# Evolution and significance of amino acid scores for protein quality

Claire C. Gaudichon

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Claire C. Gaudichon. Evolution and significance of amino acid scores for protein quality. Frontiers in Nutrition, 2024, 11, pp.1437853. 10.3389/fnut.2024.1437853. hal-04750686

HAL Id: hal-04750686

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-04750686v1

Submitted on 23 Oct 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

OPEN ACCESS

EDITED BY
Suzanne Hodgkinson,
Massey University, New Zealand

REVIEWED BY
Debashree Roy,
Massey University, New Zealand

*CORRESPONDENCE
Claire Gaudichon
claire.gaudichon@agroparistech.fr

RECEIVED 24 May 2024
ACCEPTED 23 August 2024
PUBLISHED 03 September 2024

CITATION
Gaudichon C (2024) Evolution and
significance of amino acid scores for protein
quality.
*Front. Nutr.* 11:1437853.
doi: 10.3389/fnut.2024.1437853

COPYRIGHT
© 2024 Gaudichon. This is an open-access
article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License
(CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction
in other forums is permitted, provided the
original author(s) and the copyright owner(s)
are credited and that the original publication
in this journal is cited, in accordance with
accepted academic practice. No use,
distribution or reproduction is permitted
which does not comply with these terms.

# Evolution and significance of amino acid scores for protein quality

Claire Gaudichon*

Université Paris-Saclay, AgroParisTech, INRAE, UMR PNCA, Palaiseau, France

Amino acid scores have become very popular protein quality scores since their definition and recommendation by FAO expert groups. The chemical score is the central pillar of this method, and has been refined with digestibility correction factors, such as protein digestibility for the PD-CAAS and amino acid digestibility for the DIAAS. Several elements need to be taken into account to properly determine these scores, not only from a methodological point of view but also in order to reconcile regulation, pragmatism, accuracy and also biological significance. This review offers a reminder of the main points raised in the FAO reports on protein and AA requirements in 1995 and 2007, and on protein quality in 1991 and 2013. It also highlights the factors that most impact score metrics, and in particular the choice of reference pattern and protein determination in the food. Lastly, the scores are compared, and versus another quality score based on the physiological response, the protein efficiency ratio.

KEYWORDS

chemical score, amino acids, FAO, PD-CAAS, DIAAS

## Introduction

Amino acid scores have been designed to reflect the ability of dietary protein to satisfy amino acid requirements. They are primarily based on the indispensable amino acid (IAA) content of dietary protein related to human amino acid requirements. They can secondarily include correction factors to account for the digestibility of protein (Protein Digestibility Amino Acid Score, PD-CAAS) or individual amino acids (Digestible Indispensable Amino Acids, DIAAS). A single composite figure resulting from these scores then summarizes this capacity.

## Reference patterns

Amino acid requirements have evolved since the FAO reports in 1985 (1) and 2007 (2) after methods based on the oxidation of ¹³C amino acids were recognized as being more accurate than the N balance method, leading to values up to three times higher for some AAs such as lysine. Briefly, the N balance method consists in determining digestive, urinary and miscellaneous N losses in response to various intake of the amino acid which requirement is to be determined (3). The AA requirement is assumed to correspond to the intake for which N intake is equal to N losses (null balance). In the nineties, two tracer methods, namely Direct AA Oxidation (DAAO) (4) and Indirect AA Oxidation (IAAO) (5) emerged. They were based on the intravenous infusion of a ¹³C labeled AA, which oxidation was measured in expired air in response to various intakes of the AA of interest. When the AA intake is adequate, ¹³C
oxidation reaches a minimum through a breakpoint that is considered to correspond to the AA requirement. In children, the factorial method is used to determine the maintenance and the growth components of the requirement. These methods have been described in detail in the FAO report in 2007 in which AA requirements for adults were reevaluated on the basis of ¹³C oxidation methods. AA requirement (expressed per body weight unit) decreases rapidly from the age of 0–6 months to 3 years of age after which AA requirements are very similar to those of adults. To generate a so-called reference pattern, AA requirement values are divided by the protein requirement, which in adults has been established as 0.66 g/kg/d, based on N balance studies (2). The resulting reference pattern is then used to calculate the chemical score. Because AA requirement values differed markedly between the 1985 and 2007 FAO expert reports, the reference patterns published in the reports regarding protein quality evaluation in 1991 (6) and 2013 (7) also differed, as shown in Table 1. In 1991, it was recommended that the reference pattern for infants or preschool children aged 2–5 years should be used. In 2013, three reference patterns were proposed, for infants 0–6 months, children 0.5–3 y and individuals older than 3 y, because of the small difference between AA requirements at 3 y and 18 y. When comparing the FAO 1991 pattern for preschool children and that for individuals >3 y from FAO 2013, both being used for adults, the pattern from 2013 was more favorable, particularly for lysine and aromatic AA (Table 1).

## Calculation of the chemical score

For each indispensable AA (IAA), the ratio between the AA content in the dietary protein and that in the reference pattern is calculated. A ratio above 1 signifies that the AA is present in sufficient quantities to satisfy the AA requirement. Among the ratios obtained for each of the nine IAAs, the lowest is retained as the chemical score which quantifies the degree of effects of the most limiting AA. Higher

than 1, there is no limiting AA. Below 1, there is at least one limiting AA whose degree of insufficiency is reflected by this score. A score of 0.8 therefore means that the most limiting AA is 20% below the amount of this AA required in the target group of individuals. It may be noted that an increase of protein intake by 20% above the requirement could compensate this deficiency. Moreover, the scoring metric is a simplistic approach as it only reflects the ability of one dietary protein to satisfy *per se* the requirement, but in practice several protein sources compose the diet.

The choice of reference pattern is therefore a crucial factor in score calculation. The publication by Sa et al. (6) clearly showed the impact of the reference pattern used on the chemical score distribution for 1,200 lentil samples. For instance, the distribution of the ratios for sulfur AAs ranged from 0.6 to 0.83 for preschool children (i.e., profile 1991), 0.55 to 0.78 for 0.5–3 years (children) and 0.64 to 0.9 for 3 y and older (~adults). For tryptophan, these ranges were 0.63 to 0.75 for preschool children (FAO 1991), 0.84 to 0.97 for children and 1.08 to 1.25 for “adults”.

## Impact of the N to protein conversion factor

The conversion factor applied to extrapolate protein from nitrogen (N) has a marked impact on the chemical score. Indeed, the AA composition is determined in an ingredient or food and needs to be related to the mass of protein. To achieve this, one classic and universal strategy is to measure N and apply by default a conversion factor of 6.25. However, this factor overestimates the protein content of almost all protein sources. Specific factors exist for different protein sources and are more relevant (8), but from a regulatory point of view, a factor of 6.25 should be used. By overestimating the real protein content, this default conversion factor penalizes the chemical score. One compromise is to provide both values using both the default and

<table><caption>TABLE 1 Reference patterns in mg/g protein from FAO reports on protein quality evaluation.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="4">FAO report 1991</th><th colspan="3">FAO report 2013</th><th rowspan="2">Difference<br/>between<br/>"preschool<br/>children<br/>1991" and<br/>"older than<br/>3y 2013"</th></tr><tr><th>Infant<br/>(0–1 y)</th><th>Preschool<br/>children<br/>(2–5 y)</th><th>Older<br/>children<br/>(10–12 y)</th><th>Adults</th><th>Infants<br/>(0–6 m)</th><th>Infants<br/>(6 m – 3<br/>y)</th><th>Children (>3<br/>y),<br/>adolescents,<br/>adults</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Histidine</td><td>26</td><td><strong>19</strong></td><td>19</td><td>16</td><td>21</td><td>20</td><td><strong>16</strong></td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Isoleucine</td><td>46</td><td><strong>28</strong></td><td>28</td><td>13</td><td>55</td><td>32</td><td><strong>30</strong></td><td>-2</td></tr><tr><td>Leucine</td><td>93</td><td><strong>66</strong></td><td>44</td><td>19</td><td>96</td><td>66</td><td><strong>61</strong></td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Lysine</td><td>66</td><td><strong>58</strong></td><td>44</td><td>16</td><td>69</td><td>57</td><td><strong>48</strong></td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>Sulfur AA</td><td>42</td><td><strong>25</strong></td><td>22</td><td>17</td><td>33</td><td>27</td><td><strong>23</strong></td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Aromatic AA</td><td>72</td><td><strong>63</strong></td><td>22</td><td>19</td><td>94</td><td>52</td><td><strong>41</strong></td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>Threonine</td><td>43</td><td><strong>34</strong></td><td>28</td><td>9</td><td>44</td><td>31</td><td><strong>25</strong></td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Tryptophan</td><td>17</td><td><strong>11</strong></td><td>9</td><td>5</td><td>17</td><td>8,5</td><td><strong>6,6</strong></td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Valine</td><td>55</td><td><strong>35</strong></td><td>25</td><td>13</td><td>55</td><td>43</td><td><strong>40</strong></td><td>-5</td></tr></tbody></table>

Bold values indicate the reference pattern recommended for “adults”.
<table><caption>TABLE 2 Chemical score, PD-CASS and DIAAS of protein sources assessed during clinical or pig studies.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>CS</th><th>Non-truncated PD-CAAS</th><th>DIAAS</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Casein (10)</td><td>1.48 (SSA)</td><td>1.42</td><td>1.45 (SSA)</td></tr><tr><td>Whey (14)</td><td>1.08 (His)</td><td>0.99</td><td>1.03 (His)</td></tr><tr><td>Pea isolate (15)</td><td>1.06 (SSA)</td><td>0.98</td><td>1.00 (SSA)</td></tr><tr><td>Sunflower isolate (16)</td><td>0.99 (Lys)</td><td>0.85</td><td>0.86 (Lys)</td></tr><tr><td>Flaxseed isolate (11)</td><td>0.74 (Lys)</td><td>0.68</td><td>0.58 (Lys)</td></tr><tr><td>Faba beans (17)</td><td>0.78 (His, Trp)</td><td>0.66</td><td>0.66 (His, Trp)</td></tr><tr><td>Oat concentrate (18)</td><td>0.80 (Lys)</td><td>0.69</td><td>0.67 (Lys)</td></tr><tr><td>Soy flour (19)</td><td>0.97 (SSA)</td><td>0.93</td><td>0.89 (SSA)</td></tr><tr><td>Wheat (19)</td><td>0.56 (Lys)</td><td>0.51</td><td>0.45 (Lys)</td></tr></tbody></table>

For score calculation, protein content was determined using N x 6.25. Reference pattern used: individual >3 y (FAO 2013).

specific factors. Another possible strategy is to sum up the amounts of AAs determined analytically, after correcting the mass by the hydration factor of free AAs vs. in-chain AAs, and to use this value as the true protein content of the ingredient or food. The first strategy of using both the by default and a specific conversion factor better ensures homogeneity among studies than the second strategy because inter-laboratory variability exists when measuring AAs. In particular, acid hydrolysis destroys a given proportion of AAs that might be heterogeneous in AAs, ingredients, laboratory conditions, etc. The accuracy of the correction applied to take account of this loss cannot be certified because no internal standards exist to control the hydrolysis yield.

The chemical score, i.e., the AA composition related to the reference pattern, is the principal determinant of a scoring quality index so that particular attention should be paid to this analytical component.

## Digestibility correction factors

To take account of the bioavailability of nitrogen or AAs, the chemical score can then be modulated by a digestibility factor. When corrected for whole protein (i.e., nitrogen) digestibility, the appropriate index is the PD-CAAS, which was recommended by the FAO in 1991. In their report, the experts stated that “for practical reasons, the rat balance method is the most suitable practical method for predicting digestibility by humans.” This is often interpreted as “digestibility must be measured at the fecal level in rats,” but in fact, if more accurate values have been obtained in pigs or humans at the ileal level, they can be used. Another interpretation of the PD-CAAS that could be discussed concerns the appropriate reference pattern. During the expert consultation in 1989, the reference pattern was established on the basis of the AA requirement in 1985 (preschool children, as referred to above). However, because AA requirements were markedly revised in 2007, and subsequently the reference pattern, it might be more logical to use the 2013 reference patterns to evaluate the PD-CAAS. In the same way as the N to protein conversion factor, the main reason put forward for using the 1991 reference pattern is regulatory.

In the 2011 expert consultation, the digestibility of each individual AA was proposed as the digestibility correction factor in place of protein digestibility. The main methodological difference between the

DIAAS and PD-CAAS is that ileal values of AA digestibility are necessary, which is much more complex than measuring fecal protein digestibility. This challenge resulted in greater interest in the digestibility methodology and several alternative approaches, where *in vitro* (9) or minimally invasive *in vivo* (10), have been developed during the past decade. Another aspect that has been extensively debated is truncation of the PD-CAAS to 1 as this index was designed to reveal limiting AA but not to inform on excess AAs. It is however possible to indicate the non-truncated PD-CAAS, especially for comparisons with the DIAAS. The latter is not truncated, so that the ability of protein sources to offset each other can be acknowledged. Table 2 presents an internal comparison of these different scores for some protein sources.

Table 2 reveals the relatively low impact of digestibility correction factors on the scores compared to the AA composition that is the main determinant of the quality scores. Moreover, one can notice the good consistency between DIAAS and PD-CAAS values, except for the study on flaxseed where a particularly low digestibility of the limiting AA (namely lysine) was observed; it was suspected to be ascribable to Maillard reactions in the food matrix, in that case a biscuit (11). As a result, a small difference between PD-CAAS and DIAAS values could be presumed for low processed ingredients or foods but greater discrepancies are probable for ultra-processed foods because specific AAs such as lysine or SSA are more sensitive to technological treatments. As for the issue of the reference pattern, if the FAO 1991 pattern for preschool children had been used to calculate the PD-CAAS, the latter would have been drastically lower; for instance 0.51 for Faba bean (Trp) or 0.7 for sunflower (Lys). This illustrates that the use of different reference patterns to compare PD-CAAS and DIAAS is biased, and the 2013 reference patterns for any quality score metrics should clearly be recommended in order to ensure consistency between the different quality indicators.

## Thresholds for claims regarding protein quality

Another novelty concerning the DIAAS metric was the proposal of thresholds in order to claim a good (DIAAS>0.75) or excellent (DIAAS>1) protein quality. Herreman et al. (12) reported DIAAS data on 17 protein sources, each involving several observations. Surprisingly, only casein and pork satisfied the criteria for an excellent
source in both the older than 3 y and 0.5 y-3y patterns, but not in
infants. A third of the sources, all from plants except gelatin (for which
the DIAAS is null), did not reach the threshold for good quality, even
under the >3y pattern. To appreciate the biological significance of this
0.75 threshold, it is necessary to compare DIAAS values with
physiological markers of protein quality. In a recent review, Nosworthy
et al. (13) collected values for DIAAS (using the 0.5-3 y reference
pattern) and the Protein Efficiency Ratio (PER), which indicates the
ability of protein to sustain growth in growing rats. The correlation
between the two indexes was good (R=0.84, p < 0.001) and all the
products (except tofu) with a DIAAS value <0.75 had a low PER
(<1.6), whereas a DIAAS higher than 1 was associated with a high
PER. A more exhaustive collection of data may be necessary, especially
for products with DIAAS values ranging from 0.75 to 1, but it appears
from this rough analysis that a DIAAS score lower than 0.75 is
associated with impaired growth.

Conclusion

Quality scores are mainly dependent on the AA composition of
the protein to which specific attention must be paid. The reference
pattern applied, and determining the protein content of an ingredient
or food, will also have a significant impact on quality scores.
Digestibility correction factors have been complexified from
PD-CAAS to DIAAS, resulting in a considerable growth of interest in
digestibility methods. The technical challenges have been faced and
interestingly, numerous data have been produced since the FAO report
in 2013. DIAAS and PD-CAAS values are often very close because
although some differences exist between N and individual AA

digestibility, these correction factors exert limited influence on the
quality scores, because the digestibility values of N and AA in various
protein sources mostly range from 75 to 95%.

Author contributions

CG: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors
and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations,
or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product
that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its
manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

1. FAO/WHO/UNU. Expert Consultation. Energy and protein requirements. Geneva: Exeprt consultation (1985).

2. Joint Expert Consultation on Protein and Amino Acid Requirements in Human Nutrition, Weltgesundheitsorganisation, FAO, United Nations University ed. Protein and amino acid requirements in human nutrition: report of a joint WHO/FAO/UNU Expert Consultation; [Geneva, 9–16 April 2002]. Geneva: WHO (2007). 265 p.

3. Rand WM, Young VR. Statistical analysis of nitrogen balance data with reference to the lysine requirement in adults. *J Nutr.* (1999) 129:1920–6. doi: 10.1093/jn/129.10.1920

4. Meguid MM, Matthews DE, Bier DM, Meredith CN, Soeldner JS, Young VR. Leucine kinetics at graded leucine intakes in young men. *Am J Clin Nutr.* (1986) 43:770–80. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/43.5.770

5. Zello GA, Pencharz PB, Ball RO. Dietary lysine requirement of young adult males determined by oxidation of L-[1-13C]phenylalanine. *Am J Phys.* (1993) 264:E677–85. doi: 10.1152/ajpendo.1993.264.4.E677

6. FAO/WHO. Protein quality evaluation. Rome: Expert consultation (1991).

7. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Dietary protein quality evaluation in human nutrition: report of an FAO expert consultation, 31 March–2 April, 2011, Auckland, New Zealand. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2013). 66 p.

8. Mariotti F, Tomé D, Mirand PP. Converting nitrogen into protein--beyond 6.25 and Jones' factors. *Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr.* (2008) 48:177–84. doi: 10.1080/10408390701279749

9. Martineau-Côté D, Achouri A, Pitre M, Karboune S, L'Hocine L. Improved in vitro gastrointestinal digestion protocol mimicking brush border digestion for the determination of the digestible indispensable amino acid score (DIAAS) of different food matrices. *Food Res Int.* (2024) 178:113932. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2024.113932

10. Bandyopadhyay S, Kashyap S, Calvez J, Devi S, Azzout-Marniche D, Tomé D, et al. Evaluation of protein quality in humans and insights on stable isotope approaches to measure digestibility—a review. *Adv Nutr.* (2022) 13:1131–43. doi: 10.1093/advances/nmab134

11. Tessier R, Calvez J, Airinei G, Khodorova N, Dauguet S, Galet O, et al. Digestive and metabolic bioavailability in healthy humans of (15) N-labeled rapeseed and flaxseed

protein incorporated in biscuits. *Am J Clin Nutr.* (2023) 117:896–902. doi: 10.1016/j.ajcnut.2023.02.020

12. Herreman L, Nommensen P, Pennings B, Laus MC. Comprehensive overview of the quality of plant-and animal-sourced proteins based on the digestible indispensable amino acid score. *Food Sci Nutr.* (2020) 8:5379–91. doi: 10.1002/fsn3.1809

13. Nosworthy MG, Neufeld J, Frohlich P, Young G, Malcolmson L, House JD. Determination of the protein quality of cooked Canadian pulses. *Food Sci Nutr.* (2017) 5:896–903. doi: 10.1002/fsn3.473

14. Calvez J, Benoit S, Piedcoq J, Khodorova N, Azzout-Marniche D, Tomé D, et al. Very low ileal nitrogen and amino acid digestibility of zein compared to whey protein isolate in healthy volunteers. *Am J Clin Nutr.* (2020) 113:70–82. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqaa274

15. Guillin FM, Gaudichon C, Guérin-Deremaux L, Lefranc-Millot C, Airinei G, Khodorova N, et al. Real ileal amino acid digestibility of pea protein compared to casein in healthy humans: a randomized trial. *Am J Clin Nutr.* (2022) 115:353–63. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqab354

16. Tessier R, Calvez J, Airinei G, Khodorova N, Kapel R, Quinsac A, et al. The true amino acid digestibility of 15N-labelled sunflower biscuits determined with Ileal balance and dual isotope methods in healthy humans. *J Nutr.* (2022) 152:698–706. doi: 10.1093/jn/nxab423

17. Itkonen ST, Calvez J, Airinei G, Chapelais M, Khodorova N, Sahaka M, et al. True Ileal amino acid digestibility and protein quality of 15N-labeled Faba bean in healthy humans. *J Nutr.* (2024) 154:1165–74. doi: 10.1016/j.tjnut.2024.01.030

18. Abelilla JJ, Liu Y, Stein HH. Digestible indispensable amino acid score (DIAAS) and protein digestibility corrected amino acid score (PDCAAS) in oat protein concentrate measured in 20- to 30-kilogram pigs. *J Sci Food Agric.* (2018) 98:410–4. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.8457

19. Mathai JK, Liu Y, Stein HH. 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) 117:490–9. doi: 10.1017/S0007114517000125