ArticleAllergologie select2017
Protein and DNA-based assays as complementary tools for fish allergen detection.
Article in Allergologie select, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Scalable electrochemical system for rapid on-site detection of food allergens.Biosensors & bioelectronics · 2025Article
- Review
- Structural Property, Immunoreactivity and Gastric Digestion Characteristics of Glycated Parvalbumin from Mandarin Fish (Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Fish Processing and Digestion Affect Parvalbumins Detectability in Gilthead Seabream and European Seabass.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
- Developing Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms for Identification of Cod Products by RAD-Seq.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFish is one of the most important, allergenic foods worldwide. Parvalbumin is the well characterized, major allergen in fish muscle. In this study, we developed a protein- and a DNA-based method for the sensitive detection and authentication of eight commonly consumed fishes in food and compared their applicability.
methodsFish parvalbumins were purified. Polyclonal, anti-parvalbumin antibodies were raised in rabbits and mice. Protein extracts from food were analyzed by quantitative ELISA. Parvalbumin genes were cloned and sequenced for the design of parvalbumin gene-specific PCR-primers. DNA extracted from food was subjected to specific PCR.
resultsIncreasing parvalbumin contents were quantified by ELISA in fresh fish, in the order of tuna < mackerel < cod < salmon/trout < redfish < carp < herring. The parvalbumin content of processed fish was up to 67% lower than in fresh fish. In spiked food samples, 1 to 15 ppm fresh fish and 30 to 170 ppm processed fish were still detectable by ELISA. The eight fishes were identified by specific PCR using 0.2 to 10 ng fish DNA. PCRs detected still 3 ppm fresh fish and 30 to 150 ppm processed fish in spiked samples.
conclusionsBoth the protein- and the DNA-based method have sufficient sensitivity to protect fish-allergic consumers. The ELISA allows allergen quantification, while the PCR identifies the fish present in the food. The detection limits of both methods vary depending on different factors. Both methods need to be carefully validated for each fish and fish product when used in detection assays.
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.