darkening, increased crumb hardness, volume loss, crumb deterioration due to an imbalance in the protein–starch–water network, and changes in starch retrogradation [250,251]. According to reports, tests with breads partially substituted with alternative flours such as other types of cereals, legumes, and oilseeds show acceptable rheological properties in a low substitution range of ≈5–20%, while higher substitutions tend to significantly modify rheological and sensory properties [252,253]. Despite research focusing on substituting or replacing wheat consumption in bakery products, this has been limited to pilot tests due to low consumer acceptance, with a large percentage unaware of the nutritional benefits of this change [254,255].
Another obstacle to consider is obtaining approval for consumption. However, it is not only a matter of allowing the use of emerging ingredients such as insect-derived flours and single-cell protein, but it is also important to analyze possible contaminants, allergens, toxins, additives, and physicochemical parameters in greater depth [256,257]. In the European Union (EU), Regulation 1169/2011 (consumer information) [258] imposes strict rules on the clear presentation of information, especially novel ingredients, as well as a declaration of allergens (such as lupin, nuts, sesame, etc.) (Malila et al., 2024 [259]). Similarly, Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 (Novel Foods) [260] requires specific authorizations for innovative flours, making it necessary to test each ingredient to rule out any risk to consumers (Grundy et al., 2024 [261]). On the other hand, the Codex Alimentarius Commission, Standard for Wheat Flour (CXS 152-1985), 1985, revised 2016–2021 [262], requests information on contaminants, residues, and additives that apply to supply and control when formulating mixtures in this type of composite product (Wang & Jian et al., 2022 [96]; Boukid & Gagaoua et al., 2020 [263]). In addition, the FDA (Food and Drug Administration)—(21 CFR Part 136: “Bakery Products Standards of Identity)” [264] defines the standards of identity for breads, rolls, and similar products in the US, so when unconventional flours are substituted or added, it must be evaluated whether the product complies with the standard and whether it is necessary to change the name or designation. Likewise, the FDA—“Food Labeling Guide” (2025) (Program, 2025) [265] indicates the current requirements for nutritional labeling, allergen ingredient declarations, and formulation. Similarly, the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization)/WHO (World Health Organization) Codex—“CXS 192-1995: General Standard for Food Additives (GSFA)” [262] establishes the list of additives and conditions for use by category, which is essential for adjusting formulations in bakery products with non-conventional flours.

7. Final Remarks

The integration of alternative proteins into wheat-based matrices serves as an effective strategy to enhance the protein content and adjust the glycemic index of baked goods by partially substituting rapidly digestible carbohydrates. The alternatives with substantial technological validation comprise non-wheat cereals, legumes, whey protein (both isolates and concentrates), single-cell proteins derived from microorganisms, and insect proteins. The combination of these proteins with soluble fibers (such as β-glucans and arabinoxylans) and starches exhibiting reduced enzymatic susceptibility encourages a more moderated glycemic response while maintaining adequate energy intake.
From a technological standpoint, the primary challenge lies in achieving an equilibrium between rheological characteristics and gas retention subsequent to the partial substitution of wheat. To ensure industrial viability, it is imperative to carry out tests involving gradual substitutions, while validating each formulation through standardized protocols encompassing composition, alveography or rheometry, specific volume, gelatinization properties, texture, shelf life, and sensory acceptance. In conclusion, the successful development of functional breads necessitates a formulation design grounded in evidence-based principles, optimization of processing techniques, and comprehensive sensory evaluation to accomplish the performance triangle of enhanced nutrition, sensory acceptance, and sustainable scalability within the industry.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.D.P.-E., A.Y.H.-A. and J.C.C.E.; formal analysis; investigation, C.D.P.-E. and A.Y.H.-A.; writing—original draft preparation, C.D.P.-E.; writing—review and editing, A.Y.H.-A., L.L.-H. and J.R.B.-V.; visualization, L.L.-H. and N.B.; supervision, A.Y.H.-A., J.R.B.-V. and N.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The author C.D.P.E. is grateful to the Secretariat of Science, Humanities, Technology, and Innovation (SECIHTI) for granting the scholarship during his postgraduate studies.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Granato, D.; Barba, F.J.; Bursać Kovačević, D.; Lorenzo, J.M.; Cruz, A.G.; Putnik, P. Functional foods: Product development, technological trends, efficacy testing, and safety. Annu. Rev. Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 10, 541–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ponte, L.G.S.; Ribeiro, S.F.; Pereira, J.C.V.; Antunes, A.E.C.; Bezerra, R.M.N.; da Cunha, D.T. Consumer perceptions of functional foods: A scoping review focusing on non-processed foods. Food Rev. Int. 2025, 41, 1738–1756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Skendi, A.; Papageorgiou, M.; Varzakas, T. High protein substitutes for gluten in gluten-free bread. Foods 2021, 10, 1997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Hajzer, Z.E.; Alibrahem, W.; Kharrat Helu, N.; Oláh, C.; Prokisch, J. Functional foods in clinical trials and future research directions. Foods 2025, 14, 2675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Ali, L.; Casolani, N.; Ruggeri, M.; Spizzirri, U.G.; Aiello, F.; Chiodo, E.; Martuscelli, M.; Restuccia, D.; Mastrocola, D. Sensory evaluation and consumers’ acceptance of a low glycemic and gluten-free carob-based bakery product. Foods 2024, 13, 2815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Baker, M.T.; Lu, P.; Parrella, J.A.; Leggette, H.R. Consumer acceptance toward functional foods: A scoping review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Yuan, X.; Zhong, M.; Huang, X.; Hussain, Z.; Ren, M.; Xie, X. Industrial production of functional foods for human health and sustainability. Foods 2024, 13, 3546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. García-Segovia, P.; Igual, M.; Martínez-Monzó, J. Physicochemical properties and consumer acceptance of bread enriched with alternative proteins. Foods 2020, 9, 933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Maleky, F.; Ahmadi, L. Adhering to recommended dietary protein intake for optimizing human health benefits versus exceeding levels. RSC Adv. 2025, 15, 9230–9242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Nunes, E.A.; Colenso-Semple, L.; McKellar, S.R.; Yau, T.; Ali, M.U.; Fitzpatrick-Lewis, D.; Sherifali, D.; Gaudichon, C.; Tomé, D.; Atherton, P.J.; et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of protein intake to support muscle mass and function in healthy adults. J. Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2022, 13, 795–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Matthews, J.J.; Arentson-Lantz, E.J.; Moughan, P.J.; Wolfe, R.R.; Ferrando, A.A.; Church, D.D. Understanding dietary protein quality: Digestible indispensable amino acid scores and beyond. J. Nutr. 2025, 155, 4060–4072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wolfe, R.R.; Church, D.D.; Ferrando, A.A.; Moughan, P.J. Consideration of the role of protein quality in determining dietary protein recommendations. Front. Nutr. 2024, 11, 1389664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Poutanen, K.S.; Kårlund, A.O.; Gómez-Gallego, C.; Johansson, D.P.; Scheers, N.M.; Marklinder, I.M.; Eriksen, A.K.; Silventoinen, P.C.; Nordlund, E.; Sozer, N.; et al. Grains—A major source of sustainable protein for health. Nutr. Rev. 2022, 80, 1648–1663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Khalid, A.; Hameed, A.; Tahir, M.F. Wheat quality: A review on chemical composition, nutritional attributes, grain anatomy, types, classification, and function of seed storage proteins in bread making quality. Front. Nutr. 2023, 10, 1053196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Lopez, M.J.; Mohiuddin, S.S. Biochemistry, essential amino acids. In StatPearls; StatPearls Publishing: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2024. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/books/NBK557845/ (accessed on 7 September 2025).
  16. Iqbal, M.J.; Shams, N.; Fatima, K. Nutritional Quality of Wheat; En IntechOpen: London, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Peighambardoust, S.H.; Karami, Z.; Pateiro, M.; Lorenzo, J.M. A review on health-promoting, biological, and functional aspects of bioactive peptides in food applications. Biomolecules 2021, 11, 631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Prieto-Vázquez del Mercado, P.; Mojica, L.; Morales-Hernández, N. Protein ingredients in bread: Technological, textural and health implications. Foods 2022, 11, 2399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Siddiqui, S.A.; Mahmud, M.M.C.; Abdi, G.; Wanich, U.; Farooqi, M.Q.U.; Settapramote, N.; Khan, S.; Wani, S.A. New alternatives from sustainable sources to wheat in bakery foods: Science, technology, and challenges. J. Food Biochem. 2022, 46, e14185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Jiménez-Munoz, L.M.; Tavares, G.M.; Corredig, M. Design future foods using plant protein blends for best nutritional and technological functionality. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 113, 139–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Guillou, L.; Durand, V.; Raymond, M.; Berticat, C. Chronic refined carbohydrate consumption measured by glycemic load and variation in cognitive performance in healthy people. Pers. Individ. Dif. 2023, 206, 112138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bajka, B.H.; Pinto, A.M.; Ahn-Jarvis, J.; Ryden, P.; Perez-Moral, N.; van der Schoot, A.; Stocchi, C.; Bland, C.; Berry, S.E.; Ellis, P.R.; et al. The impact of replacing wheat flour with cellular legume powder on starch bioaccessibility, glycaemic response and bread roll quality: A double-blind randomised controlled trial in healthy participants. Food Hydrocoll. 2021, 114, 106565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Pasqualoni, I.; Tolve, R.; Simonato, B.; Bianchi, F. The impact of selected ingredients on the predicted glycemic index and technological properties of bread. Foods 2024, 13, 2488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mulla, M.F.Z.; Mullins, E.; Lynch, R.; Gallagher, E. A mixture design approach to investigate the impact of raw and processed chickpea flour on the techno-functional properties in a bakery application. LWT 2025, 229, 118206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Samilyk, M.; Nahornyi, Y.; Marenkova, T.; Bokovets, S. Influence of enriched ingredients on the functional properties and nutritional value of bread. Technol. Audit Prod. Reserv. 2025, 3, 63–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Herreman, L.; Nommensen, P.; Pennings, B.; Laus, M.C. Comprehensive overview of the quality of plant- and animal-sourced proteins based on the digestible indispensable amino acid score. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 8, 5379–5391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Ribet, L.; Kassis, A.; Jacquier, E.; Monnet, C.; Durand-Dubief, M.; Bosco, N. The nutritional contribution and relationship with health of bread consumption: A narrative review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2024, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Borrelli, G.M.; Ficco, D.B.M. Cereals and cereal-based foods: Nutritional, phytochemical characterization and processing technologies. Foods 2025, 14, 1234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Berrazaga, I.; Micard, V.; Gueugneau, M.; Walrand, S. The role of the anabolic properties of plant- versus animal-based protein sources in supporting muscle mass maintenance: A critical review. Nutrients 2019, 11, 1825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bunge, A.C.; Mazac, R.; Clark, M.; Wood, A.; Gordon, L. Sustainability benefits of transitioning from current diets to plant-based alternatives or whole-food diets in Sweden. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Monnet, A.F.; Laleg, K.; Michon, C.; Micard, V. Legume enriched cereal products: A generic approach derived from material science to predict their structuring by the process and their final properties. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 86, 131–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Naveed, H.; Sultan, W.; Awan, K.A.; Imtiaz, A.; Yaqoob, S.; Al-Asmari, F.; Faraz, A.; Qian, J.Y.; Sharma, A.; Mugabi, R.; et al. Glycemic impact of cereal and legume-based bakery products: Implications for chronic disease management. Food Chem. X 2024, 24, 101959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Begum, N.; Khan, Q.U.; Liu, L.G.; Li, W.; Liu, D.; Haq, I.U. Nutritional composition, health benefits and bio-active compounds of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Front. Nutr. 2023, 10, 1218468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Samtiya, M.; Aluko, R.E.; Dhewa, T. Plant food anti-nutritional factors and their reduction strategies: An overview. Food Prod. Process. Nutr. 2020, 2, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Mir, S.A.; Shah, M.A.; Naik, H.R.; Zargar, I.A. Influence of hydrocolloids on dough handling and technological properties of gluten-free breads. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 51, 49–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Imam, Y.T.; Irondi, E.A.; Awoyale, W.; Ajani, E.O.; Alamu, E.O. Application of legumes in the formulation of gluten-free foods: Functional, nutritional and nutraceutical importance. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2024, 8, 1251760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Anton, A.A.; Ross, K.A.; Lukow, O.M.; Fulcher, R.G.; Arntfield, S.D. Influence of added bean flour (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) on some physical and nutritional properties of wheat flour tortillas. Food Chem. 2008, 109, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Venkatachalam, M.; Sathe, S.K. Chemical composition of selected edible nut seeds. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2006, 54, 4705–4714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. George, E.S.; Daly, R.M.; Tey, S.L.; Brown, R.; Wong, T.H.T.; Tan, S.Y. Perspective: Is it time to expand research on “nuts” to include “seeds”? Justifications and key considerations. Adv. Nutr. 2022, 13, 1016–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Singh, S.; Gaur, S. Edible seeds as pioneers in the preparation of modern bakery products: Challenges and recent applications. Food Chem. Adv. 2024, 4, 100684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Venskutonis, P.R.; Kraujalis, P. Nutritional components of amaranth seeds and vegetables: A review on composition, properties, and uses. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2013, 12, 381–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Himashree, P.; Sengar, A.S.; Sunil, C.K. Food thickening agents: Sources, chemistry, properties and applications—A review. Int. J. Gastron. Food Sci. 2022, 27, 100468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Dodevska, M.; Kukic Markovic, J.; Sofrenic, I.; Tesevic, V.; Jankovic, M.; Djordjevic, B.; Ivanovic, N.D. Similarities and differences in the nutritional composition of nuts and seeds in Serbia. Front. Nutr. 2022, 9, 1003125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Guan, Q.H.; Qian, S.; Chen, L.; Feng, X.C. Enhancing the nutritional value of bread by the addition of insect powder: A novel class of food protein additives. J. Insects Food Feed. 2024, 10, 1097–1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Tilami, S.K.; Jurkaninová, L.; Kotíková, Z.; Škvorová, P.; Ferusová, Ž.; Kouřimská, L. Quality and nutritional evaluation of bakery products enriched with cricket meal. Appl. Food Res. 2025, 5, 101303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Xie, X.; Yuan, Z.; Fu, K.; An, J.; Deng, L. Effect of partial substitution of flour with mealworm (Tenebrio molitor L.) powder on dough and biscuit properties. Foods 2022, 11, 2156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ayustaningwarno, F.; Ayu, A.M.; Syiffah, L.; Muthia, H.; Amalina, F.A.; Afifah, D.N.; Nindita, Y.; Maharani, N.; Widyastuti, N.; Anjani, G.; et al. Physicochemical and sensory properties of cookies with cricket powder as an alternative snack to prevent iron deficiency anemia and chronic energy deficiency. Appl. Food Res. 2024, 4, 100485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Yang, J.; Zhou, S.; Kuang, H.; Tang, C.; Song, J. Edible insects as ingredients in food products: Nutrition, functional properties, allergenicity of insect proteins, and processing modifications. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2024, 64, 10361–10383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Van der Fels-Klerx, H.J.; Camenzuli, L.; Belluco, S.; Meijer, N.; Ricci, A. Food safety issues related to uses of insects for feeds and foods. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2018, 17, 1172–1183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Buchanan, D.; Martindale, W.; Romeih, E.; Hebishy, E. Recent advances in whey processing and valorisation: Technological and environmental perspectives. Int. J. Dairy Technol. 2023, 76, 291–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Minj, S.; Anand, S. Whey proteins and its derivatives: Bioactivity, functionality, and current applications. Dairy 2020, 1, 233–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Fluerasu, D.; Neagu, C.; Dossa, S.; Negrea, M.; Jianu, C.; Berbecea, A.; Stoin, D.; Lalescu, D.; Brezovan, D.; Cseh, L.; et al. The use of whey powder to improve bread quality: A sustainable solution for utilizing dairy by-products. Foods 2025, 14, 2911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Verma, D.K.; Patel, A.R.; Tripathy, S.; Gupta, A.K.; Singh, S.; Shah, N.; Utama, G.L.; Chávez-González, M.L.; Zongo, K.; Banwo, K.; et al. Processing and formulation technology of nutritional and functional food products by utilizing cheese and/or paneer whey: A critical review. J. King Saud. Univ. Sci. 2024, 36, 103508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Moura-Alves, M.; Mota, J.; Lameirão, D.; Teixeira, A.F.; Saraiva, C.; Romero-Rodríguez, M.Á.; Vilela, A.; Gonçalves, C. Multidimensional evaluation of local rye bread enriched with whey as a model for food waste valorisation: From recipe development to consumer acceptance. Sustainability 2025, 17, 6710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. El-Azab, H. Getting the dried whey protein concentrate and its effect on pan bread evaluation. Ann. Agric. Sci. Moshtohor. 2019, 57, 383–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Dopazo, V.; Illueca, F.; Luz, C.; Musto, L.; Moreno, A.; Calpe, J.; Meca, G. Evaluation of shelf life and technological properties of bread elaborated with lactic acid bacteria fermented whey as a bio-preservation ingredient. LWT 2023, 174, 114427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Achalu, B.I.; Tessema, H.A.; Ayele, A.T. Development and characterization of gluten-free bread enriched with whey protein from sorghum-rice composite flours. Appl. Food Res. 2025, 5, 101133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Cappelli, R.; Ottomano Palmisano, G.; Roma, R.; Caponio, F.; Difonzo, G.; De Boni, A. Functional foods acceptability: A consumers’ survey on bread enriched with oenological by-products. Foods 2023, 12, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Cappelli, A.; Lupori, L.; Cini, E. Baking technology: A systematic review of machines and plants and their effect on final products, including improvement strategies. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 115, 275–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Venturi, M.; Cappelli, A.; Pini, N.; Galli, V.; Lupori, L.; Granchi, L.; Cini, E. Effects of kneading machine type and total element revolutions on dough rheology and bread characteristics: A focus on straight dough and indirect (biga) methods. LWT 2022, 153, 112500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Abedi, E.; Pourmohammadi, K. Physical modifications of wheat gluten protein: An extensive review. J. Food Process Eng. 2021, 44, e13619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Dufour, M.; Chaunier, L.; Lourdin, D.; Réguerre, A.L.; Hugon, F.; Dugué, A.; Kansou, K.; Saulnier, L.; Della Valle, G. Unravelling the relationships between wheat dough extensional properties, gluten network and water distribution. Food Hydrocoll. 2024, 146, 109214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Wang, Y.; Liu, J.; Zhang, Z.; Meng, X.; Yang, T.; Shi, W.; He, R.; Ma, H. Insights into ultrasonic treatment of cereal protein characteristics: Functionality, conformational, and physicochemical properties. Foods 2023, 12, 971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Avelar, Z.; Pereira, R.N.; Vicente, A.A.; Rodrigues, R.M. Protein quality of cereals: Technological and functional perspectives. J. Cereal Sci. 2024, 117, 103922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Yousefi, N.; Abbasi, S. Food proteins: Solubility & thermal stability improvement techniques. Food Chem. Adv. 2022, 1, 100090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Scott, G.; Awika, J.M. Effect of protein-starch interactions on starch retrogradation and implications for food product quality. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2023, 22, 2081–2111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Gasparre, N.; Rosell, C.M. Wheat gluten: A functional protein still challenging to replace in gluten-free cereal-based foods. Cereal Chem. 2022, 99, 1021–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Chen, Y.; Gavaliatsis, T.; Kuster, S.; Städeli, C.; Fischer, P.; Windhab, E.J. Crust treatments to reduce bread staling. Curr. Res. Food Sci. 2021, 4, 182–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Dong, Y.; Karboune, S. A review of bread qualities and current strategies for bread bioprotection: Flavor, sensory, rheological, and textural attributes. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2021, 20, 1937–1981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Wieser, H.; Koehler, P.; Scherf, K.A. Chemistry of wheat gluten proteins: Qualitative composition. Cereal. Chem. 2023, 100, 23–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Kłosok, K.; Welc, R.; Fornal, E.; Nawrocka, A. Effects of physical and chemical factors on the structure of gluten, gliadins, and glutenins studied using spectroscopic methods. Molecules 2021, 26, 508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Zang, P.; Gao, Y.; Chen, P.; Lv, C.; Zhao, G. Recent advances in the study of wheat protein and other food components affecting gluten network and noodle properties. Foods 2022, 11, 3824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Zhang, M.; Jia, R.; Ma, M.; Yang, T.; Sun, Q.; Li, M. Versatile wheat gluten: Functional properties and application in the food-related industry. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2023, 63, 10444–10460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Szuba-Trznadel, A.; Gałka, B.; Kamińska, J.; Jama-Rodzeńska, A.; Król, Z.; Jarki, D.; Fuchs, B. Diversity of chemical composition and nutritional value in grain from selected winter wheat cultivars grown in south-western Poland. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 2630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Singh, K.; Anjali, N.; Rajput, R. Nutritional enhancement of baked goods using alternative flours: A review. Eur. J. Nutr. Food Saf. 2025, 17, 240–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Gorissen, S.H.M.; Crombag, J.J.R.; Senden, J.M.G.; Waterval, W.A.H.; Bierau, J.; Verdijk, L.B.; van Loon, L.J.C. Protein content and amino acid composition of commercially available plant-based protein isolates. Amino Acids 2018, 50, 1685–1695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Nigro, G.; Gasparre, N.; Vurro, F.; Pasqualone, A.; Rosell, C.M. Lupin flour as a substitute for wheat in conventional and sourdough bread making: Impact on the physicochemical properties and volatile profile of bread. Eur Food Res Technol. 2025, 251, 1145–1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Rafique, H.; Dong, R.; Wang, X.; Alim, A.; Aadil, R.M.; Li, L.; Zou, L.; Hu, X. Dietary-nutraceutical properties of oat protein and peptides. Front. Nutr. 2022, 9, 950400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Holopainen-Mantila, U.; Vanhatalo, S.; Lehtinen, P.; Sozer, N. Oats as a source of nutritious alternative protein. J. Cereal Sci. 2024, 116, 103862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Tomičić, Z.M.; Pezo, L.L.; Spasevski, N.J.; Lazarević, J.M.; Čabarkapa, I.S.; Tomičić, R.M. Diversity of amino acids composition in cereals. Food Feed Res. 2022, 49, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Craine, E.B.; Murphy, K.M. Seed composition and amino acid profiles for quinoa grown in Washington State. Front. Nutr. 2020, 7, 126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Escuredo, O.; González Martín, M.I.; Wells Moncada, G.; Fischer, S.; Hernández Hierro, J.M. Amino acid profile of the quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) using near infrared spectroscopy and chemometric techniques. J. Cereal Sci. 2014, 60, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Kulczyński, B.; Kobus-Cisowska, J.; Taczanowski, M.; Kmiecik, D.; Gramza-Michałowska, A. The chemical composition and nutritional value of chia seeds—Current state of knowledge. Nutrients 2019, 11, 1242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Sá, A.G.A.; Pacheco, M.T.B.; Moreno, Y.M.F.; Carciofi, B.A.M. Effects of processing on the protein quality and functional properties of cold-pressed pumpkin seed meal. Food Res. Int. 2023, 169, 112876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Añazco, C.; Ojeda, P.G.; Guerrero-Wyss, M. Common beans as a source of amino acids and cofactors for collagen biosynthesis. Nutrients 2023, 15, 4561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Yegrem, L. Nutritional composition, antinutritional factors, and utilization trends of Ethiopian chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Int J. Food Sci. 2021, 2021, 5570753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Aghababaei, F.; McClements, D.J.; Pignitter, M.; Hadidi, M. A comprehensive review of processing, functionality, and potential applications of lentil proteins in the food industry. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2024, 333, 103280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Kudełka, W.; Kowalska, M.; Popis, M. Quality of soybean products in terms of essential amino acids composition. Molecules 2021, 26, 5071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Luparelli, A.; Trisciuzzi, D.; Schirinzi, W.M.; Caputo, L.; Smiriglia, L.; Quintieri, L.; Nicolotti, O.; Monaci, L. Whey proteins and bioactive peptides: Advances in production, selection and bioactivity profiling. Biomedicines 2025, 13, 1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Almeida, C.C.; Alvares, T.S.; Costa, M.P.; Conte-Junior, C.A. Protein and amino acid profiles of different whey protein supplements. J. Diet Suppl. 2016, 13, 313–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Nachtigall, L.; Grune, T.; Weber, D. Proteins and amino acids from edible insects for the human diet—A narrative review considering environmental sustainability and regulatory challenges. Nutrients 2025, 17, 1245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Oliveira, L.A.; Pereira, S.M.S.; Dias, K.A.; Paes Sda, S.; Grancieri, M.; Jimenez, L.G.S.; De Carvalho, C.W.P.; De Oliveira, E.E.; Martino, H.S.D.; Della Lucia, C.M. Nutritional content, amino acid profile, and protein properties of edible insects (Tenebrio molitor and Gryllus assimilis) powders at different stages of development. J. Food Compost Anal. 2024, 125, 105804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Tang, C.; Yang, D.; Liao, H.; Sun, H.; Liu, C.; Wei, L.; Li, F. Edible insects as a food source: A review. Food Prod. Process Nutr. 2019, 1, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Malla, N.; Nørgaard, J.V.; Roos, N. Protein quality of edible insects in the view of current assessment methods. Anim. Front. 2023, 13, 50–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Alves, A.C.; Tavares, G.M. Mixing animal and plant proteins: Is this a way to improve protein techno-functionalities? Food Hydrocoll. 2019, 97, 105171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Wang, Y.; Jian, C. Sustainable plant-based ingredients as wheat flour substitutes in bread making. NPJ Sci. Food. 2022, 6, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Mel, R.; Malalgoda, M. Oat protein as a novel protein ingredient: Structure, functionality, and factors impacting utilization. Cereal Chem. 2022, 99, 21–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Kumar, L.; Sehrawat, R.; Kong, Y. Oat proteins: A perspective on functional properties. LWT 2021, 152, 112307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Ikram, A.; Saeed, F.; Noor, R.A.; Imran, A.; Afzaal, M.; Rasheed, A.; Islam, F.; Iqbal, A.; Zahoor, T.; Naz, S.; et al. A comprehensive review on biochemical and technological properties of rye (Secale cereale L.). Int. J. Food Prop. 2023, 26, 2212–2228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Eriksen, A.K.; Brunius, C.; Mazidi, M.; Hellström, P.M.; Risérus, U.; Iversen, K.N.; Fristedt, R.; Sun, L.; Huang, Y.; Nørskov, N.P.; et al. Effects of whole-grain wheat, rye, and lignan supplementation on cardiometabolic risk factors in men with metabolic syndrome: A randomized crossover trial. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2020, 111, 864–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Detchewa, P.; Prasajak, P.; Phungamngoen, C.; Sriwichai, W.; Naivikul, O.; Moongngarm, A. Substitution of rice flour with rice protein improved quality of gluten-free rice spaghetti processed using single screw extrusion. LWT 2022, 153, 112512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. El-Sohaimy, A.S.; Shehata, G.M.; Djapparovec, T.A.; Mehany, T.; Zeitoun, A.M.; Zeitoun, M.A. Development and characterization of functional pan bread supplemented with quinoa flour. J. Food Process Preserv. 2021, 45, e15180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Coţovanu, I.; Ungureanu-Iuga, M.; Mironeasa, S. Investigation of quinoa seed fractions and their application in wheat bread production. Plants 2021, 10, 2150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Martínez, E.; Álvarez-Ortí, M.; Rabadán, A.; Millán, C.; Pardo, J.E. Elaboration of cookies using oils and flours from seeds and nuts: Effects on technological, nutritional and consumer aspects. Foods 2022, 11, 2249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Gonçalves, B.; Pinto, T.; Aires, A.; Morais, M.C.; Bacelar, E.; Anjos, R.; Ferreira-Cardoso, J.; Oliveira, I.; Vilela, A.; Cosme, F. Composition of nuts and their potential health benefits—An overview. Foods 2023, 12, 942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Ozón, B.; Cotabarren, J.; Geier, F.R.; Kise, M.P.; García-Pardo, J.; Parisi, M.G.; Obregón, W.D. Development of fortified breads enriched with plant-based bioactive peptides derived from the chia (Salvia hispanica L.) expeller. Foods 2023, 12, 3382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Olombrada, E.; Mesias, M.; Morales, F.J. Risk/benefits of the use of chia, quinoa, sesame and flax seeds in bakery products: An update review. Food Rev. Int. 2024, 40, 1047–1068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Sandri, L.T.B.; Santos, F.G.; Fratelli, C.; Capriles, V.D. Development of gluten-free bread formulations containing whole chia flour with acceptable sensory properties. Food Sci. Nutr. 2017, 5, 1021–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Hussain, A.; Kausar, T.; Sehar, S.; Sarwar, A.; Ashraf, A.H.; Jamil, M.A.; Noreen, S.; Rafique, A.; Iftikhar, K.; Quddoos, M.Y.; et al. A comprehensive review of functional ingredients, especially bioactive compounds present in pumpkin peel, flesh and seeds, and their health benefits. Food Chem. Adv. 2022, 1, 100067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Zorzi, C.Z.; Garske, R.P.; Flôres, S.H.; Thys, R.C.S. Sunflower protein concentrate: A possible and beneficial ingredient for gluten-free bread. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2020, 66, 102539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Papagianni, E.; Kotsiou, K.; Matsakidou, A.; Biliaderis, C.G.; Lazaridou, A. Development of “clean label” gluten-free breads fortified with flaxseed slurry and sesame cake: Implications on batter rheology, bread quality and shelf life. Food Hydrocoll. 2024, 150, 109734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Sanfilippo, R.; Canale, M.; Dugo, G.; Oliveri, C.; Scarangella, M.C.; Amenta, M.; Crupi, A.; Spina, A. Effects of partial replacement of durum wheat re-milled semolina with bean flour on physico-chemical and technological features of doughs and breads during storage. Plants 2023, 12, 1125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Sparvoli, F.; Laureati, M.; Pilu, R.; Pagliarini, E.; Toschi, I.; Giuberti, G.; Fortunati, P.; Daminati, M.G.; Cominelli, E.; Bollini, R. Exploitation of common bean flours with low antinutrient content for making nutritionally enhanced biscuits. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Shrivastava, C.; Chakraborty, S. Bread from wheat flour partially replaced by fermented chickpea flour: Optimizing the formulation and fuzzy analysis of sensory data. LWT 2018, 90, 215–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Xing, Q.; Kyriakopoulou, K.; Zhang, L.; Boom, R.M.; Schutyser, M.A.I. Protein fortification of wheat bread using dry fractionated chickpea protein-enriched fraction or its sourdough. LWT 2021, 142, 110931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Starkute, V.; Bartkiene, E.; Mockus, E.; Rocha, J.M.; Cernauskas, D.; Mozuriene, E.; Ruibys, R.; Orhun, G.E.; Klupsaite, D. Green lentil fortification of wheat bread: A strategy for quality improvement and acrylamide reduction. Food Chem. X 2025, 30, 102900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Kotsiou, K.; Palassaros, G.; Matsakidou, A.; Mouzakitis, C.; Biliaderis, C.G.; Lazaridou, A. Roasted-sprouted lentil flour as a novel ingredient for wheat flour substitution in breads: Impact on dough properties and quality attributes. Food Hydrocoll. 2023, 145, 109164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Ni, Q.; Ranawana, V.; Hayes, H.E.; Hayward, N.J.; Stead, D.; Raikos, V. Addition of broad bean hull to wheat flour for the development of high-fiber bread: Effects on physical and nutritional properties. Foods 2020, 9, 1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Kaur, H.; Kaur, N. Development and sensory evaluation of value-added bakery products developed from germinated soybean (Glycine max) varieties. J. Appl. Nat. Sci. 2019, 11, 211–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Ibadullah, W.Z.W.; Mokhtar, F.; Abedin, N.H.Z.; Rashid, N.-K.M.A.; Ibrahim, N.H.; Mustapha, N.A. Okara-enriched wheat bread: Effect on nutritional, physicochemical, and sensory properties. J. Biochem. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2024, 12, 110–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Paul, S.; Kulkarni, S.; Chauhan, R.N. Utilization of whey in bakery products—A review. Indian J. Dairy Sci. 2022, 75. Available online: https://epubs.icar.org.in/index.php/IJDS/article/view/101108 (accessed on 14 May 2025). [CrossRef]
  122. Carter, B.G.; Cheng, N.; Kapoor, R.; Meletharayil, G.H.; Drake, M.A. Invited review: Microfiltration-derived casein and whey proteins from milk. J. Dairy Sci. 2021, 104, 2465–2479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Komeroski, M.R.; Homem, R.V.; Schmidt, H.O.; Rockett, F.C.; de Lira, L.; Vitória da Farias, D.; Kist, T.L.; Doneda, D.; De o Rios, A.; De Oliveira, V.R. Effect of whey protein and mixed flours on the quality parameters of gluten-free breads. Int. J. Gastron. Food Sci. 2021, 24, 100361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Balivo, A.; d’Errico, G.; Genovese, A. Sensory properties of foods functionalised with milk proteins. Food Hydrocoll. 2024, 147, 109301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Borges, M.M.; da Costa, D.V.; Trombete, F.M.; Câmara, A.K.F.I. Edible insects as a sustainable alternative to food products: An insight into quality aspects of reformulated bakery and meat products. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2022, 46, 100864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Amoah, I.; Cobbinah, J.C.; Yeboah, J.A.; Essiam, F.A.; Lim, J.J.; Tandoh, M.A.; Rush, E. Edible insect powder for enrichment of bakery products—A review of nutritional, physical characteristics and acceptability of bakery products to consumers. Future Foods 2023, 8, 100251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Tarahi, M.; Hedayati, S.; Niakousari, M. Supplementation of cereal products with edible insects: Nutritional, techno-functional, and sensory properties. Food Rev. Int. 2024, 40, 3398–3423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Zielińska, E.; Baraniak, B.; Karaś, M.; Rybczyńska, K.; Jakubczyk, A. Selected species of edible insects as a source of nutrient composition. Food Res. Int. 2015, 77, 460–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Haber, M.; Mishyna, M.; Martinez, J.J.I.; Benjamin, O. The influence of grasshopper (Schistocerca gregaria) powder enrichment on bread nutritional and sensorial properties. LWT 2019, 115, 108395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Tanga, C.M.; Nzomo, A.M.; Ndegwa, P.N.; Ekesi, S.; Khamis, F.M.; Akutse, K.S.; Ong’amo, G.; Ochieng, B.O.; Kababu, M.; Beesigamukama, D.; et al. Desert locust (Schistocerca gregaria) flour as an emerging functional ingredient for baking flavorful and nutritious whole wheat bread. Appl. Food Res. 2025, 5, 100802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Osimani, A.; Milanović, V.; Cardinali, F.; Roncolini, A.; Garofalo, C.; Clementi, F.; Pasquini, M.; Mozzon, M.; Foligni, R.; Raffaelli, N.; et al. Bread enriched with cricket powder (Acheta domesticus): A technological, microbiological and nutritional evaluation. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2018, 48, 150–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Nissen, L.; Samaei, S.P.; Babini, E.; Gianotti, A. Gluten-free sourdough bread enriched with cricket flour for protein fortification: Antioxidant improvement and volatilome characterization. Food Chem. 2020, 333, 127410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Gantner, M.; Sadowska, A.; Piotrowska, A.; Kulik, K.; Sionek, B.; Kostyra, E. Wheat bread enriched with house cricket powder (Acheta domesticus L.) as an alternative protein source. Molecules 2024, 29, 711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Vivar-Quintana, A.M.; Absi, Y.; Hernández-Jiménez, M.; Revilla, I. Nutritional value, mineral composition, fatty acid profile and bioactive compounds of commercial plant-based gluten-free flours. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 2309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Difonzo, G.; de Gennaro, G.; Pasqualone, A.; Caponio, F. Potential use of plant-based by-products and waste to improve the quality of gluten-free foods. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2022, 102, 2199–2211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Mironeasa, S. Current approaches in using plant ingredients to diversify range of bakery and pasta products. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 2794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Yang, Z.; Xie, C.; Bao, Y.; Liu, F.; Wang, H.; Wang, Y. Oat: Current state and challenges in plant-based food applications. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2023, 134, 56–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Kai, K.; Ma, G.; Greis, M.; Lu, J.; Nolden, A.A.; McClements, D.J.; Kinchla, A.J. Functional performance of plant proteins. Foods 2022, 11, 594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Leszczyńska, D.; Wirkijowska, A.; Gasiński, A.; Średnicka-Tober, D.; Trafiałek, J.; Kazimierczak, R. Oat and oat processed products—Technology, composition, nutritional value, and health. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 11267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Paudel, D.; Dhungana, B.; Caffe, M.; Krishnan, P. A review of health-beneficial properties of oats. Foods 2021, 10, 2591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Ijarotimi, O.S.; Fakayejo, D.A.; Oluwajuyitan, T.D. Nutritional characteristics, glycaemic index and blood glucose lowering property of gluten-free composite flour from wheat (Triticum aestivum), soybean (Glycine max), oat-bran (Avena sativa) and rice-bran (Oryza sativa). Appl. Food Res. 2021, 1, 100022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Ivanišová, E.; Čech, M.; Hozlár, P.; Zaguła, G.; Gumul, D.; Grygorieva, O.; Makowska, A.; Kowalczewski, P.Ł. Nutritional, antioxidant and sensory characteristics of bread enriched with wholemeal flour of Slovak black oat varieties. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 4485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Timm, M.; Offringa, L.C.; Van Klinken, B.J.W.; Slavin, J. Beyond insoluble dietary fiber: Bioactive compounds in plant foods. Nutrients 2023, 15, 4138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Stępniewska, S.; Słowik, E.; Cacak-Pietrzak, G.; Romankiewicz, D.; Szafrańska, A.; Dziki, D. Prediction of rye flour baking quality based on parameters of swelling curve. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2018, 244, 989–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Koistinen, V.M.; Mattila, O.; Katina, K.; Poutanen, K.; Aura, A.M.; Hanhineva, K. Metabolic profiling of sourdough fermented wheat and rye bread. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 5684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  146. Kołodziejczyk, P.; Michniewicz, J.; Buchowski, M.S.; Paschke, H. Effects of fibre-rich rye milling fraction on the functional properties and nutritional quality of wholemeal rye bread. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 57, 222–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Bukhovets, V.A.; Davydova, L.V.; Korotkova, L.A.; Tochilkin, A.S.; Saidullayeva, Y.T. Research of bakery properties of varieties of selection rye. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ Sci. 2021, 640, 022013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Bieniek, A.; Buksa, K. The influence of arabinoxylan of different molar masses on the properties of rye bread baked by the postponed baking method. Foods 2024, 13, 2482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Jonsson, K.; Andersson, R.; Bach Knudsen, K.E.; Hallmans, G.; Hanhineva, K.; Katina, K.; Kolehmainen, M.; Kyrø, C.; Langton, M.; Nordlund, E.; et al. Rye and health—Where do we stand and where do we go? Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 79, 78–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Lu, J.; Hansson, H.; Johansson, D.P.; Landberg, R.; Langton, M. Microstructure and viscosity of in vitro-digested rye and wheat food products. Food Hydrocoll. 2024, 154, 109990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Carcea, M. Value of wholegrain rice in a healthy human nutrition. Agriculture 2021, 11, 720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Muchlisyiyah, J.; Shamsudin, R.; Basha, R.K.; Shukri, R.; How, S.; Niranjan, K.; Onwude, D. Parboiled rice processing method, rice quality, health benefits, environment, and future perspectives: A review. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Soltani, A.; Golmakani, M.; Fazaeli, M.; Niakousari, M.; Hosseini, S.M.H. Evaluating the effect of different physical pretreatments and cooking methods on nutritional (starch digestibility) and physicochemical properties of white rice grains (Fajr cultivar). LWT 2023, 184, 115101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Bresciani, A.; Pagani, M.A.; Marti, A. Rice: A versatile food at the heart of the Mediterranean diet. In The Mediterranean Diet: An Evidence-Based Approach; Galanakis, C.M., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 193–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Park, J.; Kim, H.S. Rice-based gluten-free foods and technologies: A review. Foods 2023, 12, 4110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Qin, W.; Lin, Z.; Wang, A.; Chen, Z.; He, Y.; Wang, L.; Liu, L.; Wang, F.; Tong, L. Influence of particle size on the properties of rice flour and quality of gluten-free rice bread. LWT 2021, 151, 112236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Ding, X.L.; Wang, L.J.; Li, T.T.; Wang, F.; Quan, Z.Y.; Zhou, M.; Huo, Z.; Qian, J. Pre-gelatinisation of rice flour and its effect on the properties of gluten-free rice bread and its batter. Foods 2021, 10, 2648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Ito, S.; Arai, E. Improvement of gluten-free steamed bread quality by partial substitution of rice flour with powder of Apios americana tuber. Food Chem. 2021, 337, 127977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  159. Franco, W.; Evert, K.; Van Nieuwenhove, C. Quinoa flour, the germinated grain flour, and sourdough as alternative sources for gluten-free bread formulation: Impact on chemical, textural and sensorial characteristics. Fermentation 2021, 7, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Azizi, S.; Azizi, M.H.; Moogouei, R.; Rajaei, P. The effect of quinoa flour and enzymes on the quality of gluten-free bread. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 8, 2373–2382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  161. Coţovanu, I.; Mironeasa, C.; Mironeasa, S. Nutritionally improved wheat bread supplemented with quinoa flour of large, medium and small particle sizes at typical doses. Plants 2023, 12, 698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Gil, J.V.; Esteban-Muñoz, A.; Fernández-Espinar, M.T. Changes in the polyphenolic profile and antioxidant activity of wheat bread after incorporating quinoa flour. Antioxidants 2021, 11, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Vilcacundo, R.; Hernández-Ledesma, B. Nutritional and biological value of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2017, 14, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Sreechithra Ray, A.; Sakhare, S.D. Effect of a novel high-fibre component from quinoa on the properties of bread-making. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2024, 59, 6421–6430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Banu, I.; Aprodu, I. Assessing the performance of different grains in gluten-free bread applications. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Boukid, F.; Zannini, E.; Carini, E.; Vittadini, E. Pulses for bread fortification: A necessity or a choice? Trends Food Sci Technol. 2019, 88, 416–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Onyango, E. Legume protein: Properties and extraction for food applications. In Research on Legumes; IntechOpen eBooks: London, UK, 2022; Volume 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Binou, P.; Yanni, A.E.; Karathanos, V.T. Physical properties, sensory acceptance, postprandial glycemic response, and satiety of cereal-based foods enriched with legume flours: A review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2022, 62, 2722–2740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  169. Asensio-Grau, A.; Calvo-Lerma, J.; Heredia, A.; Andrés, A. The potential of fermentation on nutritional and technological improvement of cereal and legume flours: A review. Food Res. Int. 2021, 145, 110398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Pasqualone, A.; Costantini, M.; Coldea, T.E.; Summo, C. Use of legumes in extrusion cooking: A review. Foods 2020, 9, 958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Proserpio, C.; Bresciani, A.; Marti, A.; Pagliarini, E. Legume flour or bran: Sustainable, fiber-rich ingredients for extruded snacks? Foods 2020, 9, 1680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Nartea, A.; Kuhalskaya, A.; Fanesi, B.; Orhotohwo, O.L.; Susek, K.; Rocchetti, L.; Di Vittori, V.; Bitocchi, E.; Pacetti, D.; Papa, R. Legume byproducts as ingredients for food applications: Preparation, nutrition, bioactivity, and techno-functional properties. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2023, 22, 1953–1985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Olakanmi, S.J.; Jayas, D.S.; Paliwal, J. Implications of blending pulse and wheat flours on rheology and quality characteristics of baked goods: A review. Foods 2022, 11, 3287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Orozco-Angelino, X.; Espinosa-Ramírez, J.; Serna-Saldívar, S.O. Extrusion as a tool to enhance the nutritional and bioactive potential of cereal and legume by-products. Food Res. Int. 2023, 169, 112889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Cacak-Pietrzak, G.; Sujka, K.; Księżak, J.; Bojarszczuk, J.; Ziarno, M.; Studnicki, M.; Krajewska, A.; Dziki, D. Assessment of physicochemical properties and quality of the breads made from organically grown wheat and legumes. Foods 2024, 13, 1244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Guan, C.; Long, X.; Long, Z.; Lin, Q.; Liu, C. Legumes flour: A review of the nutritional properties, physiological functions and application in extruded rice products. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 58, 300–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Tebben, L.; Chen, G.; Tilley, M.; Li, Y. Improvement of whole wheat dough and bread properties by emulsifiers. Grain Oil Sci. Technol. 2022, 5, 59–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Bresciani, A.; Marti, A. Using pulses in baked products: Lights, shadows, and potential solutions. Foods 2019, 8, 451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Atudorei, D.; Atudorei, O.; Codină, G.G. The impact of germinated chickpea flour addition on dough rheology and bread quality. Plants 2022, 11, 1225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Ungureanu-Iuga, M.; Atudorei, D.; Codină, G.G.; Mironeasa, S. Rheological approaches of wheat flour dough enriched with germinated soybean and lentil. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 11706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Mengozzi, A.; Chiavaro, E.; Barbanti, D.; Bot, F. Heat-induced gelation of chickpea and faba bean flour ingredients. Gels 2024, 10, 309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Bojňanská, T.; Musilová, J.; Vollmannová, A. Effects of adding legume flours on the rheological and breadmaking properties of dough. Foods 2021, 10, 1087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  183. Goldstein, N.; Reifen, R. The potential of legume-derived proteins in the food industry. Grain Oil Sci. Technol. 2022, 5, 167–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Rolandelli, G.; Farroni, A.; del Pilar Buera, M. Raw materials: Traditional and non-conventional cereals, pseudo-cereals, oilseeds and legumes. In Designing Gluten Free Bakery and Pasta Products; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 19–61. [Google Scholar]
  185. Marpalle, P.; Sonawane, S.K.; Arya, S.S. Effect of flaxseed flour addition on physicochemical and sensory properties of functional bread. LWT 2014, 58, 614–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Miranda-Ramos, K.; Millán-Linares, M.C.; Haros, C.M. Effect of chia as an ingredient in bread making on the nutritional quality, mineral availability, and glycemic index of bread. Foods 2020, 9, 663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Kotecka-Majchrzak, K.; Sumara, A.; Fornal, E.; Montowska, M. Oilseed proteins—Properties and application as a food ingredient. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 106, 160–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Görgüç, A.; Gençdağ, E.; Yılmaz, F.M. Bioactive peptides derived from plant origin by-products: Biological activities and techno-functional utilizations in food developments—A review. Food Res. Int. 2020, 136, 109504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Hernández-López, I.; Ortiz-Solà, J.; Alamprese, C.; Barros, L.; Shelef, O.; Basheer, L.; Rivera, A.; Abadias, M.; Aguiló-Aguayo, I. Valorization of local legumes and nuts as key components of the Mediterranean diet. Foods 2022, 11, 3858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Yang, J.; Berton-Carabin, C.C.; Nikiforidis, C.V.; Van Der Linden, E.; Sagis, L.M. Competition of rapeseed proteins and oleosomes for the air-water interface and its effect on the foaming properties of protein-oleosome mixtures. Food Hydrocoll. 2021, 122, 107078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Wang, T.; Wang, N.; Dai, Y.; Yu, D.; Cheng, J. Interfacial adsorption properties, rheological properties and oxidation kinetics of oleogel-in-water emulsion stabilized by hemp seed protein. Food Hydrocoll. 2022, 137, 108402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Peng, D.; Ye, J.; Jin, W.; Yang, J.; Geng, F.; Deng, Q. A review on the utilization of flaxseed protein as interfacial stabilizers for food applications. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 2022, 99, 723–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Tang, Y.R.; Ghosh, S. A review of the utilization of canola protein as an emulsifier in the development of food emulsions. Molecules 2023, 28, 8086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  194. Kowalski, S.; Mikulec, A.; Mickowska, B.; Skotnicka, M.; Mazurek, A. Wheat bread supplementation with various edible insect flours: Influence of chemical composition on nutritional and technological aspects. LWT 2022, 159, 113220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Roncolini, A.; Milanović, V.; Aquilanti, L.; Cardinali, F.; Garofalo, C.; Sabbatini, R.; Clementi, F.; Belleggia, L.; Pasquini, M.; Mozzon, M.; et al. Lesser mealworm (Alphitobius diaperinus) powder as a novel baking ingredient for manufacturing high-protein, mineral-dense snacks. Food Res. Int. 2020, 131, 109031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Aguilera, Y.; Pastrana, I.; Rebollo-Hernanz, M.; Benitez, V.; Álvarez-Rivera, G.; Viejo, J.L.; Martín-Cabrejas, M. Investigating edible insects as a sustainable food source: Nutritional value and techno-functional and physiological properties. Food Funct. 2021, 12, 6309–6322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Vanqa, N.; Mshayisa, V.V.; Basitere, M. Proximate, physicochemical, techno-functional and antioxidant properties of three edible insect (Gonimbrasia belina, Hermetia illucens and Macrotermes subhylanus) flours. Foods 2022, 11, 976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. D’Antonio, V.; Battista, N.; Sacchetti, G.; Di Mattia, C.; Serafini, M. Functional properties of edible insects: A systematic review. Nutr. Res. Rev. 2021, 36, 98–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Queiroz, L.S.; Silva, N.F.N.; Jessen, F.; Mohammadifar, M.A.; Stephani, R.; De Carvalho, A.F.; Perrone, Í.T.; Casanova, F. Edible insect as an alternative protein source: A review on the chemistry and functionalities of proteins under different processing methods. Heliyon 2023, 9, e14831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Siddiqui, S.A.; Kamran, F.; Stankov, S.; Rathod, N.B.; Teixeira-Costa, B.E.; Fidan, H.; Bhat, M.I.; Sofi, S.A. Unveiling the diversity of non-conventional proteins—From sources, extraction, technofunctionality, nutraceutical potential to advancement in food applications—A systematic review. Waste Biomass Valor. 2024, 16, 29–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Zielińska, E. Evaluating the functional characteristics of certain insect flours (non-defatted/defatted flour) and their protein preparations. Molecules 2022, 27, 6339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  202. Hasnan, F.F.B.; Feng, Y.; Sun, T.; Parraga, K.; Schwarz, M.; Zarei, M. Insects as valuable sources of protein and peptides: Production, functional properties, and challenges. Foods 2023, 12, 4243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  203. Pan, J.; Xu, H.; Cheng, Y.; Mintah, B.; Dabbour, M.; Yang, F.; Chen, W.; Zhang, Z.; Dai, C.; He, R.; et al. Recent insight on edible insect protein: Extraction, functional properties, allergenicity, bioactivity, and applications. Foods 2022, 11, 2931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Urbina, P.; Marin, C.; Sanz, T.; Rodrigo, D.; Martinez, A. Effect of HHP, enzymes and gelatin on physicochemical factors of gels made by using protein isolated from common cricket (Acheta domesticus). Foods 2021, 10, 858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Mishyna, M.; Keppler, J.K.; Chen, J. Techno-functional properties of edible insect proteins and effects of processing. Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci. 2021, 56, 101508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Kumar, S.; Queiroz, L.S.; Marie, R.; Nascimento, L.G.L.; Mohammadifar, M.A.; De Carvalho, A.F.; Brouzes, C.M.C.; Fallquist, H.; Fraihi, W.; Casanova, F. Gelling properties of black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens) larvae protein after ultrasound treatment. Food Chem. 2022, 386, 132826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  207. Kim, T.; Lee, M.H.; Yong, H.I.; Kang, M.; Jung, S.; Choi, Y. Porcine myofibrillar protein gel with edible insect protein: Effect of pH-shifting. LWT 2021, 154, 112629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Guiné, R.P.F.; Santos, C.; Rocha, C.; Marques, C.; Rodrigues, C.; Manita, F.; Sousa, F.; Félix, M.; Silva, S.; Rodrigues, S. Whey-bread, an improved food product: Evaluation of textural characteristics. J. Culin. Sci. Technol. 2020, 18, 40–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Tița, M.A.; Moga, V.-M.; Constantinescu, M.A.; Bătușaru, C.M.; Tița, O. Harnessing the potential of whey in the creation of innovative food products: Contributions to the circular economy. Recycling 2024, 9, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Madenci, A.B.; Bilgiçli, N. Effect of whey protein concentrate and buttermilk powders on rheological properties of dough and bread quality. J. Food Qual. 2014, 37, 117–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Arab, S.A.; Kaemipoor, M.; Alkhaleel, R.; Mahdian, A. Recent trends in developing whey products by advanced technologies. Scholars Acad. J. Biosci. 2023, 11, 74–79. Available online: https://www.saspublishers.com/media/articles/SAJB_112_74-79_XIuqrSb.pdf (accessed on 14 May 2025). [CrossRef]
  212. Rasouli Pirouzian, H.; Alakas, E.; Cayir, M.; Yakisik, E.; Toker, O.S.; Kaya, Ş.; Tanyeri, O. Buttermilk as milk powder and whey substitute in compound milk chocolate: Comparative study and optimisation. Int. J. Dairy Technol. 2021, 74, 246–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. Rababah, T.; Al-U’Datt, M.; Al-Mahasneh, M.; Alsaad, A.; Gammoh, S.; Mahili, H.; Abdhamead, K.B.; Almajwal, A.; Ajouly, T.; Bartkute-Norkuniene, V. Improving the functional and sensory properties of cookies by ultrasonic treatment of whey proteins. J. Food Qual. 2022, 2022, 6902592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  214. Tsanasidou, C.; Kosma, I.; Badeka, A.; Kontominas, M. Quality parameters of wheat bread with the addition of untreated cheese whey. Molecules 2021, 26, 7518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  215. Koukoumaki, D.I.; Tsouko, E.; Papanikolaou, S.; Ioannou, Z.; Diamantopoulou, P.; Sarris, D. Recent advances in the production of single cell protein from renewable resources and applications. Carbon Resour. Convers. 2024, 7, 100195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Ritala, A.; Häkkinen, S.T.; Toivari, M.; Wiebe, M.G. Single cell protein—State-of-the-art, industrial landscape and patents 2001–2016. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  217. Hassoun, A.; Cropotova, J.; Trif, M.; Rusu, A.V.; Bobiş, O.; Nayik, G.A.; Jagdale, Y.D.; Saeed, F.; Afzaal, M.; Mostashari, P.; et al. Consumer acceptance of new food trends resulting from the fourth industrial revolution technologies: A narrative review of literature and future perspectives. Front. Nutr. 2022, 9, 972154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  218. Mahmoud, N.; Ferreira, J.; Raymundo, A.; Nunes, M.C. Improvement of protein, mineral and bioactivity content of wheat bread using microalgae biomass: Comparative study of Chlorella vulgaris, Phaeodactylum tricornutum and Tetraselmis chuii. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Hernández-López, I.; Alamprese, C.; Cappa, C.; Prieto-Santiago, V.; Abadias, M.; Aguiló-Aguayo, I. Effect of Spirulina in wheat flour breads of different alveographic strengths. Foods 2023, 12, 3724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  220. Zhuang, Z.; Wan, G.; Lu, X.; Xie, L.; Yu, T.; Tang, H. Metabolic engineering for the production of single-cell proteins from renewable feedstocks and their applications. Adv. Biotechnol. 2024, 2, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  221. Bratosin, B.C.; Darjan, S.; Vodnar, D.C. Single-cell protein: A potential substitute in human and animal nutrition. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  222. García-Garibay, M.; Gómez-Ruiz, L.; Cruz-Guerrero, A.; Bárzana, E. Single cell protein|Yeasts and bacteria. In Encyclopedia of Food Microbiology; Batt, C.A., Tortorello, M.L., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 431–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  223. Podgórska-Kryszczuk, I. Spirulina—An invaluable source of macro- and micronutrients with broad biological activity and application potential. Molecules 2024, 29, 5387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  224. Montevecchi, G.; Santunione, G.; Licciardello, F.; Köker, Ö.; Masino, F.; Antonelli, A. Enrichment of wheat flour with spirulina: Evaluation of thermal damage to essential amino acids during bread preparation. Food Res. Int. 2022, 157, 111357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  225. Mora, H.B.; Piñeros, M.; Moreno, D.E.; Restrepo, S.R.; Jaramillo, J.C.; Solano, Ó.Á.; Fernandez-Niño, M.; Barrios, A.G. Multiscale design of a dairy beverage model composed of Candida utilis single cell protein supplemented with oleic acid. J. Dairy Sci. 2019, 102, 9749–9762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  226. Salazar-López, N.J.; Barco-Mendoza, G.A.; Zuñiga-Martínez, B.S.; Domínguez-Avila, J.A.; Robles-Sánchez, R.M.; Ochoa, M.A.V.; González-Aguilar, G.A. The production of single-cell proteins as a strategy for reincorporating food waste and agricultural by-products into the processing chain. Bioengineering 2022, 9, 623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  227. Kobayashi, Y.; El-Wali, M.; Guðmundsson, H.; Guðmundsdóttir, E.E.; Friðjónsson, Ó.H.; Karlsson, E.N.; Roitto, M.; Tuomisto, H.L. Life-cycle assessment of yeast-based single-cell protein production with oat processing side-stream. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 873, 162318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  228. Volkmann, H.; Imianovsky, U.; Oliveira, J.L.B.; Sant’Anna, E.S.S. Cultivation of Arthrospira (Spirulina) platensis in desalinator wastewater and salinated synthetic medium: Protein content and amino acid profile. Braz. J Microbiol. 2008, 39, 98–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  229. Gressler, V.; Yokoya, N.S.; Fujii, M.T.; Colepicolo, P.; Oliveira, M.C. Lipid, fatty acid, protein, amino acid and ash contents in four species of Brazilian red algae. Braz. J. Oceanogr. 2010, 58, 177–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  230. Fleurence, J. Perspectives for the use of seaweeds in human nutrition and for marine animal production. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2012, 27, 56–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  231. Jadeja, R.N.; Tewari, A. Effect of soda ash industrial effluent on the protein content of two green algae. J. Environ. Biol. 2008, 29, 933–937. [Google Scholar]
  232. Putri, R.I.I.; Arief, D.; Cahyaningsih, A. Single cell protein production by Chlorella sp. using food processing wastewater as culture medium. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Eng. Inf. Technol. 2018, 8, 2322–2328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  233. Spalvins, A.; Zihare, L.; Blumberga, D. Single cell protein production from residual biomass: Comparison of various industrial by-products. Environ. Clim. Technol. 2018, 22, 52–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  234. Aggelopoulos, T.; Katsieris, K.; Bekatorou, A.; Pandey, A.; Banat, I.M. Solid state fermentation of food waste mixtures for single cell protein, aroma volatiles and fat production. Food Chem. 2014, 145, 710–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  235. Liu, G.; Zhang, D.; Chen, H. Toward an industrially viable process for potato starch processing waste using mixed cultures: Single-cell protein production. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 137, 322–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  236. Kurcz, A.; Błażejak, S.; Kot, A.M.; Bzducha-Wróbel, A.; Kieliszek, M. Application of industrial wastes for the production of microbial single-cell protein by fodder yeast Candida utilis. Waste Biomass Valor. 2016, 9, 57–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  237. Yadav, J.S.S.; Bezawada, J.; Ajila, C.M.; Yan, S.; Tyagi, R.D.; Surampalli, R.Y. Mixed culture of Kluyveromyces marxianus and Candida krusei for single cell protein production and organic load removal from whey. Bioresour. Technol. 2014, 164, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  238. García-Garibay, M.; Ramírez, M.; Rodríguez, M.E. Single cell protein: Yeasts and bacteria. Rev. Educ. Bioquím. 2014, 33, 35–45. [Google Scholar]
  239. Wongputtisin, P.; Phaowphaisal, I.; Intanon, S. Use of Bacillus subtilis isolates from Tua nao to improve the nutritional quality of soybean hulls. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2014, 24, 913–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  240. Kurbanoglu, E.B.; Algur, O.F. Single-cell protein production from ram horn hydrolysate by bacteria. Bioresour. Technol. 2002, 85, 125–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  241. Liu, G.; Zhang, D.; Chen, H. Production of single cell protein with two-step fermentation for potato starch processing wastewater treatment. Biotechnol. Lett. 2014, 36, 987–993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  242. Baldensperger, J.; Mer, J.L.; Hannibal, L.; Quinto, P.J. Solid state fermentation of banana wastes. Biotechnol. Lett. 1985, 7, 743–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  243. De Gregorio, A. SCP and crude pectinase production by slurry-state fermentation of lemon pulps. Bioresour. Technol. 2002, 83, 89–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  244. Liu, B.; Li, Y.; Song, J.; Zhang, L.; Dong, J.; Yang, Q. Production of single-cell protein with two-step fermentation for treatment of potato starch processing waste. Cellulose 2014, 21, 3637–3645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  245. Liu, B.; Song, J.; Li, Y.; Niu, J.; Wang, Z.; Yang, Q. Towards industrially feasible treatment of potato starch processing waste by mixed cultures. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2013, 171, 1001–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  246. Fernandes Almeida, R.; Borges, L.A.; Anacleto, D.; de Souza, M.S.N.; da Silva, L.B.M.; Monroy, Y.M.; Batista, E.A.C.; Machado, A.P.O. Gluten-free cookies: A comprehensive review of wheat flour substitutes. Food Humanit. 2025, 4, 100549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  247. Kotsiou, K.; Sacharidis, D.; Matsakidou, A.; Biliaderis, C.G.; Lazaridou, A. Physicochemical and functional aspects of composite wheat-roasted chickpea flours in relation to dough rheology, bread quality and staling phenomena. Food Hydrocoll. 2021, 124, 107322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  248. Irigoytia, K.; Espósito, N.; de Escalada Pla, M.; Parodi, M.; Genevois, C. Technological and multi-sensory analysis approach to holistically understand the quality and consumer perception of gluten-free breads with alternative flours. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2024, 59, 8606–8614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  249. Zarzycki, P.; Wirkijowska, A.; Pankiewicz, U. Functional bakery products: Technological, chemical and nutritional modification. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 12023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  250. Dean, D.; Rombach, M.; Vriesekoop, F.; Mongondry, P.; Le Viet, H.; Laophetsakunchai, S.; Urbano, B.; Briz, T.; Xhakollari, V.; Atasoy, G.; et al. Against the grain: Consumer’s purchase habits and satisfaction with gluten-free product offerings in European food retail. Foods 2024, 13, 3152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  251. Kušar, A.; Pravst, I.; Kupirovič, U.P.; Grunert, K.G.; Kreft, I.; Hristov, H. Consumers’ preferences towards bread characteristics based on food-related lifestyles: Insights from Slovenia. Foods 2023, 12, 3766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  252. Scheibenzuber, S.; Pucci, E.; Presenti, O.; Serafini, G.; Nobili, C.; Zoani, C.; Duta, D.E.; Mihai, A.L.; Criveanu-Stamatie, G.D.; Belc, N.; et al. Consumers’ acceptance of new food ingredients from the food industry’s by-products: A focus group study. Front. Nutr. 2025, 12, 1509833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  253. Andaregie, A.; Shimura, H.; Chikasada, M.; Sasaki, S.; Mulugeta, M.A.; Worku, A.; Wubalem, A.; Sato, S.; Addisu, S.; Takagi, I. Assessing eating habits and preferences for bakery products among urban dwellers in Ethiopia. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2024, 11, 2375621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  254. Benayad, A.; Taghouti, M.; Benali, A.; Aboussaleh, Y.; Benbrahim, N. Nutritional and technological assessment of durum wheat-faba bean enriched flours, and sensory quality of developed composite bread. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2020, 28, 635–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  255. De Melo, B.G.; Tagliapietra, B.L.; Clerici, M.T.P.S. Evolution of the technological, sensory, and nutritional quality of gluten-free cookies: A critical review. Food Sci. Technol. 2023, 43, e75822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  256. Wang, Y.; Maina, N.H.; Coda, R.; Katina, K. Challenges and opportunities for wheat alternative grains in breadmaking: Ex-situ- versus in-situ-produced dextran. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 113, 232–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  257. Senarathna, S.; Mel, R.; Malalgoda, M. Utilization of cereal-based protein ingredients in food applications. J. Cereal Sci. 2024, 116, 103867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  258. European Parliament and Council of the European Union. Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the provision of food information to consumers. Off. J. Eur. Union. 2011, L304, 18–63. [Google Scholar]
  259. Malila, Y.; Owolabi, I.O.; Chotanaphuti, T.; Sakdibhornssup, N.; Elliott, C.T.; Visessanguan, W.; Karoonuthaisiri, N.; Petchkongkaew, A. Current challenges of alternative proteins as foods of the future. NPJ Sci Food 2024, 8, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  260. European Parliament and Council of the European Union. Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the Council on novel foods, amending Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 258/97 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1852/2001. Off. J. Eur. Union. 2015, L327, 1–22. [Google Scholar]
  261. Grundy, H.; Romero, M.R.; Brown, L.C.; Parker, M. Review of Methods for the Detection of Allergens in Novel Food Alternative Proteins; FSA Research And Evidence: London, UK, 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  262. Codex Alimentarius Commission. Standard for Wheat Flour (CXS 152-1985); Revised 1995; FAO/WHO: Rome, Italy, 1985; Available online: https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/ru/ (accessed on 2 October 2025).
  263. Boukid, F.; Rosene, S. Grain Proteins: Challenges and Solutions in Developing Consumer-Relevant Foods. Cereal Foods World 2020, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  264. US Food and Drug Administration. 21 CFR Part 136—Bakery Products; FDA: Silver Spring, MD, USA. Available online: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-136 (accessed on 2 October 2025).
  265. US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry: Food Labeling Guide; FDA: Silver Spring, MD, USA, 2015. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/guidance-industry-food-labeling-guide (accessed on 2 October 2025).
Figure 1. Techno-functional properties of proteins in bakery products; (a) water retention capacity: proteins interact with water molecules through polar groups, (b) gas retention (O2 and CO2): the denatured protein network forms structures that encapsulate gases during leavening, (c) emulsifying capacity: proteins have regions that interact with the aqueous phase and nonpolar groups that orient themselves toward the lipid phase, (d) starch–protein interactions: these are established through hydrogen bonds between polar groups and through hydrophobic interactions between nonpolar amino acid side chains, as well as in nonpolar regions of starch, (e) gelling capacity: when thermally denatured, proteins form three-dimensional networks through non-covalent bonds that immobilize water, (f) foam generation (O2): proteins stabilize air bubbles by forming interfacial films.
Figure 1. Techno-functional properties of proteins in bakery products; (a) water retention capacity: proteins interact with water molecules through polar groups, (b) gas retention (O2 and CO2): the denatured protein network forms structures that encapsulate gases during leavening, (c) emulsifying capacity: proteins have regions that interact with the aqueous phase and nonpolar groups that orient themselves toward the lipid phase, (d) starch–protein interactions: these are established through hydrogen bonds between polar groups and through hydrophobic interactions between nonpolar amino acid side chains, as well as in nonpolar regions of starch, (e) gelling capacity: when thermally denatured, proteins form three-dimensional networks through non-covalent bonds that immobilize water, (f) foam generation (O2): proteins stabilize air bubbles by forming interfacial films.
Applsci 15 11279 g001
Figure 2. Graphical representation of the molecular interactions that occur between gluten proteins (glutenin and gliadin), starch (amylose and amylopectin), and water during the key stages of bread product production: (a) mixing of ingredients: in which the proteins are hydrated and the starch granules are dispersed; (b) structural unfolding of proteins and starch induced by kneading and baking, exposing reactive functional groups; (c) formation of specific bonds, such as hydrogen bonds, intramolecular disulfide bonds in gliadins, and intermolecular disulfide bonds in glutenins; and (d) establishment of a cohesive three-dimensional network resulting from the simultaneous interaction between proteins, starch, and water.
Figure 2. Graphical representation of the molecular interactions that occur between gluten proteins (glutenin and gliadin), starch (amylose and amylopectin), and water during the key stages of bread product production: (a) mixing of ingredients: in which the proteins are hydrated and the starch granules are dispersed; (b) structural unfolding of proteins and starch induced by kneading and baking, exposing reactive functional groups; (c) formation of specific bonds, such as hydrogen bonds, intramolecular disulfide bonds in gliadins, and intermolecular disulfide bonds in glutenins; and (d) establishment of a cohesive three-dimensional network resulting from the simultaneous interaction between proteins, starch, and water.
Applsci 15 11279 g002
Figure 3. Process flow diagram for the production of insect flour. The process involves rearing of insects, sacrifice (by CO2 exposure or freezing), rinsing, and subsequent drying (oven-drying or freeze-drying). The dried biomass is then ground, sifted to obtain a fine flour, and finally stored under appropriate conditions.
Figure 3. Process flow diagram for the production of insect flour. The process involves rearing of insects, sacrifice (by CO2 exposure or freezing), rinsing, and subsequent drying (oven-drying or freeze-drying). The dried biomass is then ground, sifted to obtain a fine flour, and finally stored under appropriate conditions.
Applsci 15 11279 g003
Figure 4. Process flow diagram for single-cell protein (SCP) production. The process begins with the selection of an appropriate microbial strain and substrate, followed by the establishment of optimal fermentation conditions. After fermentation, the microbial biomass is recovered and washed to remove impurities, and finally subjected to drying to obtain the SCP product.
Figure 4. Process flow diagram for single-cell protein (SCP) production. The process begins with the selection of an appropriate microbial strain and substrate, followed by the establishment of optimal fermentation conditions. After fermentation, the microbial biomass is recovered and washed to remove impurities, and finally subjected to drying to obtain the SCP product.
Applsci 15 11279 g004
Table 1. Abundant and limiting amino acids in alternative protein sources.
Table 1. Abundant and limiting amino acids in alternative protein sources.
GroupSourceAbundant Amino AcidsLimiting Amino AcidsReference
VegetablesOatMethionine, cysteineLysine[76,78,79]
RyeMethionineLysine, Threonine[76,80]
RiceMethionine, cysteineLysine[76,80]
QuinoaLysine, MethionineNone clearly limiting (almost complete profile)[76,81,82]
LupineLysine, ArginineValine, cysteine, and methionine[75,76]
Seeds and nutsNutArginine, Glutamic acidLysine, Methionine[38]
ChiaLysine, ArginineMethionine[83]
Pumpkin seedsTryptophan, ArginineLysine[43,84]
Sunflower seedsArginine, Glutamic acidLysine[43]
Sesame seedsMethionine, CysteineLysine[43]
LegumesBeanLysineMethionine[85]
ChickpeaLysine, TryptophanCysteine, methionine, and tryptophan[86]
LentilsLysine, TryptophanMethionine[87]
Broad beansLysine, ArginineMethionine and tyrosine[40]
SoyLysine, ArginineCysteine, Methionine (although less limiting than in other legumes)[75,88]
Sub-productsLiquid cheese wheyLysine, Leucine, Isoleucine, ValineNo limitations (full profile)[51,89]
Cheese whey powderLysine, Cysteine, LeucineNo limitations (full profile)[51,89]
Cheese whey concentrate (34%)Lysine, Leucine, ValineNo limitations (full profile)[51,90]
Cheese whey concentrate (80%)Lysine, Leucine, TryptophanNo limitations (full profile)[51,90]
Cheese whey isolate Lysine, Leucine, IsoleucineNo limitations (full profile)[51,90]
InsectsBeetlesLysine, MethionineGenerally balanced, minor limitations in tryptophan[91,92]
CaterpillarsLysine, ThreonineMinor limitations in methionine[91,93]
BeesLysine, ArginineMinor limitations in tryptophan[93]
GrasshoppersLysine, ThreonineMild limitations in methionine[91,94]
LocustsLysine, ValineMethionine[91]
CricketsLysine, Threonine, ValineSlightly low in methionine[91,94]
TermitesLysine, MethionineAlmost complete profile, slight deficiencies in tryptophan[91,94]
Table 2. Protein ingredients at their substitution level in wheat-based bakery products, as well as their protein content in dry matter.
Table 2. Protein ingredients at their substitution level in wheat-based bakery products, as well as their protein content in dry matter.
Protein OriginIngredientLevel of
Substitution (%)
Protein
(g/100 g Dry
Matter)
Reference
VegetablesOat10–2010–17[97,98]
Rye<309–15[99,100]
Rice<506–8[101]
Quinoa10–1513–15[102,103]
Lupine≤2035–40[77]
Seeds and nutsNut5–105–15[104,105]
Chia5–1516–20[106,107,108]
Pumpkin seeds5–1030–33[109]
Sunflower seeds5–1620–21[110]
Sesame seeds5–1017–18[107,111]
LegumesBean10–3021–24[112,113]
Chickpea10–3019–21[114,115]
Lentils≤2024–26[116,117]
Broad beans10–2024–26[118]
Soy>2036–40[119,120]
Sub-productsLiquid cheese whey10–150.8–1.0[121,122]
Cheese whey powder10–1511–14[122,123]
Cheese whey concentrate (WPC 34%)10–1534–36[124]
Cheese whey concentrate (WPC 80%)10–1577–82[122,123]
Cheese whey isolate (WPI)10–1585–90[122]
InsectsBeetles5–1040–65[44,125]
Caterpillars5–1045–60[126]
Bees5–1050–65[127,128]
Grasshoppers5–2060–70[129]
Locusts5–2060–70[130]
Crickets5–3060–70[131,132,133]
Termites5–10–1535–65[126]
Table 3. Microorganisms used to produce single-cell protein and add it to food products.
Table 3. Microorganisms used to produce single-cell protein and add it to food products.
MicroorganismProtein (%)SubstrateProduction ConditionsFood ApplicationsReference
Algae
Arthrospira platensis (“Spirulina”)55–70Autotrophic media (water, CO2, mineral nutrients)Phototrophy in open ponds or photobioreactors; alkaline medium (pH ≈ 9–11) with NaHCO3/CO2; 25–35 °C; continuous, aerobic Fortification of bread, pasta, cookies, yogurt, and other fermented dairy products[223]
Arthrospira (Spirulina) platensis63Synthetic saline medium30–35 °C, 16 h of light, continuous cultivationFood supplements, functional beverages, nutraceuticals[228]
Gracilaria domingensis10.5–18.6Natural coastal cultivationSeasonal harvesting, without induced cultivationDirect consumption in salads, dried seaweed, agar[229]
Palmaria palmata~35Marine harvestingOpen sea farming, cold-temperateSalads, soups, fermented products[230]
Ulva faciataUp to 35Diluted effluent from the sodium carbonate industryIn situ cultivation on contaminated coastlineDirect consumption, effluent purification[231]
Chlorella sp.~47.1Wastewater from the food industry25–30 °C, pH 6.8–7.2, controlled lightingProtein flours, powdered supplements, green drinks[232]
Chlorella salina22–48Biodiesel production effluentCultivation in photobioreactorsDietary supplements, food fortification[233]
Yeasts
Saccharomyces cerevisiae AXAZ-1~30Waste mixture: beer bagasse, molasses, whey, potato peelings, and orange peelingsSolid state fermentation; 30 °C; adjusted humidity; pH 4.5–5.0; 5–7 daysEnrichment of animal feed, enrichment of bakery products[234]
Candida utilis46.1Potato starch pulp + wastewaterSubmerged aerobic fermentation; 30 °C; 300 rpm; aeration 0.1 vvm; 6 days; pH 7.0Experimental animal feed (tested on mice), Use for fermented beverages[235]
Candida utilis ATCC 995040.6Potato wastewater (deproteinized) + glycerol (5%)Submerged culture at 28 °C; 200 rpm; 72 h; pH 5.0Feed yeast (food use authorized by GRAS)[236]
Kluyveromyces marxianus CHY1612~38Cheese whey + ureaContinuous aerobic fermentation; 40 °C; pH 3.5; HRT 24 hAnimal feed, plant-based yogurts, probiotic drinks, gluten-free breads[237]
Bacteria
Methylococcus capsulatus60–70Methane or methanol as a carbon sourceSubmerged and aerobic fermentation in loop bioreactors; methane or biogas as sole carbon/energy source; 35–45 °C; moderately neutral; 48-h batches produce ~10 g biomass L−1Bacterial flour for aquaculture feed, evaluated in products for human consumption due to its high protein content[238]
Bacillus subtilis49.1Soybean hullSolid fermentation, 40 °C, 3 daysPotential in the formulation of fermented foods and nutritional enhancers[239]
Bacillus subtilis45.40Hydrolyzed ram’s hornLiquid culture, 30 °C, pH 7.0, 24 hFeed, not directly applicable to humans; used in SCP studies[240]
Bacillus licheniformis CGMCC 1.81338.21Residue and water from potato starch processing32.8 °C, pH 6.67, 1.78% inoculum, 2 daysUse in animal feed; GRAS potential[241]
Fungi
Fusarium venenatum QuornTMA3/544Glucose derived from starch (syrup), mineral salts, ammonia Continuous air lift fermenter, glucose as substrate, ~30 °C, pH ≈ 6, highly aerobic; biomass harvested continuouslyMeat analog products[216]
A. niger “strain 2”6 → 18Green banana flourSSF in reactor 15 kg; humidity 42%; incubation 38 °C→30 °C (hot air 60 °C); air 0.8–2.4 m3 h−1; 43 h fermentation (total 60–68 h)Protein-rich banana flour for animal feed (livestock, shrimp)[242]
A. niger (wild citrus strain)25.6Decolorized lemon pulp (≈14% solids)“Slurry state” (semi-liquid medium); 30 °C; agitation 220 rpm; pH adjusted to 4.0; 5 daysProtein ingredient and source of pectinase for the citrus industry itself[243]
A. niger H3 (UV/EMS mutant) + Bacillus licheniformis (two-step fermentation)46.1Potato starch pulp and wastewater (15:4 w/w mixture)Step 1: Solid pre-hydrolysis 4 days (A. niger, 28 °C) → Step 2: Submerged fermentation 6 days; 30 °C; 300 rpm; pH 7.0; 0.1 vvm airFlour for animal feed (palatability validated in mice)[244,245]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Perea-Escobar, C.D.; Londoño-Hernández, L.; Benavente-Valdés, J.R.; Balagurusamy, N.; Contreras Esquivel, J.C.; Hernández-Almanza, A.Y. Incorporation of Protein Alternatives in Bakery Products: Biological Value and Techno-Functional Properties. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 11279. https://doi.org/10.3390/app152011279

AMA Style

Perea-Escobar CD, Londoño-Hernández L, Benavente-Valdés JR, Balagurusamy N, Contreras Esquivel JC, Hernández-Almanza AY. Incorporation of Protein Alternatives in Bakery Products: Biological Value and Techno-Functional Properties. Applied Sciences. 2025; 15(20):11279. https://doi.org/10.3390/app152011279

Chicago/Turabian Style

Perea-Escobar, Carlos Daniel, Liliana Londoño-Hernández, Juan Roberto Benavente-Valdés, Nagamani Balagurusamy, Juan Carlos Contreras Esquivel, and Ayerim Y. Hernández-Almanza. 2025. "Incorporation of Protein Alternatives in Bakery Products: Biological Value and Techno-Functional Properties" Applied Sciences 15, no. 20: 11279. https://doi.org/10.3390/app152011279

APA Style

Perea-Escobar, C. D., Londoño-Hernández, L., Benavente-Valdés, J. R., Balagurusamy, N., Contreras Esquivel, J. C., & Hernández-Almanza, A. Y. (2025). Incorporation of Protein Alternatives in Bakery Products: Biological Value and Techno-Functional Properties. Applied Sciences, 15(20), 11279. https://doi.org/10.3390/app152011279

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop