SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences / 2007 / Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 3

Identification of Meat Species by Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) Technique

O. İrfan İLHAK
Ali ARSLAN
Pages
159–163
Publication Date
2007-03-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results indicated that meat species were accurately determined in all combinations by PCR.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The origin of horse, dog, cat, bovine, sheep, porcine, and goat meat was determined by the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique, using species-specific primers.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Test mixtures of meat were prepared by adding 5%, 2.5%, 1%, 0.5%, and 0.1% levels of pork, horse, cat, or dog meat to beef, sheep, and goat meat.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results indicated that meat species were accurately determined in all combinations by PCR.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Meat species · mt DNA · PCR

Abstract

The origin of horse, dog, cat, bovine, sheep, porcine, and goat meat was determined by the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique, using species-specific primers. Test mixtures of meat were prepared by adding 5%, 2.5%, 1%, 0.5%, and 0.1% levels of pork, horse, cat, or dog meat to beef, sheep, and goat meat. Samples taken from those combinations were analyzed by PCR for species determination. Mitochondrial DNA (mt DNA) fragments of 439, 322, 274, 271, 225, 212, and 157 bp for horse, dog, cat, bovine, sheep, porcine, and goat meat, respectively, were amplified. PCR was conducted at 30 cycles for mixtures at the 5%, 2.5%, 1%, and 0.5% level, while at 35 cycles for mixtures at the 0.1% level. The results indicated that meat species were accurately determined in all combinations by PCR. It is concluded that PCR can be useful for fast, easy, and reliable control of adulterated consumer meat products.

Özet

The origin of horse, dog, cat, bovine, sheep, porcine, and goat meat was determined by the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique, using species-specific primers. Test mixtures of meat were prepared by adding 5%, 2.5%, 1%, 0.5%, and 0.1% levels of pork, horse, cat, or dog meat to beef, sheep, and goat meat. Samples taken from those combinations were analyzed by PCR for species determination. Mitochondrial DNA (mt DNA) fragments of 439, 322, 274, 271, 225, 212, and 157 bp for horse, dog, cat, bovine, sheep, porcine, and goat meat, respectively, were amplified. PCR was conducted at 30 cycles for mixtures at the 5%, 2.5%, 1%, and 0.5% level, while at 35 cycles for mixtures at the 0.1% level. The results indicated that meat species were accurately determined in all combinations by PCR. It is concluded that PCR can be useful for fast, easy, and reliable control of adulterated consumer meat products.

🔖

Cite This Article

İLHAK, O. İ., ARSLAN, A. (2007). Identification of Meat Species by Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) Technique. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 3, 159–163. https://ajindex.com/articles/122293

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. (Matsunaga et al., 1998) (Matsunaga et al., 1998) Figure 1. Agarose gel analysis of PCR product amplified with species- specific primers. M: molecular marker (100 bp); 1: horse meat; 2: dog meat; 3: cat meat; 4: beef; 5: lamb; 6: pork; 7: goat meat. protein in processed meat products using the nested-PCR technique. Partis et al. (23) detected 1% pork in beef using RFLP, whereas Hopwood et al. (17) detected 1% chicken in lamb using PCR. These results might be useful for effective control of adulterated consumer meat products and violations of labeling requirements for meat products. PCR species determination can also be used to monitor ruminant feeds for any beef tissue, which has been banned in many countries in an effort to control the spread of bovine spongiform encephalopathy. 1771-1776.
  2. Tantillo, G., Pinto, A., Vergara, A., Buonavoglia, C.: Polymerase chain reaction for the direct detection of Brucella spp. in milk and cheese. J. Food Prot., 2001; 64: 164-167.
  3. Verkaar, E.L.C., Nijman, I.J., Boutaga, K., Lenstra, J.A.: Differentiation of cattle species in beef by PCR-RFLP of mitochondrial and satellite DNA. Meat Sci., 2002; 60: 365-369. 14.Weder, J.K.P., Rehbein, H., Kaiser, K.P.: On the specificity of tuna-directed primers in PCR-SSCP analysis of fish and meat. Eur. Food Res. Technol., 2001; 213: 139-144.
  4. Alves, E., Castellanos, C., Ovilo, C., Silió, L., Rodríguez, C.: Differentiation of the raw material of the Iberian pig meat industry based on the use of amplified fragment length polymorphism. Meat Sci., 2002; 61: 157-162.
  5. Hird, H., Goodier, R., Hill, M.: Rapid detection of chicken and turkey in heated meat products using the polymerase chain reaction followed by amplicon visualisation with vistra green. Meat Sci., 2003; 65: 1117-1123.
  6. Hopwood, A.J., Fairbrother, K.S., Lockley, A.K., Bardsley, R.G.: An actin gene-related polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for identification of chicken in meat mixtures. Meat Sci., 1999; 53: 227-231.
  7. Arslan, A., Ilhak, I., Calicioglu M., Karahan M.: Identification of meats using random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) technique. J. Muscle Foods., 2005; 16: 37-45.
  8. Meyer, R., Chardonnens, F., Hübner, P., Lüthy, J.: Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in the quality and safety assurance of food: Detection of soya in processed meat products. Z. Lebensm. Unters. Forsch., 1996; 203: 339-344.
  9. Koh, M.C., Lim, C.H., Chua, S.B., Chew, S.T., Phang, S.T.W.: Random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) fingerprints for identification of r