Volume 9, Issue 2 (June 2022)
J. Food Qual. Hazards Control 2022, 9(2): 112-117 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Aprilia P, Ummami R, Airin C, Aziz F, Astuti P. Comparison of ELISA and PCR Assays for Detection of Pork Adulteration in Halal-Labelled Beef Products. J. Food Qual. Hazards Control 2022; 9 (2) :112-117
URL: http://jfqhc.ssu.ac.ir/article-1-933-en.html
URL: http://jfqhc.ssu.ac.ir/article-1-933-en.html
Veterinary Technology Program, Bioresource Technology and Veterinary Department, Vocational Collage, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia , risa.ummami@ugm.ac.id
Abstract: (726 Views)
Background: Food adulteration with pork in processed beef products is one of the most serious issues in a food sector in a Muslim-majority country since it is related to religious food ethics regarding the halal products. The goal of this research is to test the suitability of ingredients in beef floss and its Halal by knowing the presence of pork DNA and protein in those products.
Methods: Meat products were prepared from two famous marketplaces in Indonesia labeled contain beef meat. In this study, a qualitative Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) test was compared to a conventional Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) assay to determine pork adulteration in beef floss.
Results: The results of the ELISA test showed that two products labeling Halal and containing beef ingredients were positive for pork. Those two samples continued testing using conventional PCR assay. The result of the conventional PCR assay was negative for those two samples.
Conclusion: It may be helpful to utilize both traditional PCR and ELISA for species detection due to the possibly inhibiting compounds contained in some processed meat products. The results of this research suggest that ELISA is better than conventional PCR method for product samples that have received an intensive heating process.
DOI: 10.18502/jfqhc.9.2.10648
Methods: Meat products were prepared from two famous marketplaces in Indonesia labeled contain beef meat. In this study, a qualitative Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) test was compared to a conventional Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) assay to determine pork adulteration in beef floss.
Results: The results of the ELISA test showed that two products labeling Halal and containing beef ingredients were positive for pork. Those two samples continued testing using conventional PCR assay. The result of the conventional PCR assay was negative for those two samples.
Conclusion: It may be helpful to utilize both traditional PCR and ELISA for species detection due to the possibly inhibiting compounds contained in some processed meat products. The results of this research suggest that ELISA is better than conventional PCR method for product samples that have received an intensive heating process.
DOI: 10.18502/jfqhc.9.2.10648
Keywords: Pork Meat, Red Meat, Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay, Polymerase Chain Reaction, Food Contamination
Type of Study: Original article |
Subject:
Special
Received: 21/12/23 | Accepted: 22/05/03 | Published: 22/06/27
Received: 21/12/23 | Accepted: 22/05/03 | Published: 22/06/27
References
1. Al-Kahtani H.A., Ismail E.A., Ahmed M.A. (2017). Pork detection in binary meat mixtures and some commercial food products using conventional and real-time PCR techniques. Food Chemistry. 219: 54-60. [DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.09. 108] [DOI:10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.09.108] [PMID]
2. Al-Taghlubee D., Misaghi A., Shayan P., Akhondzadeh Basti A., Gandomi H., Shayan D. (2019). Comparison of two multiplex PCR systems for meat species authentication. Journal of Food Quality and Hazards Control. 6: 8-15. [DOI: 10.18502/jfqhc.6.1.453] [DOI:10.18502/jfqhc.6.1.453]
3. Arslan A., Ilhak O.I., Calicioglu M. (2006). Effect of method of cooking on identification of heat processed beef using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique. Meat Science. 72: 326-330. [DOI : 10.1016/j.meatsci.2005.08.001] [DOI:10.1016/j.meatsci.2005.08.001] [PMID]
4. Asensio L., González I., García T., Martín R. (2008). Determination of food authenticity by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Food Control. 19: 1-8. [DOI: 10.1016/j. foodcont.2007.02.010] [DOI:10.1016/j.foodcont.2007.02.010]
5. Ballin N.Z., Vogensen F.K., Karlsson A.H. (2009). Species determination - can we detect and quantify meat adulteration. Meat Science. 83: 165-174. [DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2009. 06.003] [DOI:10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.06.003] [PMID]
6. Banti M. (2020). Food adulteration and some methods of detection, review. International Journal of Nutrition and Food Science. 9 :86-94. [DOI: 10.11648/j.ijnfs.20200903.13] [DOI:10.11648/j.ijnfs.20200903.13]
7. Gecaj R.M., Muji S., Ajazi F.C., Berisha B., Kryeziu A., Ismaili M. (2021). Investigation of pork meat in chicken- and beef-based commercial products by ELISA and real-time PCR sold at retail in Kosovo. Czech Journal of Food Sciences. 39: 368-375. [DOI: 10.17221/164/2020-CJFS] [DOI:10.17221/164/2020-CJFS]
8. Habibie F.H., Mustika A., Ningrum L. (2019). Halal label: is it important on foreign food product?. International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology. 4. [DOI: 10. 34203/jimfe.v7i1.2929]
9. Hasan M.R. (2019). The importance of halal certified products in Samarinda city: in the light of Maqasid Al-Syari'ah. Borneo International Journal of Islamic Studies. 2: 41-69. [DOI: 10.21093/bijis.v2i1.1832] [DOI:10.21093/bijis.v2i1.1832]
10. Hussain I., Rahman S.U., Zaheer A., Saleem S. (2016). Integrating factors influencing consumers' halal products purchase: application of theory of reasoned action. Journal of International Food and Agribusiness Marketing. 28: 35-58. [DOI: 10.1080/08974438.2015.1006973] [DOI:10.1080/08974438.2015.1006973]
11. Kim M., Yoo I, Lee S.-Y., Hong Y., Kim H.-Y. (2016). Quantitative detection of pork in commercial meat products by TaqMan® real-time PCR assay targeting the mitochondrial D-loop region. Food Chemistry. 210: 102-106. [DOI: 10. 1016/j.foodchem.2016.04.084] [DOI:10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.04.084] [PMID]
12. Kleinnijenhuis A.J., Van Holthoon F.L., Herregods G. (2018). Validation and theoretical justification of an LC-MS method for the animal species specific detection of gelatin. Food Chemistry. 243: 461-467. [DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2017. 09.104] [DOI:10.1016/j.foodchem.2017.09.104] [PMID]
13. Kuswandi B., Gani A.A., Ahmad M. (2017). Immuno strip test for detection of pork adulteration in cooked meatballs. Food Bioscience. 19: 1-6. [DOI: 10.1016/j.fbio.2017.05.001] [DOI:10.1016/j.fbio.2017.05.001]
14. Mandli J., Fatimi I.E.l., Seddaoui N., Amine A. (2018). Enzyme immunoassay (ELISA/immunosensor) for a sensitive detection of pork adulteration in meat. Food Chemistry. 255: 380-389. [DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.01.184] [DOI:10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.01.184] [PMID]
15. Montiel-Sosa J.F., Ruiz-Pesini E., Montoya J., Roncalés P., López-Pérez M.J., Pérez-Martos A. (2000). Direct and highly species-specific detection of pork meat and fat in meat products by PCR amplification of mitochondrial DNA. Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry. 48: 2829-2832. [DOI: 10.1021/jf9907438] [DOI:10.1021/jf9907438] [PMID]
16. Ni'mah A., Kartikasari Y., Pratama A.D., Kartikasari L.R., Hertanto B.S., Cahyadi M. (2016). Detection of pork contamination in fresh and cooked beef using genetic marker mitochondrial-DNA cytochrome B by duplex-PCR. Journal of the Indonesian Tropical Animal Agriculture. 41: 7-12. [DOI: 10.14710/jitaa.41.1.7-12] [DOI:10.14710/jitaa.41.1.7-12]
17. Perestam A.T., Fujisaki K.K., Nava O., Hellberg R.S. (2017). Comparison of real-time PCR and ELISA-based methods for the detection of beef and pork in processed meat products. Food Control. 71: 346-352. [DOI: 1 0.1016/j.foodcont.2016. 07.017] [DOI:10.1016/j.foodcont.2016.07.017]
18. Pestana E.A., Belak S., Diallo A., Crowther J.R., Viljoen G.J. (2010). Early, rapid and sensitive veterinary molecular diagnostics - real time PCR applications. Springer Science and Business Media, New York. [DOI: 10.1007/978-90-481-3132-7] [DOI:10.1007/978-90-481-3132-7]
19. Soares S., Amaral J.S., Oliveira M.B.P.P., Mafra I. (2013). A SYBR green real-time PCR assay to detect and quantify pork meat in processed poultry meat products. Meat Science. 94: 115-120. [DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.12.012] [DOI:10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.12.012] [PMID]
20. Tantuan S.S., Viljoen C.D. (2021). Determining the presence of undeclared animal species using real-time PCR in canned and ready-to-eat meat products in South Africa. Journal of Food Science and Technology. 58: 2699-2704. [DOI: 10.1007/ s13197-020-04776-w] [DOI:10.1007/s13197-020-04776-w] [PMID] [PMCID]
21. Wardana A.C., Mushlih M. (2021). Comparison the quality of template DNA isolated by column method with and without centrifugation. Indonesian Journal of Innovation Studies. 15. [DOI: 10.21070/ijins.v15i.552]
22. Yörük N.G. (2021). A comparison of ELISA and real-time PCR kits for meat species identification analysis. European Food Research and Technology. 247: 2421-2429. [DOI: 10.1007/ s00217-021-03803-0] [DOI:10.1007/s00217-021-03803-0]
23. Zhao G., Shen X., Liu Y., Xie P., Yao C., Li X., Sun Y., Lei Y., Lei H. (2021). Direct lysis-multiplex polymerase chain reaction assay for beef fraud substitution with chicken, pork and duck. Food Control. 129: 108252. [DOI: 10.1016/j. foodcont.2021.108252] [DOI:10.1016/j.foodcont.2021.108252]
24. Zvereva E.A., Kovalev L.I., Ivanov A.V., Kovaleva M.A., Zherdev A.V., Shishkin S.S., Lisitsyn A.B., Chernukha I.M., Dzantiev B.B. (2015). Enzyme immunoassay and proteomic characterization of troponin I as a marker of mammalian muscle compounds in raw meat and some meat products. Meat Science. 105: 46-52. [DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.03.001] [DOI:10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.03.001] [PMID]
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
