ArticleScientific reports2024
Mammalian and avian species quantification in homogenized foods: real time PCR and digital PCR as tools for label compliance controls.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
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
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.