Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Feb 26;15(2):e0228624.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228624. eCollection 2020.

Identification and quantification of cassava starch adulteration in different food starches by droplet digital PCR

Affiliations

Identification and quantification of cassava starch adulteration in different food starches by droplet digital PCR

Jia Chen et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

We report a rapid and accurate quantitative detection method using droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) technology to identify cassava adulteration in starch products. The ddPCR analysis showed that the weight of cassava (M) and cassava-extracted DNA content had a significant linear relationship-the correlation coefficient was R2 = 0.995, and the maximum coefficient of variation of replicates was 7.48%. The DNA content and DNA copy number (C) measured by ddPCR also had a linear relationship with R2 = 0.992; the maximum coefficient of variation of replicates was 8.85%. The range of cassava ddPCR DNA content was 25 ng/μL, and the formula M = (C + 32.409)/350.579 was obtained by converting DNA content into the median signal. The accuracy and application potential of the method were verified using the constructed adulteration model.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Validation of the specificity of cassava primers.
The specificity of cassava primers were tested using the following samples: 1, beef; 2, lamb; 3, hazelnut; 4, soybean; 5, walnut; 6, sesame; 7, corn starch; 8, potato starch; 9, cassava starch; 10, sweet potato starch; and 11, ddH2O.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Correlation between tapioca dry weight and extracted DNA.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Correlation between the content and copy number of cassava starch DNA.
DNA concentration was measured by NanoDrop 2000 and DNA copy number was determined by ddPCR.
Fig 4
Fig 4. Relationship between cassava DNA content and copy number.
Fig 5
Fig 5. Copy number of cassava and sweet potato ratio.
Channels 1–3: starch mixture containing 90% cassava starch; channels 4–6: starch mixture containing 80% cassava starch; channels 7–9: starch mixture containing 70% cassava starch; channels 10–12: starch mixture containing 60% cassava starch; channels 13–15: starch mixture containing 50% cassava starch; channels 16–18: starch mixture containing 40% cassava starch; channels 19–21: starch mixture containing 30% cassava starch; channels 22–24: starch mixture containing 20% cassava starch; channels 25–27: starch mixture containing 10% cassava starch; and channel 28: sterile double-distilled water.
Fig 6
Fig 6. Actual test of commercially available samples.
Channel 1–3: sample1; channel 4–6: sample2; channel 7–9: sample3; channel 10–12: sample4; channel 13–15: sample5; channel 16–18: sample6; channel 19–21: sample7; channel 22–24: sample8; channel 25–27: sample9; channel 28–30: sample10; channel31 negative; channel32 positive.
Fig 7
Fig 7. Actual test of commercially available samples.
Channel 1–3: sample11; channel 4–6: sample12; channel 7–9: sample13; channel 10–12: sample14; channel 13–15: sample15; channel 16–18: sample16; channel 19–21: sample17; channel 22–24: sample18; channel 25–27: sample19; channel 28–30: sample20; channel31 negative; channel32 positive.
Fig 8
Fig 8. Actual test of commercially available samples.
Channel 1–3: sample21; channel 4–6: sample22; channel 7–9: sample23; channel 10–12: sample24; channel 13–15: sample25; channel 16–18: sample26; channel 19–21: sample27; channel 22–24: sample28; channel 25–27: sample29; channel 28–30: sample30; channel31 negative; channel32 positive.
Fig 9
Fig 9. Actual test of commercially available samples.
Channel 1–3: sample31; channel 4–6: sample32; channel 7–9: sample23; channel 10–12: sample24; channel 13–15: sample25; channel 16–18: sample26; channel 19–21: sample27; channel 22–24: sample28; channel 25–27: sample29; channel 28–30: sample30; channel31 negative; channel32 positive.
Fig 10
Fig 10. Actual test of commercially available samples.
Channel 1–3: sample41; channel 4–6: sample42; channel 7–9: sample43; channel 10–12: sample44; channel 13–15: sample45; channel 16–18: sample46; channel 19–21: sample47; channel 22–24: sample48; channel 25–27: sample49; channel 28–30: sample50; channel31 negative; channel32 positive.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Xu ZQ. Quick identification of starch adulteration. China Quality Supervision, 2005, 8: 45 10.3969/j.issn.1008-1607.2005.08.025 - DOI
    1. Wang SQ, Gao X, Lan QF, Lin Li, Wang LL, Yang YL, et al. Identification of tapioca starch and sweet potato starch in adulterated glutinous rice powder-differential scanning calorimetry[J]. Food Industry Technology, 2015, 36 (13): 325–328+333.
    1. Ali ME, Hashim U, Mustafa S, Man YBC, Dhahi TS, Kashif M, et al. Analysis of pork adulteration in commercial meatballs targeting porcine-specific mitochondrial cytochrome b gene by TaqMan probe real-time polymerase chain reaction. Meat Scie 2012;91:454–459. 10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.02.031. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Calvo JH, Osta R, Zaragoza P. Quantitative PCR detection of pork in raw and heated ground beef and pâté. J Agric Food Chem 2002;50:5265–2567. 10.1021/jf0201576 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bharuthram A, Paximadis M, Picton ACP, Tiemessen CT. Comparison of a quantitative real-time PCR assay and droplet digital PCR for copy number analysis of the CCL4L genes. Infect Genet Evolut 2014;25:28–35. 10.1016/j.meegid.2014.03.028. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types