4.7 Article

A Proteomic-Based Approach for Detection of Chicken in Meat Mixes

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH
卷 9, 期 7, 页码 3374-3383

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/pr9008942

关键词

meat authentication; mass spectrometry; quantitation; AQUA; peptide biomarkers; OFFGEL fractionation

资金

  1. UK Food Standards Agency [Q01104]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A proteomic-based method has been developed for the detection of chicken meat within mixed meat preparations. The procedure is robust and simple, comprising the extraction of myofibrillar proteins, enrichment of target proteins using OFFGEL isoelectric focusing, in-solution trypsin digestion of myosin light chain 3, and analysis of the generated peptides by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry/mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Using this approach, it was possible for example to detect 0.5% contaminating chicken in pork meat with high confidence. Quantitative detection of chicken meat was done by using AQUA stable isotope peptides made from the sequence of previously selected species-specific peptide biomarkers. Linearity was observed between the amount of the peptide biomarker and the amount of chicken present in the mixture; further independent replication is required now to validate the method. Apart from its simplicity, this approach has the advantage that it can be used effectively for the detection of both raw and cooked meat. The method is robust, reliable, and sensitive, representing a serious alternative to methods currently in use for these purposes. It is amenable to highly processed foods which can be particularly problematic, as the tertiary protein structure is often affected in processed food precluding immunoassays. In addition, this proteomic analysis will permit the determination of definitive discriminatory sequence, unlike the DNA PCR based methods used presently. The present article also demonstrates the translation of the technology to routine mass spectrometry equipment, making the methodology suitable for public analysts.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据