CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 62Aquaculture Nutrition and GrowthAlgal biology and biofuel productionFood and Agricultural Sciences

A Rat Study to Evaluate the Protein Quality of Three Green Microalgal Species and the Impact of Mechanical Cell Wall Disruption

Open access
Wang, Yanwen, Tibbetts, Sean M., Berrue, Fabrice, McGinn, Patrick J., MacQuarrie, Scott P., Puttaswamy, Anil, Patelakis, Shane, Schmidt, Dominique +2 more·2020·Foods
DOI 10.3390/foods9111531PMC PMC7694116
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The present study was conducted to evaluate the protein quality of microalgae species Chlorella vulgaris (CV), Chlorella sorokiniana (CS), and Acutodesmus obliquus (AO) and assess the impact of mechanical cell wall disruption. Male Sprague–Dawley rats, around 156 g after adaptation, were placed in metabolic cages and fed experimental diets that were either protein-free or contained 10% protein solely from one of the undisrupted or disrupted CV, CS, and AO. After 3 days, feces were collected for a period of 5 days and analyzed together with diet samples for crude protein contents. Apparent protein digestibility, true protein digestibility, amino acid score, and protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score were calculated. In vitro protein digestibility was measured using the pepsin–pancreatin method and the in vitro protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score was calculated. The crude protein contents of CV, CS, and AO were 53.5, 50.2, and 40.3%, respectively. The amino acid score of the first limiting amino acid was 1.10, 1.27, and 0.86, true protein digestibility was 64.7, 59.3, and 37.9% and protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score was 0.63, 0.64, and 0.29, respectively, for CV, CS, and AO. Mechanical cell disruption significantly improved protein digestibility without a substantial impact on the amino acid profile and score, resulting in the increase of protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score to 0.77, 0.81, and 0.46, respectively, for disrupted CV, CS, and AO. There was a strong correlation between in vitro protein digestibility and apparent protein digestibility (r = 0.986), and also between in vitro protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score and in vivo protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score (r = 0.994). The results suggest that the CV and CS are acceptable sources of protein for humans and animals and quality can be markedly improved by mechanical cell wall disruption. Additionally, in vitro protein digestibility measured using the pepsin–pancreatin method may be used to screen protein product candidates, save animals, reduce cost, and accelerate product development.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/foods9111531

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The lower PDCAAS scores of microalgae are mainly due to reduced digestibility caused by algae's tough cell walls.

    “The lower scores are mainly due to reduced digestibility caused by algae’s tough cell walls, highlighting the importance of improving processing methods to increase their nutritional value [29–31].”

    From Navigating the potential of algal peptides: health effects, market applications, and scientific challenges (2026) · cites this paper as [29]

    The Conclusions state that difficult-to-disrupt cell walls interfered with protein digestibility and quality, and that mechanical rupture improved digestibility and PDCAAS. This explains the lower scores of CV and CS relative to casein, but Results §3.8 and the Conclusions also attribute AO’s low score to its low limiting-amino-acid score. The claim overgeneralizes by making reduced digestibility the main explanation for all three species. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Microalgae T. obliquus, C. vulgaris, C. sorokiniana, and L. platensis have PDCAAS values between 0.63-0.84.

    “Microalgae such as T. obliquus, C. vulgaris, C. sorokiniana, and L. platensis have PDCAAS values between 0.63–0.84.”

    From Navigating the potential of algal peptides: health effects, market applications, and scientific challenges (2026) · cites this paper as [29]

    Results §3.8 reports PDCAAS values of 0.63 for C. vulgaris and 0.64 for C. sorokiniana, within the claimed range. But it reports 0.29 for A. obliquus, below that range; Methods §2.1 identifies it as the obliquus species studied. The paper does not report a PDCAAS value for L. platensis or a value of 0.84. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Microalgae C. vulgaris and C. sorokiniana have AAS values of 1.10 and 1.16, respectively, close to casein.

    “Microalgae like C. vulgaris and C. sorokiniana (Chlorophyta) have AAS values of 1.10 and 1.16, respectively, which are close to casein [29].”

    From Navigating the potential of algal peptides: health effects, market applications, and scientific challenges (2026) · cites this paper as [29]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [30]AOAC Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists International 17th Edition. Section 45.3.06 (AOAC Officeical Method 991.29, True Protien Digestibility of Foods and Food Ingredients, Rat Bioaassay) Journal of AOAC International Gaithersburg, MD, USA 2000

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Wang, Y., Tibbetts, S. M., Berrue, F., McGinn, P. J., MacQuarrie, S. P., Puttaswamy, A., Patelakis, S., Schmidt, D., Melanson, R., & MacKenzie, S. E.
Affiliations
  • National Research Council Canada (CA)
  • Aquatic and Crop Resource Development Research Center, National Research Council of Canada, 1411 Oxford Street, Halifax, NS B3H 3Y8, Canada
Corresponding author
Wang, Yanwen
ORCID
Venue
Foods
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2020-10-24
Volume
9
Issue
11
Pages
1531
ISSN
2304-8158 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/foods9111531
PMC
PMC7694116
OpenAlex
W3094128741
Cited by
62
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 2
FWCI
3.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Foods (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • NPARC (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Atlantic Veterinary College
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Aquatic Science › Aquaculture Nutrition and Growth
  • Physical Sciences › Energy › Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment › Algal biology and biofuel production
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food and Agricultural Sciences
Keywords
microalgal proteins, protein quality, Chlorella vulgaris, Chlorella sorokiniana, Acutodesmus obliquus, protein digestibility, amino acid score, green microalgae, alternative protein sources

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