Soy Protein Detection in Raw and Cooked Meat Products Using Different ELISA Kits

Cellerino Karina; Lopez Laura Beatriz

doi:doi:10.11648/j.jfns.20160406.15

| Peer-Reviewed

Soy Protein Detection in Raw and Cooked Meat Products Using Different ELISA Kits

Cellerino Karina, Lopez Laura Beatriz

Published in Journal of Food and Nutrition Sciences (Volume 4, Issue 6)

Received: 23 September 2016 Accepted: 15 October 2016 Published: 4 January 2017

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate different ELISA kits for the detection of soy proteins in raw and cooked model systems (MS) added with soy protein concentrate 63% protein (SPC), and in commercial meat products. Nine bovine meat MS with 0-2000 ppm SPC, nine boneless ham cooked MS with 0-2000 ppm SPC and eight commercial meat products were analyzed. Three ELISA kits: Ridascreen® Fast Soya from R-Biopharm, Veratox® Quantitative Soy Allergen Test from Neogen and AgraQuant® Soy Assay from Romer were used. R-Biopharm kit detected above 5 ppm SPC in raw meat MS and above 10 ppm SPC in cooked boneless ham MS. Neogen kit detected above 250 ppm SPC in both MS. Romer kit detected above 100 ppm SPC in raw meat MS and above 50 ppm SPC in cooked boneless ham MS. Results obtained using R-Biopharm and Veratox-Neogen kits were lower than real values. It is difficult to evaluate the correct quantification of Romer kit because the results are calculated as ppb soy trypsin inhibitor (STI). Results obtained for raw MS were higher than those obtained for cooked MS using R-Biopharm and Neogen kits, while results for raw MS were lower than those obtained for cooked MS using Romer kit. For one commercial sample that did not declare soy, results were below the quantification limits for the three kits used. For three commercial samples that did not declare soy, results were 22.3; 67.0 and 67.8 ppm soy protein isolate respectively using Neogen kit. Results for four samples that did not declare soy were 448.0; 581.0 and > 1000 ppb STI in two of them, using Romer kit. Two samples declared soy products, in one of them soy was detected with all kits, and in the other Neogen and Romer kits did not detect soy. In conclusion R-Biopharm kit was the most sensitive for the analysis of these samples. Thermal processing affected results for the kits used. It was possible to detect soy in commercial meat products that did not declare soy products. The food industry should be responsible for the declaration of soy in the labels of their products.

Published in	Journal of Food and Nutrition Sciences (Volume 4, Issue 6)
DOI	10.11648/j.jfns.20160406.15
Page(s)	170-174
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2017. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Allergens, Soy, Meat Products, ELISA Kits

References

[1]	Ward R. 2014. Chapter 1: Introduction to food allergy. In Flanagan S, Handbook of Food Allergen Detection and Control. Woodhead Publishing. Cambridge, UK.
[2]	López, L. B., Greco, C. B., Ronayne de Ferrer, P., Valencia, M. E. 2006. Identification of extrinsic proteins in boneless cooked ham by SDS-PAGE: detection level in model systems. Archivos Latinoamericanos de Nutrición. 56 (3): 282.
[3]	Argentine Food Code, 2016.
[4]	http://www.anmat.gov.ar/alimentos/codigoa/Capitulo_V.pdf.
[5]	Access: 06/09/16.
[6]	López, L. B., Binaghi, M. J. Greco, C. B., Mambrín, M. C., Cellerino, K., Valencia, M. E. 2010. Salted sausage and dried sausages: detection by electrophoresis of meat species and extrinsic proteins aggregate. Diaeta. 28 (131): 7.
[7]	Act N° 102 CONAL. 2014.
[8]	http://www.conal.gob.ar/actas/Acta_102_AnexoI.pdf. Access: 10/07/2016.
[9]	Act N° 103 CONAL. 2014.
[10]	http://www.conal.gob.ar/actas/Acta_103_AnexoI.pdf. Access: 10/07/2016.
[11]	Act N° 111 CONAL. 2016.
[12]	http://www.conal.gob.ar/actas/Acta_111.pdf Access: 06/ 09/2016.
[13]	R-Biopharm RIDASCREEN® FAST Soya. 2016. http://www.r-biopharm.com/products/food-feed-analysis/allergens/soya/item/ridascreenfast-soya Access: 06/09/2016.
[14]	Neogen Veratox® quantitative Soy Allergen test. 2014. http://www.neogen.com/FoodSafety/pdf/ProdInfo/V-Soy.pdf. Access: 27/02/2016.
[15]	Romer AgraQuant® Soy Assay. 2016. https://shop.romerlabs.com/en/AgraQuant-ELISA/AgraQuant-Allergens/AgraQuant-ELISA-Soy Access: 01/ 08/2016.
[16]	Diaz Amigo C. 2010. Towards a Comprehensive Validation of ELISA Kits for Food Allergens. Case 2- Milk. Food Analytical Methods. 3: 351-356.
[17]	Diaz Amigo C. and Popping B. 2010. Analytical Testing as a Tool for the Enforcement of future Regulatory Thresholds for Food Allergens. Journal of AOAC International. 93 (2): 434-441.
[18]	Parker C., Khuda S., Pereira M., Ross M., Fu T., Fan X., Wu Y., Williams K., DeVries J., Pulvermacher B., Bedford B., Zhang X., Jackson L. 2015. Multi-allergen Quantitation and the Impact of Thermal Treatment in Industry-Processed Baked Goods by ELISA and Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry. J Agric food chem. 63: 10669-10680.
[19]	Ito K, Yamamoto T, Oyama Y, Tsuruma R, Saito E, Saito Y, Ozu T, Honjoh T, Adachi R, Sakai S, Akiyama H, Shoji M. 2016. Food allergen analysis for processed food using a novel extraction method to eliminate harmful reagents for both ELISA and lateral-flow tests. Anal Bioanal Chem. 408 (22): 5973-84.
[20]	Watanabe Y, Aburatani K, Mizumurz T, Sakai M, Muraoka S, Mamegosi S, Honjoh T. 2005. Novel ELISA for the detection of raw and processed egg using extraction buffer containing a surfactant and reducing agent. J Immunol Methods. 300: 115-123.
[21]	Besler M., Steinhart H., Paschke A. 2001. Stability of food allergens and allergenicity of processed food. J cromatogr B: Biomed Sci Appl. 756 (1-2): 207-228.
[22]	Cellerino Karina, Binaghi María Julieta, Cagnasso Carolina Elisa, Docena Guillermo, López Laura Beatriz. 2012. Comparison of SDS-PAGE and Immunochemical methods for the detection of soy proteins in raw and cooked meat products. Revista Chilena de Nutrición 39 (3): 52-57.
[23]	Gatti M and Ferretti C. 2010. Chapter 17: Soy Allergen Detection, en Popping B, Diaz Amigo C, Hoenicke K, Molecular Biological and immunological techniques and applications for food chemists. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Canada.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Cellerino Karina, Lopez Laura Beatriz. (2017). Soy Protein Detection in Raw and Cooked Meat Products Using Different ELISA Kits. Journal of Food and Nutrition Sciences, 4(6), 170-174. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jfns.20160406.15

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Cellerino Karina; Lopez Laura Beatriz. Soy Protein Detection in Raw and Cooked Meat Products Using Different ELISA Kits. J. Food Nutr. Sci. 2017, 4(6), 170-174. doi: 10.11648/j.jfns.20160406.15

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Cellerino Karina, Lopez Laura Beatriz. Soy Protein Detection in Raw and Cooked Meat Products Using Different ELISA Kits. J Food Nutr Sci. 2017;4(6):170-174. doi: 10.11648/j.jfns.20160406.15

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.jfns.20160406.15,
  author = {Cellerino Karina and Lopez Laura Beatriz},
  title = {Soy Protein Detection in Raw and Cooked Meat Products Using Different ELISA Kits},
  journal = {Journal of Food and Nutrition Sciences},
  volume = {4},
  number = {6},
  pages = {170-174},
  doi = {10.11648/j.jfns.20160406.15},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jfns.20160406.15},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.jfns.20160406.15},
  abstract = {The aim of this study was to evaluate different ELISA kits for the detection of soy proteins in raw and cooked model systems (MS) added with soy protein concentrate 63% protein (SPC), and in commercial meat products. Nine bovine meat MS with 0-2000 ppm SPC, nine boneless ham cooked MS with 0-2000 ppm SPC and eight commercial meat products were analyzed. Three ELISA kits: Ridascreen® Fast Soya from R-Biopharm, Veratox® Quantitative Soy Allergen Test from Neogen and AgraQuant® Soy Assay from Romer were used. R-Biopharm kit detected above 5 ppm SPC in raw meat MS and above 10 ppm SPC in cooked boneless ham MS. Neogen kit detected above 250 ppm SPC in both MS. Romer kit detected above 100 ppm SPC in raw meat MS and above 50 ppm SPC in cooked boneless ham MS. Results obtained using R-Biopharm and Veratox-Neogen kits were lower than real values. It is difficult to evaluate the correct quantification of Romer kit because the results are calculated as ppb soy trypsin inhibitor (STI). Results obtained for raw MS were higher than those obtained for cooked MS using R-Biopharm and Neogen kits, while results for raw MS were lower than those obtained for cooked MS using Romer kit. For one commercial sample that did not declare soy, results were below the quantification limits for the three kits used. For three commercial samples that did not declare soy, results were 22.3; 67.0 and 67.8 ppm soy protein isolate respectively using Neogen kit. Results for four samples that did not declare soy were 448.0; 581.0 and > 1000 ppb STI in two of them, using Romer kit. Two samples declared soy products, in one of them soy was detected with all kits, and in the other Neogen and Romer kits did not detect soy. In conclusion R-Biopharm kit was the most sensitive for the analysis of these samples. Thermal processing affected results for the kits used. It was possible to detect soy in commercial meat products that did not declare soy products. The food industry should be responsible for the declaration of soy in the labels of their products.},
 year = {2017}
}

Copy | Download

TY - JOUR
T1 - Soy Protein Detection in Raw and Cooked Meat Products Using Different ELISA Kits
AU - Cellerino Karina
AU - Lopez Laura Beatriz
Y1 - 2017/01/04
PY - 2017
N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jfns.20160406.15
DO - 10.11648/j.jfns.20160406.15
T2 - Journal of Food and Nutrition Sciences
JF - Journal of Food and Nutrition Sciences
JO - Journal of Food and Nutrition Sciences
SP - 170
EP - 174
PB - Science Publishing Group
SN - 2330-7293
UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jfns.20160406.15
AB - The aim of this study was to evaluate different ELISA kits for the detection of soy proteins in raw and cooked model systems (MS) added with soy protein concentrate 63% protein (SPC), and in commercial meat products. Nine bovine meat MS with 0-2000 ppm SPC, nine boneless ham cooked MS with 0-2000 ppm SPC and eight commercial meat products were analyzed. Three ELISA kits: Ridascreen® Fast Soya from R-Biopharm, Veratox® Quantitative Soy Allergen Test from Neogen and AgraQuant® Soy Assay from Romer were used. R-Biopharm kit detected above 5 ppm SPC in raw meat MS and above 10 ppm SPC in cooked boneless ham MS. Neogen kit detected above 250 ppm SPC in both MS. Romer kit detected above 100 ppm SPC in raw meat MS and above 50 ppm SPC in cooked boneless ham MS. Results obtained using R-Biopharm and Veratox-Neogen kits were lower than real values. It is difficult to evaluate the correct quantification of Romer kit because the results are calculated as ppb soy trypsin inhibitor (STI). Results obtained for raw MS were higher than those obtained for cooked MS using R-Biopharm and Neogen kits, while results for raw MS were lower than those obtained for cooked MS using Romer kit. For one commercial sample that did not declare soy, results were below the quantification limits for the three kits used. For three commercial samples that did not declare soy, results were 22.3; 67.0 and 67.8 ppm soy protein isolate respectively using Neogen kit. Results for four samples that did not declare soy were 448.0; 581.0 and > 1000 ppb STI in two of them, using Romer kit. Two samples declared soy products, in one of them soy was detected with all kits, and in the other Neogen and Romer kits did not detect soy. In conclusion R-Biopharm kit was the most sensitive for the analysis of these samples. Thermal processing affected results for the kits used. It was possible to detect soy in commercial meat products that did not declare soy products. The food industry should be responsible for the declaration of soy in the labels of their products.
VL - 4
IS - 6
ER -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Cellerino Karina

Faculty of Pharmacy and Biochemistry, Universidad de Buenos Aires – University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Lopez Laura Beatriz

Faculty of Pharmacy and Biochemistry, Universidad de Buenos Aires – University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Cellerino Karina, Lopez Laura Beatriz. (2017). Soy Protein Detection in Raw and Cooked Meat Products Using Different ELISA Kits. Journal of Food and Nutrition Sciences, 4(6), 170-174. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jfns.20160406.15

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Cellerino Karina; Lopez Laura Beatriz. Soy Protein Detection in Raw and Cooked Meat Products Using Different ELISA Kits. J. Food Nutr. Sci. 2017, 4(6), 170-174. doi: 10.11648/j.jfns.20160406.15

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Cellerino Karina, Lopez Laura Beatriz. Soy Protein Detection in Raw and Cooked Meat Products Using Different ELISA Kits. J Food Nutr Sci. 2017;4(6):170-174. doi: 10.11648/j.jfns.20160406.15

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.jfns.20160406.15,
  author = {Cellerino Karina and Lopez Laura Beatriz},
  title = {Soy Protein Detection in Raw and Cooked Meat Products Using Different ELISA Kits},
  journal = {Journal of Food and Nutrition Sciences},
  volume = {4},
  number = {6},
  pages = {170-174},
  doi = {10.11648/j.jfns.20160406.15},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jfns.20160406.15},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.jfns.20160406.15},
  abstract = {The aim of this study was to evaluate different ELISA kits for the detection of soy proteins in raw and cooked model systems (MS) added with soy protein concentrate 63% protein (SPC), and in commercial meat products. Nine bovine meat MS with 0-2000 ppm SPC, nine boneless ham cooked MS with 0-2000 ppm SPC and eight commercial meat products were analyzed. Three ELISA kits: Ridascreen® Fast Soya from R-Biopharm, Veratox® Quantitative Soy Allergen Test from Neogen and AgraQuant® Soy Assay from Romer were used. R-Biopharm kit detected above 5 ppm SPC in raw meat MS and above 10 ppm SPC in cooked boneless ham MS. Neogen kit detected above 250 ppm SPC in both MS. Romer kit detected above 100 ppm SPC in raw meat MS and above 50 ppm SPC in cooked boneless ham MS. Results obtained using R-Biopharm and Veratox-Neogen kits were lower than real values. It is difficult to evaluate the correct quantification of Romer kit because the results are calculated as ppb soy trypsin inhibitor (STI). Results obtained for raw MS were higher than those obtained for cooked MS using R-Biopharm and Neogen kits, while results for raw MS were lower than those obtained for cooked MS using Romer kit. For one commercial sample that did not declare soy, results were below the quantification limits for the three kits used. For three commercial samples that did not declare soy, results were 22.3; 67.0 and 67.8 ppm soy protein isolate respectively using Neogen kit. Results for four samples that did not declare soy were 448.0; 581.0 and > 1000 ppb STI in two of them, using Romer kit. Two samples declared soy products, in one of them soy was detected with all kits, and in the other Neogen and Romer kits did not detect soy. In conclusion R-Biopharm kit was the most sensitive for the analysis of these samples. Thermal processing affected results for the kits used. It was possible to detect soy in commercial meat products that did not declare soy products. The food industry should be responsible for the declaration of soy in the labels of their products.},
 year = {2017}
}

Copy | Download