ArticleFood science & nutrition2025
A Multiplex Real-Time PCR for Qualitative Detection of Mutton, Pork, Chicken, and Duck in Processed Meat Products.
Article in Food science & nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Poultry Universal Primer-Based Fluorescent PCR (PUP-fPCR) for Simultaneous Identification and Quantification of Chicken, Quail, Duck, and Goose Meat Species.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A Multiplex Real-Time PCR for Qualitative Detection of Mutton, Pork, Chicken, and Duck in Processed Meat Products.Food science & nutrition · 2025Article
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
Economically motivated adulteration (EMA) is a persistent global issue in the meat industry. This study aimed to develop a qualitative detection method for mutton, pork, chicken, and duck meat based on nuclear genes. The specificity of the method was validated by amplifying DNA from 23 samples including animal, plant, and microbial mixtures. Accuracy was confirmed by testing 11 reference samples, which produced the expected results. Sensitivity tests demonstrated a limit of detection as low as 10 copies for mutton, pork, and chicken, and 20 copies for duck. To assess the applicability of this method to real-world samples, 35 processed meat products were tested using the established multiplex real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method. Labeling information for 34 of the 35 products matched the detection results, with one exception: a mutton roll contained no detectable mutton. Therefore, the developed multiplex real-time PCR method demonstrated good specificity, accuracy, and sensitivity, making it a reliable tool for the qualitative detection of mutton, pork, chicken, and duck in processed meat 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.