Evidence mapPaperPMID 40675340Full record

ReviewThe Journal of nutrition2025

Understanding Dietary Protein Quality: Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Scores and Beyond.

Joseph J Matthews, Emily J Arentson-Lantz, Paul J Moughan, Robert R Wolfe, Arny A Ferrando, David D Church

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Journal of nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Joseph J MatthewsDepartment of Geriatrics, Donald W. Reynolds Institute on Aging, Center for Translational Research in Aging and Longevity, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, United States. Electronic address: jmatthews@uams.edu.
Emily J Arentson-LantzDepartment of Nutrition Sciences and Health Behavior, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, United States; Center for Health Promotion, Performance and Rehabilitation Science, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, United States.
Paul J MoughanRiddet Institute, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
Robert R WolfeDepartment of Geriatrics, Donald W. Reynolds Institute on Aging, Center for Translational Research in Aging and Longevity, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, United States.
Arny A FerrandoDepartment of Geriatrics, Donald W. Reynolds Institute on Aging, Center for Translational Research in Aging and Longevity, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, United States.
David D ChurchDepartment of Geriatrics, Donald W. Reynolds Institute on Aging, Center for Translational Research in Aging and Longevity, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dietary protein quality refers to the capacity of a food to meet the human metabolic needs for essential amino acids (EAAs) and nitrogen. This is critical in low- and middle-income countries, where severe protein malnutrition occurs, and relevant in higher-income countries, where increasing dietary EAA intake may improve health and function. There are several methods to assess protein quality, each with different objectives. Chemical scoring metrics, like the digestible indispensable amino acid score, describe the EAA composition and digestibility of a protein source. However, these methods do not capture the metabolic activity of food-derived amino acids. Overreliance on a single metric leads to generic dietary recommendations lacking individual context. This review draws on chemical score and stable isotope methods to provide a comprehensive assessment of dietary protein quality. We translate these findings into practical recommendations for improving protein quality in the context of whole diets. High-quality protein sources are characterized by high EAA density (%EAAs/kcals), digestibility, bioavailability, and the capacity to stimulate protein synthesis. Practically, protein quality improves when using processing and cooking methods that reduce antinutrients, denature proteins, and reduce food particle size and structure. Conversely, protein quality decreases when exposing foods to prolonged storage, heat sterilization, and high surface temperatures. Diet modeling studies show that EAA density and protein quality are higher in omnivorous and lacto-ovo-vegetarian diets, and diets high in whole food plant-derived proteins may require greater total protein and energy intakes to compensate for lower protein quality. For incomplete plant-derived proteins, consuming complementary proteins may be beneficial. Considerations for dietary protein quality in older adults include chewing efficiency, food particle size, and higher EAA density and leucine intakes to maximize muscle protein synthesis. Recognizing dietary protein quality as a multifaceted, modifiable metric is essential to improving dietary recommendations and public health outcomes.

Indexed as

Amino Acids, EssentialDietary ProteinsDigestionAmino AcidsDietHumansNutritive ValueAmino AcidsAmino Acids, EssentialDietary Proteinsamino acidsdietdigestibilityhealthnutritionprotein

Identifiers

PMID40675340
PMCPMC12799415

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.