Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35264164›Full record

ArticleBMC veterinary research2022

Detection of chicken DNA in commercial dog foods.

Wioletta Biel, Małgorzata Natonek-Wiśniewska, Jagoda Kępińska-Pacelik, Katarzyna Kazimierska, Ewa Czerniawska-Piątkowska, Piotr Krzyścin

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC veterinary research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

6 authors.

Wioletta BielDepartment of Monogastric Animal Sciences, Division of Animal Nutrition and Food, West Pomeranian University of Technology in Szczecin, 29 Klemensa Janickiego, 71-270, Szczecin, Poland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3385-6281
Małgorzata Natonek-WiśniewskaDepartment of Animal Molecular Biology, National Research Institute of Animal Production, 1, Krakowska Street, 32-083, Balice, Poland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2132-2829
Jagoda Kępińska-PacelikDepartment of Monogastric Animal Sciences, Division of Animal Nutrition and Food, West Pomeranian University of Technology in Szczecin, 29 Klemensa Janickiego, 71-270, Szczecin, Poland. jagoda.kepinskapacelik@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5925-0694
Katarzyna KazimierskaDepartment of Monogastric Animal Sciences, Division of Animal Nutrition and Food, West Pomeranian University of Technology in Szczecin, 29 Klemensa Janickiego, 71-270, Szczecin, Poland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3723-0312
Ewa Czerniawska-PiątkowskaDepartment of Ruminant Science, West Pomeranian University of Technology in Szczecin, Klemensa Janickiego 29, 71-270, Szczecin, Poland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3229-1183
Piotr KrzyścinDepartment of Animal Molecular Biology, National Research Institute of Animal Production, 1, Krakowska Street, 32-083, Balice, Poland.

Funding

ZUT 2.0 - Modern Integrated University POWR.03.05.00-00-Z205/17
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThese days the number of potential food allergens is very large, but chicken is one of the most common allergens in dogs. Elimination diet is one of the clinical tools for the diagnosis of allergies and allergy tests are not very reliable. The restriction diet is most commonly carried out by feeding pet foods, relying on the ingredients on the label to select an elimination diet not containing previously eaten foods. Unfortunately, mislabeling of pet food is quite common. The purpose of this study was to determine the absence or presence of chicken DNA using both qualitative and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis methods in dry and wet maintenance complete pet foods for adult dogs. Results were used to verify the declared composition on the labels.

resultsEleven out of fifteen (73%) dog foods were produced as declared by the manufacturer, two of which showed the presence of chicken protein as stated on the label. The remaining nine foods contained amounts of chicken DNA below 1%, consistent with declarations that no chicken was added in the composition. Four of tested dog foods (27%) were not produced consistently with the declaration on the packaging. Two dog foods (one dry and one wet) did not contain the claimed chicken protein. In two foods the addition of chicken DNA was detected at the level of over 2% and almost 6%, respectively.

conclusionsIn this study, we focused on one of the most commonly undeclared animal species on the label-chicken protein-and performed DNA analyzes to investigate possible contamination and mislabeling. The results showed some inaccuracies. However, most of them are trace amounts below 1%, which proves compliance with the label. Our results showed that undeclared animal species can be as common as missing an animal protein declared on the label. The conducted research indicates that both dry and wet analyzed foods should not be recommended as a diagnostic tool in elimination tests, because it may result in false negative results. Over-the-counter maintenance foods for dogs should not be recommended for the diagnosis and treatment of food hypersensitivity.

Indexed as

Dog DiseasesFood HypersensitivityAnimal FeedAnimalsChickensDNADogsProteinsDNAProteinsAdverse food reactionsChicken DNAExtruded dog foodIngredientsMislabelingPet food controlPolymerase chain reactionWet dog food

Identifiers

PMID35264164
PMCPMC8905904

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.