ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2022
Detection and characterization of meat adulteration in various types of meat products by using a high-efficiency multiplex polymerase chain reaction technique.
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validation of mitochondrialFood chemistry. Molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Development of a Multiplex PCR Assay for Simultaneous Identification of Six Commercially Important Bivalves.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Histological, immunohistochemical assessment and DNA fingerprint species identification of some meat products in Egypt.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Development of Rapid Alkaline Lysis-Polymerase Chain Reaction Technique for Authentication of Mithun (Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Identification of meat adulteration in minced meat samples labeled as beef and mutton in Tehran stores using duplex PCR.Food science & nutrition · 2024Article
- Unveiling the mix-up: investigating species and unauthorized tissues in beef-based meat products.BMC veterinary research · 2024Article
- Double lateral flow immunosensing of undeclared pork and chicken components of meat products.Journal of food science and technology · 2024Article
- Highly Sensitive Immunochromatographic Detection of Porcine Myoglobin as Biomarker for Meat Authentication Using Prussian Blue Nanozyme.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- A Novel Universal Primer Multiplex Real-Time PCR (UP-M-rtPCR) Approach for Specific Identification and Quantitation of Cat, Dog, Fox, and Mink Fractions Using Nuclear DNA Sequences.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Identification of meat authenticity is a matter of increasing concerns due to religious, economical, legal, and public health reasons. However, little is known about the inspection of eight meat species in one tube reaction due to technological challenge of multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) techniques. Here, a developed multiplex PCR method can simultaneously authenticate eight meat species including ostrich (753 bp), cat (564 bp), goose (391 bp), duck (347 bp), chicken (268 bp), horse (227 bp), dog (190 bp), and sheep (131 bp). The detectable deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) contents for each target species was as low as 0.01 ng in both raw and heat-treated meat or target meat down to 0.1% (w/w) of total meat weight reflecting high stability of the assay in heat processing condition, indicating that this method is adequate for tracing meat origin in real-world meat products, which has been further validated by authenticity assays of commercial meat products. Overall, this method is a powerful tool for accurate evaluation of meat origin with a good application foreground.
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.