4.7 Article

CRISPR/Cas12a-mediated Enzymatic recombinase amplification for rapid visual quantitative authentication of halal food

期刊

ANALYTICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 1255, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2023.341144

关键词

Adulteration; Porcine-derived ingredient; Rapid detection; CRISPR/Cas12a; Enzymatic recombinase amplification

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We propose a CRISPR/Cas12a Mediated Enzymatic Recombinase Amplification detection system (CAMERA) for the detection of adulteration in pork ingredients in halal food. CAMERA combines Enzymatic Recombinase Amplification (ERA) and Cas12a cleavage to achieve high specificity and sensitivity. It can detect samples with as few as two copies of porcine-specific gene and quantify samples with as low as 5% porcine DNA content within 25 minutes. The system does not require technical expertise or professional equipment, making it a valuable tool for qualitative and quantitative detection in resource-limited areas.
Economically motivated adulteration (EMA) has become a concern in food safety. We propose a CRISPR/Cas12a Mediated Enzymatic Recombinase Amplification detection system (CAMERA) that integrates Enzymatic Recombinase Amplification (ERA) and Cas12a cleavage to detect halal food adulteration. We designed and screened crRNA targeting CLEC, a porcine-specific nuclear single-copy gene, and optimized the reagent concentrations and incubation times for the ERA and Cas12a cleavage steps. CAMERA was highly specific for pork ingredients detection. The DNA concentration and fluorescence signal intensity relationship was linear at DNA concentrations of 20-0.032 ng/mu L. CAMERA detected as few as two CLEC copies and quantified samples with porcine DNA content as low as 5% within 25 min. The system could be operated in a miniaturized working mode that requires no technical expertise or professional equipment, making CAMERA a valuable tool in resource-limited areas for the qualitative and quantitative detection of pork ingredients in halal food.

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