ArticleRSC advances2018
Authentication of pork in meat mixtures using PRM mass spectrometry of myosin peptides.
Article in RSC advances, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Proteomic Analysis of Honey: Peptide Profiling as a Novel Approach for New Zealand Mānuka (Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Highly sensitive pork meat detection using copper(ii) tetraaza complex by electrochemical biosensor.RSC advances · 2023Article
- A Droplet Digital PCR Based Approach for Identification and Quantification of Porcine and Chicken Derivatives in Beef.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- LC-QTOF-MS evaluation of rabbit-specific peptide markers for meat quantitation.Journal of food and drug analysis · 2022Article
- Chemometrics in Tandem with Hyperspectral Imaging for Detecting Authentication of Raw and Cooked Mutton Rolls.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- A quantitative method for detecting meat contamination based on specific polypeptides.Animal bioscience · 2021Article
- Application of Proteomic Technologies to Assess the Quality of Raw Pork and Pork Products: An Overview from Farm-To-Fork.Biology · 2020Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adulteration of meat products is a major concern not only for economic fraud, but also for ethical reasons. In this study, we presented a parallel reaction monitoring (PRM) mass spectrometry approach for detection of trace pork in meat mixtures (chicken, sheep, and beef). Specific peptides were identified and screened by a shotgun proteomic approach based on tryptic digests of certain protein. Five surrogate peptides from myosin were screened and then used for pork detection by PRM of Orbitrap MS. When the most sensitive peptide was selected, the LOD in mixed meat can be up to 0.5%. The RSD values between detected and designated pork levels (1%, 5% and 50%) were 4-15%. The targeted method developed can be applied to identify and quantify the pork in meat mixture.
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.