4.4 Article

In silico and experimental evaluation of DNA-based detection methods for the ability to discriminate almond from other Prunus spp.

Journal

MOLECULAR AND CELLULAR PROBES
Volume 29, Issue 2, Pages 99-115

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.mcp.2014.11.006

Keywords

Almond; DNA; Real-time PCR; Food; Allergen

Funding

  1. Research & Development Operational Programme - European Regional Development Fund [ITMS 26240120024]
  2. Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia [FCT/2489/3/6/2011/S]
  3. Slovak Research and Development Agency [SK-PT-0005-10]
  4. FCT [PEst-C/EQB/LA0006/2013]
  5. University of Porto Projectos Pluridisciplinares IJUP
  6. FCT - POPH-QREN (FSE) [SFRH/BD/64523/2009]
  7. FCT - POPH-QREN (MCTES) [SFRH/BD/64523/2009]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ten published DNA-based analytical methods aiming at detecting material of almond (Prunus dulcis) were in silica evaluated for potential cross-reactivity with other stone fruits (Prunus spp.), including peach, apricot, plum, cherry, sour cherry and Sargent cherry. For most assays, the analysis of nucleotide databases suggested none or insufficient discrimination of at least some stone fruits. On the other hand, the assay targeting non-specific lipid transfer protein (Roder et al., 2011, Anal Chim Acta 685:74-83) was sufficiently discriminative, judging from nucleotide alignments. Empirical evaluation was performed for three of the published methods, one modification of a commercial kit (SureFood allergen almond) and one attempted novel method targeting thaumatin-like protein gene. Samples of leaves and kernels were used in the experiments. The empirical results were favourable for the method from Roder et al. (2011) and a modification of SureFood allergen almond kit, both showing cross-reactivity <10(-3) compared to the model almond. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available