4.3 Article

Determination of Porcine Contamination in Laboratory Prepared dendeng Using Mitochondrial D-Loop686 and cyt b Gene Primers by Real Time Polymerase Chain Reaction

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD PROPERTIES
卷 19, 期 1, 页码 187-195

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/10942912.2015.1020434

关键词

Pork DNA identification; Mitochondrial D-Loop686; Cytochrome b gene; Real time polymerase chain reaction

资金

  1. Director General of Higher Education, Ministry of Education and Culture [LPPM-UGM/346/LIT/2014]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The identifications of species in meat products have created interests since these foods became the target of forgery and fraud in the market. The presence of pork in food products is not allowed for the Muslim community. Hence, an analysis is necessary to detect the presence of pork in processed meat products, such as in dendeng (dried meat) product. Real time polymerase chain reaction using mitochondrial displacement loop686 and cytochrome b (cytb) gene primers was used to identify specific pork DNA among other four types of DNA species; namely beef, chicken, goat, and horse. This method was also used to identify pork DNA in the laboratory processed pork-beef dendeng as well as commercial dendeng from market. The results showed that real time polymerase chain reaction using displacement loop686 and cytb gene primers were able specifically to distinguish between pork DNA and the other species. The lowest concentration of 0.5% of pork DNA in a mixture of pork-beef processed products of dendeng was able to be detected by both primers with the product amplification of 114 and 134 bp (base pair) for the displacement loop686 and 149 bp for cytb gene, respectively. High sensitivity was also obtained when both primers were applied with the lowest detection limit of 5 pg/mu L pork DNA. The results of the six commercial dendeng amplification using both primers showed no amplified products present, meaning that these products do not contain porcine DNA.

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

4.3
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