Ho-Chan Kang1, Eun-Ho Kim2,Ji-Yeong Kim2, Cheol-Hyun Myung2, Jae-Bong Lee3 Chae-Kyoung Yoo4, Hyun-Tae Lim1,2,*
1Institute of Agriculture and Life Science, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju 52828, Korea
2Department of Animal Science, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju 52828, Korea
3Korea Zoonosis Research Institute (KOZRI), Chonbuk National University, Iksan 54531, Korea
4Gyeongnam Animal Science & Technology (GAST), GyeongSang National University, JinJu, 52828, Korea
Correspondence to Hyun-Tae Lim, E-mail: s_htim@gnu.ac.kr
Volume 5, Number 4, Pages 219-225, December 2021.
Journal of Animal Breeding and Genomics 2021, 5(4), 219-225. https://doi.org/10.12972/jabng.20210021
Received on 09 December, 2021, Revised on 27 December, 2021, Accepted on 28 December, 2021, Published on 31 December, 2021.
Copyright © 2021 Korean Society of Animal Breeding and Genetics.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0).
A processed meat product is a food that changes the character or shape of meat, and it is difficult to identify the raw meat because the original shape is destroyed. False record and disguised sales of raw meat can negatively affect not only the safety of consumers but also the income of producers. Therefore, this study was conducted to establish a multiplex PCR (polymerase chain reaction) method to simultaneously identify cattle (Bos taurus), pigs (Sus scrofa), and chickens (Gallus gallus), which are mainly used as raw meat in the manufacture of processed meat products. As a result of species-specific PCR of the raw meat DNA to confirm the cross-reactivity, species-specific amplification products of cattle 384 bp, pigs 249 bp, and chickens 721 bp were identified, and no other non-specific amplification appeared. Based on this, in order to evaluate the applicability in the market, multiplex PCR was performed by classifying 52 processed meat products on sale by 5 types (Ham, Tteokgalbi, Pattie, Can ham, Sausage). As a result, the indicated ingredients were detected in all products except Can ham No. 7 among 52 processed meat, and specific reactions were observed in chickens that were not marked in No. 1, No. 4 of Tteokgalbi. In particular, among the pigs and chickens marked on Can ham No. 7, only pigs showed a specific reaction, confirming the possibility of false record. If this study is used to identify the types of raw meat used in processed meat products, it is expected that it will contribute to improving awareness and promoting consumption of processed meat by reducing cases of illegal distribution and restoring consumer confidence in processed meat.
processed meat product, Species-identification., multiplex PCR, Electrophoresis