Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38724593›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Mammalian and avian species quantification in homogenized foods: real time PCR and digital PCR as tools for label compliance controls.

Bertasi Barbara, Tilola Michela, Mangeri Lucia, Benevenia Roberto, Cappa Veronica, Scaburri Alessandra, Scaramagli Sonia, Bergami Raffaella, Enrico Pavoni, Losio Marina Nadia and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

11 authors.

Bertasi BarbaraIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia ed Emilia Romagna, Via A. Bianchi 9, 15124, Brescia, Italy. barbara.bertasi@izsler.it.
Tilola MichelaIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia ed Emilia Romagna, Via A. Bianchi 9, 15124, Brescia, Italy.
Mangeri LuciaIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia ed Emilia Romagna, Via A. Bianchi 9, 15124, Brescia, Italy.
Benevenia RobertoIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia ed Emilia Romagna, Via A. Bianchi 9, 15124, Brescia, Italy.
Cappa VeronicaIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia ed Emilia Romagna, Via A. Bianchi 9, 15124, Brescia, Italy.
Scaburri AlessandraIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia ed Emilia Romagna, Via A. Bianchi 9, 15124, Brescia, Italy.
Scaramagli SoniaCOOP ITALIA, Via del Lavoro 6/8, 40033, Casalecchio di Reno, Bologna, Italy.
Bergami RaffaellaCOOP ITALIA, Via del Lavoro 6/8, 40033, Casalecchio di Reno, Bologna, Italy.
Enrico PavoniIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia ed Emilia Romagna, Via A. Bianchi 9, 15124, Brescia, Italy.
Losio Marina NadiaIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia ed Emilia Romagna, Via A. Bianchi 9, 15124, Brescia, Italy.
Peletto SimoneIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del Piemonte, Liguria e Valle D'Aosta, Via Bologna 148, 10154, Turin, Italy.

Funding

National Ministry of Health RF-2013-02359002
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Currently food fraud and authenticity of products composition are topics of great concern; ingredients quantification could allow to identify small amounts of contaminats or voluntary addition of improper components. Many molecular methods are available for species identification in foodstuffs but, for a better application, they should not be affected by the interference of other ingredients. The main purpose of this work was to verify the Real Time PCR and the Digital PCR (dPCR) quantification performances on baby food samples, specifically selected for their high miscibility to limit variability; chicken was selected as target to verify the performance of quantification of methods after having spiked the same quantity in different baby foods. The other aims were: (1) to verify a constant genome copies ratio existence between mammalian and avian species (2) to verify the dPCR performance, set up on housekeeping, to quantify mammalian and avian species in commercial products. Digital PCR showed fewer differences respect to Real Time PCR, at the same 15% w/w chicken spiking level. Despite the constant difference between mammalian and avian genome copies, in samples with the same spiking weight, the confidence intervals increasing towards the extreme values, made impossible to use genome copies ratio as a sort of correction factor between species. Finally, the dPCR system using the myostatin housekeeping gene to determine the chicken content seemed reliable to verify the labelling compliance in meat-based commercial products.

Indexed as

ChickensReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionAnimalsBirdsFood AnalysisFood LabelingMammalsMeatPolymerase Chain Reaction

Identifiers

PMID38724593
PMCPMC11082228

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.