Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26713355›Full record

ReviewCritical reviews in food science and nutrition2017

Personalizing protein nourishment.

David C Dallas, Megan R Sanctuary, Yunyao Qu, Shabnam Haghighat Khajavi, Alexandria E Van Zandt, Melissa Dyandra, Steven A Frese, Daniela Barile, J Bruce German

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 96 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Animal nutrition (Zhongguo xu mu shou yi xue hui) · 2026
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Current advances forFrontiers in nutrition · 2024
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

David C Dallasa Department of Food Science and Technology , University of California, Davis , Davis , California , USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9696-0967
Megan R Sanctuaryb Foods for Health Institute , University of California, Davis , Davis , California , USA.
Yunyao Qua Department of Food Science and Technology , University of California, Davis , Davis , California , USA.
Shabnam Haghighat Khajavia Department of Food Science and Technology , University of California, Davis , Davis , California , USA.
Alexandria E Van Zandtc Department of Nutrition , University of California, Davis , Davis , California , USA.
Melissa Dyandraa Department of Food Science and Technology , University of California, Davis , Davis , California , USA.
Steven A Fresea Department of Food Science and Technology , University of California, Davis , Davis , California , USA.
Daniela Barilea Department of Food Science and Technology , University of California, Davis , Davis , California , USA.
J Bruce Germana Department of Food Science and Technology , University of California, Davis , Davis , California , USA.
University of California, Davis · USIslamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch · IR

Funding

Deciphering the function of naturally occurring peptides in human milkR00HD079561 · NICHD · OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY · PI DALLAS, DAVID CHARLES · 2016 to 2018
$741k
Deciphering the function of naturally occurring peptides in human milkK99HD079561 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI DALLAS, DAVID CHARLES · 2014 to 2015
$157k
NICHD NIH HHS K99 HD079561NICHD NIH HHS R00 HD079561
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Proteins are not equally digestible-their proteolytic susceptibility varies by their source and processing method. Incomplete digestion increases colonic microbial protein fermentation (putrefaction), which produces toxic metabolites that can induce inflammation in vitro and have been associated with inflammation in vivo. Individual humans differ in protein digestive capacity based on phenotypes, particularly disease states. To avoid putrefaction-induced intestinal inflammation, protein sources, and processing methods must be tailored to the consumer's digestive capacity. This review explores how food processing techniques alter protein digestibility and examines how physiological conditions alter digestive capacity. Possible solutions to improving digestive function or matching low digestive capacity with more digestible protein sources are explored. Beyond the ileal digestibility measurements of protein digestibility, less invasive, quicker and cheaper techniques for monitoring the extent of protein digestion and fermentation are needed to personalize protein nourishment. Biomarkers of protein digestive capacity and efficiency can be identified with the toolsets of peptidomics, metabolomics, microbial sequencing and multiplexed protein analysis of fecal and urine samples. By monitoring individual protein digestive function, the protein component of diets can be tailored via protein source and processing selection to match individual needs to minimize colonic putrefaction and, thus, optimize gut health.

Indexed as

Animal FeedDietDigestionFecesFermentationFood HandlingHumansProteinsProteinsDigestibilitypredigestionproteaseputrefactionsupplementation

Identifiers

PMID26713355
PMCPMC4927412
OpenAlexW2199234843

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.