<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<journal>
<title>Journal of Food Quality and Hazards Control</title>
<title_fa>مجله کیفیت و کنترل مخاطرات مواد غذایی</title_fa>
<short_title>J. Food Qual. Hazards Control</short_title>
<subject>Medical Sciences</subject>
<web_url>http://jfqhc.ssu.ac.ir</web_url>
<journal_hbi_system_id>1</journal_hbi_system_id>
<journal_hbi_system_user>admin</journal_hbi_system_user>
<journal_id_issn>2345-685X</journal_id_issn>
<journal_id_issn_online>2345-6825</journal_id_issn_online>
<journal_id_pii>8</journal_id_pii>
<journal_id_doi>10.29252/jfqhc</journal_id_doi>
<journal_id_iranmedex></journal_id_iranmedex>
<journal_id_magiran></journal_id_magiran>
<journal_id_sid>14</journal_id_sid>
<journal_id_nlai>8888</journal_id_nlai>
<journal_id_science>13</journal_id_science>
<language>en</language>
<pubdate>
	<type>jalali</type>
	<year>1395</year>
	<month>9</month>
	<day>1</day>
</pubdate>
<pubdate>
	<type>gregorian</type>
	<year>2016</year>
	<month>12</month>
	<day>1</day>
</pubdate>
<volume>3</volume>
<number>4</number>
<publish_type>online</publish_type>
<publish_edition>1</publish_edition>
<article_type>fulltext</article_type>
<articleset>
	<article>


	<language>en</language>
	<article_id_doi></article_id_doi>
	<title_fa></title_fa>
	<title>DNA Extraction from Beef Harboring Sarcocystis spp.: Comparison of Three Different Analytical Methods</title>
	<subject_fa>تخصصي</subject_fa>
	<subject>Special</subject>
	<content_type_fa>Original article</content_type_fa>
	<content_type>Original article</content_type>
	<abstract_fa></abstract_fa>
	<abstract>&lt;p style=&quot;text-align: justify;&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times new roman;&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background: &lt;/strong&gt;DNA extraction is one the most important steps for molecular analysis of food-borne pathogens. In this research, three methods of DNA extractions from beef harboring &lt;em&gt;Sarcocystis &lt;/em&gt;spp. were compared for the quality, quantity, safety, as well as cost-effectiveness.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p style=&quot;text-align: justify;&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times new roman;&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methods:&lt;/strong&gt; About 100 mg intersostal and diaphragm were collected from 10 slaughtered cattle. After ensuring their contamination with &lt;em&gt;Sarcocyst&lt;/em&gt; using Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) with the specific primer pair, three methods of salting out, Phenol-Chloroform-Isoamylalcohol (PCI), and commercial kit were performed. Quantification, qualification, and amplification analysis of the extracted DNA was done using spectrophotometer, agarose gel electrophoresis, and PCR, respectively. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA test, by SPSS, Inc, Chicago, IL software (v.16.0).&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p style=&quot;text-align: justify;&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times new roman;&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results:&lt;/strong&gt; Qualification in all methods was appropriate but the ones related to salting out and PCI methods were the best in comparison with the ones from commercial kit. Quantification analysis indicated the mean concentration of 249.3&amp;plusmn;3.94, 67.8&amp;plusmn;5.1, and 31&amp;plusmn;2.7 ng/&amp;mu;l for PCI, salting out, and commercial kit, respectively. The purification analysis represented the mean ratios of A (260)/(280), 1.7&amp;plusmn;0.3, 1.63&amp;plusmn;0.2, and 1.81&amp;plusmn;0.6 for PCI, salting out, and commercial kit, respectively. No significant difference (&lt;em&gt;p&lt;/em&gt;&gt;0.05) was found between the yielded concentration and purification among three methods.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p style=&quot;text-align: justify;&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times new roman;&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion:&lt;/strong&gt; The commercial kit is expensive, but salting out and PCI methods are cost effectiveness, however the last is considered as a toxic method. Because, amplification in all methods was appropriate, we introduced salting out for molecular detection of &lt;em&gt;Sarcocystis &lt;/em&gt;in beef.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
</abstract>
	<keyword_fa></keyword_fa>
	<keyword>Sarcocystis, Meat, Molecular Diagnostic Techniques </keyword>
	<start_page>128</start_page>
	<end_page>133</end_page>
	<web_url>http://jfqhc.ssu.ac.ir/browse.php?a_code=A-10-1-131&amp;slc_lang=en&amp;sid=1</web_url>


<author_list>
	<author>
	<first_name>G.</first_name>
	<middle_name></middle_name>
	<last_name> Eslami</last_name>
	<suffix></suffix>
	<first_name_fa></first_name_fa>
	<middle_name_fa></middle_name_fa>
	<last_name_fa></last_name_fa>
	<suffix_fa></suffix_fa>
	<email></email>
	<code></code>
	<orcid></orcid>
	<coreauthor>No</coreauthor>
	<affiliation>Research Center for Food Hygiene and Safety, Faculty of Health, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran</affiliation>
	<affiliation_fa></affiliation_fa>
	 </author>


	<author>
	<first_name>L. </first_name>
	<middle_name></middle_name>
	<last_name>Manafi</last_name>
	<suffix></suffix>
	<first_name_fa></first_name_fa>
	<middle_name_fa></middle_name_fa>
	<last_name_fa></last_name_fa>
	<suffix_fa></suffix_fa>
	<email></email>
	<code></code>
	<orcid></orcid>
	<coreauthor>No</coreauthor>
	<affiliation>Department of Parasitology and Mycology, Faculty of Medicine, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran</affiliation>
	<affiliation_fa></affiliation_fa>
	 </author>


	<author>
	<first_name>S. </first_name>
	<middle_name></middle_name>
	<last_name>Peletto</last_name>
	<suffix></suffix>
	<first_name_fa></first_name_fa>
	<middle_name_fa></middle_name_fa>
	<last_name_fa></last_name_fa>
	<suffix_fa></suffix_fa>
	<email>simone.peletto@izsto.it</email>
	<code></code>
	<orcid></orcid>
	<coreauthor>Yes
</coreauthor>
	<affiliation>Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del Piemonte, Liguria e Valle d&#039;Aosta, Turin, Italy</affiliation>
	<affiliation_fa></affiliation_fa>
	 </author>


</author_list>


	</article>
</articleset>
</journal>
