Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34149762›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in plant science2021

DNA Metabarcoding for Quality Control of Basil, Oregano, and Paprika.

Ancuţa Cristina Raclariu-Manolică, Jarl Andreas Anmarkrud, Marcin Kierczak, Nima Rafati, Birgitte Lisbeth Graae Thorbek, Audun Schrøder-Nielsen, Hugo J de Boer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Investigation ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

7 authors.

Ancuţa Cristina Raclariu-ManolicăNatural History Museum, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Jarl Andreas AnmarkrudNatural History Museum, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Marcin KierczakReseargene, Uppsala, Sweden.
Nima RafatiReseargene, Uppsala, Sweden.
Birgitte Lisbeth Graae ThorbekNatural History Museum, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Audun Schrøder-NielsenNatural History Museum, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Hugo J de BoerNatural History Museum, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Herbs and spices are some of the most vulnerable products in terms of fraud and adulteration in the food sector. Although standard analytical methods are accurate for quality control of specific lead or marker compounds, they cannot accurately assess the entire species composition of many marketed products. Complementary analytical approaches are thus often used for comprehensive screening of herbs and spices. In this study we evaluate DNA metabarcoding for the identification and authentication of 62 products, containing basil, oregano, and paprika collected from different retailers and importers in Norway. Our results show varying degrees of discrepancy between the constituent species and those listed on the product labels, despite high product authenticity. We suggest the false positives result from the sensitivity of DNA metabarcoding and filtering thresholds should be integrated into protocols to reduce false positives. Our results highlight how integrating DNA metabarcoding into the toolbox of analytical methods for quality control of fresh and/or processed plant-based food can improve product quality.

Indexed as

authenticationDNA metabarcodingfood controlfood safetyhigh-throughput sequencingmolecular identification

Identifiers

PMID34149762
PMCPMC8213367

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.