Quality of Plant Proteins | Encyclopedia MDPI

Quality of Plant Proteins: History

Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Subjects: Nutrition & Dietetics

Contributor:

Consumer demand for plant protein-based products is high and expected to grow considerably in the next decade. Factors contributing to the rise in popularity of plant proteins include: (1) potential health benefits associated with increased intake of plant-based diets; (2) consumer concerns regarding adverse health effects of consuming diets high in animal protein (e.g., increased saturated fat); (3) increased consumer recognition of the need to improve the environmental sustainability of food production; (4) ethical issues regarding the treatment of animals; and (5) general consumer view of protein as a “positive” nutrient (more is better). While there are health and physical function benefits of diets higher in plant-based protein, the nutritional quality of plant proteins may be inferior in some respects relative to animal proteins.

plant protein
protein quality
vegetable protein
PDCAAS
DIAAS
protein requirements

1. Introduction

Protein is a nutrient that has been trending increasingly positive in the minds of consumers, with demand rising for both plant and animal sources of protein ^[1]. In addition, there is a growing body of clinical evidence, especially in older adults, supporting health benefits associated with protein at or above current dietary protein intake recommendations. Among these health benefits are increases in lean body mass ^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6], functional benefits such as increased leg power ^[4] or gait speed ^[6], and improved bone density ^[7]^[8]^[9]. Thus, on the one hand, there is likely to be a continued push for protein-rich options in the food marketplace. On the other hand, the global production of an increased volume of food protein, especially high-quality animal protein, could present environmental sustainability challenges. The production of 1 kg of high-quality animal protein requires feeding 6 kg plant protein to livestock, which introduces the subsequent strain on land and water resources, as well as potential increases in greenhouse gas emissions, associated with livestock agriculture ^[1]^[10]. Wider and prudent use of plant proteins in the diet can help to supply adequate high-quality protein for the population and may reduce the potential for adverse environmental consequences.

2. Determination of Protein Quality

Two requirements for a protein to be considered high quality, or complete, for humans are having adequate levels of indispensable amino acids (see Table 1) to support human growth and development and being readily digested and absorbed.

Table 1. Indispensable, dispensable, and conditionally indispensable amino acids in the human diet. Adapted from ^[11].

Indispensable	Dispensable	Conditionally Indispensable
Histidine	Alanine	Arginine
Isoleucine	Aspartic acid	Cysteine
Leucine	Asparagine	Glutamine
Lysine	Glutamic acid	Glycine
Methionine	Serine	Proline
Phenylalanine		Tyrosine
Threonine
Tryptophan
Valine

Various methods for evaluating protein quality have been developed over the years, but amino acid scoring is currently the recommended method by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences ^[11]^[12]. The Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS) was developed in 1989 by a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Protein Quality Evaluation ^[13] to compare the indispensable amino acid content of a test protein (mg/g protein) to a theoretical reference protein thought to meet indispensable amino acid requirements (mg/g protein) for a given age group, creating a ratio known as the amino acid or chemical score. The indispensable amino acid with the lowest ratio is referred to as the most limiting amino acid. The most limiting amino acid score is corrected for the fecal true digestibility of the protein. To determine fecal true protein digestibility, rats are fed a known amount of nitrogen from the test protein and then fecal nitrogen excretion is measured ^[14]. This measure represents apparent protein digestibility. The fecal nitrogen excretion from the rats on a protein-free diet is then subtracted from fecal nitrogen excretion on the test protein, which accounts for non-dietary protein nitrogen excretion from bacterial cells and digestive secretions. The result is referred to as true fecal protein digestibility. The calculation equation for the PDCAAS is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Calculation of the PDCAAS (adapted from ^[15]).

The results can be expressed as either decimals or multiplied by 100 to be expressed as a percent. A PDCAAS of <1.00 indicates that the protein is suboptimal and PDAAS scores >1.00 are truncated to 1.00.

In 2011, the FAO introduced an updated amino acid scoring system, the Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Score (DIAAS) ^[16]. The DIAAS is calculated and interpreted similarly to the PDCAAS, but with a few important differences. First, the reference patterns for the indispensable amino acids were revised to reflect advances in the scientific knowledge regarding amino acid requirements. Second, a single estimate of fecal protein digestibility is no longer used. Rather, the concept of the ileal individual amino acid digestibility was incorporated. True fecal digestibility of protein, which is based on nitrogen excretion in the feces, is complicated by the considerable exchange of protein, amino acids, and urea between systemic pools and the lower gastrointestinal tract. In response to this limitation, it was recommended to measure ileal amino acid digestibility, which reflects the concentration of amino acids that reaches the ileum and would hence enter the colon, derived from ileostomy output studies conducted in animals or humans. As such, each indispensable amino acid from a given protein source will have an associated ileal digestibility value and its amino acid score will be corrected for that value. Finally, unlike the PDCAAS, the DIAAS method allows for scores >1.00 to acknowledge that there may be incremental health benefits associated with these higher DIAAS scores.

3. The Quality of Plant Proteins

In general, most animal-based protein sources, such as milk, whey, casein, eggs, and beef, have PDCAAS at or very near 1.00 ^[13]^[17]^[18]. As such, they are generally considered complete protein sources for supporting indispensable amino acid requirements for human growth and development. Plant proteins, however, may have insufficient levels of one or more indispensable amino acids. Legumes are frequently low in the sulfur-containing amino acids methionine and cysteine, while lysine is typically limiting in grains ^[19]. However, it should be noted that plant proteins differ regarding the amounts of limiting amino acids that are present. Table 2 shows the PDCAAS and DIAAS ratings for milk protein, whey, and several selected plant protein sources. Similar to milk protein and whey, soy protein essentially has a PDCAAS of 1.00, and four more proteins (canola, potato, pea, and quinoa) have a PDCAAS of at least 0.75.

Table 2. Protein quality of whey and selected vegetable protein sources.

Protein	PDCAAS ¹	PDCAAS ²	PDCAAS ³	PDCAAS ⁴	DIAAS ³	Limiting Amino Acid(s), When Present	AA Profile: Materials Analyzed and References	Fractional Digestibility and References
Milk	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.08	None	Milk PC ^[20]^[21]	Fecal true protein: mean 0.96 ^[13]^[20] Ileal AA: range for individual AA 0.84–0.94 ^[22]
Whey	1.00	1.00	0.97	1.00	0.90	His	Whey PI ^[20]^[21]^[23] Whey PC ^[20]^[21]	Fecal true protein: mean 0.96 ^[20]^[24] Ileal AA: range for individual AA 0.89–1.00 ^[22]
Soy	0.99	1.00	0.93	1.00	0.92	SAA	Soy PI, Soy PC ^[25] Soy PI ^[20] Soy PI ^[21]	Fecal true protein: mean 0.97 ^[13]^[20]^[21]^[25] Ileal AA: range for individual AA 0.95–0.99 ^[22]
Canola	0.88	1.00	0.93	1.00	NA	AAA	Canola PI ^[26]; Canola PI ^[27]	Fecal true protein: mean 0.95 ^[26]^[27]
Potato	0.87	1.00	0.87	1.00	0.85	His	Solanic 100F Potato PI ^[28] Solanic 206P HMW and LMW ^[29] Potato protein ^[30] Potato juice protein concentrate ^[31] Avg of 6 potato varieties ^[32]	Fecal true protein: 0.89 ^[24] Ileal AA: range for individual AA 0.73–0.90 ^[22]
Pea	0.83	0.84	0.78	0.91	0.66	SAA *, Trp	Pea PC ^[33] Pea PC ^[21] Pea PC ^[20]	Fecal true protein: mean 0.97 ^[20]^[21]^[33] Ileal AA: range for individual AA 0.83–0.90 ^[20]
Quinoa	0.78	0.89	0.77	0.84	NA	Ile, Leu, Lys *, Thr, Val	Quinoa, raw ^[34] Quinoa ^[35] Quinoa from Salta ^[36] Uncooked quinoa ^[37] Field grown quinoa ^[38] Raw and unwashed quinoa ^[39]	Fecal true protein: mean 0.89 ^[39]^[40]
Chickpea	0.77	0.85	0.71	0.71	0.69	Leu, Lys, SAA *, Thr, Trp, Val	Boiled chickpeas ^[41]	Fecal true protein: 0.85 ^[42] Ilea AA: range for individual AA 0.72–0.9 ^[22]
Lentils	0.73	0.73	0.68	0.80	0.75	Leu, SAA *, Thr, Trp, Val	Lentils, mature seeds, ckd, bld without salt ^[37]	Fecal true protein: 0.85 ^[24] Ileal AA: range for individual AA 0.82–0.98 ^[22]
Red Kidney beans	0.68	0.68	0.63	0.74	0.61	Leu, Lys, SAA *, AAA, Thr, Trp, Val	Red kidney beans, cnd, drnd solids ^[37]	Fecal true protein: 0.81 ^[24] Ileal AA: range for individual AA 0.72–0.94 ^[22]
Fava/faba	0.63	0.65	0.60	0.67	NA	Lys, SAA *, Thr, Trp, Val	Fava bean PI ^[43] Cooked fava beans ^[44] Broadbeans, ckd ^[37] 8 faba cultivars ^[45] Faba bean PI ^[46]	Fecal true protein: 0.86 ^[47]
Barley	0.63	0.71	0.64	0.76	0.50	Lys *	Barley, pearled ^[48]	Fecal true protein: 0.98 ^[49] Ileal AA: range for individual AA 0.76–0.83 ^[22]
Pinto beans	0.61	0.61	0.57	0.66	NA	His, Ile, Leu, Lys, SAA *, AAA, Thr, Trp, Val	Pinto beans, cnd, drnd solids ^[37]	Fecal true protein: 0.73 ^[24]
Rice	0.53	0.60	0.54	0.64	0.52	Lys *, Thr	Rice PC ^[50] Rice endosperm protein ^[51] Oryzatein 90 and 80 Rice protein ^[52] Rice PC ^[21]	Fecal true protein: mean 0.90 ^[21]^[24]^[51] Ileal AA: mean ranges for individual AA 0.81–0.87 ^[21]^[22]
Oat	0.51	0.59	0.52	0.62	0.44	Lys *, Thr	Oat PC ^[53]; Rolled oats ^[21]	Fecal true protein: 0.91 ^[13] Ileal AA: range for individual AA 0.70–0.85 ^[22]
Peanut	0.46	0.52	0.47	0.55	0.47	Ile, Leu, Lys *, SAA, Thr, Trp, Val	Peanut PC and PI ^[54] Roasted peanuts ^[21]	Fecal true protein: 0.93 ^[24] Ileal AA: mean ranges for individual AA 0.82–0.96 ^[21]^[22]
Wheat	0.45	0.51	0.46	0.54	0.39	Ile, Leu , Lys , AAA, Thr *, Val	Whole meal and white flour ^[55] Wheat bran ^[21]	Fecal true protein: mean 0.94 ^[24] Ileal AA: mean ranges for individual AA 0.81–0.91 ^[22] (wheat bran, wheat flour, wheat gluten, wheat)
Corn	0.41	0.47	0.42	0.50	0.38	Ile, Lys , SAA, Thr , Trp*, Val	Corn meal ^[56] Corn tortillas ^[57]	Fecal true protein: 0.84 ^[24] Ileal AA: ranges for individual AA 0.75–0.88 ^[22]

¹ FAO FN Paper 51 1989, ages 2–5 year, AA ref standard (mg/g protein) ^[13]: His 19, Ile 28, Leu 66, Lys 58, SAA 25, AAA 63, Thr 34, Trp 11, Val 35. ² IOM 2002/2005, ages 1+ year, AA ref standard (mg/g protein) ^[11]: His 18, Ile 25, Leu 55, Lys 51, SAA 25, AAA 47, Thr 27, Trp 7, Val 32. ³ FAO FN Paper 92 2011, ages 0.5–3 year, AA ref standard (mg/g protein) ^[16]: His 20, Ile 32, Leu 66, Lys 57, SAA 27, AAA 52, Thr 31, Trp 8.5, Val 43. ⁴ FAO FN Paper 92 2011, older child, adolescent, adult, AA ref standard (mg/g protein) ^[16]: His 16, Ile 30, Leu 61, Lys 48, SAA 23, AAA 41, Thr 25, Trp 6.6, Val 40. PDCAAS, Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score; DIAAS, Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Score; AA, amino acid; His, histidine; Ile, isoleucine; Leu, leucine; Lys, lysine; SAA, sulfur amino acids (methionine and cysteine); AAA, aromatic amino acids (phenylalanine and tyrosine); Thr, threonine; TRP, tryptophan; Val, valine; PI, protein isolate; PC, protein concentrate; bld, boiled; ckd, cooked; cnd, canned; drnd, drained. * Limiting amino acid by all four amino acid reference standards.

While the PDCAAS of most plant proteins may be less than 1.00, the individualized protein scoring system is only one way to evaluate the potential contributions of a protein to the diet. Canada uses a method based on the Protein Efficiency Ratio (PER), which is growth/weight gain assay on rats fed different protein sources. Health Canada provides a list of PER values for different protein foods on their website and suggests that the PER of a protein source can be estimated by multiplying the PDCAAS by 2.5 ^[43]. Several other factors can increase the potential contribution of plant-based proteins to meeting overall dietary protein and indispensable amino acid needs. One aspect to consider is the amount of dietary protein contributed by a specific plant protein source. In the case of plant versus animal proteins, simply consuming more of the plant protein can help to provide higher indispensable amino acid intakes. Given that many whole food sources of plant-protein are less calorie-dense than animal sources of protein, greater overall food intake is needed to meet energy requirements which, in turn, helps meet indispensable amino acid requirements. In addition, it has now become much easier for consumers to boost intake of plant proteins via the availability of multiple plant-based protein isolates and concentrates (soy, pea, canola, potato, fava, etc.) in the food industry. It was once difficult for individuals to take in relatively large amounts of protein from whole plant foods because they typically have a low percentage of protein. However, plant protein isolates and concentrates, which often contain 80% or more protein by weight, make it possible to consume 10–20 g or more of plant-based protein per one serving of a ready-to-drink shake or powder mix.

Dietary protein variety is also key for meeting indispensable amino acid requirements. While the PDCAAS of an individual protein is critical when evaluating the quality of a sole-source protein, it becomes less significant when the diet contains proteins from many sources. For example, lysine is often limiting in grain proteins, but such proteins are good sources of the sulfur-containing amino acids. On the other hand, legumes are often rich sources of lysine but are limiting in sulfur-containing amino acids. Consumption of these two protein sources over the course of the day allows them to “complement” one another, helping to meet requirements for both types of indispensable amino acids. A classic example would be a combination of pea and rice proteins. Protein blends of pea and rice ranging 40–90% pea protein can achieve a PDCAAS of 1.00, using the 2011 FAO amino acid reference pattern for adults ^[16]. Flexitarian approaches, in which persons consume increased amounts of plant-based proteins but also include some animal proteins, represent another strategy for helping to meet indispensable amino acid requirements. Thus, the quality of protein in the diet may be quite high if the plan is to consume a variety of plant proteins with differing amino acid profiles.

One question that has arisen for vegetarians is whether it is needed to combine complementary protein sources at the same meal. Young and Pellet ^[19] addressed this issue. They noted that the common limiting amino acid in grains, lysine, has a significant pool in the skeletal muscle. After a protein-rich meal, they estimated that 60% of the adult daily requirement for lysine could be stored in this pool within 3 h. If a person were to consume a lysine-poor meal within 3 h of a lysine-rich meal, there would still be adequate intracellular lysine available to promote protein synthesis. Thus, it is not necessary to consume complementary protein sources at the same meal if the gap between meals is relatively short, around 3 h; the complementary amino acids will be metabolically available for protein synthesis.

An often-neglected aspect of plant proteins is their high content of some important dispensable/conditionally indispensable amino acids. The PDCAAS method of evaluating protein quality focuses only on indispensable amino acids and generally on whole body protein requirements. However, since the development of the PDCAAS concept, the knowledge base around the health- or performance-related effects of individual amino acids, both indispensable and conditionally indispensable has grown dramatically. For example, whey protein has received much attention for muscle building due to its high level of leucine (see Figure 1), which serves as a nutrient signal for initiating the process of muscle protein synthesis ^[44]^[54]. However, it is important not to forget the vital physiologic functions of dispensable/conditionally indispensable amino acids found in large amounts in plant proteins. Soy protein, while not as high as whey in leucine, is nearly three times higher in arginine, 2–3 times higher in glutamine, and has double the glycine content (Figure 2 and Table 3). Other plant proteins can be high in these amino acids as well. Arginine is necessary for the body’s synthesis of nitric oxide (vasodilator) and creatine, for urea cycle function, for regulating hormone secretion, and for immune function ^[55]^[58]. Glutamine is a primary fuel source for rapidly proliferating cells such as those in the immune system and gastrointestinal tract and functions in the synthesis of arginine, ornithine, and several other compounds ^[55]^[59]. Glycine is critical for collagen synthesis, comprising up to 1/3 of the amino acids in collagen and some studies suggest that its biosynthesis in humans may not be adequate to meet requirements ^[60]^[61]^[62]^[63]. Although amino acids such as arginine, glutamine, and glycine might not be classified all the time as indispensable amino acids, they perform many critical functions and plant proteins can be significant sources. Thus, the content of these dispensable/conditionally indispensable amino acids deserves to be taken into consideration when evaluating the value of plant proteins in the diet.

Figure 2. Comparisons of leucine and selected dispensable amino acid concentrations (mg/g protein): whey versus the Top 5 highest quality plant proteins in Table 2.

Table 3. Glutamine concentration of selected plant and dairy proteins. Sources of data: References ^[64]^[65]^[66]^[67] and unpublished data.

Protein	Glutamine Concentration (mg/g Protein, Mean)	Glutamine Concentration (mg/g Protein, Range)
Wheat protein hydrolysate (n = 15)	296	184–402
Wheat protein isolate (n = 2)	208	184–232
Corn protein (n = 1)	196	--
Rice protein (n = 1)	130	--
Casein (n = 2)	102	100–104
Soy protein isolate (n = 2)	100	94–106
Soy protein concentrate (n = 1)	94	--
Milk protein concentrate (n = 1)	94	--
Whey protein concentrate (n = 2)	57	50–63
Ion exchange whey protein isolate (n = 1)	34	--

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/nu12123704

References

Henchion, M.; Hayes, M.; Mullen, A.M.; Fenelon, M.; Tiwari, B. Future Protein Supply and Demand: Strategies and Factors Influencing a Sustainable Equilibrium. Foods 2017, 6, 53.
Houston, D.K.; Nicklas, B.J.; Ding, J.; Harris, T.B.; Tylavsky, F.A.; Newman, A.B.; Lee, J.S.; Sahyoun, N.R.; Visser, M.; Kritchevsky, S.B. Dietary protein intake is associated with lean mass change in older, community-dwelling adults: The Health, Aging, and Body Composition (Health ABC) study. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2008, 87, 150–155.
Hudson, J.L.; Wang, Y.; Bergia Iii, R.E.; Campbell, W.W. Protein Intake Greater than the RDA Differentially Influences Whole-Body Lean Mass Responses to Purposeful Catabolic and Anabolic Stressors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Adv. Nutr. 2020, 11, 548–558.
Mitchell, C.J.; Milan, A.M.; Mitchell, S.M.; Zeng, N.; Ramzan, F.; Sharma, P.; Knowles, S.O.; Roy, N.C.; Sjodin, A.; Wagner, K.H.; et al. The effects of dietary protein intake on appendicular lean mass and muscle function in elderly men: A 10-wk randomized controlled trial. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2017, 106, 1375–1383.
Oikawa, S.Y.; McGlory, C.; D’Souza, L.K.; Morgan, A.K.; Saddler, N.I.; Baker, S.K.; Parise, G.; Phillips, S.M. A randomized controlled trial of the impact of protein supplementation on leg lean mass and integrated muscle protein synthesis during inactivity and energy restriction in older persons. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2018, 108, 1060–1068.
Park, Y.; Choi, J.E.; Hwang, H.S. Protein supplementation improves muscle mass and physical performance in undernourished prefrail and frail elderly subjects: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2018, 108, 1026–1033.
Kerstetter, J.E.; Looker, A.C.; Insogna, K.L. Low dietary protein and low bone density. Calcif. Tissue Int. 2000, 66, 313.
Hannan, M.T.; Tucker, K.L.; Dawson-Hughes, B.; Cupples, L.A.; Felson, D.T.; Kiel, D.P. Effect of dietary protein on bone loss in elderly men and women: The Framingham Osteoporosis Study. J. Bone Min. Res. 2000, 15, 2504–2512.
Rapuri, P.B.; Gallagher, J.C.; Haynatzka, V. Protein intake: Effects on bone mineral density and the rate of bone loss in elderly women. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2003, 77, 1517–1525.
Pimentel, D.; Pimentel, M. Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2003, 78, 660S–663S.
Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
Boye, J.; Wijesinha-Bettoni, R.; Burlingame, B. Protein quality evaluation twenty years after the introduction of the protein digestibility corrected amino acid score method. Br. J. Nutr. 2012, 108 (Suppl. 2), S183–S211.
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. FAO Food and Nutrition Paper 51: Protein Quality Evaluation: Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1991; pp. 1–66.
Darragh, A.J.; Hodgkinson, S.M. Quantifying the digestibility of dietary protein. J. Nutr. 2000, 130, 1850S–1856S.
Schaafsma, G. The protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score. J. Nutr. 2000, 130, 1865S–1867S.
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. FAO Food and Nutrition Paper 92: Dietary Protein Quality Evaluation in Human Nutrition: Report of an FAO Expert Consultation; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2013; pp. 1–66.
Hoffman, J.R.; Falvo, M.J. Protein-which is best? J. Sports Sci. Med. 2004, 3, 118–130.
U.S. Dairy Export Council. Reference Manual for U.S. Milk Powders 2005 Revised Edition. Available online: (accessed on 11 July 2020).
Young, V.R.; Pellet, P.L. Plant proteins in relation to human protein and amino acid nutrition. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1994, 59, 1203S–1212S.
Mathai, J.K.; Liu, Y.; Stein, H.H. Values for digestible indispensable amino acid scores (DIAAS) for some dairy and plant proteins may better describe protein quality than values calculated using the concept for protein digestibility-corrected amino acid scores (PDCAAS). Br. J. Nutr. 2017, 117, 490–499.
Rutherfurd, S.M.; Fanning, A.C.; Miller, B.J.; Moughan, P.J. Protein digestibility-corrected amino acid scores and digestible indispensable amino acid scores differentially describe protein quality in growing male rats. J. Nutr. 2015, 145, 372–379.
Moughan, P.J.; Gilani, S.; Rutherfurd, S.M.; Tome, D. Report of a Sub-comittee of the 2011 FAO Consulation on "Protein Quality Evaluation in Human Nutrition" on: The Assessment of Amino Acid Digestibility in Foods for Humans and Including a Collation of Published Ileal Amino acid Digestibility Data for Human Foods; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2013.
Etzel, M.R. Manufacture and use of dairy protein fractions. J. Nutr. 2004, 134, 996S–1002S.
US Food and Drug Administration. Appendix B. True protein digestibility value of common foods. Fed. Regist. 1993, 58, 2193–2195.
Hughes, G.J.; Ryan, D.J.; Mukherjea, R.; Schasteen, C.S. Protein digestibility-corrected amino acid scores (PDCAAS) for soy protein isolates and concentrate: Criteria for evaluation. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 12707–12712.
Fleddermann, M.; Fechner, A.; Rossler, A.; Bahr, M.; Pastor, A.; Liebert, F.; Jahreis, G. Nutritional evaluation of rapeseed protein compared to soy protein for quality, plasma amino acids, and nitrogen balance--a randomized cross-over intervention study in humans. Clin. Nutr. 2013, 32, 519–526.
Anderson, D. DSM CanolaPRO. Available online: https://www.globalfoodforums.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/DSM-CanolaPRO-Clean-Label-2017-POSTED-4.4.17.pdf (accessed on 14 July 2020).
Oikawa, S.Y.; Bahniwal, R.; Holloway, T.M.; Lim, C.; McLeod, J.C.; McGlory, C.; Baker, S.K.; Phillips, S.M. Potato Protein Isolate Stimulates Muscle Protein Synthesis at Rest and with Resistance Exercise in Young Women. Nutrients 2020, 12, 1235.
He, T.; Spelbrink, R.E.; Witteman, B.J.; Giuseppin, M.L. Digestion kinetics of potato protein isolates in vitro and in vivo. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2013, 64, 787–793.
Hughes, B.P. The amino-acid composition of potato protein and of cooked potato. Br. J. Nutr. 1958, 12, 188–195.
Kowalczewski, P.L.; Olejnik, A.; Bialas, W.; Rybicka, I.; Zielinska-Dawidziak, M.; Siger, A.; Kubiak, P.; Lewandowicz, G. The Nutritional Value and Biological Activity of Concentrated Protein Fraction of Potato Juice. Nutrients 2019, 11, 1523.
Kaldy, M.S.; Markakis, P. Amino acid composition of selected potato varieties. J. Food Sci. 1972, 37, 375–377.
Yang, H.; Guerin-Deremaux, L.; Zhou, L.; Fratus, A.; Wils, D.; Zhang, C.; Zhang, K.; Miller, L.E. Evaluation of nutritional quality of a novel pea protein. Food Anal. 2012, 23, 8–10.
Nowak, V.; Du, J.; Charrondiere, U.R. Assessment of the nutritional composition of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Food Chem. 2016, 193, 47–54.
Repo-Carrasco, R.; Espinoza, C.; Jacobsen, S.E. Nutritional Value and Use of the Andean Crops Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) and Kañiwa (Chenopodium pallidicaule). Food Rev. Int. 2003, 19, 179–189.
Mota, C.; Santos, M.; Mauro, R.; Samman, N.; Matos, A.S.; Torres, D.; Castanheira, I. Protein content and amino acids profile of pseudocereals. Food Chem. 2016, 193, 55–61.
US Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service. Food Data Central. Available online: https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/ (accessed on 6 September 2020).
Schlick, G.; Bubenheim, D.L. Quinoa: An emerging “new” crop with potential for CELSS. In NASA Technical Paper 3422; NASA Ames Research Center: Moffet Field, CA, USA, 1993; pp. 1–6.
Ruales, J.; Nair, B.M. Nutritional quality of the protein in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa, Willd) seeds. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 1992, 42, 1–11.
Ranhotra, G.S.; Gelroth, J.A.; Glaser, B.K.; Lorenz, K.J.; Johnson, D.L. Composition and protein nutritional quality of quinoa. Cereal Chem. 1993, 70, 303–305.
El-Adawy, T.A. Nutritional composition and antinutritional factors of chickpeas (Cicer arietinum L.) undergoing different cooking methods and germination. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 2002, 57, 83–97.
Pulse Canada. Protein Quality of Cooked Pulses. Available online: http://www.pulsecanada.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Pulses-and-Protein-Quality.pdf (accessed on 29 August 2020).
Health Canada. Elements within the Nutrition Facts Table: Protein. Available online: (accessed on 11 July 2020).
Kamei, Y.; Hatazawa, Y.; Uchitomi, R.; Yoshimura, R.; Miura, S. Regulation of Skeletal Muscle Function by Amino Acids. Nutrients 2020, 12, 261.
Kaldy, M.S.; Kasting, R. Amino acid composition and protein quality of eight faba bean cultivars. Can. J. Plan. Sci. 1974, 54, 869–871.
Vogelsang-O’Dwyer, M.; Petersen, I.L.; Joehnke, M.S.; Sorensen, J.C.; Bez, J.; Detzel, A.; Busch, M.; Krueger, M.; O’Mahony, J.A.; Arendt, E.K.; et al. Comparison of Faba Bean Protein Ingredients Produced Using Dry Fractionation and Isoelectric Precipitation: Techno-Functional, Nutritional and Environmental Performance. Foods 2020, 9, 322.
Sarwar, G.; Peace, R.W. Comparisons between true digestibility of total nitrogen and limiting amino acids in vegetable proteins fed to rats. J. Nutr. 1986, 116, 1172–1184.
Fitzpatrick, K.; Adolphe, J. Barley-a Healthy Protein Source. Available online: https://gobarley.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/EN-GoBarley-Healthy-Protein-Source.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2020).
Bodwell, C.E.; Satterlee, L.D.; Hackler, L.R. Protein digestibility of the same protein preparations by human and rat assays and by in vitro enzymatic digestion methods. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1980, 33, 677–686.
Amagliani, L.; O’Regan, J.; Kelly, A.L.; O’Mahony, J.A. Composition and protein profile analysis of rice protein ingredients. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2017, 59, 18–26.
Han, S.W.; Chee, K.M.; Cho, S.J. Nutritional quality of rice bran protein in comparison to animal and vegetable protein. Food Chem. 2015, 172, 766–769.
Kalman, D.S. Amino Acid Composition of an Organic Brown Rice Protein Concentrate and Isolate Compared to Soy and Whey Concentrates and Isolates. Foods 2014, 3, 394–402.
Tate and Lyle. Oat Protein: Health Benefits and Product Applications: Innovating to Meet Nutrition, Health, and Wellness Needs Every Day. Available online: https://www.tateandlyle.com/sites/default/files/2018-04/tate-lyle-proatein-brochure-2017.pdf (accessed on 18 July 2020).
Breen, L.; Phillips, S.M. Skeletal muscle protein metabolism in the elderly: Interventions to counteract the ‘anabolic resistance’ of ageing. Nutr. Metab. 2011, 8, 68.
Wu, G. Amino acids: Metabolism, functions, and nutrition. Amino Acids 2009, 37, 1–17.
Al-Gaby, A.M.A. Amino acid composition and biological effects of supplementing broad bean and corn proteins with Nigella sativa (black cumin) cake protein. Nahrung 1998, 42, 290–294.
Caire-Juvera, G.; Vazquez-Ortiz, F.A.; Grijalva-Haro, M.I. Amino acid composition, score and in vitro protein digestibility of foods commonly consumed in northwest Mexico. Nutr. Hosp. 2013, 28, 365–371.
Wu, G.; Morris, S.M. Arginine metabolism: Nitric oxide and beyond. Biochem. J. 1998, 336, 1–17.
Ahmadi, A.R.; Rayyani, E.; Bahreini, M.; Mansoori, A. The effect of glutamine supplementation on athletic performance, body composition, and immune function: A systematic review and a meta-analysis of clinical trials. Clin. Nutr. 2019, 38, 1076–1091.
Li, P.; Wu, G. Roles of dietary glycine, proline, and hydroxyproline in collagen synthesis and animal growth. Amino Acids 2018, 50, 29–38.
Melendez-Hevia, E.; De Paz-Lugo, P.; Cornish-Bowden, A.; Cardenas, M.L. A weak link in metabolism: The metabolic capacity for glycine biosynthesis does not satisfy the need for collagen synthesis. J. Biosci. 2009, 34, 853–872.
Razak, M.A.; Begum, P.S.; Viswanath, B.; Rajagopal, S. Multifarious Beneficial Effect of Nonessential Amino Acid, Glycine: A Review. Oxid. Med. Cell Longev. 2017, 2017, 1716701.
Wang, W.; Wu, Z.; Dai, Z.; Yang, Y.; Wang, J.; Wu, G. Glycine metabolism in animals and humans: Implications for nutrition and health. Amino Acids 2013, 45, 463–477.
Heine, W.E.; Klein, P.D.; Reeds, P.J. The importance of alpha-lactalbumin in infant nutrition. J. Nutr. 1991, 121, 277–283.
Paul, G.L. The rationale for consuming protein blends in sports nutrition. J. Am. Coll Nutr. 2009, 28, 464S–472S.
Swaisgood, H.E. Protein and amino acid composition of bovine milk. In Handbook of Milk Composition; Jensen, R.G., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1995; pp. 464–468.
Rutherfurd, S.M.; Moughan, P.J. The digestible amino acid composition of several milk proteins: Application of a new bioassay. J. Dairy Sci. 1998, 81, 909–917.

© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.