Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28796824›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) assays integrated with an internal control for quantification of bovine, porcine, chicken and turkey species in food and feed.

Hanan R Shehata, Jiping Li, Shu Chen, Helen Redda, Shumei Cheng, Nicole Tabujara, Honghong Li, Keith Warriner, Robert Hanner

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

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

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

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

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

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

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 79 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Animal Species Authentication in Dairy Products.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Hanan R ShehataDepartment of Integrative Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Jiping LiLaboratory Services Division, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Shu ChenLaboratory Services Division, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8502-9245
Helen ReddaLaboratory Services Division, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Shumei ChengDepartment of Food Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Nicole TabujaraLaboratory Services Division, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Honghong LiLaboratory Services Division, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Keith WarrinerDepartment of Food Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Robert HannerDepartment of Integrative Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
University of Guelph · CAMansoura University · EG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Food adulteration and feed contamination are significant issues in the food/feed industry, especially for meat products. Reliable techniques are needed to monitor these issues. Droplet Digital PCR (ddPCR) assays were developed and evaluated for detection and quantification of bovine, porcine, chicken and turkey DNA in food and feed samples. The ddPCR methods were designed based on mitochondrial DNA sequences and integrated with an artificial recombinant plasmid DNA to control variabilities in PCR procedures. The specificity of the ddPCR assays was confirmed by testing both target species and additional 18 non-target species. Linear regression established a detection range between 79 and 33200 copies of the target molecule from 0.26 to 176 pg of fresh animal tissue DNA with a coefficient of determination (R2) of 0.997-0.999. The quantification ranges of the methods for testing fortified heat-processed food and feed samples were 0.05-3.0% (wt/wt) for the bovine and turkey targets, and 0.01-1.0% (wt/wt) for pork and chicken targets. Our methods demonstrated acceptable repeatability and reproducibility for the analytical process for food and feed samples. Internal validation of the PCR process was monitored using a control chart for 74 consecutive ddPCR runs for quantifying bovine DNA. A matrix effect was observed while establishing calibration curves with the matrix type under testing, and the inclusion of an internal control in DNA extraction provides a useful means to overcome this effect. DNA degradation caused by heating, sonication or Taq I restriction enzyme digestion was found to reduce ddPCR readings by as much as 4.5 fold. The results illustrated the applicability of the methods to quantify meat species in food and feed samples without the need for a standard curve, and to potentially support enforcement activities for food authentication and feed control. Standard reference materials matching typical manufacturing processes are needed for future validation of ddPCR assays for absolute quantification of meat species.

Indexed as

Animal FeedAnimalsCattleChickensDNA, MitochondrialFood ContaminationMeat ProductsPolymerase Chain ReactionSwineTurkeysDNA, Mitochondrial

Identifiers

PMID28796824
PMCPMC5552122
OpenAlexW2742907899

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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