journal article·2025-03-24Open access

Comprehensive Review of Plant Protein Digestibility: Challenges, Assessment Methods, and Improvement Strategies

Mauricio Opazo-Navarrete, César Burgos-Díaz, Cristina Bravo-Reyes, Ivo Gajardo-Poblete, Manuel Chacón-Fuentes, Juan E. Reyes, Luis Mojica

Applied Sciences· Volume 15· Issue 7

Abstract

Plant-based proteins are increasingly recognized for their environmental, ethical, and nutritional benefits. However, their digestibility varies due to factors such as molecular structure, amino acid composition, and processing methods. This review comprehensively analyzes methods used to assess plant protein digestibility, including in vivo, in vitro, and ex vivo approaches. While in vivo studies, particularly those using pigs, are considered the gold standard, in vitro and ex vivo models offer cost-effective and reproducible alternatives for simulating digestion. Additionally, antinutritional factors present in plant proteins can hinder digestibility, necessitating processing strategies such as fermentation, enzymatic hydrolysis, and high-pressure treatments to enhance protein bioavailability. Advances in evaluation techniques, including the Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Score (DIAAS) and dynamic digestion models, offer more precise assessments of protein quality. By systematically comparing these methods, this review aims to guide food scientists and manufacturers in selecting appropriate evaluation strategies to improve the nutritional quality of plant-based protein products. Understanding the mechanisms influencing plant protein digestibility is essential for optimizing food formulations and supporting the broader adoption of sustainable protein sources in human diets.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Proteins in Food Systems · Phytase and its Applications · Food composition and properties

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Agriaquaculture Nutritional Genomic Center (CGNA), Temuco 4780000, Chile

FoodTech SpA, Temuco 4780000, Chile

Department of Food Engineering, Universidad del Bío-Bío, Av. Andrés Bello 720, Chillán 3800708, Chile

Tecnología Alimentaria, Centro de Investigación y Asistencia en Tecnología y Diseño del Estado de Jalisco, A.C. CIATEJ, Unidad Zapopan, Camino Arenero 1227, El Bajío, Zapopan 45019, Jalisco, Mexico

Funding

ANID (Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo, Chile)

References (100+)

Show source-provided references
1. Food proteins from animals and plants: Differences in the nutritional and functional properties10.1016/j.tifs.2021.12.020 ↗
2. Langyan, S., Yadava, P., Khan, F.N., Dar, Z.A., Singh, R., and Kumar, A. (2022). Sustaining protein nutrition through plant-based foods. Front. Nutr., 8.10.3389/fnut.2021.772573 ↗
3. Food processing for the improvement of plant proteins digestibility10.1080/10408398.2019.1688249 ↗
4. Ma, K.K., Greis, M., Lu, J., Nolden, A.A., McClements, D.J., and Kinchla, A. (2022). Functional performance of plant proteins. Foods, 11.10.3390/foods11040594 ↗
5. Chemical and nutritional evaluation of protein-rich ingredients obtained through a technological process from yellow lupin seeds (Lupinus luteus)10.1007/s11130-019-00768-0 ↗
6. Modification of plant proteins for improved functionality: A review10.1111/1541-4337.12688 ↗
7. Recent developments in understanding protein needs—How much and what kind should we eat?10.1139/apnm-2015-0549 ↗
8. Nutritional quality of rice bran protein in comparison to animal and vegetable protein10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.09.127 ↗
9. Correlation between in vitro and in vivo data on food digestion. What can we predict with static in vitro digestion models?10.1080/10408398.2017.1315362 ↗
10. Nutrient profile and effect of processing methods on the composition and functional properties of lentils (Lens culinaris Medik): A review10.1002/leg3.156 ↗
11. Beneficial attributes and adverse effects of major plant-based foods anti-nutrients on health: A review10.1016/j.hnm.2022.200147 ↗
12. Evaluation of the nutritional quality of the grain protein of new amaranths varieties10.1007/s11130-014-0456-3 ↗
13. The impact of extrusion on the nutritional composition, dietary fiber and in vitro digestibility of gluten-free snacks based on rice, pea and carob flour blends10.1039/C7FO00910K ↗
14. Denaturation and in vitro gastric digestion of heat-treated quinoa protein isolates obtained at various extraction pH
15. Simulating human digestion: Developing our knowledge to create healthier and more sustainable foods10.1039/D0FO01981J ↗
16. Dairy structures and physiological responses: A matter of gastric digestion
17. Effect of gastrointestinal alterations mimicking elderly conditions on in vitro digestion of meat and soy proteins10.1016/j.foodchem.2022.132465 ↗
18. Advances in the physiology of gastric emptying
19. The mouth, stomach and intestines10.1016/j.mpaic.2021.04.001 ↗
20. Verhoeckx, K. (2015). Dynamic gastric model (DGM). The Impact of Food Bioactives on Health In Vitro and Ex Vivo Models, Springer.
21. Metabolites of dietary protein and peptides by intestinal microbes and their impacts on gut10.2174/1389203716666150630133657 ↗
22. Protein digestion and bioavailability10.1016/B978-0-12-375083-9.00240-3 ↗
23. Khavinson, V., Linkova, N., Kozhevnikova, E., Dyatlova, A., and Petukhov, M. (2022). Transport of biologically active ultrashort peptides using POT and LAT carriers. Int. J. Mol. Sci., 23.10.3390/ijms23147733 ↗
24. Lee, V.H., Dodda-Kashi, S., Grass, G.M., and Rubas, W. (2024). Oral route of peptide and protein drug delivery. Peptide and Protein Drug Delivery, CRC Press.10.1201/9781003573715 ↗
25. De Bhowmick, G., and Hayes, M. (2022). In vitro digestibility of selected seaweeds. Foods, 11.10.3390/foods11030289 ↗
26. Bleakley, S., and Hayes, M. (2017). Algal proteins: Extraction, application, and challenges concerning production. Foods, 6.10.3390/foods6050033 ↗
27. Protein digestion of different protein sources using the INFOGEST static digestion model10.1016/j.foodres.2020.108996 ↗
28. Can dynamic in vitro digestion system mimic the physiological reality?10.1080/10408398.2017.1421900 ↗
29. Ex vivo permeability study of poorly soluble drugs across gastrointestinal membranes: Acceptor compartment media composition10.1016/j.drudis.2024.104214 ↗
30. Antal, O., Dalmadi, I., and Takács, K. (2024). Upgrading in vitro digestion protocols with absorption models. Appl. Sci., 14.10.3390/app14188320 ↗
31. Rehman, A., Heinsen, F.-A., Koenen, M.E., Venema, K., Knecht, H., Hellmig, S., Schreiber, S., and Ott, S.J. (2012). Effects of probiotics and antibiotics on the intestinal homeostasis in a computer controlled model of the large intestine. BMC Microbiol., 12.10.1186/1471-2180-12-47 ↗
32. Chalvon-Demersay, T., Blachier, F., Tomé, D., and Blais, A. (2017). Animal models for the study of the relationships between diet and obesity: A focus on dietary protein and strogen deficiency. Front. Nutr., 4.10.3389/fnut.2017.00005 ↗
33. Dairy proteins and bioactive peptides: Modeling digestion and the intestinal barrier
34. Caecal digestibility as an approximation of ileal protein digestibility evaluation in rats10.1017/jns.2023.3 ↗
35. Evaluating endogenous loss and standard ileal digestibility of amino acids in response to the graded severity levels of E. maxima infection10.1016/j.psj.2021.101426 ↗
36. Determinants of amino acid bioavailability from ingested protein in relation to gut health10.1097/MCO.0000000000000708 ↗
37. Wang, Y., Tibbetts, S.M., Berrue, F., McGinn, P.J., MacQuarrie, S.P., Puttaswamy, A., Patelakis, S., Schmidt, D., Melanson, R., and MacKenzie, S.E. (2020). A rat study to evaluate the protein quality of three green microalgal species and the impact of mechanical cell wall disruption. Foods, 9.10.3390/foods9111531 ↗
38. Colonoscopy in rats: An endoscopic, histological and tomography study10.4253/wjge.v5.i5.226 ↗
39. Determination of dietary amino acid digestibility in humans10.1093/jn/nxz211 ↗
40. Determination of true ileal amino acid digestibility in the growing pig for calculation of digestible indispensable amino acid score (DIAAS)10.1093/jn/nxaa210 ↗
41. Can the digestible indispensable amino acid score methodology decrease protein malnutrition10.1093/af/vfz038 ↗
42. 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)10.1017/S0007114517000125 ↗
43. Digestible indispensable amino acid score (DIAAS) and protein digestibility corrected amino acid score (PDCAAS) in oat protein concentrate measured in 20- to 30-kilogram pigs10.1002/jsfa.8457 ↗
44. In vitro digestibility of dietary proteins and in vitro DIAAS analytical workflow based on the INFOGEST static protocol and its validation with in vivo data10.1016/j.foodchem.2022.134720 ↗
45. Comparison of true ileal amino acid digestibility between adult humans and growing pigs10.1093/jn/nxac077 ↗
46. Food Proteins: Technological, nutritional, and sustainability attributes of traditional and emerging proteins10.1146/annurev-food-032818-121128 ↗
47. Comprehensive overview of the quality of plant- And animal sourced proteins based on the digestible indispensable amino acid score10.1002/fsn3.1809 ↗
48. Speak, J.W., and Van Wesemael, D. (2018). CVB Feed Table 2021. Chemical Composition and Nutritional Values of Feedstuffs. Central Bureau for Livestock Feeding (CVB).
49. Jaeger, A., Zanini, E., Sahin, A.W., and Arendt, E.K. (2021). Barley protein properties, extraction and applications, with a focus on brewers’ spent grain protein. Foods, 10.10.3390/foods10061389 ↗
50. Protein content of peas (Pisum sativum) and beans (Vicia faba)—Influence of cultivation conditions10.1016/j.jfca.2021.104257 ↗
51. Punzalan, J.K.M., and Rosentrater, K.A. (2024). Copra meal: A review of its production, properties, and prospects. Animals, 14.10.3390/ani14111689 ↗
52. Biological evaluation of a protein isolate from cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) seeds10.1016/j.foodchem.2003.12.023 ↗
53. A review of the nutritional use of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp) for human and animal diets
54. The horsebean (Vicia faba L.) as a vegetable protein concentrate in chick diets10.3382/ps.0420562 ↗
55. Hydrogelled emulsion from linseed oil and pea protein as a strategy to produce healthier pork burgers with high technological and sensory quality10.1016/j.meatsci.2022.109028 ↗
56. Effect of flax meal on the production performance and oxidative status of dairy cows infused with flax oil in the abomasum10.1016/j.livsci.2014.09.023 ↗
57. Panasiewicz, K. (2022). Chemical composition of lupin (Lupinus spp.) as influenced by variety and tillage system. Agriculture, 12.10.3390/agriculture12020263 ↗
58. Optimizing maize yield, nitrogen efficacy and grain protein content under different N forms and rates10.1007/s42729-021-00486-0 ↗
59. Speak, J.W., and Blok, M.C. (2018). CVB Feed Table 2018. Chemical Composition and Nutritional Values of Feedstuff. Central Bureau for Livestock Feeding (CVB).
60. Physicochemical properties and protein structure of extruded corn gluten meal: Implication of temperature10.1016/j.foodchem.2022.133985 ↗
61. Hou, S., Men, Y., Wei, M., Zhang, Y., Li, H., Sun, Z., and Han, Y. (2023). Total protein content, amino acid composition and eating-quality evaluation of foxtail millet (Setaria italica (L.) P. Beauv. Foods, 12.10.3390/foods12010031 ↗
62. Nutritional profile of selected Niger seed varieties
63. Oat properties: A perspective on functional properties10.1016/j.lwt.2021.112307 ↗
64. Potato protein as an emerging high-quality: Source, extraction, purification, properties (functional, nutritional, physicochemical, and processing), applications, and challenges using potato protein10.1016/j.foodhyd.2024.110415 ↗
65. Yield and quality prediction of winter rapeseed—Artificial neural network and random forest models10.3390/agronomy12010058 ↗
66. Assessing functional properties of rapeseed protein concentrate versus isolate for food applications10.1016/j.ifset.2021.102636 ↗
67. Effect of protein denaturation and lipid removal on rice physicochemical properties10.1016/j.lwt.2021.112015 ↗
68. Development of simplified models for nondestructive testing of rice (with husk) protein content using hyperspectral imaging technology10.1016/j.vibspec.2021.103230 ↗
69. Characterization of rye flours and their potential as reference material for gluten analysis10.1016/j.foodchem.2022.135148 ↗
70. Steam explosion modification on phytate, protein, and lignan in sesame cake10.1016/j.indcrop.2023.117697 ↗
71. Zarei, M., Amirkolaei, A.K., Trushenski, J.T., Sealey, W.M., Schwarz, M.H., and Ovissipour, R. (2022). Sorghum as a potential valuable aquafeed ingredient: Nutritional quality and digestibility. Agriculture, 12.10.3390/agriculture12050669 ↗
72. Xiao, R., Lou, H., Hu, R., Li, S., Zheng, Y., Wang, D., Xu, Y., Xu, Y., and Li, Y. (2024). Enzymatic production and physicochemical and functional properties of sorghum protein isolates. Int. J. Biol. Macromol., 283.10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.137421 ↗
73. Janocha, A., Milczarek, A., Pietrusiak, D., Laski, K., and Saleh, M. (2022). Efficiency of soybean products in broiler chicken nutrition. Animals, 12.10.3390/ani12030294 ↗
74. Impact of particle size fractions on composition, antioxidant activities, and functional properties of soybean hulls10.1007/s11694-020-00746-0 ↗
75. Soybean genetic resources contributing to sustainable protein production10.1007/s00122-022-04222-9 ↗
76. Impact of variability in protein content of sunflower meal on the extrusion process and physical quality of the extruded salmonid feed10.1111/jfpe.13640 ↗
77. Genetic factors influencing triticale quality for food10.1016/j.jcs.2023.103744 ↗
78. Fundamental characterization of wheat gluten10.1007/s00217-020-03680-z ↗
79. Jimenez-Pulido, I.J., Rico, D., Perez, J., Martínez-Villaluenga, C., De Luis, D., and Diana, A.B.M. (2022). Impact of protein content on the antioxidants, anti-inflammatory properties and glycemic index of wheat and wheat bran. Foods, 11.10.3390/foods11142049 ↗
80. Blood lipids—Soluble dietary fibres: Study of bile salts diffusion across intestinal mucosa using the Ussing chamber system10.1016/j.jnim.2015.12.281 ↗
81. An ex vivo intestinal absorption model is more effective than an in vitro cell model to characterise absorption of dietary carotenoids following simulated gastrointestinal digestion10.1016/j.foodres.2023.112558 ↗
82. Effect of sprouting on the proteome of chickpea flour and on its digestibility by ex vivo gastroduodenal digestion complemented with jejunal brush border membrane enzymes10.1016/j.foodres.2022.111012 ↗
83. Role of the bolus degree of structure on the protein digestibility during in vitro digestion of a pea protein-fortified sponge cake chewed by elderly10.1111/jtxs.12486 ↗
84. Wojtunik-Kulesza, K., Oniszczuk, A., Oniszczuk, T., Combrzynski, M., Nowakowska, D., and Matwijczuk, A. (2020). Influence of in vitro digestion on composition, bioaccessibility and antioxidant activity of food polyphenols—A non-systematic review. Nutrients, 12.10.3390/nu12051401 ↗
85. Soy protein-based delivery systems as carriers of trans-resveratrol: Bioaccessibility using different in vitro digestion models10.1016/j.foodres.2022.111837 ↗
86. Herring roe protein has a high digestible indispensable amino acid score (DIAAS) using a dynamic in vitro gastrointestinal model10.1016/j.nutres.2016.05.004 ↗
87. Micro- and nano bio-based delivery systems for food applications: In vitro behavior10.1016/j.cis.2017.02.010 ↗
88. Thuenemann, E.C., Mandalari, G., Rich, G.T., and Faulks, R.M. (2015). Dynamic gastric model (DGM). The Impact of Food Bioactives on Health: In Vitro and Ex Vivo Models, Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-16104-4_6 ↗
89. INFOGEST static in vitro of gastrointestinal food digestion10.1038/s41596-018-0119-1 ↗
90. Protein degradation and peptide release from milk proteins in human jejunum. Comparison with in vitro gastrointestinal simulation10.1016/j.foodchem.2017.06.134 ↗
91. The harmonized INFOGEST in vitro digestion method: From knowledge to action10.1016/j.foodres.2015.12.006 ↗
92. Salivary and gut microbiomes play a significant role in in vitro oral bioaccessibility, biotransformation, and intestinal absorption of arsenic from food10.1021/acs.est.8b04457 ↗
93. Calero, V., Rodrigues, P.M., Dias, T., Ainla, A., Villaca, A., Pastrana, L., Xavier, M., and Goncalves, C. (2024). A miniaturised semi-dynamic in-vitro model for human digestion. Sci. Rep., 14.10.1038/s41598-024-54612-w ↗
94. Alegria, A., García-Llatas, G., Cilla, A., Verhoeckx, K., Cotter, P., López-Expósito, I., Kleiveland, C., Lea, T., Mackie, A., and Requena, T. (2015). The Impact of Food Bioactives on Health: In Vitro and Ex Vivo Models, Springer. Chapter 1.
95. Impact of caseins and whey proteins ratio and lipid content on in vitro digestion and ex vivo absorption10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.126514 ↗
96. Studying semi-dynamic digestion kinetics of food: Establishing a computer-controlled multireactor approach10.1016/j.foodres.2022.111301 ↗
97. Interação de polifenóis e proteínas e o efeito na digestibilidade proteica de feijão comum (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cultivar Pérola
98. Avaliação química, nutricional e fatores antinutricionais do feijão preto (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) irradiado10.1590/S0101-20612005000100018 ↗
99. Effect of microwave heating on solubility and digestibility of proteins and reduction of antinutrients of selected common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) varieties grown in Ethiopia
100. Effect of processing on antinutrients and in vitro protein digestibility of the underutilized legume, Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp subsp. Unguiculata10.1016/j.lwt.2012.09.030 ↗