Next Article in Journal
Proteomic Strategies to Evaluate the Impact of Farming Conditions on Food Quality and Safety in Aquaculture Products
Next Article in Special Issue
Fraud in Animal Origin Food Products: Advances in Emerging Spectroscopic Detection Methods over the Past Five Years
Previous Article in Journal
Growth Potential of Listeria monocytogenes in Three Different Salmon Products
Previous Article in Special Issue
Metabolite Profiling and Chemometric Study for the Discrimination Analyses of Geographic Origin of Perilla (Perilla frutescens) and Sesame (Sesamum indicum) Seeds
Open AccessArticle

Comparison of Real-Time PCR Quantification Methods in the Identification of Poultry Species in Meat Products

Department of Safety and Quality of Meat, Max Rubner-Institute, E.-C.-Baumann-Str. 20, 95326 Kulmbach, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2020, 9(8), 1049; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9081049
Received: 26 June 2020 / Revised: 31 July 2020 / Accepted: 31 July 2020 / Published: 3 August 2020
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 cytochrome b gene to develop two multiplex real-time polymerase chain reaction (real-time PCR) systems: one for chicken (Gallus gallus), guinea fowl (Numida meleagris), and pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), and one for quail (Coturnix japonica) and turkey (Meleagris gallopavo). For each species, added meat could be detected down to 0.5 % w/w. 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. View Full-Text
Keywords: real-time PCR; quantification; chicken; guinea fowl; pheasant; quail; turkey real-time PCR; quantification; chicken; guinea fowl; pheasant; quail; turkey
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Dolch, K.; Andrée, S.; Schwägele, F. Comparison of Real-Time PCR Quantification Methods in the Identification of Poultry Species in Meat Products. Foods 2020, 9, 1049.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop