Background & aims: In dietary practice, it is common to estimate protein requirements on actual bodyweight, but corrected bodyweight (in cases with BMI <20 kg/m2 and BMI ≥30 kg/m2) and fat free mass (FFM) are also used. Large differences on individual level are noticed in protein requirements using these different approaches. To continue this discussion, the answer is sought in a large population to the following question: Will choosing actual bodyweight, corrected bodyweight or FFM to calculate protein requirements result in clinically relevant differences? Methods: This retrospective database study, used data from healthy persons ≥55 years of age and in- and outpatients ≥18 years of age. FFM was measured by air displacement plethysmography technology or bioelectrical impedance analysis. Protein requirements were calculated as 1) 1.2 g (g) per kilogram (kg) actual bodyweight or 2) corrected bodyweight or 3) 1.5 g per kg FFM. To compare these three approaches, the approach in which protein requirement is based on FFM, was used as reference method. Bland–Altman plots with limits of agreement were used to determine differences, analyses were performed for both populations separately and stratified by BMI category and gender. Results: In total 2291 subjects were included. In the population with relatively healthy persons (n = 506, ≥55 years of age) mean weight is 86.5 ± 18.2 kg, FFM is 51 ± 12 kg and in the population with adult in- and outpatients (n = 1785, ≥18 years of age) mean weight is 72.5 ± 18.4 kg, FFM is 51 ± 11 kg. Clinically relevant differences were found in protein requirement between actual bodyweight and FFM in most of the participants with overweight, obesity or severe obesity (78–100%). Using corrected bodyweight, an overestimation in 48–92% of the participants with underweight, healthy weight and overweight is found. Only in the Amsterdam UMC population, protein requirement is underestimated when using the approach of corrected bodyweight in participants with severe obesity. Conclusion: The three approaches in estimation of protein requirement show large differences. In the majority of the population protein requirement based on FFM is lower compared to actual or corrected bodyweight. Correction of bodyweight reduces the differences, but remain unacceptably large. It is yet unknown which method is the best for estimation of protein requirement. Since differences vary by gender due to differences in body composition, it seems more accurate to estimate protein requirement based on FFM. Therefore, we would like to advocate for more frequent measurement of FFM to determine protein requirements, especially when a deviating body composition is to be expected, for instance in elderly and persons with overweight, obesity or severe obesity.
INTRODUCTION: Sufficient high quality dietary protein intake is required to prevent or treat sarcopenia in elderly people. Therefore, the intake of specific protein sources as well as their timing of intake are important to improve dietary protein intake in elderly people.OBJECTIVES: to assess the consumption of protein sources as well as the distribution of protein sources over the day in community-dwelling, frail and institutionalized elderly people.METHODS: Habitual dietary intake was evaluated using 2- and 3-day food records collected from various studies involving 739 community-dwelling, 321 frail and 219 institutionalized elderly people.RESULTS: Daily protein intake averaged 71 ± 18 g/day in community-dwelling, 71 ± 20 g/day in frail and 58 ± 16 g/day in institutionalized elderly people and accounted for 16% ± 3%, 16% ± 3% and 17% ± 3% of their energy intake, respectively. Dietary protein intake ranged from 10 to 12 g at breakfast, 15 to 23 g at lunch and 24 to 31 g at dinner contributing together over 80% of daily protein intake. The majority of dietary protein consumed originated from animal sources (≥60%) with meat and dairy as dominant sources. Thus, 40% of the protein intake in community-dwelling, 37% in frail and 29% in institutionalized elderly originated from plant based protein sources with bread as the principle source. Plant based proteins contributed for >50% of protein intake at breakfast and between 34% and 37% at lunch, with bread as the main source. During dinner, >70% of the protein intake originated from animal protein, with meat as the dominant source.CONCLUSION: Daily protein intake in these older populations is mainly (>80%) provided by the three main meals, with most protein consumed during dinner. More than 60% of daily protein intake consumed is of animal origin, with plant based protein sources representing nearly 40% of total protein consumed. During dinner, >70% of the protein intake originated from animal protein, while during breakfast and lunch a large proportion of protein is derived from plant based protein sources.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Sufficient protein intake is of great importance in hemodialysis (HD) patients, especially for maintaining muscle mass. Daily protein needs are generally estimated using bodyweight (BW), in which individual differences in body composition are not accounted for. As body protein mass is best represented by fat free mass (FFM), there is a rationale to apply FFM instead of BW. The agreement between both estimations is unclear. Therefore, the aim of this study is to compare protein needs based on either FFM or BW in HD patients.METHODS: Protein needs were estimated in 115 HD patients by three different equations; FFM, BW and BW adjusted for low or high BMI. FFM was measured by multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance spectroscopy and considered the reference method. Estimations of FFM x 1.5 g/kg and FFM x 1.9 g/kg were compared with (adjusted)BW x 1.2 and x 1.5, respectively. Differences were assessed with repeated measures ANOVA and Bland-Altman plots.RESULTS: Mean protein needs estimated by (adjusted)BW were higher compared to those based on FFM, across all BMI categories (P < 0.01) and most explicitly in obese patients. In females with BMI >30, protein needs were 69 ± 17.4 g/day higher based on BW and 45 ± 9.3 g/day higher based on BMI adjusted BW, compared to FFM. In males with BMI >30, protein needs were 51 ± 20.4 g/day and 23 ± 20.9 g/day higher compared to FFM, respectively.CONCLUSIONS: Our data show large differences and possible overestimations of protein needs when comparing BW to FFM. We emphasize the importance of more research and discussion on this topic.
The global market for the industrial manufacturing of recombinant proteins (RPS) is steadily increasing and demand will keep rising in years to come. Currently, RPs are already an integral part of disease therapeutics, agriculture and the chemical industry and RP manufacturing methods rely heavily on host systems such as prokaryotes and, to a lesser extent, mammalian, yeast and plant cells. When comparing these host systems, all have their specific strengths and weaknesses and numerous challenges remain to improve protein manufacturing on an industrial scale. In this project, GLO Biotics proposes an innovative plant-based RP expression platform with the potential of significantly reducing costs and process requirements compared to the current state-of-the-art systems. Specifically, this novel concept is based on the use of coconut water as a natural, cell-free ‘protein production factory’. Coconut water in nuts aged 4-6 months is composed of free-floating cell nuclei devoid of cell walls, and it has been demonstrated these nuclei can express foreign proteins. Compared to existing platforms, the relative ease of delivering foreign protein-coding genes into this system, as well as the ease of recovery of the produced protein, potentially offers an innovative platform with great commercial attractiveness. In summary, the aim of this project is to provide a proof-of-concept for coconut water as a novel and competitive RP production platform by demonstrating the production and recovery of several commercially available RPs. To this end, GLO Biotics intends to collaborate with Zuyd University of Applied Sciences (Zuyd) and the Aachen Maastricht Institute for Biobased Materials (AMIBM) in demonstrating the potential of the ‘GLO-Conuts’ expression system. As a consortium, Zuyd and GLO Biotics will utilize their shared experience in molecular engineering and DNA vector technology and AMIBM will bring their expertise in plant-based RP production and recovery.
This project has received funding from the Bio-based Industries Joint Undertaking under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 720726LIBBIO is a European research project on Andes Lupin (Lupinus mutabilis, tarwi) cropping in marginal lands for enhanced bio economy. Lupin has the ability to fix nitrogen, mobilise soil phosphate and has low nutritional requirements for cultivation. Varieties will be chosen that give high yield of green silage or high yield of seeds which contain more than 20% oil, more than 40% protein and the remaining materials are carbohydrates, mainly oligosaccharides characterized as “prebiotics”. Andes lupin will be grown as a summer crop in N-central Europe and as winter crop in Mediterranean conditions. Pre-industrial processing is developed and optimized for the lupin, properties of the different fractions analysed, their advantage for different industrial use evaluated, and a few products developed as an example. Social and environmental impact will be evaluated as well as techno-economic viability and effect on farm and biorefinery income.This project has received funding from the Bio-based Industries Joint Undertaking under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 720726
