MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950530392 · doi:10.5539/jfr.v8n4p52

Milk Adulteration: Detection of Bovine Milk in Caprine Dairy Products by Real Time PCR

2019· article· en· W2950530392 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Efstathia Tsakali, Christina Agkastra, Christina Koliaki, Dimitrios Livanios, Georgios Boutris, Myrto Ioulia Christopoulou, Spiridon Koulouris, Stamatis Koussissis, Jan Van Impe, Dimitra Houhoula

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicIdentification and Quantification in Food
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKU Leuven
KeywordsBovine milkFood scienceDNA extractionBiologyPolymerase chain reactionPrimer (cosmetics)Real-time polymerase chain reactionCow milkBiotechnologyVeterinary medicineChemistryBiochemistryGeneMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Milk adulteration is an international social problem. Consumption of adulterated milk may cause serious health problems and a great concern of the food industry has been raised. In this study, a method based on the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) principle was validated for detecting cow’s milk in goat's dairy products. A total of 40 goat's dairy products commonly consumed in Greece, were tested. Various concentrations, from 0.01 to 90%, of cows’ milk in goats’ milk samples were prepared for DNA extraction and further PCR analysis. Selection of highly polymorphic regions within the cow and goat mitochondrial D-loops, showing low homology between the two species, allowed to choose specific primer pairs for detection of cow and goat DNA. After electrophoresis, cow DNA was characterised by the fragment of the size of 300 bp, goat DNA by the fragment of 444 bp. The detection limit of the PCR method was 0.01% while sensitivity and specificity of the method were both 100%. Goat dairy products samples were tested for the presence of cow DNA. Thirty six out of forty (90%) that were tested, were found to produce cow-specific PCR product in addition to goat PCR product while only two samples gave goat-specific product only. The results are disappointing in terms of the food labelling honesty but on the other hand PCR is again a quickly, easy and reliable method that could be used for extended adulteration screening.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.258

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ResearchSame topicIdentification and Quantification in FoodFrench-language works237,207