5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Anabolic Response to Plant-Based Protein Ingestion

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          There is a global trend of an increased interest in plant-based diets. This includes an increase in the consumption of plant-based proteins at the expense of animal-based proteins. Plant-derived proteins are now also frequently applied in sports nutrition. So far, we have learned that the ingestion of plant-derived proteins, such as soy and wheat protein, result in lower post-prandial muscle protein synthesis responses when compared with the ingestion of an equivalent amount of animal-based protein. The lesser anabolic properties of plant-based versus animal-derived proteins may be attributed to differences in their protein digestion and amino acid absorption kinetics, as well as to differences in amino acid composition between these protein sources. Most plant-based proteins have a low essential amino acid content and are often deficient in one or more specific amino acids, such as lysine and methionine. However, there are large differences in amino acid composition between various plant-derived proteins or plant-based protein sources. So far, only a few studies have directly compared the muscle protein synthetic response following the ingestion of a plant-derived protein versus a high(er) quality animal-derived protein. The proposed lower anabolic properties of plant- versus animal-derived proteins may be compensated for by (i) consuming a greater amount of the plant-derived protein or plant-based protein source to compensate for the lesser quality; (ii) using specific blends of plant-based proteins to create a more balanced amino acid profile; (iii) fortifying the plant-based protein (source) with the specific free amino acid(s) that is (are) deficient. Clinical studies are warranted to assess the anabolic properties of the various plant-derived proteins and their protein sources in vivo in humans and to identify the factors that may or may not compromise the capacity to stimulate post-prandial muscle protein synthesis rates. Such work is needed to determine whether the transition towards a more plant-based diet is accompanied by a transition towards greater dietary protein intake requirements.

          Related collections

          Most cited references110

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          mTOR signaling in growth control and disease.

          The mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) signaling pathway senses and integrates a variety of environmental cues to regulate organismal growth and homeostasis. The pathway regulates many major cellular processes and is implicated in an increasing number of pathological conditions, including cancer, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and neurodegeneration. Here, we review recent advances in our understanding of the mTOR pathway and its role in health, disease, and aging. We further discuss pharmacological approaches to treat human pathologies linked to mTOR deregulation. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Sestrin2 is a leucine sensor for the mTORC1 pathway.

            Leucine is a proteogenic amino acid that also regulates many aspects of mammalian physiology, in large part by activating the mTOR complex 1 (mTORC1) protein kinase, a master growth controller. Amino acids signal to mTORC1 through the Rag guanosine triphosphatases (GTPases). Several factors regulate the Rags, including GATOR1, aGTPase-activating protein; GATOR2, a positive regulator of unknown function; and Sestrin2, a GATOR2-interacting protein that inhibits mTORC1 signaling. We find that leucine, but not arginine, disrupts the Sestrin2-GATOR2 interaction by binding to Sestrin2 with a dissociation constant of 20 micromolar, which is the leucine concentration that half-maximally activates mTORC1. The leucine-binding capacity of Sestrin2 is required for leucine to activate mTORC1 in cells. These results indicate that Sestrin2 is a leucine sensor for the mTORC1 pathway.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Protein content and amino acid composition of commercially available plant-based protein isolates

              The postprandial rise in essential amino acid (EAA) concentrations modulates the increase in muscle protein synthesis rates after protein ingestion. The EAA content and AA composition of the dietary protein source contribute to the differential muscle protein synthetic response to the ingestion of different proteins. Lower EAA contents and specific lack of sufficient leucine, lysine, and/or methionine may be responsible for the lower anabolic capacity of plant-based compared with animal-based proteins. We compared EAA contents and AA composition of a large selection of plant-based protein sources with animal-based proteins and human skeletal muscle protein. AA composition of oat, lupin, wheat, hemp, microalgae, soy, brown rice, pea, corn, potato, milk, whey, caseinate, casein, egg, and human skeletal muscle protein were assessed using UPLC–MS/MS. EAA contents of plant-based protein isolates such as oat (21%), lupin (21%), and wheat (22%) were lower than animal-based proteins (whey 43%, milk 39%, casein 34%, and egg 32%) and muscle protein (38%). AA profiles largely differed among plant-based proteins with leucine contents ranging from 5.1% for hemp to 13.5% for corn protein, compared to 9.0% for milk, 7.0% for egg, and 7.6% for muscle protein. Methionine and lysine were typically lower in plant-based proteins (1.0 ± 0.3 and 3.6 ± 0.6%) compared with animal-based proteins (2.5 ± 0.1 and 7.0 ± 0.6%) and muscle protein (2.0 and 7.8%, respectively). In conclusion, there are large differences in EAA contents and AA composition between various plant-based protein isolates. Combinations of various plant-based protein isolates or blends of animal and plant-based proteins can provide protein characteristics that closely reflect the typical characteristics of animal-based proteins.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                L.vanLoon@maastrichtuniversity.nl
                Journal
                Sports Med
                Sports Med
                Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.z.)
                Springer International Publishing (Cham )
                0112-1642
                1179-2035
                13 September 2021
                13 September 2021
                2021
                : 51
                : Suppl 1
                : 59-74
                Affiliations
                GRID grid.412966.e, ISNI 0000 0004 0480 1382, Department of Human Biology, School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism (NUTRIM), , Maastricht University Medical Centre+, ; P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0657-6505
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0277-5291
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5874-1245
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6768-9231
                Article
                1540
                10.1007/s40279-021-01540-8
                8566416
                34515966
                4caab9db-58c5-4a72-a2e1-6996fb6d3fc2
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 6 August 2021
                Categories
                Review Article
                Custom metadata
                © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

                Comments

                Comment on this article