Cited by 137Food and Agricultural SciencesMuscle metabolism and nutritionAnimal Nutrition and Physiology

Advantages and limitations of the protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score (PDCAAS) as a method for evaluating protein quality in human diets

Open access
Schaafsma, Gertjan·2012·British Journal of Nutrition

Abstract

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0007114512002541

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schaafsma, G.
Corresponding author
Schaafsma, Gertjan
Venue
British Journal of Nutrition
Published
2012-08
Volume
108
Issue
S2
Pages
S333-S336
ISSN
  • 0007-1145 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-2662
OpenAlex
W2087056368
Cited by
137
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
4.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal Of Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food and Agricultural Sciences
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Muscle metabolism and nutrition
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Nutrition and Physiology
Keywords
PDCAAS, protein quality, chemical score, essential amino acid requirements, amino acid supplementation, antinutritional factors, lectins, trypsin inhibitor, plant proteins
MeSH terms
Amino Acids, Amino Acids, Essential, Animals, Animal Feed, Colon, Diet, Dietary Proteins, Digestion, Feces, Humans, Ileum, Intestinal Absorption, Nitrogen, Nutritional Requirements, Nutritive Value, Dietary Supplements

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review