Advertisement

Comparative Protein Quality as Measured by Human and Small Animal Bioassays of Three Lines of Winter Wheat

  • C. Kies
  • H. M. Fox
  • P. J. Mattern
  • V. A. Johnson
  • J. W. Schmidt
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 105)

Abstract

Incomplete information on factors contributing to apparent protein quality and to value of food products as sources of protein and how these factors interact necessitate the use of bioassay procedures. Ideally bioassay procedures should be done using the animal speciesfor which the protein is intended. Practical considerations dictate the use of small animal bioassay rather than human bioassays for routine use in protein product evaluation. To be of real value for assays of food products designed for human use, animal bioassays must accurately predict human performance. Surprisingly little information is available on this topic.

In the current project three Nebraska winter wheats of similar genetic backgrounds were evaluated for protein value and for value of the wheats as sources of proteins. Chemical, weanling mouse, adult human and growing human bioassay techniques were employed. Rankings of the grains were similar regardless of species used for protein quality evaluations. Similar rankings were found regardless of species used for protein quality/quantity evaluations. However, ranking varied between methods designed to evaluate protein quality and those designed to measure protein quality/quantity interrelationships. The results stress the importance of matching appropriate methodology with information desired. In a latter project, wheats of dissimilar genetic background were not as uniformily evaluated. This suggests that other factors known to affect protein quality and value were more variable in these wheats.

Keywords

Winter Wheat Protein Quality Protein Efficiency Ratio Lysine Content Mouse Bioassay 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bodwell, C.E. (1977). Problems in the development and application of rapid methods of assessing protein quality. Food Technology 31, 73–77Google Scholar
  2. Friedman, M. ed. (1975). Protein nutritional quality of Foods and Feeds. Part I Assay Methods - Biological, Biochemical and Chemical. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc. c 1975 626 pagesGoogle Scholar
  3. Kies, C. (1972a). Evaluation of the protein value of cereal/plant/ oilseed products by human biological assay techniques in Seed Proteins. ed by G.E. Inglett, Westport Conn: AVI, pages 253–264Google Scholar
  4. Kies, C. (1972b). Nutritional evaluation in Proceedings of International Wheat Conference, Ankara, Turkey, June 5–9, 1972, pages 134–139.Google Scholar
  5. Kies, C., Fox, H.M., Mattern, P. and Johnson, V. (1975). Comparative protein nutritive values of whole ground and white flours from five wheat varieties for humans. Paper presented Spring Conference, Milling and Baking Division, American Assoc. of Cereal Chemists, April 24, 1975, Fort Worth, TexasGoogle Scholar
  6. LaChance, P.A., Bressani, R., and Elias, L.G. (1977). Shorter protein bioassays. Food Technology 31, pages 82–84Google Scholar
  7. Scales, F.M. and Harrison, A.P. (1920). Boric acid modification of the Kjeldahl method for crop and soil analysis. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 12, pages 350–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Kies
    • 1
  • H. M. Fox
    • 1
  • P. J. Mattern
    • 1
  • V. A. Johnson
    • 1
  • J. W. Schmidt
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Food and Nutrition and Dept. of AgrononyUniversity of NebraskaLincolnUSA

Personalised recommendations