Animal Bioscience

Asian Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies (아세아태평양축산학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A quantitative method for detecting meat contamination based on specific polypeptides

  • Feng, Chaoyan (Key Laboratory of Meat Processing and Quality Control, MOE, Key Laboratory of Meat Processing, MARA, Jiangsu Collaborative Innovation Center of Meat Production and Processing, Quality and Safety Control, College of Food Science and Technology, Nanjing Agricultural University) ;
  • Xu, Daokun (Nanjing institute for Food and Drug Supervision and Inspection) ;
  • Liu, Zhen (Nanjing institute for Food and Drug Supervision and Inspection) ;
  • Hu, Wenyan (Nanjing institute for Food and Drug Supervision and Inspection) ;
  • Yang, Jun (Nanjing institute for Food and Drug Supervision and Inspection) ;
  • Li, Chunbao (Key Laboratory of Meat Processing and Quality Control, MOE, Key Laboratory of Meat Processing, MARA, Jiangsu Collaborative Innovation Center of Meat Production and Processing, Quality and Safety Control, College of Food Science and Technology, Nanjing Agricultural University)
  • Received : 2020.09.03
  • Accepted : 2020.11.14
  • Published : 2021.09.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: This study was aimed to establish a quantitative detection method for meat contamination based on specific polypeptides. Methods: Thermally stable peptides with good responses were screened by high resolution liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. Standard curves of specific polypeptide were established by triple quadrupole mass spectrometry. Finally, the adulteration of commercial samples was detected according to the standard curve. Results: Fifteen thermally stable peptides with good responses were screened. The selected specific peptides can be detected stably in raw meat and deep processed meat with the detection limit up to 1% and have a good linear relationship with the corresponding muscle composition. Conclusion: This method can be effectively used for quantitative analysis of commercial samples.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This study was funded by BE2016624 and CARS-35.

References

  1. Zhao HT, Feng YZ, Chen W, Jia GF. Application of invasive weed optimization and least square support vector machine for prediction of beef adulteration with spoiled beef based on visible near-infrared (Vis-NIR) hyperspectral imaging. Meat Sci 2019;151:75-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.01.010
  2. Black C, Chevallier OP, Cooper KM, et al. Rapid detection and specific identification of offals within minced beef samples utilising ambient mass spectrometry. Sci Rep 2019;9:6295. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-42796-5
  3. Jira W, Munch S. A sensitive HPLC-MS/MS screening method for the simultaneous detection of barley, maize, oats, rice, rye and wheat proteins in meat products. Food Chem 2019; 275:214-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.09.041
  4. Thienes CP, Masiri J, Benoit LA, et al. Quantitative detection of beef contamination in cooked meat products by ELISA. J AOAC Int 2019;102:898-902. https://doi.org/10.5740/jaoacint.18-0193
  5. Ha Y, Thienes CP, Agapov AA, et al. Comparison of ELISA and DNA lateral flow assays for detection of pork, horse, beef, chicken, turkey, and goat contamination in meat products. J AOAC Int 2019;102:189-95. https://doi.org/10.5740/jaoacint.18-0128
  6. Thienes CP, Masiri J, Benoit LA, et al. Quantitative detection of chicken and turkey contamination in cooked meat products by ELISA. J AOAC Int 2019;102:557-63. https://doi.org/10.5740/jaoacint.18-0136
  7. Zheng X, Li Y, Wei W, Peng Y. Detection of adulteration with duck meat in minced lamb meat by using visible near-infrared hyperspectral imaging. Meat Sci 2019;149:55-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.11.005
  8. Lopez-Maestresalas A, Insausti K, Jaren C, et al. Detection of minced lamb and beef fraud using NIR spectroscopy. Food Control 2019;98:465-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2018.12.003
  9. Tian X, Wang J, Shen R, Ma Z, Li M. Discrimination of pork/chicken adulteration in minced mutton by electronic taste system. Int J Food Sci Technol 2019;54:670-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.13977
  10. Wang Q, Li L, Ding W, et al. Adulterant identification in mutton by electronic nose and gas chromatography mass spectrometer. Food Control 2019;98:431-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2018.11.038
  11. Pavlidis DE, Mallouchos A, Ercolini D, Panagou EZ, Nychas GJE. A volatilomics approach for off-line discrimination of minced beef and pork meat and their admixture using HSSPME GC/MS in tandem with multivariate data analysis. Meat Sci 2019;151:43-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.01.003
  12. Qin P, Qiao D, Gao Y, et al. Self-signal-on fluorescent colorimetric protocol for rapid authentication of horsemeat adulterated beef samples with functional designed probes. Int J Food Sci Technnol 2019;54:1752-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.14068
  13. Liu W, Wang X, Tao J, Xi B, Xue M, Sun W. A multiplex PCR assay mediated by universal primers for the detection of adulterated meat in mutton. J. Food Prot 2019;82:325-30. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028x.jfp-18-302
  14. Li X, Guan Y. Specific identification of the adulterated components in beef or mutton meats using multiplex PCR. J AOAC Int 2019;102:1181-5. https://doi.org/10.5740/jaoacint.18-0338
  15. Koppel R, Ganeshan A, Weber S, et al. Duplex digital PCR for the determination of meat proportions of sausages containing meat from chicken, turkey, horse, cow, pig and sheep. Eur Food Res Technol 2019;245:853-62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-018-3220-3
  16. Qin P, Qu W, Xu J, et al. A sensitive multiplex PCR protocol for simultaneous detection of chicken, duck, and pork in beef samples. J Food Sci Technol 2019;56:1266-74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-019-03591-2
  17. Montowska M, Fornal E. Absolute quantification of targeted meat and allergenic protein additive peptide markers in meat products. Food Chem 2019;274:857-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.08.131
  18. Pan XD, Chen J, Chen Q, Huang BF, Han JL. Authentication of pork in meat mixtures using PRM mass spectrometry of myosin peptides. RSC Adv 2018;8:11157-62. https://doi.org/10.1039/c8ra00926k
  19. Prandi B, Varani M, Faccini A, et al. Species specific marker peptides for meat authenticity assessment: A multispecies quantitative approach applied to Bolognese sauce. Food Control 2019;97:15-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2018.10.016
  20. Fornal E, Montowska M. Species-specific peptide-based liquid chromatography mass spectrometry monitoring of three poultry species in processed meat products. Food Chem 2019;283:489-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.01.074
  21. Nakamoto A, Nishida M, Saito T, et al. Monolithic silica spin column extraction and simultaneous derivatization of amphetamines and 3, 4-methylenedioxyamphetamines in human urine for gas chromatographic-mass spectrometric detection. Anal Chim Acta 2010;661:42-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2009.12.013
  22. Von Bargen C, Brockmeyer J, Humpf HU. Meat authentication: a new HPLC-MS/MS based method for the fast and sensitive detection of horse and pork in highly processed food. J Agric Food Chem 2014;62:9428-35. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf503468t
  23. Sentandreu MA, Fraser PD, Halket J, Patel R, Bramley PM. A proteomic-based approach for detection of chicken in meat mixes. J Proteome Res 2010;9:3374-83. https://doi.org/10.1021/pr9008942
  24. Bunch DR, Wang S. Applications of monolithic solid-phase extraction in chromatography-based clinical chemistry assays. Anal Bioanal Chem 2013;405:3021-33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-013-6761-0
  25. Palmblad M, Vogel JS. Quantitation of binding, recovery and desalting efficiency of peptides and proteins in solid phase extraction micropipette tips. J Chromatogr B 2005; 814:309-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchromb.2004.10.052
  26. Schmelter C, Funke S, Treml J, et al. Comparison of two solid-phase extraction (spe) methods for the identification and quantification of porcine retinal protein markers by LC-MS/MS. Int J Mol Sci 2018;19:3847. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms19123847
  27. Watson AD, Gunning Y, Rigby NM, Philo M, Kemsley EK. Meat authentication via multiple reaction monitoring mass spectrometry of myoglobin peptides. Anal Chem 2015;87: 10315-22. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.5b02318
  28. Li Y, Zhang Y, Li H, Zhao W, Guo W, Wang S. Simultaneous determination of heat stable peptides for eight animal and plant species in meat products using UPLC-MS/MS method. Food Chem 2018;245:125-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2017.09.066
  29. Wang GJ, Zhou GY, Ren HW, et al. Peptide biomarkers identified by LC-MS in processed meats of five animal species. J Food Compost Anal 2018;73:47-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2018.07.004
  30. Montowska M, Fornal E. Label-free quantification of meat proteins for evaluation of species composition of processed meat products. Food Chem 2017;237:1092-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2017.06.059
  31. Bax ML, Aubry L, Ferreira C, et al. Cooking temperature is a key determinant of in vitro meat protein digestion rate: investigation of underlying mechanisms. J Agric Food Chem 2012;60:2569-76. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf205280y