| Title |
Specific identification of chicken and soybean fraud in premium burgers using multiplex-PCR method
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Food Science and Technology, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13197-015-1771-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Farzaneh Tafvizi, Masumeh Hashemzadegan |
| Abstract |
The increased consumption of meat products, such as hamburger in large cities such as Tehran, has highlighted the importance of quality control for these products. Due to the escalating cost of red meat, and the difficulty of detecting adulteration in ground meat, the replacement of red meat with cheaper animal and plant proteins in these products is clearly possible. As a result, the aim of this study was to investigate the validity of labeling in premium hamburgers made of beef. In addition, the presence of soybean and chicken meat, which constitutes commercial fraud in premium hamburgers, was detected using a sensitive and quick multiplex-PCR method. In total, 10 specified brands of premium hamburgers purported to consist of beef were collected from markets in Tehran City, Iran. DNA was extracted from the premium hamburgers, then, simplex-PCR and multiplex-PCR fwere optimized using specific beef, chicken and soybean primers. The 118, 183, and 274 bp fragments, were amplified in all samples from soybean lectin, 12 s rRNA, and mitochondrial cytochrome b genes, respectively. The results indicated the addition of chicken meat and soybean in the premium hamburgers which were not indicated on their labels. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 25% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 13% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 7 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 33% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 8% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 8% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 7 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 January 2017.
All research outputs
#16,643,050
of 24,552,012 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Food Science and Technology
#727
of 1,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,676
of 273,233 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Food Science and Technology
#30
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,552,012 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,552 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 273,233 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.