Nutritional Value of Proteins from Different Food Sources. A Review

Abstract

The nutritional value or quality of structurally different proteins varies and is governed by amino acid composition, ratios of essential amino acids, susceptibility to hydrolysis during digestion, source, and the effects of processing. To optimize the biological utilization of proteins, a better understanding is needed of the various interrelated parameters that influence their nutritive value. This review attempts to contribute to this effort. It discusses methods used for protein quality evaluation, research needs to facilitate labeling foods for protein quality, and factors influencing protein quality including amino acid analysis, digestion, food processing, antinutrients, and protein-energy relationships. Recent studies on the nutritional quality of more than 50 common and uncommon protein sources including cereals, legumes, other seeds, meat, seafood, insects, leaves, mushrooms, and potatoes are reviewed. Also described are advantages of consuming low-quality proteins fortified with essential amino acids, nutritional benefits of mixtures of complementary protein sources, plant genetic approaches to improving the nutritive value of foods, problems associated with liquid diets for adults and infants, socioeconomic aspects of new protein foods, and the influence of protein type and quality on lactation, the immune system, and serum lipids. This integrated overview is intended to stimulate interest in the introduction and use of new protein sources for feeding the ever-growing world population.

Legume grain-based supplements in dairy sheep diet: effects on milk yield, composition and fatty acid profile

“…In view of the need to replace soybean with alternative protein sources, particular interest has been placed on legume grains, linked to many factors: their high rate of diffusion, and consequently, their ready availability in several local contexts (Sinclair and Vadez 2012), as well as in the Mediterranean areas; their suitability to different agronomic conditions (López-Bellido et al 2005) and proper organic methods of cultivation (Badgley et al 2007); the agronomic benefits in terms of soil fertility and structure due to the high levels of N and organic matter that they provide when included in crop rotations (Sinclair and Vadez 2012); the good nutritional value of their crop residues that can be directly exploited by grazing animals (Sinclair and Vadez 2012); the fact that they are not genetically modified; their low risk of mycotoxin contamination since they are less subjected to long distance transport or storage condition that could favour their development (Bryden 2012); the mostly present antinutritional compounds, such as lectins and protease inhibitors (trypsin and chymotrypsin inhibitors) (Dixon and Hosking 1992;Friedman 1996), that seem to be inactivated by rumen fermentation, thus they do not impair nutrients utilisation for ruminants (Dixon and Hosking 1992;Holmes et al 1993); and their high content in crude protein (CP) [>24% of total dry matter (DM)], starch, and, on occasions lipids (Dixon and Hosking 1992;Cutrignelli et al 2011), as in chickpea (~5% DM) . Thus, the use of legume grains would allow the safer production of milk and cheese for consumers, since the animals would ingest feeds that have a lower risk to be contaminated by dangerous mycotoxins.…”

Antioxidant activity of protein extracts from heat-treated or thermally processed chickpeas and white beans

“…The effect of thermal processing on antioxidant activity of legume albumins has also not been investigated. Chickpea protein quality is higher than that of common bean (Freidman, 1996). Chickpeas also contain lower amounts of toxic and antinutritive factors than do the common beans (Hernandez-Infante, Sousa, Montalvo, & Tena, 1998).…”

Caracterização químico-nutricional de um isolado protéico de soro de leite, um hidrolisado de colágeno bovino e misturas dos dois produtos

“…Da mesma forma que pelo critério crescimento (Figura 2), os parâmetros NPR e PER indicaram a escolha da mistura 60% WPI : 40% HCB como a mais adequada para futuras formulações, tanto pela qualidade nutricional como pelas considerações econômicas e funcionais, já mencionadas. Friedman 31 considerou de elevado valor nutritivo proteínas com PER 2,0, o que classifica a caseína, o WPI e as misturas com 60 e 80% WPI mais 40 ou 20% HCB como de excelente valor nutritivo. Na Tabela 3 encontram-se os dados de digestibilidade verdadeira da proteína (Dv%) e de aminoácidos essenciais corrigidos pelas digestibilidades verdadeiras (PDCAAS), calculados com base no nitrogênio ingerido, no nitrogênio fecal total e no nitrogênio fecal endógeno.…”