ArticleScientific reports2025
Histological, immunohistochemical assessment and DNA fingerprint species identification of some meat products in Egypt.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A total of sixty commercial beef products, represented by minced meat, sausage, kofta, and burger, with fifteen samples per product, were collected randomly from different markets in Assiut city, Egypt. Samples were examined histologically, immunohistochemically and molecularly to investigate tissue composition and species substitution. Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) was applied to confirm the beef origin of different marketed beef products and determine if there are any adulteration and/or contamination with rodents and canine species. The histological investigation finds significant differences in skeletal muscle content, with the highest proportion in minced meat, whereas the lowest detected in kofta. Several animal tissues were detected, including adipose tissue, collagen, cartilage, and bone, where kofta showed the highest levels. We also detected plant tissues, predominantly found in burger samples. Expression Bcl2 indicated the maximum intensity in sausage, while burger showed the lowest expression. PCR results revealed that 89.13% were pure beef products, 10.87% were with rat meat contamination, and 100% of examined samples were negative for canine species. These results highlight the efficacy of histology, Bcl2 immunohistochemistry and PCR in assessing meat quality and distinguishing adulteration.
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.