Determination of the in vivo and in vitro protein quality of pulse protein concentrates and isolates.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently, the use of a rodent bioassay is the officially recognized method for generating data in support of protein content claims for food ingredients. Although there are in vitro methods for calculating protein digestibility, to date no method has been accepted by North American regulatory agencies for use in establishing protein content claims, likely due to a lack of evidence in support of their validity. To this end, we compared the in vivo (%True Fecal Protein Digestibility; %TFPD) and the in vitro protein digestibility (%IVPD) of faba bean, lentil and pea protein concentrates and isolates. Sprague‐Dawley rats (n=70, ~70 g) were randomized to one of seven diets (10% crude protein) based on: casein (reference control), the concentrates of faba bean (FB60), lentil (L55) or pea (P55) or the protein isolates of the same pulses (FB85, L85 and P85 respectively). The %TFPD and protein digestibility corrected amino acid score (PDCAAS) were calculated. The %IVPD was determined via enzymatic digestion with subsequent pH drop, and used to calculate the in vitro PDCAAS (IVPDCAAS). Except for L55, in which the sulfur amino acids were limiting, all experimental diets were limited by tryptophan content. FB60 had a higher AAS than FB85 (0.46 vs 0.58) whereas the AAS of the other diets had the opposite trend (L55‐0.75 vs L85‐ 0.52, P55 – 0.58 vs P85‐ 0.54). Digestibility was greater in the protein isolates than the concentrates, and the in vivo rat bioassay reported higher digestibility than the in vitro method; casein (95 vs 84), FB60 (94 vs 74), FB85 (97 vs 75), L55 (91 vs 75), L85 (96 vs 77), P55 (93 vs 78), P85 (97 vs 78). There was no correlation found between %TPD and %IVPD (R 2 = 0.027). Interestingly, a strong correlation was found between PDCAAS and IVPDCAAS (R 2 =0.99, p<0.0001), however the values from the rodent model were greater than the in vitro casein (89 vs 79), FB60 (43 vs 33), FB85 (56 vs 44), L55 (68 vs 56), L85 (50 vs 40), P55 (54 vs 46), P85 (53 vs 43). Excepting faba bean, all pulse concentrates had higher AAS, lower digestibility and greater PDCAAS values than their isolate counterparts. As such, processes used in the isolation of pulse protein sources increased digestibility, but may have led to shifts in protein composition, leading to a lower PDCAAS value. Although the strong correlation found between PDCAAS and IVPDCAAS suggests that in vitro analysis could reduce the requirement of animal experimentation for protein claims, a larger dataset combined with investigation into other potential in vitro methods is required. Support or Funding Information Pulse Canada
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".