ArticlePloS one2024
DNA barcoding for the identification and authentication of medicinal deer (Cervus sp.) products in China.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Effect ofBiology · 2026Article
- A Simplified and Efficient Protocol for DNA Isolation from Deer Antlers and Prepared Trophy Skulls.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Modern Advances in Velvet Antler Research: From Identification Methods to Pharmacological Mechanisms.International journal of food science · 2026Review
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deer products from sika deer (Cervus nippon) and red deer (C. elaphus) are considered genuine and used for Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) materials in China. Deer has a very high economic and ornamental value, resulting in the formation of a characteristic deer industry in the prescription preparation of traditional Chinese medicine, health food, cosmetics, and other areas of development and utilization. Due to the high demand for deer products, the products are expensive and have limited production, but the legal use of deer is limited to only two species of sika deer and red deer; other wild deer are prohibited from hunting, so there are numerous cases of mixing and adulteration of counterfeit products and so on. There have been many reports that other animal (pig, cow, sheep, etc.) tissues or organs are often used for adulteration and confusion, resulting in poor efficacy of deer traditional medicine and trade fraud in deer products. To authenticate the deer products in a rapid and effective manner, the analysis used 22 deer products (antler, meat, bone, fetus, penis, tail, skin, and wool) that were in the form of blind samples. Total DNA extraction using a modified protocol successfully yielded DNA from the blind samples that was useful for PCR. Three candidate DNA barcoding loci, cox1, Cyt b, and rrn12, were evaluated for their discrimination strength through BLAST and phylogenetic clustering analyses. For the BLAST analysis, the 22 blind samples obtained 100% match identity across the three gene loci tested. It was revealed that 12 blind samples were correctly labeled for their species of origin, while three blind samples that were thought to originate from red deer were identified as C. nippon, and seven blind samples that were thought to originate from sika deer were identified as C. elaphus, Dama dama, and Rangifer tarandus. DNA barcoding analysis showed that all three gene loci were able to distinguish the two Cervus species and to identify the presence of adulterant species. The DNA barcoding technique was able to provide a useful and sensitive approach in identifying the species of origin in deer products.
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.