A comparison of DNA extraction methods for food analysis

Pinto, Angela Di; Forte, VitoTony; Guastadisegni, Maria Corsignano; Martino, Carmela; Schena, Francesco Paolo; Tantillo, Giuseppina

doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2005.08.011

Cited by 138 publications

(87 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, other authors described satisfactory results from DNA extracted by the DNeasy method for most food products (Di Pinto et al 2007;Datukishvili et al 2010). (Table 2).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

DNA extraction techniques compared for accurate detection of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in maize food and feed products

Türkeç

Kazan²,

Karacanli³

et al. 2014

J Food Sci Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, DNA extraction methods have been evaluated to detect the presence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in maize food and feed products commercialised in Turkey. All the extraction methods tested performed well for the majority of maize foods and feed products analysed. However, the highest DNA content was achieved by the Wizard, Genespin or the CTAB method, all of which produced optimal DNA yield and purity for different maize food and feed products. The samples were then screened for the presence of GM elements, along with certified reference materials. Of the food and feed samples, 8 % tested positive for the presence of one GM element (NOS terminator), of which half (4 % of the total) also contained a second element (the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus 35S promoter). The results obtained herein clearly demonstrate the presence of GM maize in the Turkish market, and that the Foodproof GMO Screening Kit provides reliable screening of maize food and feed products.

show abstract

“…In contrast, other authors described satisfactory results from DNA extracted by the DNeasy method for most food products (Di Pinto et al 2007;Datukishvili et al 2010). (Table 2).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

DNA extraction techniques compared for accurate detection of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in maize food and feed products

Türkeç

Kazan²,

Karacanli³

et al. 2014

J Food Sci Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Inhibitor compounds can interfere with PCR by decreasing or even completely inhibiting the activity of DNA polymerase. [26] Moreover, the chemical reagents used in the isolation procedure may persist as contaminants, which can affect the purity of the extracted DNA. The use of different processing methods in the food industry can cause changes not only in the DNA molecules, but also in the qualitative parameters (nutritional quality and physicochemical properties) of fish or other meat muscle tissues.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative study of DNA extraction methods from fresh and processed yellowfin tuna muscle tissue

Piskatá

Pospisilova

Bořilová

2017

International Journal of Food Properties

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The most common techniques used to identify tuna species include methods based on the detection of specific DNA. The quality of species-specific DNA crucially affects the efficiency of amplification during the subsequent polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Detection of DNA in processed products can be adversely affected by DNA fragmentation during the processing steps and the use of ingredients that may inhibit the PCR reaction. In this study, several processing treatments applied to the muscle tissue of yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) were evaluated. For DNA isolation three DNA extraction methods were compared. The concentration, purity, and amplificability of DNA were tested. The results revealed the variability among extraction procedures in terms of DNA quality and quantity in tuna muscle tissue processed under different processing technologies. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

“…The DNA extraction, purifi cation and concentration, the fi rst critical step in molecular analytical methodologies, requires methods able to remove the several inhibitor compounds of the amplifi cation reaction. (Di Pinto et al, 2007).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Suitable method for simultaneous and specific detection of maize (<i>Zea mays</i> l.) and genetically modified soyabean (<i>Glycine max</i> l.) in animal feeds

Garay¹,

Mayas²,

Garcia³

2009

J. Anim. Feed Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Present method allows a simple and rapid identifi cation of maize and specifi c transgenic soyabean event in raw materials and processed feed samples. The method combines two aspects: suitable DNA purifi cation and amplifi cation by means of multiplex RT-PCR. Effi ciency and accuracy of this method have been tested and the limit of detection (LOD) reached was of 0.1 ng/μl for one of the species and of 1 ng/μl for the other one. The checking of the method has been realized by means of RT-PCR using the specifi c probes for each one of the systems by means of comparison with certifi ed reference materials. The obtained results showed that with this method it is possible to obtain, in a shorter time, quality values for both: identifi cation and quantifi cation of GMOs, in raw and processed samples.

show abstract

A comparison of DNA extraction methods for food analysis

Cited by 138 publications

References 15 publications

DNA extraction techniques compared for accurate detection of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in maize food and feed products

DNA extraction techniques compared for accurate detection of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in maize food and feed products

Comparative study of DNA extraction methods from fresh and processed yellowfin tuna muscle tissue

Suitable method for simultaneous and specific detection of maize (<i>Zea mays</i> l.) and genetically modified soyabean (<i>Glycine max</i> l.) in animal feeds

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About