Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T06:16:34.996Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Criteria and markers for protein quality assessment – a review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2012

Daniel Tome*
Affiliation:
AgroParisTech, Department of Life Sciences and Health, UMR 914 Nutrition physiology and ingestive behavior, 16 rue Claude Bernard 75005 Paris, France
*
*Corresponding author: D. Tome, fax +33144087248, email tome@agroparistech.fr
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Dietary proteins are found in animal products, plant products and single-cell organisms. Proteins are present in variable proportions in these different food sources and the different proteins also differ in their amino acid composition, dietary indispensable amino acid content and physico-chemical properties. Different criteria can be used to define dietary protein requirements and different markers can be used to assess nutritional protein quality according to the criteria used for protein requirement estimation. The current approach to determining protein requirements is related to nitrogen balance and the dietary indispensable amino acid score approach relates protein quality to the capacity of protein to allow reaching nitrogen balance by providing nitrogen and indispensable amino acids. A second approach considers more directly protein nitrogen utilization by the body and includes measurement of protein digestibility and of the efficiency of dietary nitrogen retention at maintenance or for protein deposition at the whole body level or in more specific body areas. Another approach is related to protein turnover and protein synthesis in relation to maintenance and/or efficiency for deposition or development (growth) at the whole body level or for different and more specific target tissues such as muscle or bone. Lastly, protein quality can also be evaluated from different markers used as risk factors for metabolic dysfunction and disorders related for instance to insulin resistance, diabetes and obesity or cardio-vascular disease. The accuracy and relevance of these different approaches is discussed regarding the capacity of the different protein sources (i.e. animal as meat, milk or eggs, legume as soya or pea, or cereal as wheat or rice) to satisfy protein requirements according to these different criteria and markers.

Information

Type
Full Papers
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2012
Figure 0

Table 1Scoring pattern (dietary indispensable amino acid reference profiles) for infants, children, adolescents and adults(1)

Figure 1

Table 2True digestibility and PDCAAS values of dietary proteins in the human adult and 6–month-old to 5-year-old infants(1,3,42)

Figure 2

Table 3Protein quality and Postprandial Protein (nitrogen) Utilization (NPPU(5,8), PPU)(7) in the healthy adult

Figure 3

Fig. 1Post-prandial 8 h metabolic use of dietary nitrogen in adults after adaptation to and its modulation by both the protein source in the meal and the habitual protein intake, normal protein (NP 1 g/kg/d) and high protein (HP 2 g/kg/d) diets (11). Subjects in the milk, soya, and wheat groups twice ingested a mixed milk, soya, or wheat protein meal providing 4·85 mmol N/kg body weight, respectively, the first time after a normal protein diet adaptation (NP-milk, NP-soya, and NP-wheat groups, respectively) and the second time after high-protein diet adaptation (HP-milk, HP-soya, and HP-wheat groups, respectively). Open bars denote postprandial utilization of meal nitrogen for splanchnic catabolic, splanchnic anabolic, and peripheral anabolic purposes at 8 h. Hatched bars denote meal nitrogen enterohepatic recycling into the metabolic nitrogen pool through urea hydrolysis at 8 h.

Figure 4

Table 4Protein source and determined efficiency of utilization for growth in preschool infants