ArticleHeliyon2023
Enhancing gluten detection assay development through optimization of gliadin extraction conditions.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gluten Analysis and Regulation: Scientific, Analytical, and Economic Dimensions of Gluten-Free Assurance.Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety · 2026Review
- Article
- Detailed analysis of agro-industrial byproducts/wastes to enable efficient sorting for various agro-industrial applications.Bioresources and bioprocessing · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gluten consumption can lead to severe health conditions in certain individuals, and following a strict gluten-free diet is often the only effective treatment option. Therefore, it is crucial to develop a gluten detection method that is accurate, sensitive, and specific to ensure the absence of gluten. An important aspect of developing effective gluten detection tests is the implementation of an efficient gluten extraction method. In this study, we conducted an evaluation of various buffer conditions for gliadin extraction from both heat-treated and non-heat-treated food samples. These buffer conditions included ethanol, 2-mercaptoethanol, guanidine hydrochloride, detergents, chelating agents, and deep eutectic solvents. Among the tested conditions, a combination of 2-mercaptoethanol and guanidine hydrochloride demonstrated significantly higher extraction efficacy compared to most other conditions. Furthermore, we explored the use of a less toxic extraction buffer, choline chloride, which exhibited a 1.4-fold higher extraction efficiency than the combination of 2-mercaptoethanol and guanidine hydrochloride (p < 0.05). Choline chloride showed great potential as a preferred buffer for commercial gliadin extraction kits, suitable for both heat-treated and non-heat-treated food samples. Overall, our findings highlight the importance of optimizing the gluten extraction process to improve the accuracy and reliability of gluten detection methods, ultimately contributing to the development of effective tools for individuals following a strict gluten-free diet.
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.