Current advances for in vitro protein digestibility

Protein is an essential macronutrient in our diet, source of nitrogen and essential amino acids, but the biological utilization of dietary protein depends on its digestibility and the absorption of amino acids and peptides in the gastrointestinal tract. The methods to define the amount and the quality of protein to meet human nutritional needs, such as the Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Score (DIAAS), require the use of animal models or human studies. These in vivo methods are the reference in protein quality evaluation, but they are expensive and long-lasting procedures with significant ethical restrictions. Therefore, the development of rapid, reproducible and in vitro digestion methods validated with in vivo data is an old demand. This review describes the challenges of the in vitro digestion methods in the evaluation of the protein nutritional quality. In addition to the technical difficulties to simulate the complex and adaptable processes of digestion and absorption, these methods are affected by similar limitations as the in vivo procedures, i.e., analytical techniques to accurately determine bioavailable amino acids and the contribution of the endogenous nitrogen. The in vitro methods used for the evaluation of protein digestibility, with special attention on those showing comparative data, are revised, emphasizing their pros and cons. The internationally harmonized digestion protocol proposed by the INFOGEST network is being adapted to evaluate protein and amino acid digestibility. The inter-laboratory reproducibility of this protocol was demonstrated for dairy products. The in vivo/in vitro comparability results obtained to date with this protocol for several plant and animal sources are promising, but it requires an extensive validation with a wider range of foods and substrates with known in vivo digestibility. These in vitro methods will probably not be applicable to all foods, and therefore, it is important to identify their limitations, not to elude their use, but to apply them within the limits, by using the appropriate standards and references, and always as a complementary tool to in vivo tests to reduce their number.

An in vitro model for caecal proteolytic fermentation potential of ingredients in broilers

Fermentation of protein in the caeca of chickens may lead to the production of potentially detrimental metabolites, which can reduce gut health. A poor precaecal digestion is expected to increase protein fermentation (PF), as more proteins are likely to enter the caeca. It is unknown if the undigested protein that enters the caeca differs in fermentability depending on their ingredient source. In order to predict which feed ingredients increase the risk of PF, an in vitro procedure was developed, which simulates the gastric and enteric digestion, subsequent caecal fermentation. After digestion, amino acids and peptides smaller than 3.5 kD in the soluble fraction were removed by means of dialysis. These amino acids and peptides are assumed to be hydrolysed and absorbed in the small intestine of poultry and therefore not used in the fermentation assay. The remaining soluble and fine digesta fractions were inoculated with caecal microbes. In chicken, the soluble and fine fractions enter the caeca, to be fermented, while insoluble and coarse fractions bypass them. The inoculum was made N-free to ensure bacteria would require the N from the digesta fractions for their growth and activity. The gas production (GP) from the inoculum, therefore, reflected the ability of bacteria to use N from substrates and was an indirect measure for PF. The Maximum GP rate of ingredients averaged 21.3 ± 0.9 ml/h (mean ± SEM) and was in some cases more rapid than the positive control (urea, maximum GP rate = 16.5 ml/h). Only small differences in GP kinetics were found between protein ingredients. Branched-chain fatty acids and ammonia concentrations in the fermentation fluid after 24 hours showed no differences between ingredients. Results indicate that solubilised undigested proteins larger than 3.5 kD are rapidly fermented independent of its source when an equal amount of N is present.

Over-toasting dehulled rapeseed meal and soybean meal, but not sunflower seed meal, increases prececal nitrogen and amino acid digesta flows in broilers

Poorly digestible proteins may lead to increased protein fermentation in the ceca of broilers and hence, the production of potentially harmful metabolites. To evaluate effects of protein fermentation on gut health, an experimental contrast in ileal nitrogen (N) and amino acid (AA) flow is required. Therefore, our objective was to develop a model that creates a contrast in protein fermentation by increasing the prececal flow of protein within ingredients. To this end, we used additional toasting of protein sources and evaluated the effect on prececal N and AA flows. One-day-old Ross 308 male broilers (n = 480) were divided over 6 dietary treatments, with 8 replicate pens with 10 broilers each. Diets contained 20% of a regular soybean meal (SBM), high protein sunflower seed meal (SFM) or a dehulled rapeseed meal (dRSM) as is, or heat damaged by secondary toasting at 136°C for 20 min (tSBM, tSFM, or tdRSM). Ileal and total tract digesta flows of N and AA were determined with 5 birds per pen in their third week of life using an inert marker (TiO2) in the feed. Additional toasting increased the feed conversion ratio (FCR) only in birds fed dRSM (1.39 vs. 1.31), but not SBM and SFM (interaction P = 0.047). In SBM, additional toasting increased the flow of histidine, lysine, and aspartate through the distal ileum and excreted, while in SFM it had no effect on flows of N and AA. Toasting dRSM increased the prececal flows and excretion of N (862 vs 665 and 999 vs 761 mg/d, respectively) and of the AA. Of the ingredients tested, toasting dRSM is a suitable model to increase protein flows into the hind-gut, permitting the assessment of effects of protein fermentation.

Alternative prediction methods of protein and energy evaluation of pig feeds

Precise knowledge of the actual nutritional value of individual feedstuffs and complete diets for pigs is important for efficient livestock production. Methods of assessment of protein and energy values in pig feeds have been briefly described. In vivo determination of protein and energy values of feeds in pigs are time-consuming, expensive and very often require the use of surgically-modified animals. There is a need for more simple, rapid, inexpensive and reproducible methods for routine feed evaluation. Protein and energy values of pig feeds can be estimated using the following alternative methods: 1) prediction equations based on chemical composition; 2) animal models as rats, cockerels and growing pigs for adult animals; 3) rapid methods, such as the mobile nylon bag technique and in vitro methods. Alternative methods developed for predicting the total tract and ileal digestibility of nutrients including amino acids in feedstuffs and diets for pigs have been reviewed. This article focuses on two in vitro methods that can be used for the routine evaluation of amino acid ileal digestibility and energy value of pig feeds and on factors affecting digestibility determined in vivo in pigs and by alternative methods. Validation of alternative methods has been carried out by comparing the results obtained using these methods with those acquired in vivo in pigs. In conclusion, energy and protein values of pig feeds may be estimated with satisfactory precision in rats and by the two- or three-step in vitro methods providing equations for the calculation of standardized ileal digestibility of amino acids and metabolizable energy content. The use of alternative methods of feed evaluation is an important way for reduction of stressful animal experiments.