Towards a multiplex cereal traceability tool using padlock probe ligation on genomic DNA

Prins, T.W.; Dijk, Jeroen P. van; Hoef, A.M.A. van; Voorhuijzen, Marleen M.; Broeders, Sylvia; Trapmann, Stefanie; Seyfarth, Ralf; Pardigol, A.; Schoen, C.D.; Aarts, H.J.M.; Kok, E.J.

doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2008.10.085

Cited by 25 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It has been reported in literature, as well as on certificates of certified reference materials that 0% CRMs may contain a certain low level of the GMO they are supposed to be negative for as well as other GMOs [30,31]. Furthermore, it is not very probable, given the shown specificity of PLPs in the present and previous papers [8,9], that the signal in the 0% GTS 40-3-2 was due to cross-reaction. For these reasons, a different reference material was selected as negative control in the transfer experiments, particularly 0% MON810.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 55%

Comparison and transfer testing of multiplex ligation detection methods for GM plants

Ujhelyi

Dijk²,

Prins³

et al. 2012

BMC Biotechnol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundWith the increasing number of GMOs on the global market the maintenance of European GMO regulations is becoming more complex. For the analysis of a single food or feed sample it is necessary to assess the sample for the presence of many GMO-targets simultaneously at a sensitive level. Several methods have been published regarding DNA-based multidetection. Multiplex ligation detection methods have been described that use the same basic approach: i) hybridisation and ligation of specific probes, ii) amplification of the ligated probes and iii) detection and identification of the amplified products. Despite they all have this same basis, the published ligation methods differ radically. The present study investigated with real-time PCR whether these different ligation methods have any influence on the performance of the probes. Sensitivity and the specificity of the padlock probes (PLPs) with the ligation protocol with the best performance were also tested and the selected method was initially validated in a laboratory exchange study.ResultsOf the ligation protocols tested in this study, the best results were obtained with the PPLMD I and PPLMD II protocols and no consistent differences between these two protocols were observed. Both protocols are based on padlock probe ligation combined with microarray detection. Twenty PLPs were tested for specificity and the best probes were subjected to further evaluation. Up to 13 targets were detected specifically and simultaneously. During the interlaboratory exchange study similar results were achieved by the two participating institutes (NIB, Slovenia, and RIKILT, the Netherlands).ConclusionsFrom the comparison of ligation protocols it can be concluded that two protocols perform equally well on the basis of the selected set of PLPs. Using the most ideal parameters the multiplicity of one of the methods was tested and 13 targets were successfully and specifically detected. In the interlaboratory exchange study it was shown that the selected method meets the 0.1% sensitivity criterion. The present study thus shows that specific and sensitive multidetection of GMO targets is now feasible.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 55%

Comparison and transfer testing of multiplex ligation detection methods for GM plants

Ujhelyi

Dijk²,

Prins³

et al. 2012

BMC Biotechnol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is worth noting the detectability obtained with the developed DNA sensor was similar or even better than other DNA approaches directed to detect wheat in food samples, such as real-time PCR approaches which relied on an optical detection of the amplified fragments [29][30][31] or microarrays [32]. This advantageous feature was attributed to the multi-copy nature of the target gliadin sequence that can provide methods 10-100 times more sensitive than those based on the detection of sequences found only in one copy, as the gibberellin response gene [33] or puroindoline-b gene [34][35][36], that showed sensitivities around to 0.1-1% of wheat in an inert matrix.…”

Section: Detection Of Dna From Mixtures Of Cereals and Processed Foodmentioning

confidence: 68%

Challenging genosensors in food samples: The case of gluten determination in highly processed samples

Martín-Fernández

de‐los‐Santos‐Álvarez

Martín-Clemente

et al. 2016

Talanta

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Typically, the detection limit of DNA technology is ≤ 0.1%, depending on the detection limit of the PCR method used [5]. Currently, the method has been used for grapes [14], seafood [15], cereals [16], and other food varieties.…”

Section: Dna Fingerprinting Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Food Safety Traceability

Wei

Guo

Liu

et al. 2017

Food Safety in China

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Towards a multiplex cereal traceability tool using padlock probe ligation on genomic DNA

Cited by 25 publications

References 15 publications

Comparison and transfer testing of multiplex ligation detection methods for GM plants

Comparison and transfer testing of multiplex ligation detection methods for GM plants

Challenging genosensors in food samples: The case of gluten determination in highly processed samples

Food Safety Traceability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About