ArticlePeerJ2018
Hindering the illegal trade in dog and cat furs through a DNA-based protocol for species identification.
Article in PeerJ, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In Western countries dogs and cats are the most popular pets, and people are increasingly opposed to their rearing for the fur industry. In 2007, a Regulation of the European Union (EU) banned the use and trade of dog and cat furs, but an official analytical protocol to identify them as source species was not provided, and violations of law are still frequent in all Member States. In this paper we report on the development and validation of a simple and affordable DNA method for species detection in furs to use as an effective tool to combat illegal trade in fur products. A set of mitochondrial primers was designed for amplification of partial cytochrome b, control region and ND1 gene in highly degraded samples, like furs and pelts. Our amplification workflow involved the use of a non-specific primer pair to perform a first test to identify the species through sequencing, then the application of species-specific primer pairs to use in singleplex end-point PCRs as confirmation tests. The advantage of this two-step procedure is twofold: on the one hand it minimises the possibility of negative test results from degraded samples, since failure of amplification with a first set of primers can be offset by successful amplification of the second, and on the other it adds confidence and reliability to final authentication of species. All designed primers were validated on a reference collection of tissue samples, obtaining solid results in terms of specificity, sensitivity, repeatability and reproducibility. Application of the protocol on real caseworks from seized furs yielded successful results also from old and dyed furs, suggesting that age and chemical staining do not necessarily affect positive amplifications. Major pros of this approach are: (1) sensitive and informative primer sets for detection of species; (2) short PCR amplicons for the analysis of poor quality DNA; (3) binding primers that avoid contamination from human DNA; (4) user-friendly protocol for any laboratory equipped for analysis of low-copy-number DNA. Our molecular procedure proved to be a good starting point for enforcing the EU Regulation against dog and cat fur trade in forensic contexts where source attribution is essential to the assignment of responsibilities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.