Development of a polymerase chain reaction-based method to identify species-specific components in dog food

Detection of chicken DNA in commercial dog foods

BACKGROUND

These days the number of potential food allergens is very large, but chicken is one of the most common allergens in dogs. Elimination diet is one of the clinical tools for the diagnosis of allergies and allergy tests are not very reliable. The restriction diet is most commonly carried out by feeding pet foods, relying on the ingredients on the label to select an elimination diet not containing previously eaten foods. Unfortunately, mislabeling of pet food is quite common. The purpose of this study was to determine the absence or presence of chicken DNA using both qualitative and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis methods in dry and wet maintenance complete pet foods for adult dogs. Results were used to verify the declared composition on the labels.

RESULTS

Eleven out of fifteen (73%) dog foods were produced as declared by the manufacturer, two of which showed the presence of chicken protein as stated on the label. The remaining nine foods contained amounts of chicken DNA below 1%, consistent with declarations that no chicken was added in the composition. Four of tested dog foods (27%) were not produced consistently with the declaration on the packaging. Two dog foods (one dry and one wet) did not contain the claimed chicken protein. In two foods the addition of chicken DNA was detected at the level of over 2% and almost 6%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we focused on one of the most commonly undeclared animal species on the label-chicken protein-and performed DNA analyzes to investigate possible contamination and mislabeling. The results showed some inaccuracies. However, most of them are trace amounts below 1%, which proves compliance with the label. Our results showed that undeclared animal species can be as common as missing an animal protein declared on the label. The conducted research indicates that both dry and wet analyzed foods should not be recommended as a diagnostic tool in elimination tests, because it may result in false negative results. Over-the-counter maintenance foods for dogs should not be recommended for the diagnosis and treatment of food hypersensitivity.

Cross-contamination in canine and feline dietetic limited-antigen wet diets

Background

Adverse food reactions (AFRs) are defined as abnormal responses to an ingested food or food additive. Diagnosis and treatment of AFRs consist of the complete elimination of these ingredients in the dietary trial. Previous studies have demonstrated the presence of undeclared ingredients in commercial limited-antigen dry food diets that can compromise the results and efficacy of dietary elimination trails. The aim of this study was to assess a selection of commercial canine and feline dietetic limited-antigen wet foods for the potential cross-contamination of animal proteins from origins not mentioned on the label.

Results

Eleven canine and feline dietetic limited-antigen wet foods (9 novel animal protein foods, 1 vegetarian and 1 hydrolyzed) were analyzed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to detect the presence DNA of animal and vegetal origins. PCR analysis confirmed the contamination of 6 of the 11 (54.5%) limited-antigen wet diets with undeclared animal protein. One of these 6 diets was solely composed of animal protein sources completely unrelated to those declared on the label. None of the foods containing horse meat or fish were contaminated, and neither were the vegetarian or the hydrolyzed food products. Moreover, the results show that had zoological class primers only been used to check for cross-class contaminations, as are generally used in the pet food industry for in-house checks, the apparent contamination rate would have been significantly underestimated: less than 20% (3/11), instead of the actual rate of 54.7% using species-specific primers.

Conclusion

This study reveals a high rate of cross-contamination in dietetic limited-antigen wet canine and feline foods, as previously described for dietetic dry limited-antigen foods (reported to be more than 80%). These results add new fuel to the discussion about the potential causes underlying the failure of elimination diets, since animal protein contaminants may actually be present in the commercial dietetic limited-antigen diets. AFRs may therefore occur as a result of inadequate practices in the pet food industry.

Critically appraised topic on adverse food reactions of companion animals (5): discrepancies between ingredients and labeling in commercial pet foods

Background

Elimination dietary trials for the diagnosis of adverse food reactions (food allergies) in dogs and cats are often conducted with commercial pet foods while relying on their label to select those not containing previously-eaten ingredients. There are concerns that industrial pet foods might contain unlisted food sources that could negate the usefulness of performing food trials. Furthermore, unidentified ingredients might cause clinical reactions in patients hypersensitive to such items.

Results

We searched two article databases on July 7, 2017 and January 12, 2018 for relevant articles, and we screened abstracts from the leading international veterinary dermatology congresses for suitable material. Additional citations were found in the selected papers. In all, we extracted data from 17 articles and one abstract. The studies varied both in the number of pet foods tested (median: 15; range: 1 to 210) and that of ingredients specifically evaluated (median: 4; range: 1 to 11). Studies most often employed either PCR to detect DNA or ELISA to identify proteins from one or more vegetal or animal species; two studies used mass spectrometry to increase the number of detectable proteins. The various methods found ingredients that were not on the label in 0 to 83% (median: 45%) of tested diets; this percentage varied between 33 and 83% in pet foods with “novel/limited” ingredients proposed for elimination diets. Similarly, ingredients were found to be missing from the label in 0 to 38% (median: 1%) of tested foods. Finally, six studies evaluated, among others, several hydrolysate-containing pet foods: mislabeling with unlabeled or missing ingredients was found only in one diet.

Conclusions

The mislabeling of pet foods appears rather common, even in those with “novel” or “limited” ingredients proposed for elimination diets. Unexpected added ingredients are more frequently detected than those missing from the label. There is insufficient information to determine if the presence of a contaminating component will lead to a clinical reaction in a patient allergic to it, as challenges with the mislabeled foods were not performed in dogs or cats allergic to such ingredients. The testing of hydrolysate-containing pet foods found only one instance of possible mislabeling.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12917-018-1346-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Determination of mammalian deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) in commercial vegetarian and vegan diets for dogs and cats

The determination of undeclared ingredients in pet food using different analytical methods has been reported in recent years, raising concerns regarding adequate quality control, dietary efficacy and the potential for purposeful adulteration. The objective of this study was to determine the presence or absence of mammalian DNA using multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) on diets marketed as vegetarian or vegan for dogs and cats. The diets were tested in duplicate; two samples were purchased approximately 3 to 4 months apart with different lot numbers. Multiplex PCR-targeted mitochondrial DNA with two species-specific primers was used to amplify and sequence two sections of the cytochrome b gene for each of the 11 mammalian species. Half of the diets assessed (7/14) were positive for one or more undeclared mammalian DNA source (bovine, porcine, or ovine), and the result was repeatable for one or more species in six diets. While most of the detected DNA was found at both time points, in some cases, the result was positive only at one time point, suggesting the presence may have been due to unintentional cross-contact with animal-sourced ingredients. DNA from feline, cervine, canine, caprine, equine, murine (mouse and rat) and leporine was not identified in any samples. However, evidence of mammalian DNA does not confirm adulteration by the manufacturer nor elucidate its clinical significance when consumed by animals that may benefit from a vegetarian or vegan diet.

A safety analysis of food waste-derived animal feeds from three typical conversion techniques in China

This study was based on the food waste to animal feed demonstration projects in China. A safety analysis of animal feeds from three typical treatment processes (i.e., fermentation, heat treatment, and coupled hydrothermal treatment and fermentation) was presented. The following factors are considered in this study: nutritive values characterized by organoleptic properties and general nutritional indices; the presence of bovine- and sheep-derived materials; microbiological indices for Salmonella, total coliform (TC), total aerobic plate counts (TAC), molds and yeast (MY), Staphylococcus Aureus (SA), and Listeria; chemical contaminant indices for hazardous trace elements such as Cr, Cd, and As; and nitrite and organic contaminants such as aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) and hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH). The present study reveals that the feeds from all three conversion processes showed balanced nutritional content and retained a certain feed value. The microbiological indices and the chemical contaminant indices for HCH, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), nitrite, and mercury all met pertinent feed standards; however, the presence of bovine- and sheep-derived materials and a few chemical contaminants such as Pb were close to or might exceed the legislation permitted values in animal feeding. From the view of treatment techniques, all feed retained part of the nutritional values of the food waste after the conversion processes. Controlled heat treatment can guarantee the inactivation of bacterial pathogens, but none of the three techniques can guarantee the absence of cattle- and sheep-derived materials and acceptable levels of certain contaminants. The results obtained in this research and the feedstuffs legislation related to animal feed indicated that food waste-derived feed could be considered an adequate alternative to be used in animal diets, while the feeding action should be changed with the different qualities of the products, such as restrictions on the application of ruminants, and recycling as formula feeds.

Myths and misperceptions about ingredients used in commercial pet foods

Information and misinformation about pet nutrition and pet foods, including ingredients used in pet foods, is widely available through various sources. Often, this "information" raises questions or concerns among pet owners. Many pet owners will turn to their veterinarian for answers to these questions. One of the challenges that veterinarians have is keeping up with the volume of misinformation about pet foods and sorting out fact from fiction. The goal of this article is to provide facts regarding some common myths about ingredients used in commercial pet foods so as to better prepare veterinarians to address their client's questions.

A simple and rapid assay for specific identification of bovine derived products in biocomplex materials

A simple and rapid method for specific identification of beef or bovine-derived products in processed food and in animal feed concentrates was developed and evaluated using Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR). The mitochondrial cytochrome-b (mtcyt-b) gene was used as a target DNA for PCR amplification. Three primers derived from a highly conserved region of bovine mtcyt-b gene were used. The outer pair of primers (RSL1 and CSR2) produced a 365 base pair (bp) PCR ampilicon from bovine DNA, while the internal semi-nested pair of primers (CSL1 and CSR2) were used to amplify a 284 bp PCR ampilicon, internal to the annealing sites of primers (RSL1 and CSR2). Both ampilicons were identified easily after visualization on agarose gel stained with ethidium bromide. The specificity studies indicated that the primary or the semi-nested PCR products were not amplified from DNA extracted from different ruminant species including, sheep, goat and ghazals; or from non-ruminant animals including camels, horses and pigs. Also was found very sensitive because could detect 0.001% (W/V) of bovine mtcyt-b gene. The semi-nested amplification was necessary to increase the sensitivity of the PCR assay and to confirm the identity of the primary PCR ampilicons. The described PCR assay detected the primary and the semi-nested PCR ampilicons from different animal feed concentrates containing bovine-derived product including, canned food, poultry and dairy feed concentrates. The described PCR assay should facilitate rapid detection of beef and bovine-derived products in processed food and in animal feed concentrates.

An alternative method to isoenzyme profile for cell line identification and interspecies cross-contaminations: cytochrome b PCR-RLFP analysis

One of the major risks in cell culture laboratories is the misidentification and cross-contamination of cell lines. Several methods have been used to authenticate cell lines, including isoenzyme profiling, the test suggested by European Farmacopeia, which is performed at the Tissue Culture Centre in Brescia. However, this method displays several disadvantages, such as high variability and low reproducibility, and it is time consuming and requires high cell concentrations to be performed. Therefore, an alternative method has been developed to confirm the specie of origin of 27 different animal cell cultures. A polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) assay was optimized, based on the use of a pair of primers that anneal to a portion of the cytochrome b gene in all the species. The amplification product was digested with a panel of six restriction enzymes, and the pattern derived was resolved on 3% high-resolution agarose gel. For 23 species, this protocol produced a unique restriction pattern, and the origin of these animal cells resulted to be confirmed by this analysis. Furthermore, results indicate that cytochrome b PCR-RFLP was able to amplify target sequences using very low amounts of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). Its sensitivity in detecting interspecies, cross-contamination was comparable to that of isoenzyme analysis (contaminating DNA should represent at least 10% of the total DNA). For 4 of the 27 species (sheep, dog, Guinea pig, and Rhesus monkey) the observed pattern, even if highly reproducible, showed additional bands; for these species, specific PCR was also performed.

Evaluation of a rapid PCR-based method for the detection of animal material

A rapid PCR-based analytical method for detection of animal-derived materials in complete feed was developed. Using a commercially available DNA forensic kit for the extraction of DNA from animal feed, a sensitive method was developed that was capable of detecting as little as 0.03% bovine meat and bone meal in complete feed in under 8 h of total assay time. The reduction in assay time was accomplished by reducing the DNA extraction time to 2 h and using the simpler cleanup procedure of the kit. Assay sensitivity can be increased to 0.006% by increasing the DNA extraction time to an overnight incubation of approximately 16 h. Examination of dairy feed samples containing either bovine meat and bone meal, porcine meat and bone meal, or lamb meal at a level of 0.1% (wt/wt basis) suggested that this method may be suitable for regulatory uses. The adoption of this commercially available kit for use with animal feeds yields an assay that is quicker and simpler to perform than a previously validated assay for the detection of animal proteins in animal feed.

Development and Evaluation of a Real-Time Fluorescent Polymerase Chain Reaction Assay for the Detection of Bovine Contaminates in Cattle Feed

A real-time fluorescent polymerase chain reaction assay for detecting prohibited ruminant materials such as bovine meat and bone meal (BMBM) in cattle feed using primers and FRET probes targeting the ruminant specific mitochondrial cytochrome b gene was developed and evaluated on two different types of cattle feed. Common problems involved with PCR based testing of cattle feed include the presence of high levels of PCR inhibitors and the need for certain pre-sample processing techniques in order to perform DNA extractions. We have developed a pre-sample processing technique for extracting DNA from cattle feed which does not require the feed sample to be ground to a fine powder and utilizes materials that are disposed of between samples, thus, reducing the potential of cross contamination. The DNA extraction method utilizes Whatman FTA card technology, is adaptable to high sample throughput analysis and allows for room temperature storage with established archiving of samples of up to 14 years. The Whatman FTA cards are subsequently treated with RNAse and undergo a Chelex-100 extraction (BioRad, Hercules, CA), thus removing potential PCR inhibitors and eluting the DNA from the FTA card for downstream PCR analysis. The detection limit was evaluated over a period of 30 trials on calf starter mix and heifer starter ration feed samples spiked with known concentrations of BMBM. The PCR detection assay detected 0.05% wt/wt BMBM contamination with 100% sensitivity, 100% specificity, and 100% confidence. Concentrations of 0.005% and 0.001% wt/wt BMBM contamination were also detected in both feed types but with varying levels of confidence.