4.3 Article

Measurement of wheat gluten and barley hordeins in contaminated oats from Europe, the United States and Canada by Sandwich R5 ELISA

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MEG.0b013e3282f46597

关键词

coeliac disease; gluten; oats; Sandwich r5 ELISA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives We have investigated the extent of contamination with wheat, barley, rye or a mixture of these cereals in a large number of grains and commercial oats. We have also attempted to identify the type of cereal contaminant. Methods Sandwich R5 ELISA (using either gliadins or hordeins as standards), western blot, matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometric and quantitative real-time PCR (Q-PCR) techniques have been used to analyze a total of 134 oats, comprising grains and commercial oat products collected from Europe, the United States and Canada. Results Twenty-five of the 134 pure, uncontaminated oat varieties were found to have undetectable levels of gluten, whereas most of the 109 grains and commercial oat products were mainly contaminated with mixtures of wheat, barley and rye, barley being the predominant contaminant. The percentages of these cereals in the oat samples have been calculated by specific wheat, barley and rye Q-PCR systems. The oat samples were grouped according to the avenin spectra determined by the mass spectrometric technique. The data confirmed that contaminated oat foods, based on the same variety, could have different levels of wheat, barley and rye contamination. Conclusion This study has verified that contamination with wheat gliadins or barley hordeins in oat samples can be measured by the Sandwich R5 ELISA, using either gliadins or hordeins as standards, and also the importance of using confirmatory techniques (such as western blot, Q-PCR and matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry) to confirm that most oats are contaminated with mixtures of wheat, barley and rye.

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