Method development for identification of the chicken, beef and pork processed food

Tunku Syed Iskandar Syed Azhar; Lay-Harn Gam

Tunku Syed Iskandar Syed Azhar School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 USM, Penang, Malaysia.
Lay-Harn Gam School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 USM, Penang, Malaysia.

Abstract

Food adulteration is an addition of impure ingredients to food that cannot be seen by the naked eye unless it is tested and investigated thoroughly. In the market, people are buying canned and processed meat for consumption but little did they know the content. In this study, we examined the protein profile of canned meat by using SDS-PAGE method that can show the differences of protein profile of three types of canned meat and processed meat that is chicken (Gallus gallus), pork (Sus scrofa) and beef (Bos taurus). A simple approach by extracting protein from meat product and followed by protein purification and SDS-PAGE protein profiling was established. We find the purification process is critical in order to obtain a good profiling of the food’s protein as the meat product was seasoned and therefore salt composition in the food interfered the SDS-PAGE separation. Using this newly developed method, we were able to identify the origin of meats in food.

Keywords: Proteins extraction, SDS-PAGE, Biomarkers, Identification of meat source

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Heinz, G. and P. Hautzinger, Meat processing technology for small to medium scale producers. 2009: FAO.
2. Nakyinsige, K., Y.B.C. Man, and A.Q. Sazili. Halal authenticity issues in meat and meat products. Meat Science 2012; 91(3):207-214.
3. Musa, N., et al., The Cadbury Controversy: Blessings in Disguise?, in Contemporary Issues and Development in the Global Halal Industry. Springer 2016; 95-104.
4. Tuck, M.K., et al., Standard operating procedures for serum and plasma collection: early detection research network consensus statement standard operating procedure integration working group. Journal of proteome research 2008; 8(1):113-117.
5. Molloy, M.P., et al., Extraction of membrane proteins by differential solubilization for separation using two‐dimensional gel electrophoresis. Electrophoresis 1998; 19(5):837-844.
6. Wu, X., et al., Universal sample preparation method integrating trichloroacetic acid/acetone precipitation with phenol extraction for crop proteomic analysis. Nature protocols 2014; 9(2):362.
7. Wessel, D. and U. Flügge, A method for the quantitative recovery of protein in dilute solution in the presence of detergents and lipids. Analytical biochemistry 1984; 138(1):141-143.
8. Bartlett, J.M. and D. Stirling, A short history of the polymerase chain reaction. PCR protocols, 2003; 3-6.
9. Kocher, T.D., et al., Dynamics of mitochondrial DNA evolution in animals: amplification and sequencing with conserved primers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 1989; 86(16):6196-6200.
10. Schmittgen, T.D. and K.J. Livak, Analyzing real-time PCR data by the comparative CT method. Nature protocols 2008; 3(6):1101-1108.
11. Laemmli, U.K., Cleavage of structural proteins during the assembly of the head of bacteriophage T4. Nature 1970; 227(5259):680-5.
12. Henriques, F. and R.B. Park, Compositional characteristics of a chloroform/methanol soluble protein fraction from spinach chloroplast membranes. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)-Bioenergetics, 1976; 430(2):312-320.
13. Carpentier, S.C., et al., Preparation of protein extracts from recalcitrant plant tissues: An evaluation of different methods for two-dimensional gel electrophoresis analysis. Proteomics 2005; 5(10):2497-2507.