Evaluation of different DNA extraction methods for the detection of adulteration in raw and processed meat through polymerase chain reaction—restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP)
Methods currently used for the identification of the species to confirm the origin of meat or white tissue samples have not been validated for identification of different classes of vertebrates used for meat production, such as fishes, mammals and birds. Here, we describe an improved method for extr...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of food science and technology 2015-01, Vol.52 (1), p.514-520 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 520 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 514 |
container_title | Journal of food science and technology |
container_volume | 52 |
creator | Muhammed, M. Ali Bindu, B. Sri Charan Jini, R. Prashanth, K. V. Harish Bhaskar, N. |
description | Methods currently used for the identification of the species to confirm the origin of meat or white tissue samples have not been validated for identification of different classes of vertebrates used for meat production, such as fishes, mammals and birds. Here, we describe an improved method for extraction, detection and differentiation of meat species using a single set of primers—for mitochondrial cytochrome-
b
gene by a polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP) based procedure—to detect adulteration in meat. The work compared three different methods (
viz.,
salt precipitation, silica column based extraction & chloroform-phenol extraction) for extracting total genomic DNA. Of the three methods, salt precipitation and silica column based extraction was found better in terms of extraction efficiency and ease of handling as compared to the standard method of chloroform-phenol extraction which is laborious. To confirm the effectiveness and specificity of the cytochrome-
b
gene fragment, we tested nine genomic DNA samples (extracted from different aquatic species as well as other meat samples) and obtained positive results. Using this method, adulteration of meat (aquatic or otherwise) up to 0.01 % in case of raw meat; and, minimum of 1 % adulteration in case of cooked and processed meat mixtures could be detected. In conclusion, specific PCR-RFLP method resulting in an amplicon of size 360 bp of a short segment of cytochrome-
b
gene seems to be a powerful technique for the identification of adulteration in raw, cooked and/or processed meat products because of its simplicity, specificity and sensitivity. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s13197-013-1024-9 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1654665592</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1654665592</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c419t-af6cba4e4ba01f2bf2279a2d092fd36b88bca7540abcff0886950399b0453b953</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kUFu1DAUhiNEJarSA7CzxKYsDLZjJ_GyGlpAGkFVlbX14jxPUiXxYDtAdxyCE3EUToKHFKlCqje25O_7_ay_KF5w9pozVr-JvOS6poyXlDMhqX5SHDNdK9pIJp7mMxOCcq7Us-I0xluWVynqRrDj4tfFVxgXSIOfiXekG5zDgHMibz-eE_yeAti_dxOm3neROB9I6pF0mND-s6BbxoRhTRlmEuAbgbkj--Atxohd1iFlL_hl15O9H--mjEcktocDj-srv3_8DBhTGNZkF2A3HWYZcd6le8-HfT_EiZxdba7p9eX26tXz4sjBGPH0fj8pPl9e3Gze0-2ndx8251tqJdeJgqtsCxJlC4w70Tohag2iY1q4rqzapmkt1EoyaK1zrGkqrVipdcukKlutypPibM3N3_qy5DnNNESL4wgz-iUaXilZVUppkdGX_6G3fglzni5TUmSuVk2m-ErZ4GMM6Mw-DBOEO8OZORRr1mJNLtYcijU6O2J1YmbnHYYHyY9KfwCSGqrM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1642546758</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluation of different DNA extraction methods for the detection of adulteration in raw and processed meat through polymerase chain reaction—restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP)</title><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Muhammed, M. Ali ; Bindu, B. Sri Charan ; Jini, R. ; Prashanth, K. V. Harish ; Bhaskar, N.</creator><creatorcontrib>Muhammed, M. Ali ; Bindu, B. Sri Charan ; Jini, R. ; Prashanth, K. V. Harish ; Bhaskar, N.</creatorcontrib><description>Methods currently used for the identification of the species to confirm the origin of meat or white tissue samples have not been validated for identification of different classes of vertebrates used for meat production, such as fishes, mammals and birds. Here, we describe an improved method for extraction, detection and differentiation of meat species using a single set of primers—for mitochondrial cytochrome-
b
gene by a polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP) based procedure—to detect adulteration in meat. The work compared three different methods (
viz.,
salt precipitation, silica column based extraction & chloroform-phenol extraction) for extracting total genomic DNA. Of the three methods, salt precipitation and silica column based extraction was found better in terms of extraction efficiency and ease of handling as compared to the standard method of chloroform-phenol extraction which is laborious. To confirm the effectiveness and specificity of the cytochrome-
b
gene fragment, we tested nine genomic DNA samples (extracted from different aquatic species as well as other meat samples) and obtained positive results. Using this method, adulteration of meat (aquatic or otherwise) up to 0.01 % in case of raw meat; and, minimum of 1 % adulteration in case of cooked and processed meat mixtures could be detected. In conclusion, specific PCR-RFLP method resulting in an amplicon of size 360 bp of a short segment of cytochrome-
b
gene seems to be a powerful technique for the identification of adulteration in raw, cooked and/or processed meat products because of its simplicity, specificity and sensitivity.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-1155</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 0975-8402</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s13197-013-1024-9</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>India: Springer India</publisher><subject>Chemistry ; Chemistry and Materials Science ; Chemistry/Food Science ; Chloroform ; Cytochrome ; Deoxyribonucleic acid ; DNA ; Ethanol ; Extraction processes ; Food ; Food Science ; Genetic testing ; Identification ; Meat ; Meat industry ; Meat products ; Methods ; Nutrition ; Original Article ; Phenols ; Phylogenetics ; Polymerase chain reaction ; Polymorphism ; Sheep ; Silica ; Studies</subject><ispartof>Journal of food science and technology, 2015-01, Vol.52 (1), p.514-520</ispartof><rights>Association of Food Scientists & Technologists (India) 2013</rights><rights>Association of Food Scientists & Technologists (India) 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c419t-af6cba4e4ba01f2bf2279a2d092fd36b88bca7540abcff0886950399b0453b953</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c419t-af6cba4e4ba01f2bf2279a2d092fd36b88bca7540abcff0886950399b0453b953</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s13197-013-1024-9$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13197-013-1024-9$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Muhammed, M. Ali</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bindu, B. Sri Charan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jini, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prashanth, K. V. Harish</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bhaskar, N.</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluation of different DNA extraction methods for the detection of adulteration in raw and processed meat through polymerase chain reaction—restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP)</title><title>Journal of food science and technology</title><addtitle>J Food Sci Technol</addtitle><description>Methods currently used for the identification of the species to confirm the origin of meat or white tissue samples have not been validated for identification of different classes of vertebrates used for meat production, such as fishes, mammals and birds. Here, we describe an improved method for extraction, detection and differentiation of meat species using a single set of primers—for mitochondrial cytochrome-
b
gene by a polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP) based procedure—to detect adulteration in meat. The work compared three different methods (
viz.,
salt precipitation, silica column based extraction & chloroform-phenol extraction) for extracting total genomic DNA. Of the three methods, salt precipitation and silica column based extraction was found better in terms of extraction efficiency and ease of handling as compared to the standard method of chloroform-phenol extraction which is laborious. To confirm the effectiveness and specificity of the cytochrome-
b
gene fragment, we tested nine genomic DNA samples (extracted from different aquatic species as well as other meat samples) and obtained positive results. Using this method, adulteration of meat (aquatic or otherwise) up to 0.01 % in case of raw meat; and, minimum of 1 % adulteration in case of cooked and processed meat mixtures could be detected. In conclusion, specific PCR-RFLP method resulting in an amplicon of size 360 bp of a short segment of cytochrome-
b
gene seems to be a powerful technique for the identification of adulteration in raw, cooked and/or processed meat products because of its simplicity, specificity and sensitivity.</description><subject>Chemistry</subject><subject>Chemistry and Materials Science</subject><subject>Chemistry/Food Science</subject><subject>Chloroform</subject><subject>Cytochrome</subject><subject>Deoxyribonucleic acid</subject><subject>DNA</subject><subject>Ethanol</subject><subject>Extraction processes</subject><subject>Food</subject><subject>Food Science</subject><subject>Genetic testing</subject><subject>Identification</subject><subject>Meat</subject><subject>Meat industry</subject><subject>Meat products</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Nutrition</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Phenols</subject><subject>Phylogenetics</subject><subject>Polymerase chain reaction</subject><subject>Polymorphism</subject><subject>Sheep</subject><subject>Silica</subject><subject>Studies</subject><issn>0022-1155</issn><issn>0975-8402</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kUFu1DAUhiNEJarSA7CzxKYsDLZjJ_GyGlpAGkFVlbX14jxPUiXxYDtAdxyCE3EUToKHFKlCqje25O_7_ay_KF5w9pozVr-JvOS6poyXlDMhqX5SHDNdK9pIJp7mMxOCcq7Us-I0xluWVynqRrDj4tfFVxgXSIOfiXekG5zDgHMibz-eE_yeAti_dxOm3neROB9I6pF0mND-s6BbxoRhTRlmEuAbgbkj--Atxohd1iFlL_hl15O9H--mjEcktocDj-srv3_8DBhTGNZkF2A3HWYZcd6le8-HfT_EiZxdba7p9eX26tXz4sjBGPH0fj8pPl9e3Gze0-2ndx8251tqJdeJgqtsCxJlC4w70Tohag2iY1q4rqzapmkt1EoyaK1zrGkqrVipdcukKlutypPibM3N3_qy5DnNNESL4wgz-iUaXilZVUppkdGX_6G3fglzni5TUmSuVk2m-ErZ4GMM6Mw-DBOEO8OZORRr1mJNLtYcijU6O2J1YmbnHYYHyY9KfwCSGqrM</recordid><startdate>20150101</startdate><enddate>20150101</enddate><creator>Muhammed, M. Ali</creator><creator>Bindu, B. Sri Charan</creator><creator>Jini, R.</creator><creator>Prashanth, K. V. Harish</creator><creator>Bhaskar, N.</creator><general>Springer India</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>04Q</scope><scope>04S</scope><scope>04W</scope><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7QR</scope><scope>7RQ</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150101</creationdate><title>Evaluation of different DNA extraction methods for the detection of adulteration in raw and processed meat through polymerase chain reaction—restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP)</title><author>Muhammed, M. Ali ; Bindu, B. Sri Charan ; Jini, R. ; Prashanth, K. V. Harish ; Bhaskar, N.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c419t-af6cba4e4ba01f2bf2279a2d092fd36b88bca7540abcff0886950399b0453b953</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Chemistry</topic><topic>Chemistry and Materials Science</topic><topic>Chemistry/Food Science</topic><topic>Chloroform</topic><topic>Cytochrome</topic><topic>Deoxyribonucleic acid</topic><topic>DNA</topic><topic>Ethanol</topic><topic>Extraction processes</topic><topic>Food</topic><topic>Food Science</topic><topic>Genetic testing</topic><topic>Identification</topic><topic>Meat</topic><topic>Meat industry</topic><topic>Meat products</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Nutrition</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Phenols</topic><topic>Phylogenetics</topic><topic>Polymerase chain reaction</topic><topic>Polymorphism</topic><topic>Sheep</topic><topic>Silica</topic><topic>Studies</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Muhammed, M. Ali</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bindu, B. Sri Charan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jini, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prashanth, K. V. Harish</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bhaskar, N.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>India Database</collection><collection>India Database: Business</collection><collection>India Database: Science & Technology</collection><collection>Global News & ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Chemoreception Abstracts</collection><collection>Career & Technical Education Database</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Access via ABI/INFORM (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Journal of food science and technology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Muhammed, M. Ali</au><au>Bindu, B. Sri Charan</au><au>Jini, R.</au><au>Prashanth, K. V. Harish</au><au>Bhaskar, N.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluation of different DNA extraction methods for the detection of adulteration in raw and processed meat through polymerase chain reaction—restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP)</atitle><jtitle>Journal of food science and technology</jtitle><stitle>J Food Sci Technol</stitle><date>2015-01-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>52</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>514</spage><epage>520</epage><pages>514-520</pages><issn>0022-1155</issn><eissn>0975-8402</eissn><abstract>Methods currently used for the identification of the species to confirm the origin of meat or white tissue samples have not been validated for identification of different classes of vertebrates used for meat production, such as fishes, mammals and birds. Here, we describe an improved method for extraction, detection and differentiation of meat species using a single set of primers—for mitochondrial cytochrome-
b
gene by a polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP) based procedure—to detect adulteration in meat. The work compared three different methods (
viz.,
salt precipitation, silica column based extraction & chloroform-phenol extraction) for extracting total genomic DNA. Of the three methods, salt precipitation and silica column based extraction was found better in terms of extraction efficiency and ease of handling as compared to the standard method of chloroform-phenol extraction which is laborious. To confirm the effectiveness and specificity of the cytochrome-
b
gene fragment, we tested nine genomic DNA samples (extracted from different aquatic species as well as other meat samples) and obtained positive results. Using this method, adulteration of meat (aquatic or otherwise) up to 0.01 % in case of raw meat; and, minimum of 1 % adulteration in case of cooked and processed meat mixtures could be detected. In conclusion, specific PCR-RFLP method resulting in an amplicon of size 360 bp of a short segment of cytochrome-
b
gene seems to be a powerful technique for the identification of adulteration in raw, cooked and/or processed meat products because of its simplicity, specificity and sensitivity.</abstract><cop>India</cop><pub>Springer India</pub><doi>10.1007/s13197-013-1024-9</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0022-1155 |
ispartof | Journal of food science and technology, 2015-01, Vol.52 (1), p.514-520 |
issn | 0022-1155 0975-8402 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1654665592 |
source | SpringerNature Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central |
subjects | Chemistry Chemistry and Materials Science Chemistry/Food Science Chloroform Cytochrome Deoxyribonucleic acid DNA Ethanol Extraction processes Food Food Science Genetic testing Identification Meat Meat industry Meat products Methods Nutrition Original Article Phenols Phylogenetics Polymerase chain reaction Polymorphism Sheep Silica Studies |
title | Evaluation of different DNA extraction methods for the detection of adulteration in raw and processed meat through polymerase chain reaction—restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP) |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T12%3A28%3A27IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluation%20of%20different%20DNA%20extraction%20methods%20for%20the%20detection%20of%20adulteration%20in%20raw%20and%20processed%20meat%20through%20polymerase%20chain%20reaction%E2%80%94restriction%20fragment%20length%20polymorphism%20(PCR-RFLP)&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20food%20science%20and%20technology&rft.au=Muhammed,%20M.%20Ali&rft.date=2015-01-01&rft.volume=52&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=514&rft.epage=520&rft.pages=514-520&rft.issn=0022-1155&rft.eissn=0975-8402&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s13197-013-1024-9&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1654665592%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1642546758&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |