Validating the INFOGEST Digestion Model: A Comprehensive Guide for Biomedical Research and Drug Development

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the validation and application of the INFOGEST standardized in vitro digestion model, a critical tool for researchers and drug development professionals. It explores the foundational principles and historical development of the protocol, details its methodological implementation for assessing nutrient and drug bioaccessibility, and addresses common troubleshooting and optimization challenges. Furthermore, it presents a critical evaluation of the model's validation through interlaboratory studies and comparisons with dynamic systems and in vivo data, offering insights into its reliability and limitations for predicting gastrointestinal behavior in pharmaceutical and nutritional sciences.

The INFOGEST Initiative: Establishing a Global Standard for In Vitro Digestion

Before the establishment of the INFOGEST protocol, the field of in vitro digestion research was characterized by significant methodological fragmentation. Researchers employed a wide range of different conditions that often had little physiological relevance, impeding the meaningful comparison of results across laboratories and studies [1]. This lack of standardization presented a substantial challenge for scientists seeking to understand the fundamental processes of food digestion, nutrient bioaccessibility, and the performance of pharmaceutical compounds. The variability in experimental parameters—including enzyme sources and activities, pH conditions, digestion times, and electrolyte compositions—meant that results from one laboratory were often not directly comparable to those from another, slowing scientific progress in understanding digestion mechanisms [2].

The COST INFOGEST network emerged to address this critical gap in harmonization, bringing together scientists from over 45 countries to develop an international consensus on static in vitro digestion methodology [3]. This collaboration recognized that without standardized protocols, the research community could not reliably build upon previous findings or translate in vitro results to physiological outcomes. The resulting INFOGEST protocol was designed to be used with standard laboratory equipment and requires limited experience, encouraging widespread adoption across the research community [1]. This review examines the methodological variability that existed prior to INFOGEST implementation and documents the substantial improvements in reproducibility and physiological relevance achieved through standardization.

Methodological Variability: The Pre-INFOGEST Challenge

Prior to harmonization, in vitro digestion studies exhibited substantial diversity in nearly every experimental parameter. Three key areas contributed most significantly to inter-laboratory variability:

• Enzyme Activity Determination: The largest deviations arose from how pepsin activity was determined and standardized across laboratories [2]. Without consensus on measurement protocols, the same nominal enzyme preparation could yield dramatically different digestive outcomes depending on the specific activity measurement method employed. This fundamental variability in the primary digestive agent made cross-study comparisons particularly challenging.

• Digestion Phase Parameters: Laboratories employed different durations for each digestion phase, varying pH values throughout the process, and inconsistent agitation methods [4]. Some protocols omitted certain phases entirely, with the oral phase being the most frequently excluded, while the intestinal phase exhibited the greatest diversity in experimental approaches [4].

• Enzyme Sources and Concentrations: Research studies utilized different enzyme sources (various animal species, microbial sources) and employed them at non-standardized concentrations and activities [4]. This variability extended beyond primary digestive enzymes to include ancillary enzymes that participate in the digestion of specific nutrient components.

Documented Impacts on Research Outcomes

The methodological variability in pre-INFOGEST research manifested in several significant challenges for the scientific community:

• Limited Comparability: Results from different laboratories could not be meaningfully compared or combined for meta-analysis, as the differences in methodology often overshadowed the biological effects being studied [1] [2].

• Reduced Physiological Relevance: Many protocols were based on fasting conditions rather than the more physiologically relevant postprandial state, limiting their applicability to real-world digestion scenarios [4].

• Incomplete Carbohydrate Digestion: Many published protocols focused primarily on starch hydrolysis by pancreatic α-amylase without accounting for other enzymes necessary for complete carbohydrate digestion, such as those needed to hydrolyze sucrose, lactose, and trehalose [4].

Table 1: Examples of Methodological Variability in Pre-INFOGEST Digestion Studies

Experimental Parameter	Range of Variability	Impact on Research Outcomes
Enzyme activity measurement	Single-point vs. multi-point assays; Different temperatures (20°C vs. 37°C)	Up to 87% coefficient of variation in interlaboratory comparisons [5]
Gastric phase duration	30 minutes to 4 hours	Differential protein hydrolysis and peptide release profiles
pH conditions	Fasting vs. postprandial simulations	Altered enzyme activities and nutrient solubility
Enzyme complements	Variable enzyme cocktails; Omission of specific activities	Incomplete nutrient hydrolysis, particularly for carbohydrates [4]

The INFOGEST Solution: A Standardized Static Digestion Protocol

Protocol Harmonization and Implementation

The harmonized INFOGEST static in vitro digestion method emerged from international collaboration to address the methodological challenges plaguing digestion research. The protocol is structured around three sequential phases that simulate the upper gastrointestinal tract:

• Oral Phase: Food samples are combined with simulated salivary fluid (SSF) containing α-amylase at pH 7 for 2 minutes at 37°C [3]. This phase incorporates electrolyte concentrations based on available physiological data and includes calcium to maintain enzyme activity.

• Gastric Phase: Immediately following the oral phase, simulated gastric fluid (SGF) containing pepsin is added at pH 3.0, with incubation for 2 hours at 37°C [3]. The protocol specifies a constant ratio of meal to digestive fluids throughout the process.

• Intestinal Phase: The digestion proceeds with the addition of simulated intestinal fluid (SIF) containing pancreatin and bile salts at pH 7.0 for 2 hours at 37°C [3]. This phase completes the simulation of upper gastrointestinal tract digestion.

The entire protocol can be completed in approximately 7 days, including about 5 days required for the determination of enzyme activities [1]. The method is intentionally designed to be accessible, requiring only standard laboratory equipment to encourage broad adoption across the research community.

Diagram 1: INFOGEST Static Digestion Workflow. The standardized protocol progresses through three sequential phases simulating the upper gastrointestinal tract.

Key Methodological Improvements

The INFOGEST protocol introduced several critical improvements that directly addressed the variability challenges of pre-standardization research:

• Enzyme Activity Standardization: Rather than specifying enzyme concentrations, the protocol defines target activities for each digestive phase, significantly improving consistency across laboratories [2]. This approach accounts for variations in specific activity between different enzyme preparations.

• Physiologically Relevant Conditions: All parameters, including electrolytes, enzymes, bile, dilution factors, pH, and digestion times, are based on available physiological data [1]. This enhances the biological relevance of the in vitro results compared to many earlier methods.

• Comprehensive Phase Inclusion: Unlike many previous protocols that omitted certain phases, the INFOGEST method includes oral, gastric, and intestinal phases as standard, recognizing the importance of each stage in the overall digestive process [1].

• Updated Protocol Refinements: The method has been refined through interlaboratory validation, with INFOGEST 2.0 addressing challenges associated with the original method, such as the inclusion of the oral phase and the use of gastric lipase [1].

Table 2: Key Methodological Improvements in INFOGEST Protocol

Pre-INFOGEST Challenge	INFOGEST Solution	Impact on Research Quality
Variable enzyme activity measurements	Standardized assays for α-amylase, pepsin, and other enzymes	4-fold improvement in reproducibility (CV reduced from 87% to 21%) [5]
Inconsistent pH conditions	Defined pH for each phase based on physiological data	Improved physiological relevance and enzyme performance
Omission of digestive phases	Mandatory oral, gastric, and intestinal phases	More complete simulation of gastrointestinal processes
Variable electrolyte compositions	Standardized simulated fluids (SSF, SGF, SIF)	Consistent ionic environment supporting enzyme function

Validation and Impact: Assessing the INFOGEST Protocol

Inter-laboratory Validation Studies

The effectiveness of the INFOGEST protocol in addressing methodological variability has been demonstrated through extensive inter-laboratory validation. These studies have quantified the improvements in reproducibility and reliability:

• Protein Hydrolysis Consistency: In an inter-laboratory trial using skim milk powder as a model food, analysis of hydrolyzed proteins after gastric and intestinal phases showed consistent patterns across laboratories. Caseins were predominantly hydrolyzed during the gastric phase, while β-lactoglobulin demonstrated its known resistance to pepsin [2].

• Free Amino Acid Generation: The validation studies confirmed that generation of free amino acids occurs mainly during the intestinal phase, with consistent patterns observed across participating laboratories [2].

• α-Amylase Activity Measurement: A recent interlaboratory study with 13 laboratories across 12 countries demonstrated dramatically improved precision with the optimized INFOGEST protocol. Reproducibility coefficients of variation ranged from 16% to 21%, representing up to a four-fold improvement compared to the original method [5].

Application in Nutrient Bioaccessibility Research

The implementation of the INFOGEST protocol has enabled more reliable assessment of nutrient digestibility and bioaccessibility across diverse food matrices:

• Protein Quality Evaluation: Researchers have successfully applied the INFOGEST protocol to determine the digestibility of various sustainable protein concentrates. The method enabled calculation of in vitro digestible indispensable amino acid scores (IVDIAAS), revealing that whey, potato, blood plasma and yeast protein concentrates have high IVDIAAS (119-97.2), followed by lesser meal worm and pea proteins (73.8-57.8), with corn protein concentrate having the lowest score due to lysine deficiency [6].

• Food Matrix Effects: Recent research has demonstrated how the INFOGEST protocol can reveal the impact of food structure and composition on protein digestibility. Studies show that high-moisture foods like plant-based milk achieve higher protein digestibility (approximately 83%) compared to low-moisture foods like breadsticks (approximately 69%), highlighting the importance of food formulation in nutrient bioavailability [7].

• Carbohydrate Digestion: While the INFOGEST protocol provides a solid foundation for carbohydrate digestion studies, researchers have noted that it primarily focuses on starch hydrolysis by pancreatic α-amylase. Some studies have combined the INFOGEST method with additional enzymatic approaches (such as rat small intestinal extract) to more comprehensively analyze the digestion of various carbohydrates [4].

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Successful implementation of the INFOGEST protocol requires careful attention to reagent preparation and quality. The following key research reagents are essential for obtaining reproducible results:

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for INFOGEST Protocol Implementation

Reagent Solution	Composition & Preparation	Function in Digestion Simulation
Simulated Salivary Fluid (SSF)	Electrolyte solution (KCl, KH₂PO₄, NaHCO₃, NaCl, MgCl₂, (NH₄)₂CO₃) with α-amylase	Initiates starch hydrolysis; provides oral phase enzymatic activity [1]
Simulated Gastric Fluid (SGF)	Electrolyte solution (NaCl, KCl, KH₂PO₄, CaCl₂, NH₄Cl) with pepsin	Protein hydrolysis in acidic environment; simulates gastric digestion [1]
Simulated Intestinal Fluid (SIF)	Electrolyte solution (KCl, KH₂PO₄, NaHCO₃, NaCl, MgCl₂) with pancreatin and bile salts	Completes nutrient hydrolysis; simulates intestinal environment [1]
Enzyme Solutions	Porcine pepsin, pancreatin, and α-amylase standardized by activity rather than concentration	Ensure consistent digestive capacity across experiments [5]
Calcium Chloride Solution	Separate addition to maintain optimal enzyme activity	Essential cofactor for multiple digestive enzymes [1]

Diagram 2: INFOGEST Reagent Preparation Relationships. Key reagent solutions are prepared from standardized components to ensure physiological relevance and experimental reproducibility.

The implementation of the INFOGEST standardized protocol represents a significant advancement in the field of digestion research, effectively addressing the methodological variability that characterized the pre-INFOGEST era. Through international collaboration and rigorous validation, the protocol has provided researchers with a common framework that enhances the comparability, reliability, and physiological relevance of in vitro digestion studies. The documented improvements in inter-laboratory reproducibility, particularly for critical parameters like enzyme activity measurements, demonstrate the tangible benefits of this harmonized approach.

While the INFOGEST method has limitations—being a static model that does not simulate digestion kinetics—it provides an essential foundation upon which more complex dynamic models can be built. The protocol's accessibility, requiring only standard laboratory equipment, has encouraged widespread adoption across the research community, facilitating more meaningful comparisons between studies and accelerating progress in understanding digestive processes. As research continues to evolve, the INFOGEST protocol serves as a benchmark for methodological rigor in the field, enabling more reliable assessment of nutrient bioaccessibility, protein quality, and the functional properties of diverse food matrices.

Core Principles of the INFOGEST Static Digestion Protocol

The INFOGEST static in vitro digestion method represents an international consensus developed to standardize research simulating human gastrointestinal digestion [8]. This protocol was established by the COST Action INFOGEST network, comprising over 700 scientists from 200 institutes across 52 countries, to address the critical challenge of comparability in food digestion research [5] [2]. Before its development, the field was characterized by numerous different digestion models employing varying conditions, enzymes, pH values, and digestion times, which significantly impeded the meaningful comparison of results across different research teams [9] [10]. The harmonized INFOGEST protocol provides a standardized framework based on physiologically relevant conditions that can be applied for various research endpoints, enabling the production of more comparable and reliable data in food, nutritional, and pharmaceutical research [2] [9].

The methodology is designed as a static digestion model using constant ratios of meal to digestive fluids and fixed pH values for each digestion step, making it simple to implement with standard laboratory equipment while maintaining physiological relevance [8]. Although the static nature does not simulate digestion kinetics, the protocol offers a robust foundation for assessing digestion endpoints by analyzing resulting products such as peptides, amino acids, fatty acids, and simple sugars, as well as evaluating micronutrient bioaccessibility [8] [10]. The INFOGEST method has undergone continuous refinement, with the current version (INFOGEST 2.0) addressing challenges associated with the original method and incorporating updated physiological data [8].

Core Protocol Principles and Physiological Basis

The Three-Phase Digestion Framework

The INFOGEST protocol systematically simulates the upper gastrointestinal tract through three sequential phases—oral, gastric, and intestinal—each with carefully defined parameters based on available physiological data [9] [8]. The diagram below illustrates the complete experimental workflow.

Detailed Phase Conditions and Parameters

Table 1: INFOGEST Protocol Phase Parameters

Digestion Phase	Duration	pH	Key Enzymes	Enzyme Activity	Additional Components
Oral	2 minutes	7.0	α-amylase	150 U/mL [9]	Simulated Salivary Fluid (SSF) with specific ion composition [9]
Gastric	2 hours	3.0	Pepsin	2,000 U/mL [9]	Simulated Gastric Fluid (SGF), Phosphatidylcholine (0.17 mM) [9]
Intestinal	2 hours	7.0	Pancreatin, Bile salts	Varies by preparation	Simulated Intestinal Fluid (SIF), Bile extract [8]

The oral phase involves mixing the food sample with simulated salivary fluid (SSF) containing a specific ion composition and α-amylase at 150 units per mL of SSF [9]. For solid foods, mechanical processing is recommended using a mincer to simulate chewing, with a 1:1 (v/w) ratio of SSF to food and a contact time of 2 minutes at 37°C [9]. This phase focuses primarily on the initiation of starch digestion through α-amylase activity, though the short duration limits extensive hydrolysis.

In the gastric phase, the oral bolus is mixed with simulated gastric fluid (SGF) and pepsin at an activity of 2,000 U/mL of gastric contents [9]. The pH is maintained at 3.0 to represent a mean value for a general meal over a 2-hour period, reflecting gastric half-emptying time for a moderately nutritious semi-solid meal [9]. The protocol includes phosphatidylcholine (0.17 mM) in vesicular form to simulate gastric surfactants but omits gastric lipase due to challenges in sourcing affordable, physiologically relevant enzymes with correct pH and site specificity [9].

The intestinal phase utilizes simulated intestinal fluid (SIF) with pancreatin and bile extracts at pH 7.0 for 2 hours [8]. This phase represents the primary site for nutrient hydrolysis, with pancreatic enzymes (including proteases, lipases, and amylases) breaking down macronutrients into absorbable units. The specific activities of pancreatic enzymes can vary between preparations, though the protocol provides guidance for standardization.

Experimental Validation and Interlaboratory Testing

Protocol Performance Assessment

The INFOGEST method has undergone extensive interlaboratory validation to evaluate its repeatability (intra-laboratory precision) and reproducibility (inter-laboratory precision) [5] [2]. A recent ring trial involving 13 laboratories across 12 countries and 3 continents tested the optimized protocol for measuring α-amylase activity using human saliva and three porcine enzyme preparations [5]. The results demonstrated significantly improved reproducibility compared to previous methods, with interlaboratory coefficients of variation (CV) ranging from 16% to 21%—up to four times lower than the original method [5].

Table 2: Interlaboratory Validation Results for α-Amylase Activity Assay

Test Material	Mean Activity	Standard Deviation	Interlaboratory CV	Repeatability CV
Human Saliva	877.4 U/mL	± 142.7	16.3%	8-13% [5]
Porcine Pancreatin	206.5 U/mg	± 33.8	16.4%	8-13% [5]
α-Amylase M	389.0 U/mg	± 58.9	15.1%	8-13% [5]
α-Amylase S	22.3 U/mg	± 4.8	21.5%	8-13% [5]

The validation study also investigated the impact of temperature on enzymatic activity, finding that α-amylase activity increased by approximately 3.3-fold (± 0.3) when the incubation temperature was raised from 20°C to 37°C [5]. This highlights the importance of temperature control in obtaining physiologically relevant results and demonstrates how specific protocol optimizations can significantly enhance assay performance.

Comparison with Alternative Digestion Models

Table 3: Protocol Comparison in Gastric Digestion of Cooked Couscous

Digestion Protocol	Gastric Emptying Half-Time	Particle Size	Key Differentiating Factors
INFOGEST Riddet	Moderate	Moderate particles	NaHCO₃ provides additional buffering [11]
INFOGEST Semi-dynamic	Moderate	Moderate particles	NaHCO₃ buffering, semi-dynamic secretion [11]
UC Davis	Shorter	Smaller particles	Mucin inclusion increases viscoelastic properties [11]
USP	Longest	Largest particles	High dilution factor delays emptying [11]

A comparative study using the Human Gastric Simulator (HGS) to digest cooked couscous demonstrated how variations in simulated gastric fluids across different protocols significantly impact digestion outcomes [11]. The presence of NaHCO₃ in both INFOGEST protocols provided an additional buffering effect, resulting in higher digesta pH during gastric digestion compared to other methods [11]. The inclusion of mucin in the UC Davis protocol increased flow and viscoelastic properties of emptied digesta, while the United States Pharmacopeia (USP) protocol's high dilution factor resulted in larger particles and the longest gastric emptying half-time [11].

Research Applications and Protocol Adaptations

Implementation Across Food Matrices

The INFOGEST protocol has been successfully applied to study the digestion of diverse food matrices, including plant-based proteins, animal proteins, dairy products, and emulsion-based foods [12] [10]. A systematic review of in vitro protein digestion studies found that 65% of eligible studies adopted the INFOGEST harmonized static model, establishing it as the most effective method for simulating gastrointestinal protein processes in humans [12]. The protocol's flexibility allows researchers to address specific questions while maintaining core physiological conditions, making it suitable for investigating bioaccessibility of bioactive compounds, nutrient release kinetics, and structural changes during digestion.

For challenging matrices like oleogels (solid fats rich in liquid oil), researchers have identified necessary modifications to the standard INFOGEST protocol to achieve reliable lipolysis results [13]. Studies have shown that oleogel amount and applied shear are critical factors influencing the rate and extent of digestion [13]. Ethylcellulose oleogels follow an "interaction with enzymes and bile salts" digestion pattern, while wax oleogels undergo "disintegration of oleogel and interaction with enzymes and bile salts" [13]. These findings demonstrate how the INFOGEST framework can be adapted while maintaining standardized conditions for comparability.

Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 4: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for INFOGEST Protocol

Reagent Solution	Composition	Function in Protocol
Simulated Salivary Fluid (SSF)	Specific ion composition (pH 7.0) [9]	Provides physiological ionic environment for oral phase
α-Amylase Solution	1,500 U/mL in SSF [9]	Initiates starch hydrolysis in oral phase
Simulated Gastric Fluid (SGF)	Specific ion composition (pH 3.0) [9]	Creates acidic gastric environment
Pepsin Solution	20,000 U/mL in SGF [9]	Primary proteolytic enzyme for gastric phase
Phosphatidylcholine	0.17 mM in vesicular form [9]	Simulates gastric surfactants
Simulated Intestinal Fluid (SIF)	Specific ion composition (pH 7.0) [8]	Provides intestinal ionic environment
Pancreatin Solution	Varies by supplier [8]	Source of pancreatic enzymes for intestinal phase
Bile Extract	Varies by supplier [8]	Emulsifies lipids and facilitates lipolysis

The INFOGEST static in vitro digestion protocol represents a significant advancement in harmonizing digestion research across laboratories worldwide. Through international collaboration and rigorous validation, the method provides physiologically relevant conditions that enable meaningful comparison of results across different studies and research teams [2] [8]. The core principles of fixed pH, standardized enzyme activities, physiological digestion times, and defined fluid compositions create a robust framework that can be adapted to various research needs while maintaining comparability.

Continued refinement of the protocol, as demonstrated by the optimized α-amylase activity assay [5], ensures that the method evolves with advancing scientific understanding. While the static nature of the protocol presents limitations for simulating digestion kinetics, its reproducibility, simplicity, and physiological basis make it invaluable for mechanistic investigations and hypothesis testing [10]. As research progresses, the INFOGEST framework serves as a foundation for developing more complex dynamic models and population-specific adaptations to address diverse research questions in food science, nutrition, and pharmaceutical development.

The INFOGEST static in vitro simulation of gastrointestinal food digestion represents a critical consensus methodology developed by an international network of scientists to harmonize research on food digestion. This protocol was established to address the significant challenge of non-comparable and often inconsistent results produced by the variety of in vitro digestion protocols previously used across laboratories [14]. By creating a standardized framework that carefully controls key physiological parameters—including pH levels, enzyme activities, and digestion times—the INFOGEST protocol enables enhanced comparability and reproducibility of results across studies, thereby advancing the field's understanding of digestive processes [15] [10]. The methodology has gained widespread adoption, with the foundational protocol paper accumulating thousands of citations, reflecting its importance as a gold standard in digestion research [16].

This harmonized approach is particularly valuable for evaluating the digestive fate of various food matrices, nutrients, and bioactive compounds, providing researchers with a reliable tool to assess bioaccessibility—defined as the proportion of a nutrient that becomes chemically and physically available for absorption by the small intestine [15]. The protocol's physiological relevance has been demonstrated through comparisons with in vivo pig digestion, confirming its validity for modeling human digestive processes [16]. As the scientific community continues to investigate the complex relationships between diet, digestion, and health, the INFOGEST protocol serves as an essential foundation for generating consistent, comparable data across diverse research applications in nutrition, food science, and pharmaceutical development.

Core Physiological Parameters in the INFOGEST Protocol

Comparative Table of Key Simulated Parameters Across Digestive Phases

The INFOGEST protocol systematically replicates human digestion through three sequential phases, each with carefully defined physiological conditions based on available human data [15] [17]. The table below summarizes the critical parameters maintained during each digestive phase:

Digestive Phase	pH Range	Key Enzymes	Enzyme Activities	Duration	Temperature
Oral Phase	5.0-7.0 [15]	Human Salivary α-Amylase (HSA) [18]	-	2-5 minutes [15]	37°C [14]
Gastric Phase	3.0 (standard); 3.7 (aging model) [16]	Porcine Pepsin [16]	2000 U/mL (standard); 40% reduced (aging) [16]	2 hours (standard); 3 hours (aging) [16]	37°C [14]
Intestinal Phase	7.0 [14]	Pancreatin (mixture of trypsin, chymotrypsin, pancreatic α-amylase, lipase) [14]	Trypsin: 100 U/mL, Chymotrypsin: 25 U/mL, Amylase: 200 U/mL, Lipase: 177 U/mL [14]	2 hours [17]	37°C [14]

Detailed Parameter Specifications and Physiological Basis

The oral phase begins with a short duration of 2-5 minutes, reflecting typical transit time in the mouth, where food is mixed with saliva and salivary α-amylase initiates starch hydrolysis [15]. The pH during this phase ranges from 5.0 to 7.0, mimicking the natural pH of human saliva [15]. A critical consideration in this phase is the enzyme selection, as studies have demonstrated that porcine pancreatic amylase (PPA) shows unintended proteolytic activity that may overestimate protein digestibility, confirming human salivary α-amylase (HSA) as the preferred enzyme for physiologically accurate simulations [18].

The gastric phase represents a period of significant enzymatic activity with pepsin mediating protein hydrolysis under acidic conditions [15]. The standard protocol maintains a pH of 3.0 for 2 hours, though adaptations have been developed to model digestive senescence in older adults by increasing the starting gastric pH to 3.7, reducing pepsin concentration by 40%, and extending the gastric phase to 3 hours [16]. These modifications reflect physiological observations of age-related digestive changes, including reduced gastric acidity and pepsin output [16]. The temperature is consistently maintained at 37°C throughout to simulate human body conditions [14].

During the intestinal phase, the pH increases to 7.0 to reflect the neutral environment of the small intestine [14]. A complex mixture of pancreatic enzymes is introduced, with specific activity levels defined for trypsin, chymotrypsin, amylase, and lipase [14]. Bile salts are added at a final concentration of 10 mM to facilitate lipid emulsification [14]. This phase extends for 2 hours, allowing for comprehensive nutrient hydrolysis before absorption [17].

Experimental Methodology for Protocol Implementation

Standard Workflow for INFOGEST Digestion Simulation

The following diagram illustrates the sequential workflow and key parameter adjustments in the standardized INFOGEST static digestion protocol:

Detailed Experimental Procedures

Sample Preparation and Oral Phase Initiation: Experimental foods are typically prepared to simulate human mastication, with solid foods minced to particle sizes of 2-3 mm using appropriate laboratory equipment [16]. The oral phase begins with the addition of simulated salivary fluid (SSF) containing electrolytes to maintain physiological ion concentrations [14]. For starch-containing foods, human salivary α-amylase is added to initiate carbohydrate hydrolysis during this brief phase, though this step may be omitted for starch-free substrates [18].

Gastric Digestion Conditions: The transition to the gastric phase involves adding simulated gastric fluid (SGF) and porcine pepsin at standardized activity levels [14] [16]. The pH is carefully adjusted to 3.0 using hydrochloric acid, with continuous monitoring to maintain consistency [14]. In aging-adapted protocols, the initial gastric pH is set higher at 3.7, pepsin concentration is reduced by 40%, and the incubation time is extended to 3 hours to reflect observed physiological changes in older adults [16]. The mixture is incubated at 37°C with constant agitation to simulate gastric mixing [14].

Intestinal Digestion Conditions: Following gastric digestion, the intestinal phase is initiated by raising the pH to 7.0 using sodium hydroxide and adding simulated intestinal fluid (SIF) containing bile salts at a final concentration of 10 mM [14]. Pancreatic enzymes are added as a mixture containing trypsin, chymotrypsin, amylase, and lipase at precisely defined activity levels [14]. This phase continues for 2 hours at 37°C with appropriate agitation to simulate intestinal mixing [17].

Sampling and Analytical Endpoints: Throughout the digestion process, samples may be collected at predetermined time points to evaluate digestion kinetics [14]. At the end of the intestinal phase, enzyme activity is terminated using specific inhibitors (e.g., 4-bromophenylboronic acid for lipase) or heat inactivation [14]. The resulting digesta are then analyzed for various bioaccessibility endpoints, including protein hydrolysis (measured by free amino nitrogen, free amino acids, and peptide distribution profiles), lipid digestion (quantified as released fatty acids and glycerol), and carbohydrate breakdown (measured as maltose and glucose liberation) [16].

Validation and Reproducibility Data

Interlaboratory Validation Studies

The INFOGEST network has conducted comprehensive interlaboratory validation studies to evaluate the reproducibility and reliability of the protocol across different research settings. A significant ring trial involving 13 laboratories across 12 countries tested a newly optimized protocol for measuring α-amylase activity, demonstrating markedly improved reproducibility compared to previous methods [5]. The study reported interlaboratory coefficients of variation (CVR) ranging from 16% to 21% for various enzyme preparations, representing up to a four-fold improvement over the original method which showed CVR values as high as 87% [5]. This enhanced precision facilitates more confident comparisons of results across different studies and laboratories.

Further validation has been performed through comparisons between manual and automated implementations of the INFOGEST protocol. Studies utilizing the BioXplorer 100 automated system demonstrated no significant differences in protein and lipid digestion outcomes compared to manual tube methods, confirming that automated systems can effectively replicate standardized digestion simulations while reducing potential human error [14]. Specifically, protein hydrolysis measurements from a nutritional drink (Ensure Plus Vanilla) showed comparable results between manual and automated methods, with approximately 12% of protein made available by the end of the gastric phase and 44-51% at the end of the intestinal phase [14]. Lipolysis proceeded more rapidly, reaching over 60% within 5 minutes of pancreatic lipase addition in both methodologies [14].

Application-Specific Protocol Adaptations

The robustness of the INFOGEST protocol has been demonstrated through its successful adaptation to various research applications while maintaining core physiological parameters. In studies investigating oleogel digestion, researchers have identified the need for minimal but fundamental modifications to accommodate the high lipid content of these matrices while avoiding under- or overestimation of lipolysis [13]. Similarly, research on plant-based protein digestibility has utilized the standard INFOGEST parameters to reveal significant differences in protein breakdown based on food matrix characteristics, with high-moisture foods (plant-based milk and pudding) achieving digestibility scores of approximately 81-83%, compared to medium-moisture (burger, ~71%) and low-moisture (breadstick, ~69%) formulations [7].

The protocol has also been validated for studying digestive compensation strategies, such as microbial enzyme supplementation for age-related digestive decline. Using the aging-adapted INFOGEST parameters, researchers demonstrated that a mixture of six microbial enzyme preparations significantly enhanced nutrient bioaccessibility compared to pepsin alone in modeled aging conditions, with improvements of 77.1% for free amino nitrogen, 100.4% for essential amino acids, and 142.1% for maltose liberation [16]. These findings showcase the protocol's utility for evaluating interventions targeting compromised digestive function.

Research Implementation Tools

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Successful implementation of the INFOGEST protocol requires careful preparation of standardized solutions and reagents. The following table details the essential research reagent solutions and their specific functions in digestion simulations:

Reagent Solution	Composition	Function in Digestion Simulation	Key Considerations
Simulated Salivary Fluid (SSF)	Electrolytes including K⁺, Na⁺, Ca²⁺, Cl⁻ [14]	Provides appropriate ionic environment for oral phase; maintains enzyme activity	May be supplemented with human salivary α-amylase for starch digestion [18]
Simulated Gastric Fluid (SGF)	Electrolytes including K⁺, Na⁺, Ca²⁺, Cl⁻; HCl for pH adjustment [14]	Creates acidic environment for gastric digestion; activates pepsin	pH carefully adjusted to 3.0 (standard) or 3.7 (aging model) [16]
Simulated Intestinal Fluid (SIF)	Electrolytes including K⁺, Na⁺, Ca²⁺, Cl⁻; bile salts [14]	Neutralizes gastric acidity; provides bile for lipid emulsification	Final bile concentration of 10 mM in intestinal phase [14]
Porcine Pepsin Solution	Purified porcine gastric mucosa enzyme [16]	Primary protease for gastric protein hydrolysis	Activity standardized to 2000 U/mL (standard) or reduced for aging models [16]
Pancreatin Enzyme Mixture	Combination of trypsin, chymotrypsin, amylase, lipase [14]	Comprehensive nutrient hydrolysis in intestinal phase	Specific activities defined: trypsin (100 U/mL), chymotrypsin (25 U/mL), amylase (200 U/mL), lipase (177 U/mL) [14]
Calcium Chloride Solution	0.3 M CaCl₂ [14]	Cofactor for enzyme activation and stability	Added separately to prevent precipitation in stock solutions [14]

Instrumentation and Automation Platforms

The implementation of INFOGEST protocols can be enhanced through various instrumentation platforms that improve reproducibility and reduce manual handling errors. Automated systems such as the BioXplorer 100 provide multireactor capabilities with individual control of temperature, agitation, and fluid additions through connected pumps [14]. These systems maintain critical parameters with high precision, typically with accuracy of ±0.1°C for temperature and ±0.2 pH points, while enabling continuous monitoring and correction throughout the digestion process [17].

For researchers requiring dynamic elements while maintaining the core INFOGEST parameters, semi-dynamic systems offer a middle ground between static models and fully dynamic simulators. The digestion-chip described in recent literature incorporates key dynamic features such as gradual acidification, gradual addition of enzymes and simulated fluids in the gastric phase, and controlled gastric emptying, while using small volumes of samples and reagents [17]. These miniaturized systems maintain the standardized pH, enzyme, and timing parameters of the INFOGEST protocol while adding controlled dynamics for more physiologically relevant digestion kinetics.

The INFOGEST network represents a landmark international consortium aimed at transforming the study of food digestion through methodological standardization. Established as a COST Action from 2011-2015, INFOGEST has evolved into a sustained research network with the primary objective of "improving health properties of food by sharing the knowledge on the digestive process" [19]. This initiative directly addresses a critical challenge in food and nutritional sciences: the proliferation of incompatible in vitro digestion protocols employing widely varying experimental conditions that prevented meaningful comparison of research findings across laboratories [8] [2]. The network has achieved unprecedented scientific coordination, currently gathering more than 715 scientists from 200 institutes across 56 countries worldwide, including representation from Europe, North America, South America, and Oceania [19].

The cornerstone achievement of this consortium is the development, validation, and dissemination of a harmonized static in vitro simulation of gastrointestinal food digestion – commonly referred to as the INFOGEST protocol [8]. This standardized methodology provides the scientific community with a physiologically relevant framework to simulate human digestion under controlled laboratory conditions, enabling reproducible assessment of how food structures and components break down during digestion and how nutrients are released from the food matrix [20]. The protocol's development through international consensus ensures that parameters including electrolytes, enzymes, bile salts, dilution factors, pH, and digestion timing are aligned with available physiological data, finally enabling cross-study comparisons and collaborative advancement in digestion science [8] [2].

Methodological Framework: The INFOGEST Protocol

Core Protocol Design and Evolution

The INFOGEST method is a static digestion model that simulates the sequential phases of human gastrointestinal processing – oral, gastric, and intestinal – using constant ratios of food to digestive fluids and maintained pH conditions for each digestive phase [8] [20]. This design prioritizes experimental simplicity and reproducibility while acknowledging limitations in simulating digestion kinetics. The protocol, often called INFOGEST 2.0, incorporates amendments and improvements over earlier versions, including refined handling of the oral phase and gastric lipase application [8]. The complete procedure requires approximately seven days to implement, including five days necessary for the critical preliminary step of determining enzyme activities to ensure standardized catalytic efficacy across experiments [8].

The experimental workflow follows a defined sequence: oral processing with simulated saliva, gastric digestion with pepsin at acidic pH, and intestinal digestion with pancreatin and bile salts at neutral pH [12] [21]. This systematic approach generates samples that can be analyzed for digestion products including peptides/amino acids, fatty acids, simple sugars, and micronutrients released from the food matrix [8] [20]. The resulting digesta can subsequently serve as input for further investigations including bioavailability assays, cellular uptake studies, or simulated colonic fermentation [20].

Key Research Applications and Workflow

The INFOGEST protocol enables diverse research applications in food science and nutrition:

• Assessment of macronutrient breakdown into fundamental building blocks (peptides/amino acids, fatty acids, monosaccharides/disaccharides) [20]
• Evaluation of micronutrient bioaccessibility from various food matrices [21]
• Pre-screening for in vivo trials to prioritize promising formulations or ingredients [20]
• Study of food structure-digestion relationships across different processing conditions and formulations [7]

The following workflow diagram illustrates the standard INFOGEST experimental procedure:

Experimental Validation: Comparative Performance Data

Validation Against In Vivo Digestion

A critical validation study established the physiological comparability of the harmonized INFOGEST method to in vivo pig digestion, providing essential evidence for its biological relevance [22]. This comprehensive investigation compared protein hydrolysis from skim milk powder at multiple analytical levels using gel electrophoresis, mass spectrometry, HPLC, and free amino acid quantification. The research demonstrated remarkable consistency between in vitro and in vivo digestion endpoints, with principal component analysis revealing strong correlations in peptide patterns between systems [22].

Key validation findings include:

• Milk protein behavior after gastric in vitro digestion corresponded to gastric and duodenal in vivo samples
• Peptide identification after gastric in vitro digestion correlated strongly with in vivo gastric samples (r = 0.8)
• Intestinal in vitro digestion samples corresponded to distal jejunal in vivo samples
• Free amino acid release occurred predominantly during the intestinal phase in both systems
• Lactoglobulin resistance to gastric digestion was consistently observed in both systems [22]

This validation confirmed that the harmonized static in vitro protocol effectively simulates protein hydrolysis at gastric and intestinal endpoints, supporting its physiological relevance for studying food digestion [22].

Comparative Assessment Against Alternative Methods

A systematic review evaluating experimental models for simulating human protein digestion identified INFOGEST as the most effective and widely adopted approach [12]. This comprehensive analysis of 20 eligible in vitro studies found that 65% utilized the INFOGEST harmonized static model, establishing it as the predominant methodology in the field [12]. The review concluded that "INFOGEST is the most effective model for simulating gastrointestinal protein processes in humans" and highlighted its capacity to "describe experimental conditions close to the human physiological situation" [12].

The table below summarizes the comparative performance of INFOGEST against previous in vitro digestion approaches:

Table 1: Comparative Performance of INFOGEST Versus Previous Methodologies

Parameter	Pre-INFOGEST Methods	INFOGEST Harmonized Protocol	Experimental Evidence
Inter-laboratory reproducibility	Low consistency between laboratories	High consistency across laboratories	Inter-laboratory trials showed improved harmonization [2]
Physiological relevance	Variable and often poorly justified	High correlation with in vivo digestion (pig model)	Peptide patterns correlated with in vivo samples (r = 0.8) [22]
Protein digestion assessment	Inconsistent protein hydrolysis	Standardized breakdown profiles	Caseins hydrolyzed during gastric phase; β-lactoglobulin resistant to pepsin [2]
Enzyme activity standardization	Highly variable	Pepsin activity critically controlled	pH stabilization improved activity determination [2]
Adoption in research community	Fragmented approaches	65% adoption in protein digestion studies	Systematic review of 20 studies [12]

Application-Specific Validation Studies

The robustness of the INFOGEST method has been demonstrated across diverse food matrices and research applications. A recent investigation applied the protocol to evaluate protein digestibility in plant-based foods with varying moisture content, finding that high-moisture foods achieved superior protein digestibility (83% for plant-based milk, 81% for pudding) compared to medium-moisture (71% for burger) and low-moisture formulations (69% for breadstick) [7]. This study highlighted the importance of food formulation and processing on protein digestibility, emphasizing "the significance of macro- and micronutrient interactions in defining the nutritional quality of a food product" [7].

Another application assessed the bioaccessibility of phenolic compounds from Galician extra-virgin olive oil during in vitro digestion, revealing extensive hydrolysis of secoiridoids during gastric digestion and differential partitioning of phenolic families between aqueous and oily phases [21]. This research demonstrated the method's utility for tracking complex phytochemical transformations throughout gastrointestinal transit, providing insights into potential bioavailability of bioactive compounds [21].

Research Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

The standardized INFOGEST protocol requires specific research reagents and materials to ensure physiological relevance and inter-laboratory reproducibility. The following table details the essential components of the simulated digestive fluids:

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for INFOGEST Protocol Implementation

Reagent Category	Specific Components	Physiological Function	Experimental Application
Enzymes	Porcine pepsin, pancreatin, gastric extract	Macromolecular digestion	Protein hydrolysis (pepsin), lipid and carbohydrate digestion (pancreatin) [8] [21]
Salts and Electrolytes	KCl, KH₂PO₄, NaHCO₃, NaCl, MgCl₂, (NH₄)₂CO₃	Osmolarity and ion balance	Maintain physiological electrolyte concentrations in digestive fluids [8] [21]
Bile Salts	Porcine bile extract	Lipid emulsification	Critical for lipid digestion and micelle formation [8] [21]
pH Adjustment	HCl, CaCl₂	Enzyme activity optimization	Maintain phase-specific pH (oral:7, gastric:3, intestinal:7) [8] [12]
Specialized Equipment	Dialysis membrane tubing (12-14 kDa MWCO)	Bioaccessible fraction separation	Simulates intestinal absorption barrier [21]

The INFOGEST network has fundamentally transformed the landscape of digestion science through the establishment and validation of a standardized in vitro digestion protocol. The method's demonstrated physiological relevance, proven inter-laboratory reproducibility, and widespread international adoption represent significant advancements over previous fragmented approaches. By enabling meaningful comparison of experimental results across research institutions and countries, the consortium has established a common language and methodological framework that accelerates progress in food digestion research [2] [12].

The continuing impact of INFOGEST is evident in its sustained international network activities, including regular conferences, training workshops, and PhD webinars that foster ongoing collaboration and methodological refinement [19] [23]. As the field advances, the foundational work of the INFOGEST consortium provides a robust platform for developing more sophisticated digestion models, including dynamic systems and age-specific adaptations, while maintaining the critical principles of physiological relevance and methodological standardization that have established INFOGEST as the gold standard in digestion science.

Implementing INFOGEST: Protocols and Applications in Nutrient and Drug Bioaccessibility

The INFOGEST static in vitro digestion method represents an international consensus protocol developed to harmonize research practices across laboratories. This standardized framework simulates human gastrointestinal digestion using physiologically relevant conditions for the oral, gastric, and intestinal phases. Before its establishment, the field was characterized by a wide variety of digestion models employing different pH values, enzyme activities, digestion times, and mineral compositions, which significantly impeded the comparison of results across research teams [9] [2]. The harmonized INFOGEST protocol addresses this critical need for reproducibility in studying food digestion, nutrient bioaccessibility, and pharmaceutical formulation performance [2] [15].

The method is designed as a static simulation, meaning it uses constant ratios of food to digestive fluids and fixed pH values for each digestion step rather than simulating real-time kinetics [8]. This deliberate simplification enhances protocol accessibility, enabling researchers with standard laboratory equipment to generate comparable data. The following sections provide a detailed step-by-step guide to implementing this protocol, supported by validation data and practical applications.

Phase-by-Phase Digestion Protocol

Oral Phase

The oral phase initiates the digestive process, focusing on the physical breakdown of solid foods and the initial enzymatic digestion of starch.

• Objective: To simulate the mechanical breakdown of food and its mixing with saliva, including the initial action of salivary α-amylase on starch [9].
• Preparation: Begin by preparing the Simulated Salivary Fluid (SSF). The electrolyte stock solution for SSF should contain key ions as specified in Table 1. Adjust the pH to 7.0 [9].
• Enzyme Addition: Add α-amylase (EC 3.2.1.1) to the SSF to achieve a final activity of 150 units per mL of SSF. One unit is defined as the amount of enzyme that liberates 1.0 mg of maltose from starch in 3 minutes at pH 6.9 and 20°C [9]. A 2025 interlaboratory study validated an optimized assay for α-amylase activity, recommending measurement at 37°C for improved precision [5].
• Procedure:
  • For solid foods, standardize physical breakdown using a kitchen mincer to achieve particles typically smaller than 2 mm, simulating chewing [9].
  • Combine 5 g of solid food or 5 mL of liquid food with 3.5 mL of SSF electrolyte stock solution.
  • Add 0.5 mL of salivary α-amylase solution (1,500 U/mL).
  • Add 25 μL of 0.3 M CaCl₂ and make up to a final volume of 10 mL with distilled water.
  • Mix thoroughly and incubate for 2 minutes at 37°C [9].

Gastric Phase

The gastric phase primarily targets the digestion of proteins and lipids in an acidic environment.

• Objective: To simulate the chemical environment of the stomach, where pepsin begins proteolysis under acidic conditions [9] [15].
• Preparation: Prepare the Simulated Gastric Fluid (SGF) with the ionic composition shown in Table 1.
• Enzyme Addition: Use porcine pepsin (EC 3.4.23.1) with a recommended activity of 2,000 U/mL of final gastric chyme. One unit produces a ΔA₂₈₀ of 0.001 per minute at pH 2.0 and 37°C using hemoglobin as a substrate [9]. Gastric lipase is not included in the standard protocol due to availability and cost constraints, but phosphatidylcholine (0.17 mM) can be added in vesicular form to simulate some gastric surface phenomena [9].
• Procedure:
  • Take the entire 10 mL sample from the oral phase (or an equivalent amount of food bolus) and mix it with 7.5 mL of SGF electrolyte stock solution.
  • Add 2.0 mL of porcine pepsin solution (20,000 U/mL made up in SGF stock).
  • Add 5 μL of 0.3 M CaCl₂.
  • Adjust the pH to 3.0 using 1 M HCl. This pH represents a physiologically relevant mean value for a general meal over 2 hours [9].
  • Make up to a final volume of 20 mL with distilled water.
  • Incubate for 2 hours at 37°C with continuous mixing via shaking or stirring [9].

Intestinal Phase

The intestinal phase completes the digestion of macronutrients, simulating the environment of the small intestine where the majority of nutrient absorption occurs.

• Objective: To simulate the neutral pH environment of the duodenum, where pancreatic enzymes (proteases, lipase, amylase) and bile salts finalize the breakdown of macronutrients into absorbable units [2] [8].
• Preparation: Prepare the Simulated Intestinal Fluid (SIF) with the ionic composition detailed in Table 1.
• Enzyme and Bile Addition:
  • Pancreatin Extract: This complex mixture provides the main intestinal digestive enzymes. The recommended activities per mL of final intestinal chyme are:
    • Trypsin: 100 TAME U/mL [24]
    • Chymotrypsin: 25 U/mL [24]
  • Bile Salts: Add bile extracts to a final concentration of 10 mM [8].
• Procedure:
  • Take the entire 20 mL gastric chyme and mix it with 11 mL of SIF electrolyte stock solution.
  • Add 5.0 mL of pancreatin solution (prepared to achieve the target enzyme activities in the final mixture).
  • 2.5 mL of fresh bile solution (160 mM concentration).
  • Add 40 μL of 0.3 M CaCl₂.
  • Adjust the pH to 7.0 using 1 M NaOH.
  • Make up to a final volume of 40 mL with distilled water.
  • Incubate for 2 hours at 37°C with continuous mixing [8].

Table 1: Composition of Simulated Digestive Fluids (Electrolyte Stock Solutions)

Electrolyte	Simulated Salivary Fluid (SSF)	Simulated Gastric Fluid (SGF)	Simulated Intestinal Fluid (SIF)
Key Ions	K⁺, Na⁺, Cl⁻, HCO₃⁻, PO₄³⁻ [9]	K⁺, Na⁺, Cl⁻, HCO₃⁻, PO₄³⁻ [9]	K⁺, Na⁺, Cl⁻, HCO₃⁻ [8]
Final pH	7.0 [9]	3.0 [9]	7.0 [8]

Experimental Validation of the INFOGEST Protocol

Interlaboratory Validation Studies

The robustness and reproducibility of the INFOGEST protocol have been rigorously tested through a series of interlaboratory trials. In an initial validation study, skim milk powder was used as a model food to compare in-house digestion protocols from different INFOGEST member laboratories [2]. The results demonstrated significant variability in protein hydrolysis outcomes when using non-harmonized methods, underscoring the need for a standardized approach.

A second interlaboratory study applied the harmonized INFOGEST protocol to analyze the digestion of milk proteins. The results showed consistent and predictable hydrolysis patterns: caseins were predominantly hydrolyzed during the gastric phase, while β-lactoglobulin, a whey protein, exhibited resistance to pepsin but was degraded in the intestinal phase [2]. The generation of free amino acids occurred primarily during the intestinal phase across all participating laboratories. This study identified the determination of pepsin activity as a critical step contributing to residual inter-laboratory variability. Consequently, the protocol was further clarified and refined, leading to improved consistency in a third interlaboratory trial [2].

More recently, a 2025 ring trial involving 13 laboratories across 12 countries validated an optimized protocol for measuring α-amylase activity, a key parameter for the oral phase. The new protocol, which uses four time-point measurements at 37°C instead of a single-point measurement at 20°C, dramatically improved reproducibility. The interlaboratory coefficients of variation (CVR) were reduced to 16-21%, up to four times lower than with the original method [5].

Application in Food Digestibility Research

The INFOGEST protocol has been successfully applied to investigate the digestibility of various food matrices, providing insights into how food structure and composition influence nutritional outcomes.

A 2025 study applied the INFOGEST method to evaluate the protein digestibility of a pea protein and wheat flour blend formulated into different food models [7]. The research demonstrated that protein digestion was highly dependent on food hydration, composition, and structure, highlighting the importance of the food matrix, not just the individual ingredients.

Table 2: Protein Digestibility of Plant-Based Foods with Different Moisture Content [7]

Food Model	Moisture Category	Protein Digestibility (%)
Plant-Based Milk	High	~83%
Pudding	High	~81%
Plant-Based Burger	Medium	~71%
Breadstick	Low	~69%

The data in Table 2 confirms that high-moisture foods generally achieve higher protein digestibility, likely due to greater enzyme accessibility. This application of the INFOGEST protocol provides valuable data for formulating plant-based foods with optimized nutritional quality [7].

Methodological Considerations and Diagrammatic Workflow

Key Considerations for Implementation

• Enzyme Sourcing and Characterization: The protocol allows enzymes to be sourced from any suitable supplier but emphasizes the critical importance of verifying and standardizing their activities before use [9] [5]. Enzyme activity assays are a prerequisite for obtaining reliable results.
• Static Model Limitations: As a static model, INFOGEST does not simulate the dynamic kinetics of digestion, such as gradual acidification, continuous secretion of fluids and enzymes, or gastric emptying [17]. For research questions requiring these dynamics, semi-dynamic or dynamic models may be more appropriate.
• Adaptation for Specific Needs: The protocol serves as a foundational framework that can be adapted for specific research purposes, such as simulating infant digestion (using lower enzyme concentrations and higher pH) or elderly digestion (accounting for reduced digestive function) [24] [15].

Experimental Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the sequential workflow of the standard INFOGEST static in vitro digestion protocol.

Validation Evidence and Protocol Evolution

The development and refinement of the INFOGEST protocol have been driven by empirical evidence from collaborative validation studies. The key evidence and improvements are summarized below.

Research Reagent Solutions

Successful implementation of the INFOGEST protocol relies on the use of characterized reagents and enzymes. The following table details the essential materials and their functions.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for the INFOGEST Protocol

Reagent / Enzyme	Specification / Function	Key Consideration
α-Amylase (from human saliva or porcine pancreas)	Catalyzes the hydrolysis of starch into smaller sugars during the oral phase [9].	Activity must be standardized. The optimized assay at 37°C is recommended for precision [5].
Pepsin (from porcine gastric mucosa)	Primary proteolytic enzyme in the gastric phase; breaks down proteins into peptides [9].	Critical to determine activity accurately (e.g., via hemoglobin assay). A major source of variability in early trials [2].
Pancreatin Extract	Provides a mixture of pancreatic enzymes including trypsin, chymotrypsin, lipase, and amylase for the intestinal phase [24] [8].	Should be characterized for specific activities (trypsin, chymotrypsin) rather than used by weight alone.
Bile Salts	Emulsifies lipids, facilitating their digestion by lipase; also helps in the solubilization of lipophilic compounds [8].	Typically used at a final concentration of 10 mM in the intestinal chyme.
Simulated Fluids (SSF, SGF, SIF)	Electrolyte stock solutions that mimic the ionic composition and osmolarity of human digestive secretions [9].	Precise preparation is required for physiological relevance. Compositions are detailed in the protocol.
Calcium Chloride (CaCl₂)	Added in micromolar quantities to maintain the activity of certain calcium-dependent enzymes [9].	Added separately in each phase as specified in the protocol.

Assessing Protein Digestibility and Amino Acid Bioaccessibility

The validation of in vitro methods for assessing protein digestibility is a critical pursuit in nutritional science, driven by the need for ethical, reproducible, and high-throughput alternatives to in vivo studies. The INFOGEST standardized static in vitro digestion model has emerged as a pivotal tool for this purpose, providing a harmonized framework for researchers worldwide [25]. This protocol aims to simulate the physiological conditions of the human gastrointestinal tract, enabling the prediction of protein breakdown and amino acid release without animal or human trials. Within this validation context, this guide objectively compares the protein digestibility and amino acid bioaccessibility of various protein sources and food matrices using the INFOGEST protocol, providing supporting experimental data to inform research and development.

Experimental Protocols for Protein Digestibility Assessment

The INFOGEST Static Digestion Protocol

The internationally harmonized INFOGEST static in vitro simulation involves sequential gastric and intestinal phases under standardized conditions [25] [6]. The typical workflow encompasses:

• Oral Phase (Optional): For solid foods, a brief oral step may be included using simulated saliva fluid (SSF).
• Gastric Phase: The food sample is subjected to simulated gastric fluid (SGF) containing pepsin. The standard INFOGEST 2.0 protocol recommends a pepsin activity of 2,000 U/mL at pH 3.0 for a defined period (usually 2 hours) at 37°C under continuous agitation [24].
• Intestinal Phase: The gastric chyme is then mixed with simulated intestinal fluid (SIF) containing pancreatin, providing key enzymes like trypsin and chymotrypsin. Bile salts are also added. The standard trypsin activity is 100 TAME U/mL, and chymotrypsin activity is 25 U/mL. This phase typically runs for 2 hours at pH 7.0 [24].

Throughout the process, parameters such as pH, enzyme activities, incubation time, and electrolyte composition are meticulously controlled to ensure reproducibility across laboratories [25].

Analytical Methods for Digestibility and Bioaccessibility

Following in vitro digestion, several analytical techniques are employed to quantify protein breakdown and amino acid bioaccessibility:

• Degree of Hydrolysis (DH): This measures the percentage of peptide bonds cleaved. Common methods include the pH-stat technique, which monitors alkali consumption, or chemical methods like the 2,4,6-Trinitrobenzene sulfonic acid (TNBS) assay [6].
• True Ileal Digestibility (TID): Calculated by determining the amount of nitrogen or amino acids remaining in the digest after precipitation with trichloroacetic acid (TCA) or other denaturing agents. This TCA-soluble fraction represents bioaccessible amino acids and small peptides [6] [26]. The formula is typically: TID (%) = (1 - (Amount of amino acid in TCA-insoluble digest / Amount of amino acid in original sample)) × 100.
• Amino Acid Analysis: The digestible fraction (TCA-soluble) is subjected to acid hydrolysis (typically with 6N HCl at 110°C for 18-24 hours) to break down peptides into free amino acids, which are then quantified using High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) or Gas Chromatography (GC) [25] [6].
• In vitro Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Score (IVDIAAS): This score is calculated using the formula: IVDIAAS (%) = (mg of digestible indispensable amino acid in 1 g of test protein / mg of the same amino acid in 1 g of reference protein) × 100. The reference pattern is based on FAO/WHO requirements for preschool-aged children [6]. The lowest score among all indispensable amino acids becomes the IVDIAAS for the protein.

Digestibility of Purified Protein Concentrates

Research using the INFOGEST protocol reveals significant variation in the digestibility of different protein concentrates. The following table summarizes experimental data for various sustainable protein sources compared to whey protein as a reference.

Table 1: In Vitro Protein Digestibility and Quality of Various Protein Concentrates Using the INFOGEST Protocol [6]

Protein Concentrate	Mean True Ileal Indispensable Amino Acid Digestibility (%)	In vitro DIAAS	Limiting Amino Acid(s)
Whey (Reference)	91.1	119	None
Blood Plasma	85.8	107	Not specified
Yeast	85.8	97.2	Not specified
Potato	82.5	102	None
Corn	80.3	45.3	Lysine
Pea	79.7	73.8	Sulfur-containing amino acids
Lesser Meal Worm	77.9	57.8	Not specified
Mycoprotein	Unreliable (low mass balance)	Unreliable (low mass balance)	Unreliable

Key Findings:

• High-Quality Animal Proteins: Whey and blood plasma concentrates exhibit excellent digestibility and high IVDIAAS, confirming their high nutritional quality [6].
• High-Quality Plant Proteins: Potato and yeast protein concentrates demonstrate that some plant proteins can achieve digestibility and IVDIAAS values comparable to animal proteins [6].
• Plant Protein Limitations: The low IVDIAAS for corn protein is directly attributed to a deficiency in lysine, while pea protein is limited by sulfur-containing amino acids (methionine and cysteine), highlighting the importance of amino acid profile in addition to digestibility [6].

Impact of Food Matrix and Processing

The food matrix and processing methods profoundly influence protein digestibility, as demonstrated in studies of complex foods and processed legumes.

Table 2: Impact of Food Matrix and Processing on Protein Digestibility [7] [27] [26]

Food Sample	Processing/Food Matrix Context	Protein Digestibility (%)	Key Findings
Plant-Based Milk (Pea/Wheat)	High-moisture food model	~83	High moisture content facilitates enzyme access.
Plant-Based Pudding	High-moisture, gelled model	~81	Gel structure slightly reduces digestibility vs. liquid milk.
Plant-Based Burger	Medium-moisture, grilled model	~71	Heat processing and complex matrix reduce digestibility.
Plant-Based Breadstick	Low-moisture, baked model	~69	Low hydration and dense structure limit digestibility.
Soybeans (Soaked)	Soaked, uncooked	20.6	Presence of heat-labile trypsin inhibitors severely limits digestibility.
Soybeans (Boiled)	Wet heat treatment	48.7	Boiling inactivates anti-nutritional factors, doubling digestibility.
Soybeans (Fermented)	Fermented with B. subtilis (Natto)	50.2	Microbial proteases pre-digest proteins, slightly improving digestibility over boiling.
Commercial Protein Bar	Complex matrix with sugars, fibers, fats	47 - 81	Digestibility is significantly lower than that of the pure protein ingredients used.

Key Findings:

• Moisture Content: A strong positive correlation exists between food moisture content and protein digestibility, as water facilitates enzyme diffusion and interaction with substrates [7].
• Heat Processing: Thermal processing, such as boiling, is crucial for legumes as it denatures proteins and inactivates heat-sensitive protease inhibitors, dramatically improving digestibility [26].
• Fermentation: Microbial fermentation enhances digestibility by breaking down proteins into peptides and amino acids before consumption, as seen in natto [26].
• Matrix Effects: In complex products like protein bars, interactions with other ingredients (e.g., carbohydrates, fibers, fats) can hinder enzyme access to proteins, reducing digestibility compared to the pure protein source [27].

Visualization of the INFOGEST Workflow and Digestibility Calculation

The following diagram illustrates the standardized INFOGEST protocol for assessing protein digestibility and the key calculation steps for deriving IVDIAAS.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagent Solutions

Successful implementation of the INFOGEST protocol requires specific, high-quality reagents. The following table details essential materials and their functions in protein digestibility assessment.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for INFOGEST Protein Digestibility Studies

Reagent / Material	Function in Experiment	Typical Specification / Example
Pepsin	Gastric protease; initiates protein hydrolysis by cleaving peptide bonds.	From porcine gastric mucosa. Activity: ≥2,000 U/mL in final digest [24].
Pancreatin	Pancreatic enzyme preparation; contains key intestinal proteases (trypsin, chymotrypsin), amylase, and lipase.	From porcine pancreas. Standardized for trypsin activity (100 TAME U/mL final digest) [6] [24].
Bile Salts	Biological detergent; emulsifies lipids and facilitates the interaction of enzymes with hydrophobic substrates.	Porcine bile extract. Often used at a concentration of 10 mM in the final intestinal digest [24].
Simulated Fluids (SSF, SGF, SIF)	Provide a physiologically relevant ionic environment and pH for digestive enzymes.	Prepared with inorganic salts (e.g., KCl, KH₂PO₄, NaHCO₃, NaCl, MgCl₂, (NH₄)₂CO₃) [24].
Trichloroacetic Acid (TCA)	Protein precipitant; separates large proteins/undigested material from bioaccessible small peptides and amino acids.	Typically used at a final concentration of 5-12% (w/v) [6] [26].
TNBS (2,4,6-Trinitrobenzenesulfonic acid)	Chemical reagent; reacts with primary amines to quantify the degree of protein hydrolysis.	Used spectrophotometrically to measure amino groups released during digestion [6].
HCl (Hydrochloric Acid)	Strong acid; used for protein hydrolysis prior to amino acid analysis to break peptides into constituent amino acids.	6 N HCl, 110°C for 18-24 hours under vacuum [25] [6].

The INFOGEST static in vitro digestion model provides a validated and powerful platform for the comparative assessment of protein digestibility and amino acid bioaccessibility. Data generated using this protocol confirm that:

• Protein Source Matters: Animal proteins like whey and blood plasma, along with select plant proteins like potato and yeast, show high digestibility and IVDIAAS.
• Food Matrix is Critical: The same protein ingredient can yield vastly different digestibility outcomes depending on its incorporation into a final food product, with moisture content, thermal processing, and ingredient interactions being major determinants.
• Processing Enhances Digestibility: Techniques like boiling and fermentation are essential for improving the digestibility of plant proteins by inactivating anti-nutritional factors and pre-digesting proteins.

This guide provides researchers with a standardized framework, comparative data, and methodological details to effectively utilize the INFOGEST protocol for evaluating protein nutritional quality, thereby supporting the development of higher-quality protein foods and ingredients.

Analyzing Lipid Digestion and Bioactive Compound Release

The study of lipid digestion and the bioaccessibility of bioactive fatty acids (BFAs) is crucial for developing functional foods and pharmaceutical formulations. Prior to the establishment of the INFOGEST standardized in vitro digestion model, research in this field was hampered by significant methodological variability across laboratories, making cross-comparison of results nearly impossible [24]. The INFOGEST protocol, developed through international consensus, provides a harmonized static method that simulates human gastrointestinal digestion using physiologically relevant conditions for pH, incubation times, enzyme activities, bile concentrations, and fluid compositions [8] [10]. This standardization has created a critical foundation for objectively comparing the digestibility of different lipid formulations and the release of BFAs from various matrices, enabling more reliable assessment of their potential health benefits [10].

For lipid digestion studies specifically, the INFOGEST framework recommends using the pH-stat technique for quantifying lipase activities prior to digestion experiments, which is essential for generating reproducible results [28]. The protocol outlines precise parameters for the gastric phase (using gastric lipase) and intestinal phase (using pancreatic lipase) that directly impact lipid hydrolysis and consequent BFA release [8]. This review examines how the validated INFOGEST model serves as a benchmark for comparing traditional and emerging digestion methodologies, while providing insights into the factors influencing lipid digestibility and BFA bioaccessibility from conventional and non-conventional sources.

Experimental Protocols for Lipid Digestion Analysis

INFOGEST Static Digestion Protocol for Lipids

The standard INFOGEST static digestion protocol follows a sequential three-phase approach [8]:

• Oral Phase: The food sample is combined with simulated salivary fluid (SSF) and α-amylase, though this phase may be minimized for lipid-focused studies as it has limited impact on lipid digestion.
• Gastric Phase: The oral bolus is mixed with simulated gastric fluid (SGF) containing pepsin. For lipid digestion, rabbit gastric extract (RGE) is recommended as a source of gastric lipase, despite identified challenges with inhibitors like boronic acid [28]. The pH is maintained at 3.0 for 2 hours with constant mixing.
• Intestinal Phase: The gastric chyme is neutralized and mixed with simulated intestinal fluid (SIF) containing pancreatin (as a source of pancreatic lipase and other enzymes) and bile salts (often sodium taurodeoxycholate, NaTDC) at pH 7.0 for another 2 hours.

Throughout these phases, key parameters such as temperature (maintained at 37°C), electrolyte composition, enzyme activities, and digestion times are strictly controlled according to the INFOGEST recommendations [8].

pH-Stat Method for Lipase Activity Assessment

A critical prerequisite for lipid digestion studies is the accurate determination of lipase activity in enzyme preparations using the pH-stat technique [28]. The standardized method involves:

• Substrate: Tributyrin as a standard substrate for both gastric and pancreatic lipases.
• Procedure: The lipase activity is determined by quantifying the amount of 0.05 M or 0.1 M NaOH required to maintain a constant pH (5.0 for gastric lipase; 7.0 for pancreatic lipase) during enzymatic hydrolysis of tributyrin, which releases free fatty acids.
• Key Parameters: The assay must account for equipment-specific factors such as reaction vessel geometry, stirring mode and rate, and burette volume to minimize inter-laboratory variability [28]. While intra-laboratory repeatability is good (CV of 4-8%), inter-laboratory reproducibility can show higher variability (CV >15%) without careful parameter control.

Semi-Dynamic Gastric Digestion Adaptation

To bridge the gap between static and complex dynamic models, the INFOGEST network has proposed a semi-dynamic protocol that incorporates key dynamic features exclusively in the gastric phase [17]. This method includes:

• Gradual Acidification: The gastric contents are progressively acidified to mimic physiological secretion patterns rather than maintaining a constant pH.
• Continuous Enzyme Addition: Gastric enzymes and fluids are added gradually throughout the gastric phase.
• Controlled Gastric Emptying: Multiple, small-volume gastric emptying events are simulated to transfer gastric chyme to the intestinal compartment.
• The intestinal phase remains static according to the standard INFOGEST protocol. This approach provides more physiologically relevant kinetic data without the complexity and cost of fully dynamic systems [17].

Comparison of In Vitro Digestion Models

The selection of an appropriate digestion model depends on the research objectives, resource availability, and the specific compounds being investigated. The following table compares the main types of in vitro digestion models applicable to lipid and BFA studies.

Table 1: Comparison of In Vitro Digestion Models for Lipid and Bioactive Compound Analysis

Model Type	Key Features	Lipid Digestion Applications	Advantages	Limitations
Static (INFOGEST)	Fixed digestion time, constant pH, single-step addition of enzymes/fluids in each phase [8] [10].	End-point analysis of lipid hydrolysis, BFA bioaccessibility screening, comparison of different lipid formulations [10].	Standardized, simple, cost-effective, high reproducibility, minimal equipment required [10].	Does not simulate kinetics, gradual emptying, or dynamic secretion changes [17].
Semi-Dynamic	Gradual acidification and enzyme addition in gastric phase; simulated gastric emptying; static intestinal phase [17].	Time-resolved lipid digestion kinetics, studying gastric lipolysis influence, more physiological gastric processing.	Better approximation of gastric dynamics than static models; more feasible than full dynamic systems [17].	Limited dynamics in intestinal phase; requires specialized equipment (e.g., pH-stat, pumps).
Fully Dynamic	Multi-compartmental, continuous pH adjustment, real-time secretion rates, peristaltic mixing, advanced gastric emptying (e.g., TIM, SHIME) [10].	Comprehensive lipid digestion kinetics, absorption studies, correlation with in vivo data.	Closest in vitro approximation to human physiology; enables kinetic modeling [10].	Highly complex, expensive, large reagent volumes, requires significant expertise [17].
Miniaturized Systems	Microfabricated devices with automated pH/temperature control, very small volumes (e.g., digestion-chip) [17].	Screening expensive nanomaterials, bioactive ingredients, or drugs available in limited quantities.	Minimal sample/reagent consumption, automated operation, real-time monitoring [17].	May not be suitable for complex or solid food matrices; relatively new technology.

Quantitative Model Performance Comparison

Recent validation studies have generated performance data for different digestion models, particularly regarding their reproducibility and predictive capability.

Table 2: Quantitative Performance Metrics of Digestion Models

Performance Metric	Static INFOGEST	Semi-Dynamic	Fully Dynamic	Notes
Inter-lab CV for Lipase Activity	>15% [28]	Information missing	Information missing	CV can be reduced by controlling equipment parameters [28].
Intra-lab CV for Lipase Activity	4-8% [28]	Information missing	Information missing	Demonstrates good repeatability within a single lab.
Typical Sample Volume	5-40 mL [17]	5-40 mL [17]	50-500 mL [17]	Miniaturized systems use <1 mL [17].
Relative Cost	Low	Medium	High	Includes equipment, reagents, and operational costs.
Throughput	High	Medium	Low	Number of experiments that can be run in parallel.

Experimental Workflow for Analyzing Lipid Digestion

The following diagram illustrates the general experimental workflow for analyzing lipid digestion and bioactive compound release using the INFOGEST framework, adaptable to semi-dynamic or other model variations.

Experimental Workflow for Lipid Digestion Analysis

The release and bioaccessibility of BFAs during digestion depend significantly on the lipid source and its food matrix. Non-conventional sources such as algae, insects, and underutilized seeds are increasingly explored for their unique BFA profiles [29].

Table 3: Bioactive Fatty Acids from Non-Conventional Lipid Sources and Their Analyzed Bioactivities

Bioactive Fatty Acid (BFA)	Non-Conventional Source	Extraction Method	Reported Bioactivity
EPA (Eicosapentaenoic acid)	Macroalga (Cystoseira baccata), Red & Brown Macroalgae [29]	Accelerated Solvent Extraction, Bligh and Dyer [29]	Potent antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties; antimicrobial activity [29].
DHA (Docosahexaenoic acid)	Venus clam (Marcia opima), Blood cockles (Anadara granosa) [29]	Folch method (chloroform-methanol) [29]	Anti-obesity activity by preventing obesity-induced insulin resistance [29].
ALA (Alpha-linolenic acid)	Green alga (Ulva rigida), Microalga (Chaetocerous linum) [29]	Solvent extraction (dichloromethane, chloroform-methanol) [29]	Antibacterial effects against pathogens like Staphylococcus aureus and Vibrio species [29].
5,6-DiHETE	Blue back fishes (liver, intestines) [29]	Direct extraction/Saponification [29]	Anti-inflammatory activity by inhibiting vascular hyperpermeability in endothelial cells [29].

The bioaccessibility of these BFAs is influenced by their chemical stability during digestion and the efficiency of the digestive process. The INFOGEST protocol allows for the systematic study of how different lipid matrices (e.g., emulsions, encapsulated oils, or whole tissue matrices) affect the release of these valuable compounds, providing insights for optimizing functional food formulations [10].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Successful implementation of the INFOGEST protocol for lipid digestion studies requires careful preparation and sourcing of key reagents.

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for INFOGEST Lipid Digestion Studies

Reagent/Material	Function in Digestion Study	Key Considerations
Porcine Pancreatin	Source of pancreatic lipase, carboxyl ester hydrolase, and other enzymes for intestinal lipid hydrolysis [28].	Activity must be predetermined (e.g., via pH-stat); significant batch-to-batch variability exists.
Rabbit Gastric Extract (RGE)	Source of gastric lipase for the initial hydrolysis of triglycerides in the stomach [28].	Preferred over other sources for human relevance; note that boronic acid is not an efficient inhibitor for gastric lipase [28].
Bile Salts (e.g., NaTDC)	Emulsification of lipids, formation of mixed micelles, activation of pancreatic lipase [8].	Critical for solubilizing lipolytic products and hydrophobic bioactives; concentration affects bioaccessibility.
Tributyrin	Standard substrate for the pH-stat assay to determine lipase activity prior to digestion experiments [28].	Allows for reproducible quantification of enzyme activity; a prerequisite for standardizing digestion conditions.
Simulated Digestive Fluids (SGF, SIF, SSF)	Provide physiological ionic strength and pH environment for each digestive phase [8].	Must be prepared precisely according to INFOGEST recipes to ensure physiological relevance and reproducibility.
pH-Stat Apparatus	Automated titration system for real-time quantification of free fatty acid release during lipase assays and semi-dynamic digestion [28] [17].	Equipment parameters (vessel shape, stirring rate, burette volume) significantly impact inter-laboratory reproducibility [28].

Application in Dietary Supplement and Pharmaceutical Formulation Evaluation

The efficacy of oral products, whether dietary supplements or pharmaceutical formulations, is fundamentally governed by the bioaccessibility and bioavailability of their active ingredients upon gastrointestinal digestion. Historically, the evaluation of these products was hampered by a lack of standardized and physiologically relevant in vitro digestion methods, leading to incomparable data across research teams and unpredictable in vivo performance [9]. The INFOGEST consortium, an international network of scientists, addressed this critical gap by developing a harmonized static in vitro digestion protocol. This method simulates the physiological conditions of the human upper gastrointestinal tract, providing a robust framework for the reproducible assessment of digestibility and nutrient release [15] [9]. This guide explores the application of the INFOGEST model in objectively comparing the performance of dietary supplements and pharmaceutical formulations, providing researchers with validated experimental protocols and key data interpretation frameworks.

The INFOGEST Protocol: A Standardized Experimental Framework

The INFOGEST static digestion method is a consensus protocol that outlines standardized conditions for the oral, gastric, and intestinal phases of digestion. Its primary strength lies in the use of physiologically relevant parameters, including enzyme activities per mL of digesta, pH, incubation times, and ionic compositions of simulated digestive fluids [9].

Core Protocol Specifications

The following workflow details the sequential stages of the INFOGEST 2.0 protocol for a solid food sample, adapted for evaluating dietary supplements and pharmaceutical formulations.

Key Reagents and Research Solutions

The physiological relevance of the INFOGEST protocol depends on the careful preparation and characterization of digestive fluids and enzymes. The table below details the essential research reagents and their specified functions within the protocol.

Table 1: Essential Research Reagents for INFOGEST Digestion Experiments

Reagent/Solution	Composition & Specification	Physiological Function in Protocol
Simulated Salivary Fluid (SSF)	Electrolyte stock solution (KCl, KH₂PO₄, NaHCO₃, NaCl, MgCl₂, (NH₄)₂CO₃) [9]	Provides ionic environment mimicking saliva; initiates starch digestion.
α-Amylase	150 U/mL in SSF; activity defined as liberating 1.0 mg maltose from starch in 3 min at 20°C, pH 6.9 [9]	Catalyzes the initial hydrolysis of starch in the oral phase.
Simulated Gastric Fluid (SGF)	Electrolyte stock solution (KCl, KH₂PO₄, NaHCO₃, NaCl, MgCl₂, (NH₄)₂CO₃) acidified to pH 3.0 [9]	Creates the acidic environment of the stomach.
Pepsin	2000 U/mL in SGF; activity measured using hemoglobin substrate at pH 2.0, 37°C [9]	Primary protease responsible for protein hydrolysis in the stomach.
Simulated Intestinal Fluid (SIF)	Electrolyte stock solution adjusted to pH 7.0 [9]	Provides the neutral pH environment of the small intestine.
Pancreatin	Contains pancreatic enzymes (trypsin, chymotrypsin, pancreatic amylase, lipase); activity must be characterized [5] [30]	Executes the final hydrolysis of proteins, starch, and lipids.
Bile Salts	Typically porcine bile extract [9]	Emulsifies lipids, facilitating lipase action and solubilizing hydrophobic compounds.
Calcium Chloride (CaCl₂)	0.3 M solution added in small volumes at each phase [9]	Cofactor essential for the activity of several enzymes, including gastric lipase and pancreatic α-amylase.

Application in Dietary Supplement Formulation

Case Study: Evaluating Plant-Based Protein Supplements

The INFOGEST protocol has been effectively used to demonstrate how food matrix and moisture content significantly influence the digestibility of protein-based supplements. A 2025 study applied the method to a pea protein and wheat flour blend (75:25) formulated into different model foods [7].

Table 2: Protein Digestibility of a Plant Protein Blend in Different Food Matrices [7]

Food Matrix	Moisture Category	Protein Digestibility (%)	Key Influencing Factor
Plant-Based Milk	High Moisture	~83%	High hydration level allowing full enzyme access.
Pudding	High Moisture	~81%	Gelled structure with high water content.
Plant-Based Burger	Medium Moisture	~71%	Complex matrix and cooking-induced structural changes.
Breadstick	Low Moisture	~69%	Low hydration and dense structure limiting enzyme penetration.

This data underscores that the same protein ingredient can yield significantly different nutritional outcomes based on its formulation, a critical consideration for supplement developers. The INFOGEST protocol provides a reliable tool to optimize these formulations for maximum protein bioaccessibility.

Case Study: Quality Control of Alpha-Lipoic Acid Supplements

The INFOGEST method can be adapted to assess the performance of dietary supplements containing active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs). A 2023 study compared alpha-lipoic acid (ALA) formulations from drugs and dietary supplements, testing uniformity of content, disintegration time, and dissolution rates according to pharmacopoeial methods [31]. The findings are highly relevant for in vitro digestion studies.

Table 3: Performance Comparison of ALA Drugs vs. Dietary Supplements [31]

Formulation Type	Uniformity of Content	Dissolution Rate (50 rpm)	Dissolution Rate (100 rpm)	Overall Conformance
Drugs (n=2)	Consistent	Variable	1 of 2 met requirements	Higher reliability
Dietary Supplements (n=5)	Larger variations in 3 of 5 formulations	Only 1 of 5 met requirements	2 of 5 met requirements	Poor and inconsistent

The study concluded that dietary supplements showed larger variations in ALA content and dissolution performance compared to pharmaceutical drugs, highlighting a significant quality gap [31]. Integrating such dissolution tests with the INFOGEST digestion protocol can provide a comprehensive picture of an ingredient's bioaccessibility, helping to identify substandard supplement formulations.

Application in Pharmaceutical Formulation

Validation Against In Vivo Data for Protein Quality

A critical application of the INFOGEST protocol in pharmaceutical sciences is the prediction of in vivo protein quality. A 2023 study developed and validated an analytical workflow based on the INFOGEST method to calculate the Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Score (DIAAS), the FAO-recommended measure for protein quality [30].

The study, which analyzed samples including whey protein isolate (WPI), zein, and collagen, found a high correlation between in vitro and in vivo data. The in vitro total protein digestibility showed good agreement with in vivo values (r = 0.6, P < 0.0001), with a mean difference of only 1.2%. Most importantly, the in vitro DIAAS highly correlated with in vivo DIAAS (r = 0.96, R² = 0.89, P < 0.0001), with a negligible mean difference of 0.1% [30]. This validation confirms that the INFOGEST protocol is a suitable, non-invasive tool for predicting protein quality, reducing the reliance on costly and complex animal or human trials.

Advanced Protocol Optimization: Enzyme Activity Assay

The reliability of the INFOGEST protocol depends on the precise characterization of enzyme activities. A 2025 interlaboratory study validated an optimized protocol for measuring α-amylase activity, a key enzyme in the oral and intestinal phases [5]. The original Bernfeld assay (single-point at 20°C) showed high interlaboratory variation (CV up to 87%). The optimized version uses four time-point measurements at a physiologically relevant 37°C, which greatly improved reproducibility, reducing the interlaboratory coefficient of variation (CV) to 16-21% [5]. This underscores the importance of using the most updated and validated assay protocols within the INFOGEST framework to ensure data comparability across different laboratories.

The INFOGEST standardized digestion model has proven to be an indispensable tool for the objective, physiologically relevant evaluation of dietary supplements and pharmaceutical formulations. As demonstrated, it enables researchers to:

• Quantify how formulation matrix and processing impact protein digestibility [7].
• Identify quality inconsistencies in dietary supplements compared to regulated drugs [31].
• Accurately predict in vivo protein quality metrics like DIAAS, validating it as a non-invasive alternative to animal studies [30].

Future research directions include further integration with dynamic digestion models that incorporate gradual pH changes and gastric emptying, and the continued development and validation of protocols for specific bioactive compounds and population groups (e.g., infants, older adults) [15] [4]. For researchers and drug development professionals, adopting the INFOGEST consensus method ensures the generation of robust, comparable, and physiologically meaningful data to advance the field of formulation science.

Optimizing INFOGEST: Troubleshooting Common Pitfalls and Protocol Adaptations

Within the framework of validating the INFOGEST standardized digestion model, the procurement of high-quality enzymes and rigorous verification of their activity transcends routine laboratory practice—it constitutes a fundamental pillar of experimental reproducibility and biological relevance. The INFOGEST protocol, an internationally harmonized static method that simulates physiological conditions of the human gastrointestinal tract, depends critically on the precise activity of digestive enzymes such as pepsin to generate reliable bioaccessibility data for food and pharmaceutical compounds [32] [15]. Variations in enzyme performance, often traceable to sourcing decisions and inadequate quality control, introduce significant experimental noise that can compromise cross-laboratory comparisons and the overall validation of the model itself. This guide provides a systematic, data-driven comparison of activity verification methodologies and a structured framework for enzyme sourcing, equipping researchers with the tools necessary to uphold the integrity of their digestion studies.

Experimental Methodologies for Enzyme Activity Verification

Accurately quantifying enzymatic activity is a critical step in the INFOGEST protocol, ensuring that the amount of enzyme added to a digestion simulation catalyzes the intended reaction rate. The following section compares established and emerging analytical methods for this purpose.

Comparative Analysis of Pepsin Activity Assays

The estimation of pepsin activity, a key protease in the gastric phase, highlights the evolution of assay techniques from traditional methods toward modern, miniaturized approaches. The table below summarizes the core characteristics of two primary methods documented in recent literature.

Table 1: Comparison of Methods for Pepsin Activity Verification

Method Feature	Traditional UV Spectrophotometry	Miniaturized Folin-Ciocalteu (VIS) Method
Principle	UV absorbance of TCA-soluble peptides at 280 nm [32]	Colorimetric reaction with Folin-Ciocalteu reagent, measured at 760 nm [32]
Assay Format	Test tubes with quartz cuvettes [32]	96-well microplate array [32]
Sample & Reagent Volume	Large volumes required [32]	Low volume of samples and reagents [32]
Key Advantages	Direct measurement; historically established [32]	Automation capability, ease of use, speed, high reproducibility (8% inter-day CV) [32]
Documented Limitations	Requires quartz cuvettes; time-consuming; method not yet fully analytically validated [32]	Requires additional reagent (Folin-Ciocalteu); statistical results show no significant difference from UV method [32]
Statistical Outcome	Benchmark method [32]	No statistical difference from UV method (p > 0.05) [32]

Workflow for the Miniaturized Pepsin Activity Assay

The miniaturized colorimetric method, adapted for pepsin within the INFOGEST context, offers a validated and efficient workflow. The following diagram illustrates the key steps from sample preparation to data analysis.

Figure 1: Workflow for the miniaturized pepsin activity assay. Adapted from [32].

This method's validation confirmed high reproducibility, with an inter-day coefficient of variation of 8%, and produced results statistically comparable to the traditional UV method, making it a robust and efficient choice for quality control in high-throughput environments [32].

A Strategic Framework for Sourcing Digestive Enzymes

Selecting a reliable enzyme supplier is a critical decision that impacts the consistency and validity of research outcomes. The following guidelines synthesize key considerations for researchers procuring enzymes for INFOGEST and related studies.

Key Supplier Evaluation Criteria

• Technical Documentation and Assay Validation: A reputable supplier must provide comprehensive technical data sheets, including enzyme activity (U/g or U/mg), specific activity, and pH/thermal stability profiles [33]. Crucially, they should use standardized and validated assay methods (e.g., colorimetric, titrimetric) to ensure the accuracy and reproducibility of the activity data they report [33]. This transparency is the first defense against variability in digestion experiments.
• Quality Certifications and Compliance: Suppliers should demonstrate adherence to international quality management standards, such as ISO and Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) [33] [34]. These certifications indicate a systematic approach to quality control, reducing the risk of batch-to-batch inconsistency.
• Product Range and Customization Capabilities: A supplier with a broad portfolio of digestive enzymes (e.g., pepsin, pancreatin, gastric lipase) and the ability to offer custom blends or specific activity levels provides a significant advantage. This allows researchers to tailor enzymes to the unique requirements of the INFOGEST protocol or its variations for specific demographics [35] [34].
• Robust Batch Documentation: For every batch, the supplier should provide a Certificate of Analysis (COA) and Safety Data Sheet (SDS) [33]. The COA is particularly important as it provides the experimental basis for the stated enzyme activity, allowing researchers to verify that the product meets their specifications before use.
• Technical Support and Supply Chain Reliability: A supplier that offers expert technical support can assist with integration and troubleshooting [34]. Furthermore, proven reliability in bulk supply and logistics is essential to prevent disruptions to long-term research programs [33].

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for INFOGEST Enzyme Activity Verification

Reagent / Material	Function in the Assay	Application Note
Hemoglobin (from bovine blood)	Protein substrate for the proteolytic reaction. Its hydrolysis is proportional to pepsin activity [32].	Must be prepared as a standardized acidified solution (e.g., 2% w/v, pH 2.0) [32].
Pepsin (from porcine gastric mucosa)	The enzyme whose activity is being quantified.	A stock solution is serially diluted to create a calibration curve of activity vs. concentration [32].
Folin-Ciocalteu Reagent	Colorogenic agent that reacts with tyrosine and other phenol groups in digested peptides.	The resulting blue complex is measured colorimetrically [32].
Trichloroacetic Acid (TCA)	Stops the enzymatic reaction and precipitates undigested protein and large peptides.	Allows for the separation of TCA-soluble products (small peptides) via centrifugation [32].
L-Tyrosine	Used to prepare a calibration curve for quantifying the TCA-soluble products.	Represents the amino acids and low-MW peptides released by proteolysis [32].
96-Well Microplate	Miniaturized platform for high-throughput analysis.	Enables automation, reduces reagent volumes, and increases analysis speed [32].

Supplier Selection and Evaluation Workflow

Making an informed supplier choice requires a structured process. The following diagram outlines a logical pathway from initial assessment to final selection and ongoing quality checks.

Figure 2: A strategic workflow for evaluating and selecting an enzyme supplier.

Within the critical endeavor of validating and implementing the INFOGEST digestion model, a proactive and rigorous approach to enzyme sourcing and activity verification is non-negotiable. As demonstrated, modern colorimetric methods like the miniaturized Folin-Ciocalteu assay provide robust, statistically comparable, and higher-throughput alternatives to traditional techniques for key enzymes like pepsin [32]. By coupling these precise verification methodologies with a strategic framework for selecting and auditing enzyme suppliers—focusing on technical transparency, quality certifications, and consistent documentation—researchers can significantly enhance the reliability of their data. This disciplined focus on enzyme quality control is a fundamental contribution to the broader scientific goal of achieving reproducible, validated, and physiologically relevant in vitro digestion studies.

The bioaccessibility of nutrients is not merely a function of their chemical composition but is profoundly influenced by the physical and chemical environment of the food matrix in which they are contained. The food matrix is defined as the nutrient and non-nutrient components of foods and their molecular relations [15]. When evaluating the digestibility of protein ingredients and the balance of essential amino acids, it is crucial to consider the complex interactions of macro- and micro-components within the whole food, rather than focusing solely on individual ingredients [7]. Factors such as protein structure, lipids, and non-digestible carbohydrates can significantly hinder the conversion of plant proteins into absorbable amino acids [7].

Matrix effects present a substantial challenge in in vitro digestion studies, as the composition and structure of food can alter digestive kinetics and endpoints. For instance, the presence of soluble and insoluble fibres can hinder digestive enzymes by either binding to them or increasing the viscosity of the bolus, which slows down the diffusion of enzymes and nutrients, thereby reducing the rate of digestion [7]. This article examines how the INFOGEST standardized in vitro digestion model addresses these complexities, providing researchers with a validated tool to investigate matrix effects across diverse food systems, from simple solutions to complex multi-component foods.

The INFOGEST Model: A Standardized Approach for Complex Matrices

The INFOGEST static in vitro simulation of gastrointestinal food digestion is an international consensus method designed to improve the comparability of experimental data between laboratories [8] [22]. This harmonized protocol uses constant ratios of meal to digestive fluids and a constant pH for each digestion step (oral, gastric, and intestinal), with parameters such as electrolytes, enzymes, bile, dilution, pH, and digestion time based on available physiological data [8]. The method is intentionally static to maintain simplicity and reproducibility, though this design limits its suitability for simulating digestion kinetics.

A critical validation study demonstrated the physiological relevance of the INFOGEST model by comparing it to in vivo pig digestion. The research showed that protein hydrolysis at different levels—analyzed with gel electrophoresis, mass spectrometry, HPLC, and spectrophotometric determination of free amino acids—was similar between the in vitro protocol and in vivo conditions at gastric and intestinal endpoints [22]. Specifically, milk proteins detected after gastric in vitro digestion corresponded to gastric and duodenal in vivo samples, and intestinal in vitro samples corresponded to distal jejunal in vivo samples. This correlation confirms the protocol's utility for studying protein hydrolysis in complex matrices [22].

Table 1: Key Parameters of the INFOGEST 2.0 Static Digestion Protocol

Digestion Phase	pH	Key Enzymes	Time	Physiological Basis
Oral	5-7	Amylase, Lingual Lipase	< 2-5 min	Simulates mastication and salivary secretion [15]
Gastric	Initial: ~5, Final: 1-2	Pepsin, Gastric Lipase	0.5-3 h	Based on gastric acid secretion profiles [15]
Intestinal	4-7	Trypsin, Chymotrypsin, Pancreatic Lipase, Amylase, Bile	1.5-5 h	Reflectates duodenal and jejunal conditions [15]

Comparative Analysis: Protein Digestibility Across Food Matrices

A recent investigation utilizing the INFOGEST method examined the in vitro protein digestibility of a blend of pea protein isolate and wheat flour (75:25) incorporated into four distinct model foods with varying moisture content and structure [7]. This study serves as an exemplary case for understanding how the same protein ingredient mixture behaves differently when consumed in various food forms, highlighting the significant impact of matrix effects.

The researchers prepared plant-based milk and pudding as high-moisture foods, a burger as a medium-moisture food, and a breadstick as a low-moisture food. Protein digestion outcomes demonstrated a clear dependence on the level of food hydration, composition, and structure. The high-moisture foods achieved the highest digestibility scores, with plant-based milk at approximately 83% and pudding at 81%. The burger followed with a digestibility score of around 71%, while the breadstick had the lowest score at approximately 69% [7]. These findings align with previous observations that moisture content significantly influences digestive behavior, though the relationship is more complex in multi-component foods.

Table 2: Protein Digestibility of Pea Protein-Wheat Blend in Different Food Matrices Using INFOGEST Protocol

Food Matrix	Moisture Category	Protein Digestibility (%)	Key Matrix Factors Influencing Digestion
Plant-Based Milk	High	~83%	High hydration, liquid structure, colloidal dispersion
Pudding	High	~81%	Gelled texture, high hydration, carrageenan structure
Plant-Based Burger	Medium	~71%	Grilled surface, medium hydration, lipid-protein interactions
Breadstick	Low	~69%	Low hydration, baked structure, Maillard reaction products

The viscosity of the soluble duodenal content was notably similar across all duodenal soluble samples, suggesting that the physical form of the initial food matrix had been largely broken down by the end of the intestinal phase [7]. However, the study highlighted that the amount of digestible protein per food category varied significantly when digestibility scores were combined with reference portion sizes, emphasizing the importance of considering real-world consumption patterns when evaluating nutritional quality.

Methodological Framework: Experimental Protocols for Matrix Effect Evaluation

INFOGEST Static Digestion Protocol

The INFOGEST method provides a standardized framework for evaluating matrix effects across different food systems [8]. The general procedure involves:

• Sample Preparation: Foods are typically homogenized to simulate mastication, with particle size controlled to approximately 2mm to reflect physiological conditions after chewing [15].
• Oral Phase: The food sample is mixed with simulated salivary fluid containing electrolytes and α-amylase. The pH is adjusted to 5-7, and incubation occurs for 2-5 minutes at 37°C with constant agitation [8] [5].
• Gastric Phase: The oral bolus is mixed with simulated gastric fluid containing pepsin and gastric lipase. The pH is initially adjusted to ~5 to reflect the fed state, then gradually decreased to 1-2 over 0.5-3 hours at 37°C [15].
• Intestinal Phase: The gastric chyme is mixed with simulated intestinal fluid containing pancreatin (source of trypsin, chymotrypsin, pancreatic lipase, and amylase) and bile salts. The pH is maintained at 4-7 for 1.5-5 hours at 37°C [15].

Throughout the process, parameters such as enzyme activities, electrolyte concentrations, and incubation times are carefully controlled based on physiological data. The protocol has been optimized through interlaboratory validation studies to ensure reproducibility, with recent work improving the measurement of α-amylase activity by shifting from single-point measurements at 20°C to four time-point measurements at 37°C, significantly enhancing precision [5].

Specialized Adaptations for Specific Matrices

The basic INFOGEST protocol can be adapted to address specific matrix challenges:

• High-Fat Matrices: Additional attention to lipid digestion kinetics and lipase activity measurements.
• High-Fiber Matrices: Consideration of viscosity effects and potential enzyme inhibition.
• Processed Foods: Evaluation of how thermal treatment and structural modifications alter digestibility.
• Age-Specific Formulations: Adaptation of enzyme activities and pH conditions to simulate infant or elderly digestion [15].

The following workflow diagram illustrates the application of the INFOGEST method to evaluate matrix effects across different food types:

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

Implementation of the INFOGEST protocol for matrix effect studies requires specific research reagents and laboratory materials. The following table details key components and their functions in the digestion process:

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for INFOGEST Digestion Studies

Reagent/Material	Function in Protocol	Key Components	Physiological Relevance
Simulated Salivary Fluid (SSF)	Oral phase digestion; starch hydrolysis	Electrolytes (K⁺, Na⁺, Ca²⁺), α-amylase	Mimics composition and function of human saliva; initial starch breakdown [8] [5]
Simulated Gastric Fluid (SGF)	Gastric phase; protein hydrolysis	HCl, pepsin, gastric lipase, electrolytes	Represents gastric juice composition; initiates protein digestion [8]
Simulated Intestinal Fluid (SIF)	Intestinal phase; final nutrient breakdown	Pancreatin, bile salts, electrolytes, pH buffers	Duodenal environment simulation; completes macronutrient digestion [8]
Enzyme Activity Assays	Protocol standardization and validation	Maltose standards, colorimetric substrates	Ensures consistent enzymatic activity across experiments [5]
pH Adjustment Solutions	Maintain phase-specific pH conditions	HCl, NaOH, bicarbonate buffers	Replicates physiological pH progression through GI tract [8]

The INFOGEST standardized in vitro digestion model provides an essential framework for systematically investigating matrix effects across diverse food systems. As demonstrated in the comparative study of pea protein-wheat blends, food matrix characteristics such as moisture content, structural organization, and composition significantly influence protein digestibility outcomes, even when the fundamental protein ingredient remains constant [7]. The protocol's validation against in vivo data [22] and continuous refinement through interlaboratory studies [5] enhance its reliability for evaluating complex food matrices.

This standardized approach enables researchers to dissect the intricate relationships between food structure, composition, and nutrient bioaccessibility, supporting the development of foods with tailored digestive behaviors. As the method continues to evolve with adaptations for specific populations and food types, it promises to deepen our understanding of matrix effects and contribute to more nutritionally optimized food products designed for specific health needs and population groups.

Understanding the fate of food in the gastrointestinal tract is fundamental for developing nutritional products that meet the specific physiological needs of diverse populations. The INFOGEST network, an international consortium of digestion researchers, has established standardized in vitro digestion protocols to harmonize research methodologies across laboratories [8] [2]. While the initial INFOGEST protocol simulated healthy adult digestion, growing recognition of fundamental physiological differences in specific populations has driven the development of adapted models for infants and older adults [15] [36].

These population-specific models are not mere modifications but represent significant paradigm shifts in food digestion research. For infants, adaptations account for an immature gastrointestinal system with distinct enzyme levels and pH conditions [37] [38]. For the elderly, models address age-related physiological declines that impact nutrient bioaccessibility [39] [36] [40]. The validation of these models against in vivo data provides researchers with robust tools to design tailored nutritional solutions that account for the unique digestive capabilities of these vulnerable populations, thereby addressing critical nutritional challenges such as malnutrition in aging and nutrient absorption in infancy [41] [40].

Physiological Basis for Model Adaptation

Infant Gastrointestinal Physiology

The infant digestive system exhibits profound physiological differences compared to adults, necessitating specialized digestion models. During the first six months of life, infants experience lower gastric motility and reduced enzymatic activity [38]. Gastric lipase plays a more crucial role in lipid digestion due to immature pancreatic function [15], while proteolytic activity differs significantly from adults [37]. The pH environment in the infant stomach is less acidic, with fasting pH values ranging from 3.0 to 5.0 [38], substantially higher than the highly acidic adult stomach. These physiological conditions result in distinct proteolysis patterns, with caseins from human milk being proteolyzed more slowly than those from infant formulas [41]. Understanding these fundamental differences is essential for developing infant formulas that more closely mimic the digestive behavior of human milk, which remains the gold standard for infant nutrition.

Age-Related Changes in Elderly Digestion

The aging process introduces multiple physiological changes throughout the gastrointestinal tract that significantly impact nutrient digestion and absorption. Older adults experience impaired oral processing capability due to decline in muscular function, dental status deterioration, and reduced salivary flow [36]. In the stomach, higher gastric pH and reduced pepsin secretion diminish protein digestion efficiency [39] [36]. These changes are further compounded by slower gastric emptying rates and reduced bile salt concentrations in the intestine [36]. The cumulative impact of these alterations progressively decreases the ability of the aging gastrointestinal tract to provide adequate nutrients, contributing to the development of malnutrition—a serious concern affecting elderly populations worldwide [40]. These physiological declines create a compelling rationale for developing tailored digestion models that accurately represent the elderly digestive environment.

Table 1: Key Physiological Parameters Across Population Groups

Physiological Parameter	Adult	Infant	Elderly
Gastric pH	Highly acidic (1.5-3.0)	Moderate (3.0-5.0)	Less acidic (increased)
Enzyme Secretion	Normal levels	Reduced, especially pancreatic enzymes	Reduced pepsin, bile salts
Gastric Emptying Rate	Standard	Slower than adults	Slower than younger adults
Protein Digestibility	Standard	Distinct patterns from adults	Generally reduced
Physical Digestion	Normal mastication	Minimal oral processing	Impaired oral processing

Experimental Models and Methodologies

Infant Digestion Models

The development of infant digestion models has advanced significantly, incorporating both static and dynamic approaches to simulate infant gastrointestinal conditions. The INFOGEST international consensus on infant in vitro digestion models provides a standardized static protocol based on physiological data from full-term infants [37]. This protocol specifically adapts enzyme concentrations, pH values, and phase durations to reflect infant physiology rather than adult conditions. For more sophisticated simulations, dynamic models like the infant Human Gastric Simulator (iHGS) have been developed to provide greater physiological relevance by simulating stomach contraction patterns, gradual secretion of gastric fluids, and gastric emptying [38].

Key experimental parameters for infant digestion studies include gastric pH maintained between 3.0-5.0, reduced enzyme concentrations (pepsin and gastric lipase), and modified gastric emptying patterns [38]. These models have been successfully validated through comparative studies. For instance, research comparing human milk versus infant formula digestion using both in vitro dynamic systems and in vivo mini-piglet models demonstrated similar conclusions, with highly correlated peptide mapping between models (r = 0.7–0.9, p < 0.0001) [41]. This correlation between in vitro and in vivo findings provides strong support for the physiological relevance of these adapted infant models.

Elderly Digestion Models

The recently developed INFOGEST international consensus static in vitro digestion model for older adults represents a significant advancement in age-specific digestion research [36]. This model systematically adapts parameters based on comprehensive literature review of physiological changes in adults over 65 years, incorporating higher gastric pH, reduced digestive enzyme activities, lower bile salt concentration, and longer transit times compared to the standard adult protocol [36].

Experimental studies utilizing elderly digestion models have demonstrated substantial differences in nutrient bioaccessibility compared to standard adult conditions. Research on protein digestibility under adult versus elderly conditions revealed that elderly conditions reduced protein digestibility for all protein sources tested, with whey and rice proteins showing approximately 20% reduction, followed by pea (about 10% reduction) and wheat (about 4% reduction) proteins [39]. These findings highlight the critical importance of using population-appropriate digestion models when developing nutritional products for elderly consumers, as standard adult digestion models significantly overestimate protein bioaccessibility in this demographic.

Table 2: Comparative Analysis of Digestion Protocols Across Populations

Protocol Parameter	INFOGEST Adult	INFOGEST Infant	INFOGEST Elderly
Oral Phase Duration	2 min	Often omitted for liquids	Adapted for impaired processing
Gastric Phase Duration	2 h	Varies by age	Increased duration
Gastric pH	Highly acidic	Less acidic (higher pH)	Higher than adult
Pepsin Activity	Standard	Reduced	Significantly reduced
Bile Salt Concentration	Standard	Infant-specific levels	Reduced
Primary Applications	General food digestibility	Formula development, HM comparison	Combatting malnutrition, tailored foods

Validation of Models and Research Applications

Correlation with In Vivo Findings

A critical measure of the validity of population-specific in vitro models is their correlation with in vivo findings. Research comparing in vitro and in vivo digestion of human milk and infant formula has demonstrated remarkable consistency between models. One comprehensive study found that digesta microstructure differed between human milk and infant formula similarly in both in vitro and in vivo systems [41]. Furthermore, proteolysis patterns showed strong correlation, with peptide mapping of caseins from human milk and infant formula being highly correlated between in vitro and in vivo digestion (r = 0.7–0.9, p < 0.0001) [41]. Importantly, 40-50% of the bioactive peptides identified in vivo were also found in vitro, with good correlation of their abundances (r = 0.5, p < 0.0001) [41].

For elderly models, validation often focuses on functional outcomes such as nutrient bioaccessibility. Studies have consistently demonstrated that the reduced protein digestibility observed under simulated elderly conditions aligns with clinical observations of increased protein requirements and higher prevalence of malnutrition in older populations [39] [40]. This correlation between in vitro findings and real-world nutritional challenges supports the physiological relevance of the adapted elderly digestion model and its utility in developing targeted nutritional solutions.

Research Applications and Implications

The development and validation of population-specific digestion models has enabled numerous advanced research applications with significant practical implications. For infant nutrition, these models facilitate the systematic comparison of different infant formula compositions, including whey-dominant versus casein-dominant formulations, and their digestive behaviors compared to human milk [41] [38]. This research has revealed that casein-dominant formulas show more extensive protein coagulation and slower protein hydrolysis, resulting in different temporal patterns of nutrient delivery [38].

In elderly nutrition, these models enable the assessment of protein bioaccessibility from various food sources under physiologically relevant conditions, informing the development of foods tailored to the nutritional needs of older adults [39] [36]. This is particularly important for addressing sarcopenia—the age-related loss of muscle mass—by ensuring adequate protein bioavailability despite agerelated digestive decline [40]. Additionally, these models support the development of specialized foods for elderly consumers with chewing or swallowing difficulties, ensuring that modified texture foods still provide adequate nutrient bioaccessibility [36].

Essential Research Reagents and Methodologies

Key Research Reagents for Population-Specific Digestion Studies

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Population-Specific Digestion Studies

Reagent/Enzyme	Specifications	Physiological Relevance	Population Considerations
Pepsin	Porcine gastric mucosa (e.g., 2,500 units/mg)	Primary gastric protease for protein digestion	Reduced activity for infant and elderly models [39] [38]
Gastric Lipase	Fungal source (e.g., Aspergillus niger, 1,200 units/mg)	Initiates lipid digestion in stomach	More critical in infant models due to pancreatic immaturity [38]
Pancreatin	Porcine pancreatic enzyme extract	Provides intestinal digestive enzymes	Activity levels adjusted for population-specific models [36]
Bile Salts	Mixed bile salt preparations	Emulsifies lipids for digestion	Concentration varies by population (reduced in elderly) [36]
Mucin	Porcine gastric mucin	Simulates gastric mucus layer	Affects viscosity and nutrient diffusion rates

Analytical Methodologies for Endpoint Analysis

Comprehensive analysis of digestion outcomes requires multiple complementary analytical techniques. Electrophoresis methods such as SDS-PAGE are routinely employed to monitor the disappearance of intact proteins and appearance of breakdown products during digestion [41] [39]. More advanced mass spectrometry approaches (LC-MS/MS) enable detailed peptide mapping and identification of bioactive peptides released during digestion [41]. For quantitative assessment of protein hydrolysis, the OPA (ortho-phthalaldehyde) method provides measurement of the degree of hydrolysis through primary amine detection [41].

Structural changes during digestion are frequently analyzed using confocal laser scanning microscopy to visualize the microstructure of digesta and track the fate of protein and lipid components [41] [38]. Laser light scattering techniques provide quantitative data on particle size distribution throughout the digestion process [41]. For mineral and micronutrient bioaccessibility assessment, inductively coupled plasma methods coupled with various detection systems are employed to quantify soluble fractions available for absorption [36].

The development and validation of population-specific digestion models for infants and elderly represent significant advancements in food digestion research. These models, built upon comprehensive physiological data and international consensus through the INFOGEST network, provide researchers with robust tools to investigate the complex interplay between food composition, digestive physiology, and nutrient bioaccessibility in vulnerable populations. The strong correlation between in vitro findings and in vivo observations supports the physiological relevance of these models and their utility in developing targeted nutritional solutions.

As demographic shifts continue to increase the proportion of elderly individuals worldwide, and as nutritional science continues to refine infant feeding strategies, these population-specific models will play an increasingly crucial role in addressing the unique nutritional challenges faced by these groups. Future directions will likely include further refinement of these models, incorporation of additional elements such as gut microbiota, and expansion to other specific populations with distinct digestive characteristics, ultimately contributing to improved health outcomes through tailored nutritional approaches.

Protocol Modifications for Challenging Sample Types (e.g., Hydrogels, High-Fat Matrices)

The INFOGEST static in vitro digestion protocol has emerged as an international standard for simulating human gastrointestinal digestion, providing a harmonized framework that enables meaningful cross-laboratory comparisons of digestive outcomes [1]. This standardized method meticulously defines biochemical parameters including enzyme activities, pH, incubation times, and digestive fluid composition based on physiological data. However, the protocol's inherent rigidity presents significant challenges when applied to complex or non-conventional food matrices such as high-fat systems and engineered hydrogels [13] [15]. The growing scientific and commercial interest in these challenging sample types—driven by developments in functional foods, pharmaceutical delivery systems, and meat alternatives—has necessitated strategic modifications to the standard INFOGEST approach while maintaining its core physiological relevance.

The digestive fate of challenging matrices is influenced by a complex interplay between their physical structure and chemical composition. While the INFOGEST protocol successfully standardizes the chemical environment of digestion, it does not fully account for the physicochemical barriers that govern nutrient release and accessibility in structured systems [42] [15]. For researchers, this creates a critical methodological gap: how to adapt a standardized static protocol to appropriately study samples whose digestive behavior is dominated by physical constraints and matrix effects. This comparison guide systematically evaluates evidence-based modifications to the INFOGEST protocol, providing experimental data and methodological recommendations for maintaining scientific rigor while addressing the unique challenges posed by hydrogels and high-fat matrices.

Methodological Challenges by Sample Type

High-Fat Matrices and Oleogels

High-fat matrices present particular difficulties for in vitro digestion studies due to their immiscible nature and tendency to form separate phases that limit enzyme accessibility. Oleogels—structured oil systems that mimic solid fats while remaining high in unsaturated liquid oil—exemplify these challenges. The standard INFOGEST protocol specifies fixed ratios of food sample to digestive fluids, but this becomes problematic with high-fat samples because the lipid-to-enzyme ratio dramatically influences lipolysis kinetics and extent [13]. Researchers often inadvertently modify the protocol by altering sample size, potentially leading to non-physiological conditions and making cross-study comparisons difficult.

The digestive pathway of oleogels varies significantly based on their structuring mechanism. Ethylcellulose oleogels undergo lipolysis primarily through direct interaction with enzymes and bile salts at the gel interface, while wax-based oleogels follow a disintegration-dependent pathway where crystal breakdown precedes substantial lipolysis [13]. This fundamental difference in digestive mechanism means that a single, unmodified protocol cannot accurately capture the digestion behavior of both oleogel types. Additionally, the shear forces applied during mechanical mixing in the standard protocol may insufficiently replicate the breakdown of structured lipid systems, potentially underestimating their digestibility [13].

Hydrogel Systems and Structured Foods

Hydrogels—water-swollen three-dimensional networks—are increasingly used as model systems for studying controlled nutrient release and designing foods for specific populations. Their digestion is governed by a complex interplay between chemical degradation by digestive enzymes and physical erosion through swelling, deformation, and breakdown under gastrointestinal stresses [15]. The standard INFOGEST protocol adequately addresses the chemical aspect but provides limited guidance on simulating the physical forces that significantly influence hydrogel breakdown and nutrient release kinetics.

The mechanical characteristics of hydrogels, including hardness, fracture stress, and elastic modulus, directly impact their gastric disintegration and subsequent nutrient bioavailability [15]. These parameters can be deliberately tuned by adjusting cross-linking density, polymer concentration, and incorporating fillers, creating a need for digestion protocols that can appropriately assess their functional performance. Furthermore, the hydration state of structured protein foods significantly influences protein digestibility, with high-moisture systems (e.g., plant-based milk, pudding) demonstrating substantially higher protein digestion (81-83%) compared to low-moisture formats (e.g., breadsticks, 69%) [7]. This moisture-dependent behavior underscores the limitation of a one-size-fits-all approach to digestion simulation.

Table 1: Key Challenges by Sample Type and Implications for Protocol Adaptation

Sample Type	Primary Challenges	Digestive Process Implications	Standard Protocol Limitations
High-Fat Matrices & Oleogels	Lipid phase separation, non-physiological lipid-to-enzyme ratios [13]	Variable lipolysis kinetics, digestion pathway depends on oleogelator type [13]	Fixed sample-to-fluid ratios, insufficient shear simulation [13]
Hydrogel Systems	Physical breakdown controls nutrient release, matrix effects dominate [15]	Moisture content significantly impacts protein digestibility [7]	Limited physical disintegration, overlooks mechanical properties [42] [15]
Structured Proteins	Nutrient accessibility depends on matrix hydration and structure [7]	High-moisture foods: ~82% digestibility; Low-moisture: ~69% digestibility [7]	Fixed biochemical conditions don't account for structural barriers [7]

Evidence-Based Protocol Modifications and Experimental Data

Documented Modifications for High-Fat Systems

Research on oleogels has identified several critical parameters requiring modification in the standard INFOGEST approach. A fundamental adjustment involves carefully standardizing the sample mass of high-fat matrices to maintain physiological relevance in the lipid-to-enzyme ratio while ensuring sufficient material for analytical detection [13]. This balancing act requires preliminary experiments to determine the optimal sample size that prevents enzyme saturation while avoiding analytical limitations.

The application of shear forces during the gastric and intestinal phases represents another key modification for high-fat systems. The standard protocol specifies general mixing conditions but does not adequately address the need for controlled shear that mimics antral contractions in disrupting oleogel structure [13]. Evidence suggests that wax oleogels in particular require sufficient mechanical energy to break down the crystalline network that entraps liquid oil, thereby enabling lipase access [13]. Researchers have implemented modified mixing systems that provide defined shear profiles, with lipolysis outcomes monitored using pH-stat titration and complemented by microscopy to correlate structural changes with digestion extent.

Analytical methodology also requires adaptation for accurate assessment of high-fat matrix digestion. While the pH-stat method provides continuous monitoring of free fatty acid release during lipolysis, studies have demonstrated that high-performance liquid chromatography with evaporative light scattering detection (HPLC-ELSD) may yield different quantitative results due to its detection mechanism [13]. This discrepancy highlights the importance of selecting appropriate analytical techniques and consistently applying them across comparative studies.

Table 2: Documented Modifications for High-Fat Matrices and Experimental Outcomes

Protocol Parameter	Standard INFOGEST	Evidence-Based Modification	Experimental Impact/Outcome
Sample Amount	Fixed food-to-fluid ratio [1]	Adjusted to maintain physiological lipid-to-enzyme ratio [13]	Prevents under/overestimation of lipolysis; enables reliable comparison [13]
Shear Application	General mixing recommendation [1]	Controlled shear simulation during gastric & intestinal phases [13]	Wax oleogels: enables disintegration; EC oleogels: enhances enzyme access [13]
Lipolysis Monitoring	pH-stat method suggested [28]	pH-stat combined with HPLC-ELSD validation [13]	Provides complementary data; reveals potential methodological discrepancies [13]
Enzyme Activity Assessment	Recommended pre-assay [28]	Mandatory lipase activity verification via pH-stat with tributyrin [28]	Reduces inter-laboratory variability; ensures consistent digestion conditions [28]

Hydrogels and Structured Protein Modifications

For hydrogel systems and structured proteins, protocol modifications primarily address the physical breakdown and hydration dynamics that control nutrient release. Research indicates that the moisture content of protein matrices significantly influences digestibility, with high-moisture foods (plant-based milk, pudding) achieving 81-83% protein digestibility compared to 69-71% for low-moisture formats (burgers, breadsticks) [7]. This suggests that hydration pre-treatment or modified fluid-to-solid ratios may be necessary for low-moisture samples to better simulate in vivo conditions where foods absorb fluids gradually.

The food matrix composition profoundly impacts the bioaccessibility of supplemented bioactive ingredients. A study investigating milk fat globule membrane (MFGM) supplementation in different food formats (jelly, cookie, lipid-carbohydrate matrix) found distinct lipid profiles in the micellar fraction after INFOGEST digestion, indicating that the same bioactive ingredient experiences different digestive fates depending on its carrier matrix [43]. This matrix effect necessitates careful consideration when applying the standard protocol to functional foods, potentially requiring adjustments to digestion times or enzyme activities based on the dominant matrix components.

Post-digestion handling represents another critical modification area for structured foods. A systematic evaluation of enzymatic inhibition methods following INFOGEST digestion revealed that thermal inactivation (heating at 80-100°C for 5-20 minutes) and subsequent freezing storage best preserved the integrity of carbohydrates and peptides, while freeze-drying promoted phenolic degradation and reduced antioxidant activity [44]. For lipid-rich matrices, storage conditions showed minimal impact on fatty acid profiles, allowing flexibility based on other component needs [44].

Diagram 1: Experimental workflow for hydrogel and structured protein digestion analysis

Advanced Model Systems and Future Directions

Semi-Dynamic and Dynamic Digestion Models

While static protocols like INFOGEST provide valuable endpoints, semi-dynamic and dynamic models offer more physiologically relevant approaches for challenging matrices by incorporating gradual changes in pH, gastric secretion rates, and gastric emptying patterns [17]. These systems bridge the gap between simplistic static models and complex dynamic systems, offering a practical compromise that captures essential kinetics without requiring sophisticated equipment. The recent development of miniaturized digestion systems (digestion-chips) incorporates key dynamic features including gradual acidification, controlled enzyme addition, and regulated gastric emptying while maintaining low reagent consumption [17].

For high-fat matrices, dynamic models better simulate the interfacial processes governing lipolysis by continuously updating the bile salt and lipase concentrations at the oil-water interface. Similarly, for hydrogels, the progressive application of mechanical forces in dynamic systems more accurately replicates the continuous physical erosion that occurs in vivo [42]. These systems enable real-time monitoring of structural changes and nutrient release kinetics, providing insights that static endpoints cannot capture.

Validation and Standardization Approaches

A significant challenge in modifying standardized protocols lies in maintaining inter-laboratory reproducibility while accommodating sample-specific needs. The INFOGEST network has addressed this for enzyme activity measurements by establishing rigorous testing protocols for digestive lipases, identifying that pH-stat equipment parameters—particularly reaction vessel shape and stirring mode—significantly impact inter-laboratory variability [28]. Their recommendations include using standardized vessel geometries and calibrated stirring rates to improve reproducibility.

For physical digestion parameters, validation approaches include using analog materials with known fracture properties to calibrate mechanical forces applied during digestion [42]. Several research groups have employed agar gel beads of defined mechanical strength to compare the destructive capabilities of different in vitro systems against in vivo data [42]. This approach could be extended to develop standardized calibration materials for hydrogel and structured food digestion studies.

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Challenging Matrix Digestion Studies

Reagent/Enzyme	Source/Preparation	Key Function in Challenging Matrices	Activity Verification Method
Rabbit Gastric Extract (RGE)	Commercial preparation or mucosal extraction [28]	Provides gastric lipase for initial lipid digestion in high-fat systems [13] [28]	pH-stat titration with tributyrin substrate [28]
Pancreatin	Porcine pancreatic extract [28]	Source of pancreatic lipase, proteases, amylase for intestinal phase [28]	pH-stat titration with tributyrin (lipase); other specific assays [28]
Bile Salts	Bovine or porcine sources [43]	Emulsification of lipids, critical for oleogel lipolysis [13] [43]	Critical micellar concentration measurement [43]
Simulated Digestive Fluids	Electrolyte solutions per INFOGEST [1]	Maintain physiological ionic strength and pH conditions [1]	pH calibration and osmolarity verification [1]
Enzyme Inhibitors	Specific (e.g., boronic acid) or thermal [44]	Halting digestion at specific timepoints for analysis [44]	Residual activity testing post-inhibition [44]

The INFOGEST static digestion protocol provides an essential foundation for in vitro digestion studies, but strategic modifications are necessary when investigating challenging sample types such as high-fat matrices and hydrogels. For high-fat systems like oleogels, sample quantity standardization and controlled shear application are critical modifications that significantly impact lipolysis outcomes. For hydrogel and structured protein systems, the hydration state and physical properties dictate necessary adjustments to fluid ratios and mechanical processing. Across all sample types, post-digestion handling—particularly thermal inactivation and freezing storage—proves essential for accurate macronutrient analysis.

Future methodological development should focus on establishing standardized validation approaches for physical digestion parameters and expanding semi-dynamic models that better capture the kinetic processes governing structured food breakdown. By implementing these evidence-based modifications while maintaining the core physiological principles of the INFOGEST protocol, researchers can generate more reliable and comparable data on the digestive fate of challenging matrices, advancing the development of optimized functional foods and delivery systems.

Benchmarking INFOGEST: Interlaboratory Validation and Model Comparisons

Within the framework of validating the INFOGEST standardized digestion model, interlaboratory ring trials have emerged as an indispensable tool for assessing the reproducibility and robustness of in vitro methods [45]. As the scientific community transitions towards New Approach Methodologies (NAMs), confidence in these methods depends critically on demonstrating their reliability across multiple laboratories [45]. The validation of experimental methods, particularly those intended for regulatory applications, requires rigorous assessment of both within-laboratory and between-laboratory reproducibility [45]. Ring trials, also termed interlaboratory comparisons or round-robin studies, provide this critical external reproducibility control by having multiple laboratories test the same materials using identical protocols [45].

The ongoing reproducibility crisis in science, where more than 70% of scientists have reported failing to reproduce another researcher's experiments, underscores the vital importance of these validation exercises [45]. For the INFOGEST network's mission of harmonizing in vitro digestion protocols, ring trials offer the only scientifically defensible pathway to ensure that results can be compared across different studies and laboratories with high confidence [5]. This guide examines the evidence from such trials, with a specific focus on their application within INFOGEST research, to objectively compare protocol performance and provide experimental data supporting method validation.

Ring Trial Fundamentals and Design

Core Concepts and Terminology

Table 1: Key Terminology in Ring Trial Validation

Term	Definition	Significance in Validation
Ring Trial	An external reproducibility control where multiple laboratories test the same items using the same protocol [45]	Demonstrates robustness and reproducibility of a method across different settings
Within-Laboratory Reproducibility (WLR)	How well a test result is reproduced in the same lab using the same equipment [45]	Assesses internal consistency and repeatability
Between-Laboratory Reproducibility (BLR)	How well a test result is reproduced between different laboratories [45]	Measures method transferability and inter-laboratory variability
Transferability	Assesses whether the protocol is sufficiently detailed for implementation in different settings [45]	Identifies protocol clarity and training requirements
Sensitivity	The proportion of true positives correctly identified by the test [46]	Indicates method detection capability for true positives
Specificity	The proportion of true negatives correctly identified by the test [46]	Indicates method accuracy in identifying true negatives

Standard Ring Trial Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the generalized workflow for conducting an interlaboratory ring trial, as implemented in validation studies for standardized protocols:

Figure 1: Ring Trial Workflow for Method Validation

This systematic approach ensures that every aspect of protocol implementation can be evaluated across different laboratory settings, equipment, and personnel. The critical phase of blind-coded sample testing is particularly important for eliminating bias in the results [45]. The iterative refinement step allows methods to be improved based on empirical evidence gathered from multiple implementations.

Case Study: INFOGEST α-Amylase Activity Protocol Validation

Experimental Protocol and Methodology

A recent ring trial conducted by the INFOGEST network focused on validating an optimized protocol for measuring α-amylase activity, a critical enzyme in starch digestion studies [5]. The detailed methodology was as follows:

Protocol Objective: To evaluate the repeatability (intra-laboratory precision) and reproducibility (inter-laboratory precision) of a newly optimized α-amylase activity assay based on four time-point measurements at 37°C, compared to the original single-point measurement at 20°C [5].

Test Materials and Reagents:

• Enzyme Sources: Human saliva (pooled from ten healthy adults) and three porcine enzyme preparations (two pancreatic α-amylases from different suppliers, and pancreatin)
• Substrate: Potato starch solution
• Detection Method: Quantification of reducing sugars formed during incubation as maltose equivalents
• Calibrators: Maltose solution (2% w/v) for preparation of ten calibrator solutions (concentration range 0-3 mg/mL)

Experimental Procedure:

• Sample Preparation: Each laboratory received the same set of test materials and prepared solutions at three different concentrations (C1, C2, C3) as specified in the protocol
• Incubation Conditions: Incubation of enzyme solutions with substrate at 37°C for multiple time points (compared to original 3-minute single point at 20°C)
• Reaction Termination: Using dinitrosalicylic acid colorimetric method
• Measurement: Spectrophotometric analysis at 540 nm using either cuvette spectrophotometers or microplate readers
• Activity Calculation: One unit of activity defined as liberating 1.0 mg of maltose from starch in 3 minutes at pH 6.9 at 37°C [5]

Participating Laboratories: The ring trial included 13 laboratories across 12 countries and 3 continents, each implementing the protocol using their own equipment while maintaining standardized core conditions [5].

Quantitative Results and Performance Comparison

Table 2: Ring Trial Results for α-Amylase Activity Measurement (n=13 Laboratories)

Test Product	Mean Activity	Standard Deviation	Repeatability (CVr)	Reproducibility (CVR)	Improvement Over Original Method
Human Saliva	877.4 U/mL	± 142.7	8-13%	16%	Up to 4 times lower CVR
Porcine Pancreatin	206.5 U/mg	± 33.8	8-13%	16%	Up to 4 times lower CVR
α-Amylase M	389.0 U/mg	± 58.9	8-13%	16%	Up to 4 times lower CVR
α-Amylase S	22.3 U/mg	± 4.8	8-13%	21%	Up to 4 times lower CVR

The data revealed several critical findings. First, the optimized protocol demonstrated substantially improved reproducibility compared to the original method, with interlaboratory coefficients of variation (CVR) ranging from 16% to 21% – up to four times lower than the original protocol [5]. Second, repeatability within laboratories remained consistently below 20% for all test products, with overall repeatability below 15% [5]. Five laboratories that conducted parallel testing at both 20°C and 37°C confirmed that amylolytic activity increased by approximately 3.3-fold (± 0.3) at the physiologically relevant temperature of 37°C [5].

Statistical analysis of the results identified no significant effect of different incubation equipment (water baths with or without shaking vs. thermal shakers) on the outcomes, demonstrating the protocol's robustness to minor variations in implementation [5]. Similarly, the type of spectrophotometric equipment used (cuvette vs. microplate reader) showed comparable reproducibility (23% and 27% CVR respectively for calibration curves) [5].

Comparative Analysis with Other Ring Trial Applications

Cross-Domain Ring Trial Performance

Table 3: Ring Trial Performance Across Different Scientific Domains

Application Domain	Methodology	Key Performance Metrics	Common Challenges Identified
INFOGEST Digestion Model [5]	α-amylase activity assay	Sensitivity: 100%, Specificity: 100% in most labs, CVR: 16-21%	Inter-laboratory variability in Ct values, sample concentration effects
Viral Disease Diagnostics [46]	qRT-PCR for pathogen detection	Sensitivity: 100% (most labs), Specificity: 100% (most labs)	False positives from cross-contamination, detection limits for low concentration samples
Regulatory Toxicology [45]	New Approach Methodologies (NAMs)	Within-lab and between-lab reproducibility as per OECD standards	Method transfer failures, protocol ambiguity, technical stumbling blocks

The comparative analysis reveals consistent patterns across domains. The INFOGEST α-amylase trial demonstrated exceptional performance with 100% sensitivity and specificity in most participating laboratories, mirroring the results seen in diagnostic ring trials for infectious pancreatic necrosis virus detection in Chile [46] [5]. Both domains identified similar challenges with inter-laboratory variability in quantitative measurements (Ct values in qRT-PCR and activity measurements in enzyme assays) [46] [5].

A critical finding across domains is that method transferability remains a significant challenge, with protocols often failing during ring trials due to "different stumbling blocks" that were not identified during single-laboratory development [45]. These failures, however, provide valuable learning opportunities to improve protocol robustness [45]. The INFOGEST trial successfully addressed this by explicitly documenting and accommodating variations in equipment across laboratories, demonstrating that flexibility in specific implementation details does not necessarily compromise reproducibility if core protocol parameters are maintained [5].

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Key Research Reagents for Digestion Study Ring Trials

Reagent / Material	Specification	Function in Experimental Protocol
Enzyme Sources	Human saliva (pooled), porcine pancreatic α-amylase, pancreatin	Biological catalysts for substrate digestion; multiple sources test protocol robustness [5]
Starch Substrate	Potato starch solution	Standardized substrate for α-amylase activity measurement [5]
Calibration Standards	Maltose solutions (0-3 mg/mL)	Reference for quantitative measurement of reaction products [5]
Detection Reagents	Dinitrosalicylic acid colorimetric method	Quantification of reducing sugars formed during enzymatic digestion [5]
Buffer Systems	pH 6.9, as specified in protocol	Maintain optimal enzymatic activity during incubations [5]

Implications for INFOGEST Model Validation

The evidence from ring trials provides critical support for the validity of the INFOGEST standardized digestion model. The α-amylase activity study demonstrates that through careful protocol optimization and interlaboratory validation, reproducibility coefficients of variation can be reduced to approximately 20% even across globally distributed laboratories with different equipment and personnel [5]. This level of reproducibility is remarkable for biological assays and supports the core INFOGEST mission of enabling valid comparisons across different digestion studies [5].

The success of the INFOGEST ring trial offers a template for future validation studies within the network. The systematic approach of testing multiple enzyme sources, concentrations, and equipment configurations provides a comprehensive assessment of protocol robustness that exceeds what can be achieved through single-laboratory validation [45] [5]. As the reproducibility crisis continues to affect various scientific fields, the INFOGEST network's commitment to rigorous ring trial validation sets a valuable precedent for other collaborative research initiatives seeking to establish standardized methodologies [45].

Ring trials remain indispensable for regulatory acceptance and scientific confidence in novel methodologies [45]. For the INFOGEST model, the evidence from these trials provides the necessary foundation for wider adoption across food science, pharmaceutical development, and nutritional research, ultimately supporting more reproducible and reliable digestion studies globally.

In vitro digestion models are indispensable tools for predicting the gastrointestinal fate of foods, nutrients, and pharmaceuticals, eliminating the ethical and financial constraints of in vivo studies. Among these, the INFOGEST static protocol and various dynamic models represent two predominant approaches, each with distinct methodologies, complexities, and applications. The INFOGEST model, a product of international harmonization efforts, provides a standardized, reproducible biochemical framework for simulating digestion in a single vessel under constant conditions. In contrast, dynamic digestion models incorporate physiologically relevant dynamics such as gradual secretion, pH changes, gastric emptying, and physical forces to more closely mimic the in vivo environment. This critical comparison, framed within the broader thesis of validating the INFOGEST model, examines the outcomes produced by these systems, drawing on experimental data to assess their performance in predicting digestive behavior. The analysis reveals that while the harmonized static protocol offers exceptional reproducibility and is well-validated for specific end-point measurements, dynamic models can provide a superior reflection of the gradual, complex processes occurring in the human gastrointestinal tract [47] [48] [49].

The fundamental difference between these models lies in their approach to simulating the dynamic nature of human digestion. The following table summarizes their core characteristics.

Table 1: Fundamental Characteristics of INFOGEST and Dynamic Digestion Models

Feature	INFOGEST Static Model	Dynamic Models (e.g., TIM, DGM, HGS, DIDGI)
Core Principle	Single-vessel digestion with constant conditions for each phase [17].	Multi-compartment systems simulating continuous, changing processes [48].
Biochemical Environment	Fixed pH, enzyme concentrations, and digestion times per phase [49].	Gradual acidification and enzyme/bile secretion following physiological patterns [47] [48].
Physical Forces	Typically, magnetic stirring; no simulated peristalsis [50].	Incorporation of simulated antral contractions, grinding, and shear forces [48] [50].
Gastric Emptying	Single, bulk transfer from stomach to intestine simulation [17].	Controlled, gradual emptying, often mimicking retropulsion [48] [17].
Primary Advantage	High reproducibility, standardization, low cost, and accessibility [5] [10].	Better approximation of the transient in vivo environment and kinetics [47] [50].
Throughput	High; suitable for rapid screening of many samples [10].	Low to medium; more complex operation limits sample number [17].

These differential features lead to distinct experimental workflows. The INFOGEST protocol follows a linear, sequential pathway, while dynamic models operate with continuous feedback and control.

Critical Comparison of Digestive Outcomes

Protein Digestion and Bioaccessibility

The digestion of proteins has been a key area for model validation. The standardized INFOGEST protocol has demonstrated a strong correlation with in vivo data for protein digestibility and the calculation of the Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Score (DIAAS). A 2023 study found a high correlation (( r = 0.96, p < 0.0001 )) between in vitro DIAAS values obtained via INFOGEST and those from in vivo trials for a range of foods including whey protein, zein, and black beans [30]. This shows that for end-point assessment of protein quality, the static protocol is a highly reliable and validated tool.

However, the process of protein hydrolysis can be better captured by dynamic systems. A direct comparison study using skim milk powder found that while peptide patterns at the end of gastric and intestinal digestion were similar between static (INFOGEST), dynamic (DIDGI), and in vivo (pig) models, the gradual protein hydrolysis in the dynamic system was closer to the in vivo situation [47]. Furthermore, the dynamic protocol more accurately reflected the physiological release of free amino acids, a crucial aspect for nutrient absorption [47]. This suggests that for kinetic studies of protein breakdown, dynamic models hold an advantage.

Starch Digestion and Enzyme Activity Validation

A core strength of the INFOGEST approach is its rigorous standardization of enzymatic assays, which is critical for reproducibility. A 2025 interlaboratory study validated a new optimized protocol for measuring α-amylase activity, moving from a single-point assay at 20°C to a more robust four time-point measurement at 37°C [5]. This optimization dramatically improved the inter-laboratory reproducibility coefficient of variation (CVR) from as high as 87% down to 16-21%, making cross-study comparisons more reliable [5]. This meticulous characterization of enzymes underpins the reliability of the INFOGEST digestion protocol itself.

Impact of Food Matrix and Physical Forces

The physical processing of food is an area where dynamic models significantly diverge from static models. Dynamic models like the Human Gastric Simulator (HGS) and Dynamic Gastric Model (DGM) incorporate mechanical forces that mimic antral contractions, which are critical for the breakdown of solid foods [48] [50]. For instance, validation studies using agar gel beads showed that the DGM could replicate their breakdown in vivo, whereas a simple stirred vessel (like in static models) resulted only in surface erosion [50]. This demonstrates that for heterogeneous or solid food matrices, the physical forces in dynamic models provide a more realistic simulation of food disintegration and nutrient release.

Furthermore, the food structure and composition significantly impact digestive outcomes, a factor that can be investigated with both models. A 2025 study using the INFOGEST protocol on plant-based foods found that protein digestibility was highly dependent on food moisture content and structure, with high-moisture foods (e.g., plant-based milk) achieving ~83% digestibility, compared to ~69% for low-moisture foods (e.g., breadsticks) [7]. While static models can identify these effects, dynamic models can further elucidate how physical forces and gradual emptying interact with these complex matrices over time [50].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

The INFOGEST Static Protocol Workflow

The INFOGEST method is a sequential three-step digestion. The following diagram details the specific conditions for each phase as defined by the standardized protocol.

Key Features of a Representative Dynamic Protocol

Dynamic protocols, such as the semi-dynamic method proposed by INFOGEST or the fully dynamic DIDGI system, introduce key physiological dynamics, primarily in the gastric phase [17] [49]. The typical workflow for a dynamic gastric phase includes:

• Gradual Acidification: Instead of an immediate pH drop, the pH is slowly decreased from the initial meal pH to a final pH of 3.0 using a titration system or computer-controlled pumps, mimicking the natural secretion of gastric acid [17].
• Continuous/Gradual Enzyme Secretion: Simulated gastric fluid containing pepsin is added gradually over the course of the gastric digestion, rather than in a single bolus at the start [47] [17].
• Controlled Gastric Emptying: The gastric content is emptied into the intestinal compartment in small, sequential aliquots following a physiological curve (e.g., using a peristaltic pump or a synchronized pumping system as in the "digestion-chip"), rather than all at once at the end of the gastric phase [17].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

The following table catalogs the key reagents and materials essential for implementing the INFOGEST and basic dynamic digestion protocols, based on cited experimental methodologies.

Table 2: Essential Reagents and Materials for In Vitro Digestion Studies

Reagent/Material	Function in Digestion Experiment	Example from Literature
Pepsin (from porcine gastric mucosa)	Primary protease for gastric digestion; hydrolyzes proteins into peptides.	Used at 2000 U/mL in gastric phase of INFOGEST protocol [30] [7].
Pancreatin (porcine)	Complex mixture of pancreatic enzymes (trypsin, chymotrypsin, lipase, amylase) for intestinal digestion.	Used in INFOGEST intestinal phase; trypsin activity standardized to 100 U/mL [30] [49].
α-Amylase (human salivary or porcine pancreatic)	Initiates starch hydrolysis in the oral phase.	Activity measured per optimized INFOGEST protocol (37°C, pH 6.9) [5].
Bile Salts (e.g., porcine bile extract)	Emulsifies lipids, facilitating lipolysis; forms micelles for lipid solubilization.	Used at 10 mM concentration in the intestinal phase [30] [7].
Skim Milk Powder (SMP)	Standardized model food for protocol validation and inter-laboratory comparison.	Used to validate peptide patterns against in vivo pig data [47] [30].
Electrolyte Stock Solutions	To prepare simulated salivary, gastric, and intestinal fluids with physiologically relevant ion concentrations.	Basis for all digestive fluids in the INFOGEST protocol [49].
pH Stat Titrator or Syringe Pumps	For dynamic models: enables gradual acidification and controlled secretion of enzymes/fluids.	Critical for implementing semi-dynamic gastric phase kinetics [17] [49].

The critical comparison between INFOGEST and dynamic digestion models reveals a landscape of complementary, rather than strictly competing, tools. The INFOGEST static model stands out for its robust standardization, high reproducibility, and strong validation for specific end-point analyses like protein digestibility and DIAAS calculation. It is an unparalleled tool for screening, comparative studies, and laboratories where cost and simplicity are paramount. In contrast, dynamic models excel in their ability to mimic the temporal and physical complexities of in vivo digestion, providing more physiologically relevant data on kinetics, the breakdown of solid matrices, and the gradual release of nutrients. The choice between them should be guided by the specific research question: INFOGEST for standardized, accessible, and reproducible end-point data; dynamic models for a deeper, more kinetic understanding of digestion dynamics that closely mirrors human physiology. As the field advances, the development of miniaturized, semi-dynamic systems offers a promising path to incorporating key dynamic features while maintaining accessibility and reducing reagent use [17].

In the fields of food science and pharmaceutical development, a significant challenge lies in accurately predicting how a substance will behave in the human body (in vivo) based on laboratory simulation (in vitro) results. The correlation between these domains is crucial for developing effective nutritional products and drugs without solely relying on costly and ethically complex human trials. The INFOGEST standardized in vitro digestion model has emerged as a critical international consensus protocol to address this challenge, providing a unified framework for simulating gastrointestinal digestion [51]. This guide objectively compares the predictive power of this standardized model against traditional, non-harmonized methods and in vivo data, providing a clear analysis of its performance and limitations for researchers and drug development professionals.

The INFOGEST Standardized Protocol: A Unified Experimental Framework

Core Methodology and Harmonized Parameters

The INFOGEST method is a static digestion model that replicates the oral, gastric, and small intestinal phases of human digestion under physiologically relevant conditions. Its development involved a broad international consensus to overcome the critical issue of non-comparable data produced by highly variable in-house protocols [51]. The protocol's strength lies in its standardization of key parameters that significantly impact digestive outcomes:

• Enzyme Sources and Activities: Standardized use of enzymes like pepsin (gastric phase) and pancreatin (intestinal phase) with defined activity levels.
• pH Conditions: Fixed pH values for each digestive phase (e.g., oral pH 5-7, gastric pH 3, intestinal pH 7) based on physiological data [15] [8].
• Digestion Times: Standardized transit times for each compartment (e.g., 2 hours for gastric, 2 hours for intestinal).
• Fluid Composition: Defined electrolyte and bile salt concentrations in digestive fluids.

A key advancement in the protocol is the inclusion of population-specific adaptations, such as conditions simulating the elderly digestive system, which features reduced gastric acid secretion and digestive enzyme activity [15] [52]. This allows for more targeted research into the needs of specific demographic groups.

Key Research Reagent Solutions

The following table details essential reagents and their critical functions within the INFOGEST protocol, providing researchers with a clear overview of core methodological components.

Table 1: Essential Research Reagents in the INFOGEST Protocol

Reagent / Component	Function in the Experimental System
Pepsin	Gastric protease enzyme responsible for initial protein hydrolysis in the stomach phase [52].
Pancreatin	Enzyme mixture containing trypsin, amylase, and lipase for simulating intestinal digestion [8].
Bile Salts	Biological emulsifiers that facilitate lipid digestion and solubilization in the small intestine [51].
Simulated Gastric Fluid	Standardized solution of electrolytes and HCl that mimics the ionic strength and pH of human gastric juice [51].
Simulated Intestinal Fluid	Standardized solution of electrolytes and NaHCO₃ that mimics the ionic strength and pH of human intestinal juice [51].
Calcium Chloride (CaCl₂)	Divalent cation that influences enzyme activity and may affect the structural breakdown of certain food matrices [51].

Quantitative Validation: Comparing In Vitro and In Vivo Correlations

Validation with Protein Digestibility and DIAAS

A primary measure of the INFOGEST model's predictive power is its correlation with in vivo protein digestibility. A 2023 validation study applied the INFOGEST protocol to a range of protein sources and calculated the in vitro Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Score (DIAAS), a key metric of protein quality recommended by the FAO [30].

Table 2: Correlation between In Vitro (INFOGEST) and In Vivo Protein Digestibility Parameters

Parameter Measured	Correlation Coefficient (r) with In Vivo Data	Statistical Significance (P-value)	Mean Difference
Total Protein Digestibility (Total Nitrogen)	0.7	< 0.05	Not Specified
Total Protein Digestibility (Primary Amines)	0.6	< 0.02	Not Specified
Total Protein Digestibility (Total Amino Acids)	0.6	< 0.02	1.2%
Digestibility of Individual Amino Acids	0.6	< 0.0001	1.2%
In vitro DIAAS vs. In Vivo DIAAS	0.96	< 0.0001	0.1%

The data demonstrates a highly significant correlation, particularly for the overall DIAAS score, which is critical for nutritional assessment. The near-perfect correlation (r = 0.96) and minimal mean difference (0.1%) for DIAAS indicate that the INFOGEST method can reliably predict the quality of proteins as measured in living humans [30].

Performance Across Diverse Food Matrices

The model's predictive power has been further tested across various food structures and moisture contents. A 2025 study on plant-based model foods found that in vitro protein digestibility was highly dependent on food structure and hydration levels, a finding consistent with known in vivo behavior [7].

Table 3: In Vitro Protein Digestibility of Different Food Matrices Using INFOGEST

Food Matrix	Moisture Category	In Vitro Protein Digestibility (%)
Plant-Based Milk	High	~83%
Plant-Based Pudding	High	~81%
Plant-Based Burger	Medium	~71%
Breadstick	Low	~69%

The results show a clear trend: high-moisture, liquid foods (milk, pudding) exhibited significantly higher digestibility than structured, solid matrices (burger, breadstick) [7]. This successfully mirrors the physical barriers to digestion encountered in vivo, where structure limits enzyme accessibility, confirming the model's ability to capture not just chemical but also physically influenced digestive outcomes.

Comparative Analysis: INFOGEST vs. Other In Vitro Systems

Static vs. Dynamic In Vitro Models

While the static INFOGEST model is widely adopted for its simplicity and reproducibility, it is one of several approaches to in vitro simulation. The following diagram illustrates the logical relationship and primary characteristics of different in vitro model categories.

Diagram: Classification and key features of major in vitro digestion models. INFOGEST offers a balanced approach with high standardization and reproducibility [15] [10].

Application in Pharmaceutical Development: Lipid-Based Formulations

In pharmaceutical sciences, establishing In Vitro-In Vivo Correlation (IVIVC) is a regulatory goal, particularly for complex formulations like Lipid-Based Drug Delivery Systems (LBFs). These formulations enhance the solubility of poorly water-soluble drugs but present a significant correlation challenge due to the dynamic processes of lipid digestion and absorption [53].

The INFOGEST protocol, rooted in food science, provides a physiologically relevant basis for in vitro lipolysis testing. However, case studies highlight the remaining challenges. For instance, research on fenofibrate LBFs showed that in vitro dispersion data failed to distinguish performance in fasted versus fed states in rats [53]. A review noted that the pH-stat lipolysis model, a common tool for LBFs, yielded good in vivo correlations for only about half of the drugs studied [53]. This indicates that while standardized models improve reliability, the complex interplay of digestion, permeation, and dynamic solubilization in lipid systems means that a perfect IVIVC is not always achievable.

The INFOGEST standardized static digestion model represents a substantial advancement in correlating in vitro results with in vivo data. Validation studies demonstrate its strong predictive power for protein digestibility and DIAAS calculation across diverse food matrices. Its primary advantages are reproducibility, physiological relevance of key parameters, and the ability to generate directly comparable data across laboratories.

However, the model is not a perfect surrogate for human digestion. Its static nature is a limitation, as it does not fully capture the kinetic and dynamic physical processes of the GI tract, such as gastric emptying and continuous pH changes, which can be critical for certain formulations like lipid-based drugs. Furthermore, while the model can simulate different physiological states (e.g., elderly), it cannot fully replicate the complexity of the host, including the microbiome, immune responses, and hormonal feedback.

Future developments are likely to focus on integrating static models with dynamic elements and in silico (computer simulation) approaches, such as Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling [53] [54]. This multi-faceted strategy will enhance the predictive power of in vitro systems, accelerating the development of tailored foods and pharmaceuticals with optimized in vivo performance.

Strengths and Limitations of the Static Model for Regulatory Applications

In regulatory science, particularly during the drug development process, the choice of a predictive model is critical for assessing potential risks, such as metabolic drug-drug interactions (DDIs). Models for in vitro-in vivo extrapolation (IVIVE) are broadly categorized as either static or dynamic [55]. The debate on their appropriate application, especially whether static models can replace dynamic ones for certain regulatory filings, remains active [55]. This guide provides an objective comparison of the static and dynamic models, framing the analysis within the broader context of validating standardized, reliable methodologies akin to the INFOGEST static in vitro digestion model [1]. For researchers and drug development professionals, understanding the balance between simplicity and physiological relevance is paramount for making informed decisions that satisfy both scientific and regulatory requirements.

Defining the Models

• Static Models: These are mechanistic, equation-based models that use a single, fixed value (a "driver concentration") to represent the perpetrator drug's concentration at the interaction site. They provide a snapshot prediction, assuming constant conditions [55]. A key regulatory example is the mechanistic static model recommended by the FDA and ICH for predicting inhibitory metabolic DDIs, which uses the maximum unbound hepatic inlet concentration as its driver [55].
• Dynamic Models: Also known as Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models, these incorporate time-varying drug concentrations in various organs and the systemic circulation. They can simulate a virtual population, accounting for inter-individual variability in physiology and genetics, thus providing a more realistic and dynamic representation of drug behavior in the body [55].

Conceptual Relationship

The following diagram illustrates the fundamental difference in how static and dynamic models operate and interact within a regulatory application context, such as predicting Drug-Drug Interactions (DDIs).

Comparative Analysis: Strengths and Limitations

Direct Model Comparison

The core strengths and weaknesses of static and dynamic models are summarized in the table below, which highlights their distinct profiles for regulatory application.

Table 1: Strengths and Limitations of Static vs. Dynamic Models for Regulatory IVIVE

Aspect	Static Model	Dynamic (PBPK) Model
Primary Strength	Simplicity, speed, and cost-effectiveness; excellent for initial screening and ranking of DDI risk [55].	High physiological relevance; ability to simulate time-course profiles and diverse patient populations [55].
Regulatory Strength	Recommended by FDA/ICH for initial DDI screening; conservative use of [I]/Ki ratio minimizes false negatives, ensuring patient safety [55].	Accepted for supporting specific regulatory filings and label recommendations (e.g., dose adjustments in subpopulations, biowaivers) [55].
Key Limitation	Not equivalent to dynamic models for quantitative DDI prediction across diverse drug parameter spaces; can be overly conservative or, in some cases, insufficiently predictive [55].	High resource requirement (data, expertise, computational power); model complexity requires rigorous validation [55].
Quantitative Prediction	Poor for quantitative prediction, particularly for "vulnerable patients" where discrepancies with dynamic models can be high (e.g., >37% IMDR >1.25) [55].	High fidelity for quantitative prediction; can identify individuals at highest DDI risk within a population [55].
Handling of Variability	Cannot incorporate inter-individual variability; provides a single, deterministic output [55].	Can explicitly model inter-individual variability in physiology (age, organ function, genetics) to define risk across a population [55].
Scope of Application	Limited to simple scenarios (e.g., competitive inhibition of a single enzyme). Cannot handle complex cases like time-dependent inhibition, multiple perpetrators, or active metabolites [55].	Suitable for a wide range of complex scenarios, including metabolite contributions, enzyme induction, and transporter-mediated DDIs [55].

Experimental Data and Validation

Competitive CYP Inhibition Study

A large-scale simulation study investigated the equivalence of static and dynamic models for predicting DDIs via competitive inhibition of CYP3A4.

• Methodology: The study simulated 30,000 DDIs between hypothetical substrates and inhibitors by varying drug parameters (e.g., pharmacokinetics, inhibition constants) within a PBPK simulator (Simcyp V21). The Inter-Model Discrepancy Ratio (IMDR), defined as AUCr_dynamic/AUCr_static, was calculated for each simulation. An IMDR outside the interval of 0.8–1.25 was defined as a significant discrepancy [55].
• Key Findings: The data demonstrated that static models are not equivalent to dynamic models. The rate of discrepancy was particularly high when considering a 'vulnerable patient' representative, with IMDRs exceeding 1.25 in up to 37.8% of simulations, indicating that the static model could underpredict the DDI magnitude in these at-risk individuals [55].

Table 2: Summary of Discrepancy Rates Between Static and Dynamic Models from Simulation Study [55]

Simulated Population Representative	Inhibitor Concentration Used in Static Model	IMDR < 0.8	IMDR > 1.25
Population Average	Average steady-state (Cavg,ss)	85.9%	3.1%
Vulnerable Patient	Average steady-state (Cavg,ss)	Not Reported	37.8%

Interpretation: The high frequency of discrepancies, especially the 37.8% under-prediction in vulnerable patients, underscores a critical limitation. Relying solely on static models in drug development could lead to an underestimation of DDI risks for a significant portion of the target population [55].

The INFOGEST Paradigm: A Correlative Validation

While the INFOGEST protocol is not a regulatory model for DDIs, its development and validation pathway serve as a powerful analogue for how standardized static methods can gain scientific acceptance through robust correlation with in vivo outcomes.

• Protocol: The INFOGEST static in vitro simulation is a standardized method for gastrointestinal food digestion. It uses constant ratios of meal to digestive fluids and a constant pH for each digestion step (oral, gastric, intestinal), making it simple and reproducible [1] [30].
• Validation: A key study applied this protocol to assess protein digestibility and calculate the Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Score (DIAAS) for various food samples. The experimental workflow involved subjecting samples to the INFOGEST digestion, then analyzing the digesta for total nitrogen, primary amines, and amino acids via techniques like UHPLC and LC-MS [30].
• Results: The in vitro results showed a strong and significant correlation with in vivo data from pigs or humans. The correlation was high for total protein digestibility (r = 0.6 to 0.7, P < 0.05) and excellent for the final DIAAS value (r = 0.96, R² = 0.89, P < 0.0001), with a mean difference of only 0.1% [30].

This high correlation demonstrates that a well-designed and validated static model, even if it does not simulate kinetics, can yield predictions that are highly relevant to physiological outcomes, thereby building confidence in its use.

The Scientist's Toolkit

Essential Research Reagents and Materials

The following table details key reagents and materials essential for conducting experiments based on standardized protocols like INFOGEST, which are crucial for generating high-quality in vitro data for model input or validation.

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for In Vitro Digestion Studies

Reagent / Material	Function in the Experimental Protocol
Simulated Digestive Fluids	Pre-configured solutions mimicking the electrolyte and enzyme composition of salivary, gastric, and intestinal fluids. Form the core environment for the in vitro digestion [1].
Enzymes (e.g., Pepsin, Pancreatin, Trypsin)	Biologically active components (often purified from porcine or human sources) that catalyze the breakdown of macronutrients (proteins, lipids, carbohydrates) in a physiologically relevant manner [1] [30].
Bile Salts	A critical component of the intestinal digestion phase, enabling the emulsification of lipids and facilitating fat digestion and absorption [1].
Ultrafiltration Units (e.g., 10 kDa filters)	Used post-digestion to separate the bioaccessible fraction (small peptides, amino acids, sugars) from larger, undigested food or drug particles, allowing for analysis of what is available for absorption [30].
Analytical Standards (Amino Acids, Fatty Acids, Drugs)	Pure chemical standards used for calibration in analytical instruments like UHPLC or LC-MS to identify and quantify the products of digestion or metabolite formation accurately [30].

Experimental Workflow for Model Validation

A typical workflow for generating and using in vitro data, following the principles of the INFOGEST protocol, is depicted below. This process is fundamental for validating both static and dynamic models.

The static model possesses distinct strengths—primarily its simplicity, low cost, and utility as a conservative screening tool—that secure its place in the initial phases of drug development and in regulatory guidelines [55]. However, evidence clearly shows that its limitations are profound for quantitative, patient-centric risk assessment. It is not equivalent to dynamic models, particularly when predicting DDIs for vulnerable patients or for drugs with parameter spaces at the edges of existing knowledge [55].

The validation paradigm exemplified by the INFOGEST protocol demonstrates that the value of a static model is maximized when its predictions are rigorously correlated with in vivo outcomes [30]. For regulatory applications, a synergistic approach is warranted: using the static model for efficient, early risk flagging, followed by the application of sophisticated dynamic PBPK models to quantify risk in specific populations and support definitive label recommendations. This two-tiered strategy effectively balances efficiency with scientific rigor and, most importantly, patient safety.

Conclusion

The INFOGEST standardized in vitro digestion model represents a monumental achievement in harmonizing gastrointestinal research, providing a validated, reproducible, and physiologically relevant tool for the scientific community. Its rigorous interlaboratory validation, particularly for enzyme activity assays, has significantly improved the reliability of data across studies. While the static protocol offers unparalleled accessibility and reproducibility for screening purposes, its limitations in simulating dynamic physical forces and continuous emptying are acknowledged. The future of INFOGEST lies in its continued refinement, including further protocol optimization for specific nutrients and populations, and its potential integration with more complex dynamic systems and in silico models. For researchers and drug development professionals, the adoption of INFOGEST facilitates robust, comparable data on bioaccessibility, accelerating the development of functional foods, dietary supplements, and pharmaceutical formulations with predictable gastrointestinal behavior. The model's growing acceptance positions it as a cornerstone tool for reducing reliance on animal studies and improving the scientific foundation of product claims.

References

• 1. INFOGEST static in vitro simulation of gastrointestinal food ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41596-018-0119-1]
• 2. The harmonized INFOGEST in vitro digestion method [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963996915302751]
• 3. INFOGEST [https://www.bio-cat.com/infogest/]
• 4. In vitro gastrointestinal digestion methods of carbohydrate‐ ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10867469/]
• 5. Interlaboratory validation of an optimized protocol for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-12561-y]
• 6. Comparing nutritional and digestibility aspects of ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1756464621003972]
• 7. INFOGEST in vitro digestion: protein breakdown in relation to ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/fo/d5fo00764j]
• 8. INFOGEST static in vitro simulation of gastrointestinal food ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30886367/]
• 9. InfoGest Consensus Method - The Impact of Food ... - NCBI [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK500165/]
• 10. A review of in-vitro digestibility models on diverse foods ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44187-025-00454-y]
• 11. Comparison of four digestion protocols on the physical ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37674386/]
• 12. Experimental Protocols Used to Mimic Gastrointestinal ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11314321/]
• 13. Addressing criticalities in the INFOGEST static in vitro ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963996922006913]
• 14. Application of the INFOGEST Protocol Using the BioXplorer ... [https://helgroup.com/application-notes/application-of-the-infogest-protocol-for-automated-digestion-simulation/?srsltid=AfmBOor8HBWBtApB8DygDiUzl1MN9K6NBz91-_uVVY52wH8fWPuR2Wzz]
• 15. A Review on In Vitro Evaluation of Chemical and Physical ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12027026/]
• 16. The Effects of a Microbial Enzyme Mixture on Macronutrient ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/14/6/937]
• 17. A miniaturised semi-dynamic in-vitro model of human ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54612-w]
• 18. Comparative evaluation of amylases in the oral phase ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963996925002248]
• 19. infogest [https://infogest.hub.inrae.fr/]
• 20. INFOGEST static in vitro simulation of gastrointestinal food ... [https://quadram.ac.uk/publications/infogest-static-in-vitro-simulation-of-gastrointestinal-food-digestion/]
• 21. Application of the INFOGEST Standardized Method to ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8929668/]
• 22. Physiological comparability of the harmonized INFOGEST ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963996917306154]
• 23. 8th International Conference in Food Digestion [https://www.sciencedirect.com/special-issue/10L565J1TPN]
• 24. Approaches to Static Digestion Models - NCBI - NIH [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK500166/]
• 25. Current advances for in vitro protein digestibility - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11174598/]
• 26. In vitro protein digestibility and biochemical characteristics ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-93451-x]
• 27. Evaluation of protein quantity and protein nutritional quality ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-94072-4]
• 28. INFOGEST inter-laboratory recommendations for assaying ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1756464621001468]
• 29. Bioactive fatty acids from non‐conventional lipid sources ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10563685/]
• 30. In vitro digestibility of dietary proteins and in vitro DIAAS ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814622026826]
• 31. Comparison of formulation characteristics of drugs and ... [https://www.europeanreview.org/article/31950]
• 32. A Simple Validated Method for the Estimation of Pepsin Activity in... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10606326/]
• 33. Choosing the Right Enzyme Supplier | Key Factors for Buyers [https://antozyme.com/choosing-the-right-enzyme-supplier/]
• 34. How to Choose an Enzyme Supplier for Industrial ... [https://synapse.patsnap.com/article/how-to-choose-an-enzyme-supplier-for-industrial-biocatalysis]
• 35. What are the quality improvement initiatives in an enzymes ... [https://www.orchid-chem.com/blog/what-are-the-quality-improvement-initiatives-in-an-enzymes-factory-1237633.html]
• 36. Static in vitro digestion model adapted to the general older ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2023/fo/d3fo00535f]
• 37. Protein digestion of baby foods: study approaches and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6435278/]
• 38. Investigation of the gastric digestion behavior ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/nutrition/articles/10.3389/fnut.2024.1507093/full]
• 39. Comparison of protein in vitro digestibility under adult and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0963996922012054]
• 40. Understanding the gastrointestinal tract of the elderly to ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4546438/]
• 41. Human milk vs. Infant formula digestive fate: In vitro ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963996924011402]
• 42. Frontiers | Progress and challenges in designing dynamic in vitro gastric models to study food digestion [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/nutrition/articles/10.3389/fnut.2024.1399534/full]
• 43. The Role of Food Matrices Supplemented with Milk Fat ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11357557/]
• 44. Understanding the impact of different post-digestion enzymatic inhibition methods and storage conditions on standardized gastrointestinal model (INFOGEST): A case study of Pleurotus ostreatus mushroom biomass - ScienceDirect [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0963996925007707]
• 45. Avoiding a reproducibility crisis in regulatory toxicology—on ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11169035/]
• 46. Inter-laboratory ring trial to evaluate real-time reverse ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0717345817300301]
• 47. Digestion of milk proteins: Comparing static and dynamic in ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963996917309031]
• 48. Dynamic Digestion Models: General Introduction - NCBI - NIH [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK500170/]
• 49. Static and semi-dynamic in vitro digestion methods [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214799321001144]
• 50. Progress and challenges in designing dynamic in vitro ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11188385/]
• 51. A standardised static in vitro digestion method suitable for food [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2014/fo/c3fo60702j]
• 52. Comparison of in vitro digestive characteristics of proteins ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308814624029492]
• 53. Improving In Vitro–In Vivo Correlation (IVIVC) for Lipid ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12567226/]
• 54. CMC Perspectives of In Vitro / In Vivo Correlation (IVIVC) ... [https://premier-research.com/perspectives/cmc-perspectives-of-in-vitro-in-vivo-correlation-ivivc-in-drug-development/]
• 55. Static Versus Dynamic Model Predictions of Competitive ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11762507/]