Erin M. Goldberg , Amanda G.A. Sá , Adam J. Franczyk , Elaine S. Krul , Barbara Lyle , Mingyan Jing , Fiona Liu , Xin Wu , Nandika Bandara , Guillaume Brisson , Vicenta Garcia Campayo , Lingyun Chen , Sharon Hooper , Lamia L'Hocine , Mike Nickerson , Matthew Nosworthy , James D. House
{"title":"A collaborative study to validate in vitro assays for protein digestibility assessment using pH-drop and pH-stat methods","authors":"Erin M. Goldberg , Amanda G.A. Sá , Adam J. Franczyk , Elaine S. Krul , Barbara Lyle , Mingyan Jing , Fiona Liu , Xin Wu , Nandika Bandara , Guillaume Brisson , Vicenta Garcia Campayo , Lingyun Chen , Sharon Hooper , Lamia L'Hocine , Mike Nickerson , Matthew Nosworthy , James D. House","doi":"10.1016/j.jfca.2026.108918","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The diversification of protein sources used in food formulation has increased the need to assess protein quality beyond traditional food forms. Protein digestibility is a key component of the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS), the regulatory metric derived from rodent bioassays. Ethical concerns and the high cost of animal testing limit the ability of food formulators to screen protein ingredients and evaluate processing effects on digestibility. Findings from an international collaborative study are presented to position two <em>in vitro</em> methods, the pH-drop and pH-stat assays, as accredited approaches for determining protein digestibility. Nine laboratories participated in the study and analyzed 12 protein ingredients. Relative standard deviations for repeatability ranged from 0.8 to 2.1 % and 0.5–4.8 %, while reproducibility ranged from 1.2 to 3.6 % and 1.1–4.9 % for the pH-drop and pH-stat methods, respectively. Comparison between the two assays demonstrated strong correlation and moderate agreement, with the pH-stat assay yielding slightly lower digestibility values. <em>In vitro</em> protein digestibility coefficients aligned well with literature reported true faecal protein digestibility values for comparable, non-identical protein ingredients. Both methods received official AOCS Uniform Methods Committee approval, offering simple, affordable, reliable, and ethical tools to support informed decisions on protein digestibility during food formulation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15867,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Food Composition and Analysis","volume":"151 ","pages":"Article 108918"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Food Composition and Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S088915752600061X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The diversification of protein sources used in food formulation has increased the need to assess protein quality beyond traditional food forms. Protein digestibility is a key component of the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS), the regulatory metric derived from rodent bioassays. Ethical concerns and the high cost of animal testing limit the ability of food formulators to screen protein ingredients and evaluate processing effects on digestibility. Findings from an international collaborative study are presented to position two in vitro methods, the pH-drop and pH-stat assays, as accredited approaches for determining protein digestibility. Nine laboratories participated in the study and analyzed 12 protein ingredients. Relative standard deviations for repeatability ranged from 0.8 to 2.1 % and 0.5–4.8 %, while reproducibility ranged from 1.2 to 3.6 % and 1.1–4.9 % for the pH-drop and pH-stat methods, respectively. Comparison between the two assays demonstrated strong correlation and moderate agreement, with the pH-stat assay yielding slightly lower digestibility values. In vitro protein digestibility coefficients aligned well with literature reported true faecal protein digestibility values for comparable, non-identical protein ingredients. Both methods received official AOCS Uniform Methods Committee approval, offering simple, affordable, reliable, and ethical tools to support informed decisions on protein digestibility during food formulation.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Food Composition and Analysis publishes manuscripts on scientific aspects of data on the chemical composition of human foods, with particular emphasis on actual data on composition of foods; analytical methods; studies on the manipulation, storage, distribution and use of food composition data; and studies on the statistics, use and distribution of such data and data systems. The Journal''s basis is nutrient composition, with increasing emphasis on bioactive non-nutrient and anti-nutrient components. Papers must provide sufficient description of the food samples, analytical methods, quality control procedures and statistical treatments of the data to permit the end users of the food composition data to evaluate the appropriateness of such data in their projects.
The Journal does not publish papers on: microbiological compounds; sensory quality; aromatics/volatiles in food and wine; essential oils; organoleptic characteristics of food; physical properties; or clinical papers and pharmacology-related papers.