Comparison of Real-Time PCR Quantification Methods in the Identification of Poultry Species in Meat Products
Poultry meat is consumed worldwide and is prone to food fraud because of large price differences among meat from different poultry species. Precise and sensitive analytical methods are necessary to control poultry meat products. We chose species–specific sequences of the <i>cytochrome b</i&...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2020-08-01
|
| Series: | Foods |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/9/8/1049 |
| _version_ | 1797560408822775808 |
|---|---|
| author | Kerstin Dolch Sabine Andrée Fredi Schwägele |
| author_facet | Kerstin Dolch Sabine Andrée Fredi Schwägele |
| author_sort | Kerstin Dolch |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Poultry meat is consumed worldwide and is prone to food fraud because of large price differences among meat from different poultry species. Precise and sensitive analytical methods are necessary to control poultry meat products. We chose species–specific sequences of the <i>cytochrome b</i> gene to develop two multiplex real-time polymerase chain reaction (real-time PCR) systems: one for chicken (<i>Gallus gallus</i>), guinea fowl (<i>Numida meleagris</i>), and pheasant (<i>Phasianus colchicus</i>), and one for quail (<i>Coturnix japonica</i>) and turkey (<i>Meleagris gallopavo</i>). For each species, added meat could be detected down to 0.5 % <i>w/w</i>. No cross reactions were seen. For these two real-time PCR systems, we applied three different quantification methods: (A) with relative standard curves, (B) with matrix-specific multiplication factors, and (C) with an internal DNA reference sequence to normalize and to control inhibition. All three quantification methods had reasonable recovery rates from 43% to 173%. Method B had more accepted recovery rates, i.e., in the range 70–130%, namely 83% compared to 75% for method A or C. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-10T18:00:08Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-7ef4f1d4a50142d1933950d8c905f923 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2304-8158 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-10T18:00:08Z |
| publishDate | 2020-08-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Foods |
| spelling | doaj.art-7ef4f1d4a50142d1933950d8c905f9232023-11-20T08:58:38ZengMDPI AGFoods2304-81582020-08-0198104910.3390/foods9081049Comparison of Real-Time PCR Quantification Methods in the Identification of Poultry Species in Meat ProductsKerstin Dolch0Sabine Andrée1Fredi Schwägele2Department of Safety and Quality of Meat, Max Rubner-Institute, E.-C.-Baumann-Str. 20, 95326 Kulmbach, GermanyDepartment of Safety and Quality of Meat, Max Rubner-Institute, E.-C.-Baumann-Str. 20, 95326 Kulmbach, GermanyDepartment of Safety and Quality of Meat, Max Rubner-Institute, E.-C.-Baumann-Str. 20, 95326 Kulmbach, GermanyPoultry meat is consumed worldwide and is prone to food fraud because of large price differences among meat from different poultry species. Precise and sensitive analytical methods are necessary to control poultry meat products. We chose species–specific sequences of the <i>cytochrome b</i> gene to develop two multiplex real-time polymerase chain reaction (real-time PCR) systems: one for chicken (<i>Gallus gallus</i>), guinea fowl (<i>Numida meleagris</i>), and pheasant (<i>Phasianus colchicus</i>), and one for quail (<i>Coturnix japonica</i>) and turkey (<i>Meleagris gallopavo</i>). For each species, added meat could be detected down to 0.5 % <i>w/w</i>. No cross reactions were seen. For these two real-time PCR systems, we applied three different quantification methods: (A) with relative standard curves, (B) with matrix-specific multiplication factors, and (C) with an internal DNA reference sequence to normalize and to control inhibition. All three quantification methods had reasonable recovery rates from 43% to 173%. Method B had more accepted recovery rates, i.e., in the range 70–130%, namely 83% compared to 75% for method A or C.https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/9/8/1049real-time PCRquantificationchickenguinea fowlpheasantquail |
| spellingShingle | Kerstin Dolch Sabine Andrée Fredi Schwägele Comparison of Real-Time PCR Quantification Methods in the Identification of Poultry Species in Meat Products Foods real-time PCR quantification chicken guinea fowl pheasant quail |
| title | Comparison of Real-Time PCR Quantification Methods in the Identification of Poultry Species in Meat Products |
| title_full | Comparison of Real-Time PCR Quantification Methods in the Identification of Poultry Species in Meat Products |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of Real-Time PCR Quantification Methods in the Identification of Poultry Species in Meat Products |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Real-Time PCR Quantification Methods in the Identification of Poultry Species in Meat Products |
| title_short | Comparison of Real-Time PCR Quantification Methods in the Identification of Poultry Species in Meat Products |
| title_sort | comparison of real time pcr quantification methods in the identification of poultry species in meat products |
| topic | real-time PCR quantification chicken guinea fowl pheasant quail |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/9/8/1049 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT kerstindolch comparisonofrealtimepcrquantificationmethodsintheidentificationofpoultryspeciesinmeatproducts AT sabineandree comparisonofrealtimepcrquantificationmethodsintheidentificationofpoultryspeciesinmeatproducts AT fredischwagele comparisonofrealtimepcrquantificationmethodsintheidentificationofpoultryspeciesinmeatproducts |