## 5 Conclusions  
The production of high-moisture extrudates from pea proteins (concentrate and isolate) combined with oat protein concentrates obtained by wet milling or dry fractionation was successful, although variations in fat levels influenced processing parameters and final product attributes. CLSM images clearly revealed fibrous-like structures in all samples. Both oat protein sources had noticeable effects on the microstructure, fibrousness, and color of the extrudates, even with just a 10% inclusion in any preparation. Dry-fractionated oat protein with peas mixture demonstrated a more randomly oriented and coarsely connected protein network (limited fiber alignment) as compared to pea proteins alone, yet the functional and hardness properties did not differ from peas alone and were comparable to boiled chicken hardness. Wet-milled PrOatein(r) addition to pea proteins created a more porous protein network structure, increased WAC, OAC, and the hardness of the extrudates as compared to peas alone or boiled chicken. The cutting force increased with the degree of fiber alignment but did not correlate with the anisotropic index, which highlights the complexity of understanding the texture. The post-extrusion hot water treatment of the extrudates induced changes toward a lighter color and created a softer texture especially for products with PrOatein(r), while products with dry-fractionated oat showed the least change in cutting force, indicating the formation of stable and resilient fibers. We have shown that dry-fractionated oat proteins can be used to enhance the amino acid profile of pea protein extrudates without negatively influencing their functional and textural properties. On the other hand, wet-milled oat protein requires some process optimization or simply can serve to deliver new products with other characteristics. Further research is needed to understand how structure and fiber alignment are interconnected. The best method for techno-functional oat protein concentrate production will remain dependent on the intended food application and can be further tailored. Factors such as protein or starch heat-treatment history during fractionation are crucial parameters.  
Conceptualization, S.M.G., C.S.d.C. and S.S.; Methodology, S.M.G., D.K., C.S.d.C., S.H.K. and T.D.; Validation, S.M.G. and T.D.; Formal analysis, S.M.G., D.K. and H.Z.; Investigation, S.M.G.; Data curation, S.M.G., D.K. and H.Z.; Writing--original draft, S.M.G. and T.D.; Writing--review & editing, S.H.K., S.S. and T.D.; Visualization, S.M.G.; Supervision, S.H.K.; Project administration, S.H.K.; Funding acquisition, S.H.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
This research was financially supported by the Research Council of Norway, through the project \"Green Plant Food\" No. 319049. Process equipment was available from the infrastructure facilities supported by the funding Food Pilot Plant Norway (296083).  
Not applicable.  
All data relevant to the study are contained within the article.  
The authors would like to thank Lantmannen and AM-Nutrition for providing PrOatein(r) and pea protein concentrate. We also thank [PERSON] at the Imaging Center NMBU for assistance in microscopy.  
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.