Protein Digestibility Assay Kit
(Animal-Safe Accurate Protein Quality Score Method)

Food regulation aims to protect public health through a safe and nutritious food supply produced by a compliant food industry. Food standards of developed countries generally do not regulate protein content or protein quality because the risk of dietary protein inadequacy in their national populations is very low. Protein is nevertheless regulated for reasons of product quality or protein labelling or to minimise assessed health risks associated with consumption of certain animal- and vegetable-protein foods; analogue products that extend or simulate commonly available animal-protein foods; and special purpose foods such as infant formula and foods, supplementary and medical foods, and foods for weight loss. The extent and approach to protein regulation varies greatly among jurisdictions but where it occurs, it is applied through minimum and sometimes maximum limits on protein content or quality measures or both using an inter-related approach. Protein quality measures range from amino acid profiles and digestibility corrected scores to protein rating, a rat bioassay and reference proteins not further described. Regulatory methods for protein quality determination are referenced to the published scientific literature or developed nationally. Internationally, the Codex Alimentarius regulates the protein content and quality of some foods. The Codex approach varies according to the food but is similar to the approaches used in national and regional food regulation. This paper provides a comparison of the regulation of protein in foods using examples from the food regulations of Australia New Zealand, Canada, the European Union, the United States of America and the Codex Alimentarius.

A study to determine the protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score and protein efficiency ratio of nine different cooked Canadian pulse classes was conducted in support of the establishment of protein quality claims in Canada and the United States. Split green and yellow pea, whole green lentil, split red lentil, Kabuli chickpea, navy bean, pinto bean, light red kidney bean, and black bean were investigated. Protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score (PDCAAS) and the protein efficiency ratio (PER) were determined using the appropriate rodent models. All pulses had high digestibility values, >70%, with PDCAAS values greater than 0.5, thereby qualifying as a quality protein in the United States, but only navy beans qualified as a good source of protein. All pulses except whole green lentils, split red lentils, and split green peas would qualify as sources of protein with protein ratings between 20 and 30.4 in Canada. These findings support the use of pulses as protein sources in the regulatory context of both the United States and Canada.

An analysis technique can be performed to quantify the digestible protein content of a protein-containing sample outside the body of a living organism. Traditionally, protein digestibility is evaluated in vivo, for example using a rat subject to measure protein digestibility after being fed the protein-containing sample. In some examples, an in vitro technique involves enzymatically digesting the protein-containing sample to simulate digestion that would occur inside a mammalian body. The sample can then be optically analyzed to measure the amount of reactive amine present in the sample, which can provide an indication of the amount of amino acid released during digestion. In some examples, the measured reactive amine value is adjusted to account for the stronger and/or weaker optical response of certain amino acids due to their relative reactivity with an optical tagging agent. Thereafter, an in vivo protein digestibility value can be calculated based on adjusted amine concentration.

The protein digestibility–corrected amino acid score (PDCAAS) has been adopted by FAO/WHO as the preferred method for the measurement of the protein value in human nutrition. The method is based on comparison of the concentration of the first limiting essential amino acid in the test protein with the concentration of that amino acid in a reference (scoring) pattern. This scoring pattern is derived from the essential amino acid requirements of the preschool-age child. The chemical score obtained in this way is corrected for true fecal digestibility of the test protein. PDCAAS values higher than 100% are not accepted as such but are truncated to 100%. Although the principle of the PDCAAS method has been widely accepted, critical questions have been raised in the scientific community about a number of issues. These questions relate to 1) the validity of the preschool-age child amino acid requirement values, 2) the validity of correction for fecal instead of ileal digestibility and 3) the truncation of PDCAAS values to 100%. At the time of the adoption of the PDCAAS method, only a few studies had been performed on the amino acid requirements of the preschool-age child, and there is still a need for validation of the scoring pattern. Also, the scoring pattern does not include conditionally indispensable amino acids. These amino acids also contribute to the nutrition value of a protein. There is strong evidence that ileal, and not fecal, digestibility is the right parameter for correction of the amino acid score. The use of fecal digestibility overestimates the nutritional value of a protein, because amino acid nitrogen entering the colon is lost for protein synthesis in the body and is, at least in part, excreted in urine as ammonia. The truncation of PDCAAS values to 100% can be defended only for the limited number of situations in which the protein is to be used as the sole source of protein in the diet. For evaluation of the nutritional significance of proteins as part of mixed diets, the truncated value should not be used. In those cases, a more detailed evaluation of the contribution of the protein to the amino acid composition of the mixed diet is required. From such an evaluation, it appears that milk proteins are superior to plant proteins in cereal-based diets.

Values (%) for true digestibility (TD) of protein and individual amino acids in some vegetable proteins were determined by the rat balance (fecal) method. Diets containing 8% crude protein (N × 6.25) from soaked and autoclaved samples of Trapper and Century field peas, lentil, pinto bean, seafarer bean, black bean or fababean and autoclaved samples of soybean, peanut, sunflower, rolled oat, rice + soybean and corn + pea were tested in two rat balance studies. In the case of blends, each protein source provided 50% of total protein. The beans, peas and lentil proteins were limiting in sulphur amino acids, tryptophan and threonine, whereas sunflower and rolled oat were most limiting in lysine. In beans, peas and lentil, the TD values of methionine (51-82), cystine (46-85), tryptophan (47-90) and threonine (62-84) were considerably lower than the TD values of total nitrogen (72-90). Similarly, in sunflower and rolled oat, the TD values of lysine (81-83) were lower than the TD values of total nitrogen (90-91). These data suggested that crude protein digestibility may not be a good predictor of bioavailability of limiting amino acids in vegetable proteins. Amino acid scores of the vegetable proteins were 62-96%. The corrections for true digestibility of protein and individual amino acids lowered the scores by 6-15 and 11-47 percentage units, respectively.