Detail
Článek
Článek online
FT
Medvik - BMČ
  • Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Molecular diagnostic test systems for meat identification: A comparison study of the MEAT 5.0 LCD-Array and innuDETECT Assay detection methods

Jozef Golian, Lucia Benešov‡á, Zuzana Drdolov‡á, Patr’ícia Martišov‡á, Boris Semjon, Dagmar Kozelov‡á

. 2020 ; 89 (1) : 89-96.

Status neindexováno Jazyk angličtina Země Česko

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc20009893

The aim of the study was to compare the efficiency, sensitivity and reliability of the MEAT 5.0 LCD-Array and innuDETECT Assay detection kits in identifying selected animal species. Samples were taken from the femoral muscles of six animal species (turkey, chicken, cattle, pig, sheep and goat), and six variants of binary meat mixtures were analysed at 18 different concentration levels of addition. The MEAT 5.0 LCD-Array test was able to detect 0.1% of other meat additions in two meat mixtures and 0.5% in four meat mixtures. The innuDETECT Assays were able to detect the addition of 0.1% of other meat in three meat mixtures, 0.5% in two mixtures and 1% in one meat mixture. Subsequently, these methods were applied in practice to 136 samples of various products taken from commercial food networks. By performing extensive monitoring, we identified 60 products in which one to three species were detected besides what was present on the product label. Nine products were contaminated with pig DNA. Two products that the MEAT 5.0 LCD-Array kit identified as positive for the presence of pig DNA were not confirmed by the innuDETECT Pork Assay kit. We recommend these methods of analysis to comprehensively monitor the presence of animal species in food samples, regardless of the degree of heat treatment or mechanical processing, as a tool to detect food adulteration.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

Bibliografie atd.

Literatura

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc20009893
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20220920090026.0
007      
cr|cn|
008      
220920s2020 xr fs 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.2754/avb202089010089 $2 doi
040    __
$a ABA008 $d ABA008 $e AACR2 $b cze
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xr
100    1_
$a Golian, Jozef $7 _AN106382 $u Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Sciences, Department of Food Hygiene and Safety, Nitra, Slovakia
245    10
$a Molecular diagnostic test systems for meat identification: A comparison study of the MEAT 5.0 LCD-Array and innuDETECT Assay detection methods / $c Jozef Golian, Lucia Benešov‡á, Zuzana Drdolov‡á, Patr’ícia Martišov‡á, Boris Semjon, Dagmar Kozelov‡á
504    __
$a Literatura
520    3_
$a The aim of the study was to compare the efficiency, sensitivity and reliability of the MEAT 5.0 LCD-Array and innuDETECT Assay detection kits in identifying selected animal species. Samples were taken from the femoral muscles of six animal species (turkey, chicken, cattle, pig, sheep and goat), and six variants of binary meat mixtures were analysed at 18 different concentration levels of addition. The MEAT 5.0 LCD-Array test was able to detect 0.1% of other meat additions in two meat mixtures and 0.5% in four meat mixtures. The innuDETECT Assays were able to detect the addition of 0.1% of other meat in three meat mixtures, 0.5% in two mixtures and 1% in one meat mixture. Subsequently, these methods were applied in practice to 136 samples of various products taken from commercial food networks. By performing extensive monitoring, we identified 60 products in which one to three species were detected besides what was present on the product label. Nine products were contaminated with pig DNA. Two products that the MEAT 5.0 LCD-Array kit identified as positive for the presence of pig DNA were not confirmed by the innuDETECT Pork Assay kit. We recommend these methods of analysis to comprehensively monitor the presence of animal species in food samples, regardless of the degree of heat treatment or mechanical processing, as a tool to detect food adulteration.
590    __
$a NEINDEXOVÁNO
700    1_
$a Benešová, Lucia $7 ola20221138797 $u Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Sciences, Department of Food Hygiene and Safety, Nitra, Slovakia
700    1_
$a Drdolová, Zuzana $7 xx0314454 $u Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Sciences, Department of Food Hygiene and Safety, Nitra, Slovakia
700    1_
$a Semjon, Boris $u University of Veterinary Medicine and Pharmacy in Košice, Department of Food Hygiene and Technology, Košice, Slovakia
700    1_
$a Martišov‡á, Patr’ícia $u Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Sciences, Department of Technology and Quality of Plant Products, Nitra, Slovakia
700    1_
$a Kozelov‡á, Dagmar $u Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Sciences, Department of Food Hygiene and Safety, Nitra, Slovakia
773    0_
$t Acta veterinaria Brno $x 0001-7213 $g Roč. 89, č. 1 (2020), s. 89-96 $w MED00172332
856    41
$u https://actavet.vfu.cz/archive/ $y plný text volně přístupný
910    __
$a ABA008 $b online $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20200630100958 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20220920090023 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1539823 $s 1099983
BAS    __
$a 3 $a 4
BMC    __
$a 2020 $b 89 $c 1 $d 89-96 $i 0001-7213 $m Acta veterinaria Brno $x MED00172332
LZP    __
$a NLK 2020-01/kvbi

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Nahrávání dat ...

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat ...