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.

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.

Amino acids (AA) are essential nutritional components of a balanced diet and occur in foods in either the free AA form or as the building blocks of proteins. The analysis of AAs in foods is composed of a number of unit operations; the release of the AAs from the food matrix, the separation of the individual AAs and their quantification using calibration standards. Each of these steps has their own idiosyncrasies, e.g. different hydrolysis conditions are required for the optimal release of different AAs and there are a diverse number and type of food matrices, such that most laboratories adapt methods to best suit their applications. There is currently no official standardised method for AA analysis, although the Association of Analytical Communities (AOAC) has validated methods for a number of individual AA components. The established analytical techniques of HPLC (ion exchange or reversed phase) and GC-MS have recently been supplemented by a number of new methods. These include capillary electrophoresis MS and Ultra HPLC-MS, and LC with other detectors. This review will address the intricacies and concerns of the protein hydrolysis step, discuss what specifications or prerequisites need to be placed on the existing and new methods and laboratories using these methods, comment on whether one method can successfully satisfy the exacting requirements of the various unit operations, and finally pose the question ‘Is there any merit in ‘developing’ a validated (e.g. AOAC) official method of analysis for AAs in food?’

To meet the protein and amino acid requirements of individuals and of populations requires information not only about their requirements but also about the capacity of available foods to meet those requirements. Most of our current knowledge of the digestibility of food proteins and the methods to estimate it has been derived from work with animals. Because the microbiota of the large intestine alter the amino acid composition of the digesta, and because only trivial quantities of amino acids are absorbed intact from the large intestine, the current method of choice for assessing amino acid digestibility is ileal digestibility corrected for basal endogenous losses, that is, standardized ileal digestibility. For protein as a whole, however, because nitrogen absorbed in forms other than as amino acids can contribute to the nitrogen economy, the absorption of nitrogen over the whole digestive tract is the more appropriate measure. Most of the methods developed for estimating ileal amino acid outflow in animals are not directly applicable to man: the exception is the use of volunteers with an ileostomy. The flow and composition of ileal digesta in human subjects can also be measured by the infusion of a marker and withdrawal of samples through a naso-intestinal tube. However, this method is too demanding for routine use and is likely to be restricted to validating the application to humans of digestibility data obtained either from animals, of which the pig seems most suitable, or in vitro methods. Microbial activity in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract is not confined to the large intestine: the numbers and metabolic activity of the upper GI microbiota lead to substantial amounts of microbial protein leaving the ileum. It appears however that a large proportion of the amino acids used by the upper GI microbiota are preformed - from the diet or from endogenous materials - rather than from de novo synthesis. Although there are still uncertainties about the impact of microbial activity in the upper GI tract, the amino acid composition of ileal digesta provides the best available basis for estimating the proportion of dietary amino acids available for metabolism.

A comparative non-ruminant species view of the contribution of the large intestinal metabolism to inaccuracies in nitrogen and amino acid absorption measurements is provided to assess potential implications for the determination of crude protein/amino acid digestibility in adult humans consuming lower digestible protein sources. Most of the amino acids in the hindgut are constituents of the microorganisms and significant microbial metabolism of dietary and endogenous amino acids occurs. Bacterial metabolism of nitrogen-containing compounds leads to a significant disappearance of nitrogen in the large intestine. Literature data show that some 79 % of the nitrogen entering the large intestine of the horse is absorbed. For dogs, sows, and growing pigs these estimates are 49, 34 and 16 %, respectively. The coefficient of gut differentiation of humans compares closely to that of dogs while the coefficient of fermentation in humans is the lowest of all non-ruminant species and closest to that of cats and dogs. Large intestinal digesta transit times of humans compare closest to adult dogs. Significant amino acid metabolism has been shown to occur in the large intestine of the adult dog. Use of the growing pig as an animal model is likely to underestimate the fermentation of amino acids in the human large intestine. Based on the significant degree of fermentation of nitrogen-containing components in the large intestine of several non-ruminant species, it can be expected that determination of amino acid digestibility at a faecal level in humans consuming low quality proteins would not provide accurate estimates of the amino acids absorbed by the intestine.

The true ileal digestibility assay provides the most informative measure of digestibility to assess bioavailability of amino acids in foods for humans. To determine ‘true’ estimates of ileal amino acid digestibility, requires that endogenous amino acids present in digesta at the terminal ileum be quantified. The amounts of endogenous amino acids in ileal digesta can be determined after feeding an animal or human a protein-free diet (traditional approach) or by various methods after giving a protein-containing diet. When the protein-free method has been applied with adult human subjects an overall mean value (three separate studies) for endogenous ileal nitrogen flow of 800 mg N/d has been reported. This value is considerably lower than a comparable value obtained after feeding protein of 1852 mg N/d (mean of four separate studies), and thus endogenous ileal N and amino acids should be measured under conditions of protein alimentation. There is some confusion concerning the terminology used to define digestibility, with the term “true” digestibility having different adopted meanings. Here, true amino acid digestibility is defined as apparent amino acid digestibility corrected for the basal amino acid losses determined after giving either a protein-free or a protein-containing diet. Basal losses should be determined at a defined dry-matter and protein intake. The protein-free diet approach to determining endogenous amino acids is considered unphysiological and basal losses refer to ileal endogenous amino acid flows associated with digesta dry-matter flow, and not including “specific” effects of dietary factors such as non starch polysaccharides and anti nutritional factors. Arguments are advanced that the enzyme hydrolysed protein/ultra filtration method may be suitable for routine application with a cannulated pig model, to obtain physiologically-valid basal estimates of ileal endogenous amino acids to allow calculation of true ileal amino acid digestibility in the pig, and then prediction (via statistical relationships) of true coefficients of amino acid digestibility in humans.

Measures of amino acid (AA) digestibility are used widely to estimate bioavailability of AA in feed and food ingredients for monogastric animals. In principle, the digestibility assay is simpler than in vivo assessments of AA bioavailability and allows for simultaneous estimation of the bioavailability of all AA in an experimental diet. It is generally assumed that absorption of intact AA in the hindgut of monogastrics is minimal, even though colonocytes do contain AA transporters and have been shown to absorb AA. This assumption is supported by the observation that infusion of AA into the hindgut does not improve nitrogen balance in monogastrics. In addition, growth performance of monogastrics is more highly correlated with ileal than faecal AA digestibility. Therefore, ileal digestibility coefficients provide better estimates of AA bioavailability than faecal digestibility coefficients. Measures of apparent ileal digestibility (AID) of AA are confounded with endogenous gut AA losses (EAAL). The curvilinear increase in AID of AA with increasing dietary AA level has been attributed to the relatively large contribution of EAAL to total ileal AA flows at low dietary AA levels. Subtracting basal EAAL from total ileal AA flows yields standardized ileal digestibility (SID) coefficients that appear to be more additive than AID coefficients in mixtures of feed ingredients. An implicit assumption when using SID AA coefficients in diet formulation is that the post-absorptive utilization of AA is not influenced by the dietary protein source. This assumption appears inappropriate when using feed or food ingredients that have been over-heated, induce large amounts of EAAL, or contain substantial amounts of fermentable fibre. Improved understanding of processes that contribute to the discrepancy between bioavailability and ileal digestibility will allow a more effective use of AA digestibility coefficients in diet formulation.

Animal models have been commonly used for determining amino acid digestibility in humans. This allows digestibility assays to be undertaken more efficiently than those undertaken using humans directly. The laboratory rat, usually considered as a suitable animal model, has been widely used, especially as the rat is easy to raise and relatively inexpensive to house. Although more technically demanding, the pig has also been promoted as a useful model for human nutrition studies. It may be a better model than the rat, as it is a meal eater, its upper digestive tract is anatomically and physiologically closer to that of humans and it eats most foods consumed by humans. Amino acid digestibility may be determined either at the faecal or the ileal level, the latter being considered the most accurate. This contribution evaluates the suitability of the rat and pig as animal models for assessing ileal and faecal amino acid digestibility in humans. The drawbacks and advantages of using these animal models are discussed. The review is based mainly on results from controlled studies comparing both species; however, as the number of these studies is limited, data from indirect comparisons also provide insight.

The development, refinement and validation of in vitro digestibility assays for dietary protein and amino acids for single stomached mammals are reviewed. The general principles of in vitro digestibility assays and their limitations are discussed. In vitro protein digestibility assays must be accurate, rapid, cheap, simple, robust, adaptable and relevant to the processes of digestion, absorption, and metabolism. Simple in vitro methods have the potential to give useful measures of in vivo amino acid and protein digestibility for humans. In vitro methods, including the complex multi-component models of digestion simulating the various physical and chemical processes, require independent validation with in vivo data from the target species or an acceptable animal model using the most appropriate in vivo measure of digestibility. For protein sources devoid of anti-nutritional factors or plant fibre, true ileal digestibility is the recommended in vivo baseline, while for plant proteins the recommended in vivo assay is real ileal digestibility. More published comparative studies are required to adequately validate in vitro digestibility assays.

In this paper, we give an overview of our research exploring the impact of physical and chemical processing on food proteins. There are three themes, applied to the proteins of wheat, soya, egg and dairy foods. Firstly, the impact of the Maillard reaction on food proteins is discussed, with a particular focus on how the reactions might be harnessed to manipulate food texture. Secondly, the potential of enzymatic protein-protein crosslinking is considered, especially the enzyme transglutaminase. Thirdly, the broader question of how the aggregation of proteins within a food is altered by chemical and physical modification and how, in turn, this might impact on the overall nutritional quality of the food is considered.

Available amino acids are those absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract in a form suitable for body protein synthesis. True ileal digestible amino acids are determined based on the difference between dietary amino acid intake and unabsorbed dietary amino acids at the terminal ileum. The accuracy of ileal digestible amino acid estimates for predicting available amino acid content depends on several factors, including the accuracy of the amino acid analysis procedure. In heat processed foods, lysine can react with compounds to form nutritionally unavailable derivatives that are unstable during the hydrochloric acid hydrolysis step of amino acid analysis and can revert back to lysine causing an overestimate of available lysine. Recently, the true ileal digestible reactive (available) lysine assay based on guanidination has provided a means of accurately determining available lysine in processed foods. Methionine can be oxidised during processing to form methionine sulphoxide and methionine sulphone and cysteine oxidised to cysteic acid. Methionine sulphoxide, but not methionine sulphone or cysteic acid, is partially nutritionally available in some species of animal. Currently, methionine and cysteine are determined as methionine sulphone and cysteic acid respectively after quantitative oxidation prior to acid hydrolysis. Consequently, methionine and cysteine are overestimated if methionine sulphone or cysteic acid are present in the original material. Overall, given the problems associated with the analysis of some amino acids in processed foodstuffs, the available amino acid content may not always be accurately predicted by true ileal amino acid digestibility estimates. For such amino acids specific analytical strategies may be required.

The nutritive value of food protein sources is dependent on the amino acid composition and the bioavailability of the nutritionally indispensable amino acids. Traditionally the methods developed to determine amino acid bioavailability have focused on intestinal absorption or digestibility, which is calculated as the percent of amino acid intake that does not appear in digesta or faeces. Traditional digestibility based methods do not always account for gut endogenous amino acid losses or absorbed amino acids which are unavailable due to the effect of heat processing and the presence of anti-nutritional factors, though methods have been developed to address these issues. Furthermore, digestibility based methods require the use of animal models, thus there is a need to develop in vivo methods that can be applied directly in human subjects to identify the proportion of dietary amino acids which is bioavailable, or metabolically available to the body for protein synthesis following digestion and absorption. The indicator amino acid oxidation (IAAO) method developed in our laboratory for humans has been systematically applied to determine almost all indispensable amino acid requirements in adult humans. Oxidation of the indicator amino acid is inversely proportional to whole body protein synthesis and responds rapidly to changes in the bioavailability of amino acids for metabolic processes. Using the IAAO concept, we developed a new in vivo method in growing pigs, pregnant sows and adult humans to identify the metabolic availability of amino acids in foods. The stable isotope based metabolic availability method is suitable for rapid and routine analysis in humans, and can be used to integrate amino acid requirement data with dietary amino acid availability of foods.

Dietary antinutritional factors have been reported to adversely affect the digestibility of protein, bioavailability of amino acids and protein quality of foods. Published data on these negative effects of major dietary antinutritional factors are summarized in this manuscript. Digestibility and the quality of mixed diets in developing countries are considerably lower than of those in developed regions. For example, the digestibility of protein in traditional diets from developing countries such as India, Guatemala and Brazil is considerably lower compared to that of protein in typical North American diets (54–78 versus 88–94 %). Poor digestibility of protein in the diets of developing countries, which are based on less refined cereals and grain legumes as major sources of protein, is due to the presence of less digestible protein fractions, high levels of insoluble fibre, and/or high concentrations of antinutritional factors present endogenously or formed during processing. Examples of naturally occurring antinutritional factors include glucosinolates in mustard and canola protein products, trypsin inhibitors and haemagglutinins in legumes, tannins in legumes and cereals, gossypol in cottonseed protein products, and uricogenic nucleobases in yeast protein products. Heat/alkaline treatments of protein products may yield Maillard reaction compounds, oxidized forms of sulphur amino acids, D-amino acids and lysinoalanine (LAL, an unnatural nephrotoxic amino acid derivative). Among common food and feed protein products, soyabeans are the most concentrated source of trypsin inhibitors. The presence of high levels of dietary trypsin inhibitors from soyabeans, kidney beans or other grain legumes have been reported to cause substantial reductions in protein and amino acid digestibility (up to 50 %) and protein quality (up to 100 %) in rats and/or pigs. Similarly, the presence of high levels of tannins in sorghum and other cereals, fababean and other grain legumes can cause significant reductions (up to 23 %) in protein and amino acid digestibility in rats, poultry, and pigs. Normally encountered levels of phytates in cereals and legumes can reduce protein and amino acid digestibility by up to 10 %. D-amino acids and LAL formed during alkaline/heat treatment of lactalbumin, casein, soya protein or wheat protein are poorly digestible (less than 40 %), and their presence can reduce protein digestibility by up to 28 % in rats and pigs, and can cause a drastic reduction (100 %) in protein quality, as measured by rat growth methods. The adverse effects of antinutritional factors on protein digestibility and protein quality have been reported to be more pronounced in elderly rats (20-months old) compared to young (5-weeks old) rats, suggesting the use of old rats as a model for assessing the protein digestibility of products intended for the elderly.

PDCAAS is a widely used assay for evaluating protein quality. It is a chemical score, which is derived from the ratio between the first limiting amino acid in a test protein and the corresponding amino acid in a reference amino acid pattern and corrected for true faecal N digestibility. Chemical scores exceeding 100 % are truncated to 100 %. The advantages of the PDCAAS are its simplicity and direct relationship to human protein requirements. The limitations are as follows: the reference pattern is based on the minimum amino acid requirements for tissue growth and maintenance and does not necessarily reflect the optimum intake. Truncated PDCAAS of high-quality proteins do not give any information about the power of these proteins to compensate, as a supplement, for low levels of dietary essential amino acids in low-quality proteins. It is likely that faecal N digestibility does not take into account the loss from the colon of indispensable amino acids that were not absorbed in the ileum. Anti-nutritional factors, such as lectins and trypsin inhibitors, in several plant protein sources can cause heightened endogenous losses of amino acids, an issue which is particularly relevant in animal feedstuffs. The assumption that amino acid supplementation can completely restore biological efficiency of the protein source is incorrect since the kinetics of digestion and absorption between supplemented free amino acids and amino acids present in dietary proteins, are different.