Modern Molecular Methods (PCR) in Food Control: GMO, Pathogens, Species Identification, Allergens Ralf Greiner and Ursula

Konietzny Division of Bioprocess Engineering & Biotechnology, Federal University of Paran, Jardim das Amricas, 81531-970 - Curitiba, Brazil Note: This article is expanded from, and based on, an oral presentation given at the 7 th Simpsio Latino Americano de Cincia de Alimentos (SLACA) hosted by sbCTA at the State University of Campinas, Brazil, 4-7 November 2007, and is recorded here by kind permission . Introduction Nucleic acids present in food are of no nutritional value but are characteristic for the various biological components in complex products. Analysis of specific nucleic acids in food allows the determination of the presence or absence of certain constituents in complex products or the identification of specific characteristics of single food components. As DNA is a rather stable molecule, processed food is generally analyzed using DNA-based method, but DNA is also the preferred analyte for seeds, raw material and ingredients. DNA-based detection systems for genetically modified food (1-7) and food-borne pathogens (8-11) have been developed recently. Furthermore, the detection of plant and animal species (12-15) as well as allergens (16-20) and certain ingredients or contaminants (21-29) in the final food products has been shown to be feasible with DNA-based methods. Because of its high sensitivity, its specificity and rapidity the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is the method of choice for this purpose. PCR in Food Analysis

Figure 1. (Click image to view a larger version)

PCR is an in vitro method to generate copies of a defined DNA sequence. In principle, a specific DNA fragment, flanked by two oligonucleotides serving as primers for the reaction, is amplified by a thermostable polymerase. The reaction consists of three functional steps per cycle of amplification, each determined by a different temperature to allow melting of the double-stranded DNA, annealing of the primers, and extension of the primers by the polymerase (figure 1). Typically, 25-40 cycles of this temperature profile are run to produce a detectable quantity of copies of the template DNA fragment. Primers are short singlestranded DNA molecules, usually 18 to 35 bases in length, designed to bind selectively to the complementary sequences of the target DNA segment. During primer annealing one primer has to bind in forward and the other one in a defined distance in reverse orientation to the

separated DNA strands. Therefore, designing PCR primers is a critical step in PCR analysis, because the PCR primers need to have the required specificity. In other words, DNA sequences characteristic for the organism or constituent to be identified have to be available (unique sequences).

Figure 2. (Click image to view a larger version)

PCR analysis of a food includes the following steps: isolation of DNA from the food, amplification of the target sequences by PCR, separation of the amplification products by agarose gel electrophoresis and estimation of their fragment size by comparison with a DNA molecular mass marker after staining with ethidium bromide (figure 2) and finally a verification of the PCR results by specific cleavage of the amplification products by restriction endonuclease or the more time-consuming, but also more specific, transfer of separated amplification products onto membranes (Southern Blot) followed by hybridisation with a DNA probe specific for the target sequence. Alternatively amplification products may be verified by direct sequencing or a second nested or semi-nested PCR. A very convenient approach is to perform PCR amplification and verification in one single run by using a targetspecific fluorescent-labelled oligonucleotide probe in a real-time PCR system. Real-time PCR requires more expensive laboratory equipment, but allows the gel free product detection without the need to open the PCR tubes after amplification again. This approach is therefore less time-consuming and labour-intensive. It implies a lower risk of contamination and there is no need to use mutagenic staining dyes such as ethidium bromide. With real-time PCR also highly accurate quantitative results can be obtained. Real-time PCR systems rely upon detection and quantitation of a signal generated from a fluorescent reporter that increases in direct proportion to the amount of PCR product generated (figure 3). Today two different real-time systems are in use, the capillary cyclers and the block cyclers. A capillary cycler makes use of performing PCR in a small reaction volume in a glass capillary exposed to a temperature regulated air stream, which results in very rapid thermal cycling protocols. A PCR with 35 cycles is completed within about 25 minutes, but due to the thermocycler available only 32 single PCR reactions can be run at the same time. The block cyclers use in general the 96 microtiter-plate format. Thus, 96 single PCR reactions can be run simultaneously in about 1-1.5 hours for a PCR with 35 cycles. These real-time systems can employ either a target-specific oligonucleotide probe with a reporter dye and quencher dye attached such as Hybridisation Probes (Roche), TaqMan Probes (Applied Biosystems), Molecular Beacons (Stratagene), and Scorpions (DxL Ltd) or SYBR Green (Roche) that binds to all double-stranded DNA. The target-specific probes anneal specifically to the single-stranded DNA within the region flanked by the two PCR primers. Due to the proximity of the quencher to the reporter, the quencher suppresses the fluorescence emitted by the reporter by Frster Resonance Energy Transfer (FRET) through space (figure 3). During PCR the reporter is separated from the quencher, which results in an increase of the reporter signal. The increase in reporter fluorescence is proportional to the

amount of the specific PCR product. The cycle number required until the fluorescence level crosses a threshold of detection (C T = threshold-cycle) is used to calculate quantitative data (figure 4). SYBR Green possesses a selective affinity to double-stranded DNA, but does not react with single-stranded DNA or with RNA. A drawback of SYBR Green might be the unspecific binding to double-stranded DNA. However, amplification products are characterized by melting point analysis. Non-specific products should therefore be distinguished from the desired PCR product by a difference in the melting points. Sampling and Sample Preparation The sampling plan determines how representative the result of the analytical procedure is, whereas quality and quantity of the analytes may vary depending on sample preparation (5). Thus, sampling and sample preparation are crucial steps in the process of identification and quantification of a certain food component. The limit of detection of an analytical method as a whole is determined, not by the most sensitive part of the procedure, but by the least, which is in most cases sampling and, therefore, the outcome of analytical detection procedures is as good as the quality of sampling. Adequate sampling plans are dependent on the type of material to be analyzed (raw materials, pure ingredients or finished processed food). The higher the degree of heterogeneity, the more critical will be the choice of the appropriate sampling plan, because the sample has to be representative for the material to be analyzed. Both, the number of samples to be taken and the appropriate sample size will be defined by the degree of heterogeneity of the material to be analyzed and by the threshold limit up to which the result should be reliable. Furthermore, appropriate sample size is, at least in part, determined by the sensitivity of the analytical method. Sample representativity must also be maintained during subsequent reduction of the field sample to laboratory and test samples. For routine DNA analysis, 1 to 5 g is generally considered a maximum realistic test portion size (30), but due to the high sensitivity of the PCR even between 100 mg (31) and 350 mg (32) of vegetal material is sufficient for DNA extraction. Quality and yield of the isolated DNA are two critical factors in DNA preparations for PCR analysis. With the exception of grains, fruits and other raw materials, the products to be analyzed such as food samples, contain material that has undergone varying levels of processing, including physical, chemical and enzymatic treatment that influences the quality and amount of the DNA. Mechanical treatment results in fragmentation of DNA, heat treatment in DNA degradation, low pH in increased chemical hydrolysis and depurination of DNA and enzymatic treatment may result in an enzymatic hydrolysis or modification of the DNA. Moreover processing may lead to a complete degradation or removal of the DNA. Failures in extracting detectable DNA levels have so far been reported for soybean sauce, margarine, sugar, refined oils and distilled ethanol produced from genetically modified potatoes (33-36). Quality and quantity of the DNA obtained for PCR varies not only according to the material under examination and the degree of processing the material has been subjected to, but also according to the DNA extraction method applied. Because of the existence of a great number of very different products which have to be analyzed, a unique DNA isolation procedure for all the different matrices does not exist . The yield and purity of the extracted DNA could be improved by adapting the extraction procedure to the matrix of the DNA source. Fat, polysaccharides, polyphenols and other secondary compounds are reported to pose a major problem in PCR analysis, since these compounds can irreversibly interact with proteins and nucleic acids and may therefore act as PCR inhibitors (37,38). The exclusion of PCR

inhibitors is a very crucial point in PCR analysis. In principle, two different DNA isolation protocols with plenty of variations are used for DNA extraction from complex food matrices: the CTAB method and commercially available DNA-binding silica columns. The classical protocol for DNA isolation is based on an incubation of the samples in the presence of a detergent such as cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) or sodium dodecylsulfate (SDS) and a treatment with organic solvents such as chloroform and phenol, respectively, followed by precipitation of DNA with isopropanol or ethanol. The second protocol is based on commercially available DNA-binding resins as ready to use kits. In general, the classical detergent-based methods have been reported to result in higher DNA yields but poorer DNA quality compared to the DNA-binding resins and the extraction is more time-consuming (32,33,39). However, the DNA yields received with the recently commercialized DNA purification kits for food samples are comparable to those obtained with the classical detergent-based methods. Control Reactions Once the primers are designed and the conditions for a robust assay are optimized, PCR is a very sensitive, rapid, and relatively easy to handle assay for the safety and quality assurance of agricultural commodities, food and animal feed. The total detection time, that is the period of time from when the samples were taken until the PCR products were visualized, is approximately 6-8 hours. However, to exclude false positive and/or false negative results in the PCR analysis several controls have to be included into the methodology. To exclude false negative results, the absence of inhibitors has to be shown by a control PCR using an internal standard or by spiking the DNA preparation with the target sequence. It is also possible to check DNA quality by a separate PCR using a target sequence always present in the product to be analyzed. False negative results might also be due to the inactivation of PCR reagents. To assure the quality of the PCR reagents, a positive control is used, that is the quality of the PCR reagents is tested by performing a PCR close to the limit of detection with pure target DNA. To avoid misinterpretation due to false positive results because of a contamination of reagents or the laboratory itself, a negative control is applied, that is performing the complete PCR assay from extraction to amplification without a DNA source. GMO Analysis The introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMO) and food derived thereof has generated a demand for appropriate analytical methods to assure compliance with legislation. Therefore, there is a need to monitor and verify the presence and amount of GMOs in agricultural crops and in products derived thereof. In addition, it is important to know whether the GMO detected is authorized. Thus, reliable detection and quantitative analytical methods are urgently needed. So far, GMO detection and quantification relies either on DNA detection using PCR, or on protein detection using immunological assays such as the Enzyme-Linked ImmunoSorbent Assay (ELISA). Prerequisites for the development of immunological detection methods are the availability of high affinity antibodies directed against the protein to be detected and an active expression of the newly introduced gene in the tissue to be analyzed. It should be noted, however, that genetic modifications do not necessarily result in the production of a new protein and even if, protein expression levels are not always sufficient for detection purposes. In addition, the new protein may be produced only in certain parts of the organism or its level varies in different tissues or during different phases of the physiological development. Since immunoassays require antigens with a native structure, any conformational change in the epitope structure of the protein to be detected

renders the assay ineffective. Because food processing frequently leads to such conformational changes, protein detection using immunoassays is limited to grains, raw materials as well as fresh and unprocessed food. A further drawback of the immunoassays is their inability to identify the source of the protein binding to the antibody. Therefore, such protein-based detection methods will not be able to distinguish between two GM varieties expressing the same protein, even if different genetic constructs were used for transformation. Beyond simple detection, it is necessary to determine whether the product under investigation contains GM material above or below a specified threshold concentration. Within the European Union for example, Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed amended September 22 nd, 2003 fixes a threshold of 0.9% on an ingredient level for adventitious or technically unavoidable contamination of GM material in a non-GM background (40). Therefore, labelling becomes mandatory, if GM material derived from one organism is present in a product in a proportion above 0.9% on the ingredient level, but the regulation does not specify whether this is mass per mass, genome per genome or any other unit. The quantitative nature of immunoassays is well established and quantitative results from protein assays are expressed on mass equivalents, however, precise calculation of GM material is only possible by normalising the transgenic to an internal housekeeping protein. In addition, quantification using protein-based methods is very difficult because expression levels of proteins may vary in different tissues as well as with age and environmental conditions. Another factor affecting determination of the concentration of GM material by immunoassays is the above mentioned inability to identify the source of the protein binding to the antibody. As the concentration of a specific transgenic protein may vary in crop varieties, it is, for example, impossible to determine the total concentration of GM material in a product containing those varieties in unknown proportions with a single immunoassay targeting the transgenic protein, even if the product consists of only one ingredient, such as maize flour. Thus, immunoassays will not be developed for analyzing processed food; however, they are used successfully to test seeds, raw materials and less processed materials consisting of only one organism (41). The first official method for the detection of a food product derived from genetic engineering was PCR-based and published in 1993 in the Collection of Official Methods under Article 35 of the German Federal Foodstuffs Act (now Article 64 of the German Act on Food, Commodities and Animal Feed) (42). Since this time several official PCR-based methods for different genetically modified organisms used for food production have been published (43). DNA sequences of the genes for the new traits, of marker or selection genes and of the promoter or terminator could act as a target in PCR. The first PCR-based methods for GMO detection were screening methods or construct-specific approaches. Since most of the transgenic crops approved in the early years of GMO commercialization contained the 35S promoter of Cauliflower Mosaic Virus and/or the NOS terminator of Agrobacterium, these genetic elements were used as target sequences for a general screening (3,31). This had the advantage of getting a hint on the presence of transgenic sequences from a wide number of different GMOs. The absence of an amplification product points to the absence of transgenic sequences, whereas the presence of an amplification product points to the presence of a GMO or a contamination by Cauliflower Mosaic Virus or Agrobacterium, respectively. Since it is not possible to identify the GMO itself by using the screening approach, a unique DNAsequence for the GMO to be identified has to be used as a target sequence in a follow-up PCR. As a unique DNA sequence, a region of the newly introduced DNA spanning the boundary of at least two adjacent genetic elements was used (construct-specific approach) (2,3). However, for an unequivocal identification of a GMO by PCR, primer selection has to be based on target sequences that are characteristic for the individual transgenic organism, such as the

cross-border region between integration site and the newly introduced genetic element of a specific GMO or specific sequence alterations due to truncated gene versions or altered codon usage (event-specific approach) (4). Therefore, a prerequisite for designing specific primers for the identification of GMOs by PCR is the availability of detailed information on their molecular make-up. Unfortunately, information about the molecular make-up of nonauthorized GMOs is in general not available and therefore, it is almost impossible to detect the presence of non-authorized GMOs. In addition, there might be differences on the genotype level with respect to the engineered trait between the cultivated, commercialized crop lines and the originally approved GMO line, because of using the latter in crossing/backcrossing programmes. In general, the exact genetic composition of the commercialized line is not known. Furthermore, it is impossible with the already available GMO detection assays to distinguish between two independent but related GMOs and one single GMO in which both traits have been combined by breeding (gene stacking). Within the European Union it becomes necessary to assess compliance with the 0.9% threshold regulation (40) by the determination of the amount of each of the GMOs present in the individual ingredients from which it has been prepared if a product has been shown to contain one or more authorized GMOs. The aim of these quantitative approaches is not an absolute but a relative quantification, hence, not the absolute amount of material derived from genetic engineering will be determined in a product but the percentage of GM material with respect to a certain food ingredient, such as the percentage of transgenic soybeans in the whole soybean fraction of a certain ingredient. For relative GM material concentrations in food mixtures, the quantification of a GMO-specific gene has to be normalized to a speciesspecific reference gene. In practice, accurate relative quantification might be achieved by one relative quantification (determination of CT using multiplex PCR) or a combination of two absolute quantification reactions; one for the GMO-specific gene and a second for the species-specific reference gene. Taking into consideration the respective number of copies per genome and with the assumption that the GMO material has been submitted to the same treatment as the non-GMO material, the measurement can be expressed as a genome percentage. This ratio can be considered to be equal to the cell ratio, which is generally equal to the mass ratio. Calculation of the relative amount of GM material is obviously dependent on the number of inserted target sequences and as mentioned above, the approved and the cultivated lines may show differences on the molecular level in respect to these target sequences. Currently, real-time PCR can be considered the most powerful tool for the detection and quantification of GMOs in a wide variety of agricultural and food products. The accuracy of the method is certainly dependent on the type of GMO, food matrix, and processing involved, and the analysis of samples containing low concentrations of GMOs may show a great error. Detection of Food-borne Pathogens Food-borne illness, because of the contamination of food with pathogenic microorganisms is still one of the major problems of the food industry, especially in countries with poor hygienic conditions. Therefore, the rapid detection of pathogens such as Salmonella sp., Listeria monocytogenes, Campylobacter jejuni, Yersinia enterocolitica, pathogenic Escherichia coli, Bacillus cereus, Shigella sp. or Staphylococcus aureus and other microbial contaminants in food is critical for ensuring the safety of consumers. Traditional methods to detect food-borne bacteria often rely on time-consuming growth in culture media (up to 4 days), followed by isolation, biochemical identification, and sometimes serology. Recent advances in technology make detection and identification faster and more convenient, but

some questions about their sensitivity and specificity still remain. Molecular biological methods that use antibodies and nucleic acids to detect specific food-borne bacterial pathogens were scarcely known a decade and a half ago. Few scientists could have predicted that these tools of basic research would come to dominate the field of food diagnostics. Today, a large number of cleverly designed assay formats using these technologies are available commercially for the detection in food of practically all major established pathogens and toxins, as well as of many emerging pathogens. These tests range from very simple antibody-bound latex agglutination assays to very sophisticated DNA amplification methods. ELISAs have been the methods of choice to speed up the analysis until now, but PCR-based detection systems are about to dominate the field (8-11,44-50). Within limited workload, PCR-based methods may provide confirmed results within about 30 hours without the necessity to routinely isolate pure cultures. Although PCR-based assays are in general more specific, sensitive, and faster than conventional microbiological methods, the complexities of food matrices continue to offer unique challenges that may preclude the direct application of these molecular biological methods. Consequently, a short cultural enrichment followed by physical separation of the organisms from the culture medium is still required for food samples prior to analysis with these assays. The cultural enrichment prior to DNA extraction and PCR analysis results in a dilution of PCR inhibitors and an increased number of target cells and therefore in a higher sensitivity. The major advantage of the cultural enrichment however, is the fact that only viable cells are detected. On the other hand, the cultural enrichment prevents the determination of the initial number of bacterial cells present in the food sample. This is not really a drawback, because in general world-wide legislation needs only the verification of the absence of any viable cell in a defined amount of food. In addition, a few systems based on the isolated mRNA have been established (51,52). Since mRNAs are short living molecules, a signal in the PCR system could be generated only by viable cells. These systems have the advantage of omitting the cultural enrichment. However, they are not considered to be suitable for routine analysis of food samples, because of the high likelihood of false positive (DNA contamination of the RNA preparation) and false negative (instability of the mRNA) results. PCR systems for the detection of food-borne pathogens target in general genes involved in pathogenicity of these bacteria. Thus, a positive PCR result only indicates that bacteria with those gene sequences are present and that they have the potential to be toxigenic, but not, that the gene is actually expressed and that the toxin is made. Therefore, rapid methods are generally used as screening techniques, with negative results accepted as is, but positive results requiring confirmation by the appropriate official method, which, in many instances, is cultural. Although confirmation may extend analysis by several days, this may not be an imposing limitation, as negative results are most often encountered in food analysis. The greater detection sensitivity of PCR-based methods may also affect existing microbiological specifications for food; this undoubtedly will have repercussions on the regulatory agencies, food manufacturers, and also consumers. Detection of Mycotoxigenic Fungi Nearly every food or feed commodity can be contaminated by fungal organisms and many of the food- and feed-borne filamentous fungi are capable of producing one or more mycotoxins, which are toxic metabolites of concern to both the health of humans and animals (53). It is estimated that 25 to 50% of the crops harvested worldwide are contaminated with mycotoxins.

The percentage is highest in tropical regions where up to 80% of the crops are reported to contain significant amounts of mycotoxins. Because of the toxic and carcinogenic potential of mycotoxins, there is an urgent need to develop detection methods that are rapid and highly specific. Because mycotoxins have diverse chemical structures, it is not possible to develop one method to detect all relevant mycotoxins, even if some progress was achieved in the simultaneous detection of several mycotoxins (54). The highly advanced physico-chemical methods for the analysis of mycotoxins in use have above all the disadvantage that highly sophisticated clean-up and/or derivatization procedures must be applied (53). In addition, there are much simpler and faster immunochemical methods available (53,55), which have in turn the disadvantage to follow the concept of "one substance one assay". An alternative could be the detection of the mycotoxigenic moulds themselves, especially as molecular techniques have been introduced recently as powerful tools for detecting and identifying fungi. PCR methods for the detection of aflatoxin (24,28), patulin (56), ochratoxin (57,58), trichothecene (27,59) and fumonisin (27,60) producers have been described. However, because a PCR-based assay does not detect the mycotoxin itself, a positive PCR-result cannot be tied to an actual contamination of the sample with mycotoxins. It was concluded that genes involved in the mycotoxin biosynthetic pathway may form a perfect basis for an accurate, sensitive, and specific detection system for mycotoxigenic strains in agricultural commodities, food and animal feed, since those genes are supposed to be exclusively present in organisms potentially producing mycotoxins. Besides gene sequences coding for a protein involved directly in the biosynthesis of a certain mycotoxin, also genes coding for regulatory proteins could be used as targets (61). Due to sequencing programmes and gene expression studies (comparison under mycotoxin-permissive and mycotoxin-restrictive conditions), the number of available sequences increases steadily. However, it was demonstrated that the pure presence of one or more genes involved in the mycotoxin biosynthetic pathway is not a sufficient marker for the differentiation of mycotoxigenic from non-mycotoxigenic strains. Tominaga et al. (62) for example, identified several aflatoxin biosynthetic genes in many Aspergillus oryzae strains and most of these genes showed a high similarity to the corresponding genes in Aspergillus flavus. As expected not one of the Aspergillus oryzae strains was capable of producing aflatoxin. Considering consumer protection, such false positive results in the PCR are of no concern, but from an economic point of view the number of false positive results should be as low as possible. The detection of only viable cells is of utmost importance in the detection of pathogenic microorganisms such as Salmonella or Listeria, because only viable cells have the potential to be toxigenic. For the evaluation of a potential contamination with mycotoxins however, it is an advantage to be able to detect a current as well as a former contamination with mycotoxigenic fungi. Because of their high stability, a given mycotoxin may persist in a critical concentration in a product even when the generating fungus is no longer present. The results presented in the literature demonstrate the functionality of the developed PCR assays to detect mycotoxigenic moulds without an enrichment step by isolation of DNA directly from agricultural commodities, food or animal feed (24,27,28). However, to improve the sensitivity of the PCR assays inhibitory compounds from natural samples have to be removed prior to PCR. One approach is to increase the ratio of fungal to sample tissue by using only the surface area of the sample tissue for DNA extraction (24). The other approach is to enhance fungal cell wall disruption prior to DNA extraction (63). Even if PCR does not detect the mycotoxin itself, PCR may be applied to the screening of agricultural commodities for the absence of mycotoxin producers prior to or even after

processing. Negative results in this assay indicate that a sample should be virtually free of mycotoxins. Only the positive sample left must be analyzed for the presence of mycotoxins using physico-chemical standard methods. However, the most promising breakthroughs in the detection of mycotoxins or mycotoxigenic fungi are expected to be made in the area of sensor technology using specific antibodies immobilized on the sensor surface. It is planned to detect at least nine different mycotoxins in parallel (64). Species Identification Interspecies meat adulteration or preparation of meat products by mixing meats is a common procedure in most countries. This is of major concern for many consumers, particularly in relation with ambiguous or improper labelling, adulteration with cheaper meats, or religious specifications such as kosher food for Jews and halal foods for Muslim prohibitions. Therefore, there is a need for rapid and reliable methods for species identification in such food commodities. Protein-based species identification is specific and sensitive, but crossreactions of closely related species cannot be ruled out. Furthermore, due to protein denaturation species identification by protein-based methods is known to be especially difficult when meat products have been thermally processed. These problems can be solved with DNA-based methods. Early methods based on hybridization of specific probes (65,66) were time-consuming and often not sufficiently sensitive. Today PCR-based methods have become very important and are widely used. In principle, two different approaches are applied in the area of species identification: the use of species-specific primers (15,21) or the use of primers binding to conserved regions of a certain gene present in all species to be identified and subsequent identification of the species by restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) (13). To achieve a high sensitivity in the PCR assays, genes present in a high copy number within the genome are used as targets. These genes include rDNA (5S, 12S, 18S) (13,15,67) genes or mitochondrial DNA (cytochrome C) genes (14,26,68). It was reported that the presence of 1% of an animal species in a mixed meat product could be easily verified (13,67). In some cases detection limit was even better. Therefore, these assays can be useful for the accurate identification of animal species present in meat products, avoiding mislabelling or fraudulent species substitution in meat mixtures. Detection of Food Constituents (Ingredients or Contaminants) PCR-based methods are also increasingly used for the detection of ingredients and contaminants in food products such as soy in meat products (22), wheat in non-wheat products (25) or allergens in diverse food (16-20). The approach applied is essentially the same as for species identification in the meat area. DNA is isolated directly from the food products followed by direct identification of the ingredient or contaminant by a speciesspecific PCR. Currently the method of choice for allergen detection in food is the ELISA. ELISA assays are sensitive and specific test, able to yield fully quantitative results. In some instances sensitivity and specificity of the currently available immunological assay may not be satisfactory and a PCR-based assay might be preferred. Even if the employment of a DNA analysis in allergen detection is seen as an attractive alternative to immunological methods it is discussed controversially. PCR-based assays do not detect the allergen or any specific protein itself. Therefore, the result cannot be tied to actual allergenic exposure. Moreover food processing can affect proteins (allergens) and DNA rather differentially and, protein and DNA could be separated during certain processing steps yielding erroneous results regarding the presence of

allergens in the product. Despite these limitations, DNA-based methods offer many advantages over protein-based methodologies, preliminary that the target DNA is efficiently extracted under harsh denaturing conditions and is less affected than the extraction of proteins from food matrices (19). Another advantage of analysing DNA is its stability against geographical and seasonal variations, which may vary protein composition. Conclusion DNA-based methods are increasingly used for the detection of foreign food constituents, such as microbial pathogens, or the presence of genetically modified crop material. Furthermore, the detection of plant and animal species as well as allergens, certain ingredients or contaminants in the final food products has been shown to be feasible with DNA-based methods. The methods are in general fast, very specific and provide a sensitive tool for the detection of specific food constituents. The choice of the analytical method applied is however, mainly dependent on the food concerned (availability of specific PCR primers) and on the history of processing involved during food production (degradation or even removal of DNA). However, it has to be considered that PCR-based assays detect only the presence of DNA from a living entity. However, this is not always the compound of concern. PCR-based assays do not detect for example the allergen or mycotoxin itself. Therefore, the PCR-based result cannot be tied to actual allergenic exposure or an actual contamination of the sample with mycotoxins. Nevertheless, PCR-based detection methods provide an excellent alternative to more traditional methodologies in the quality and safety assurance of food. References

Zimmermann, A., Hemmer, W., Liniger, M., Lthy, J. and Pauli, U. (1998). A sensitive detection method for genetically modified MaisGard TM corn using a nested PCR-system. LWT-Food Science and Technology 31: 664-667. Jankiewicz, A., Broll, H. and Zagon, J. (1999). The official method for the detection of genetically modified soybeans (German Food Act LMBG 35); a semi-quantitative study of sensitivity limits with glyphosate-tolerant soybeans (Roundup Ready) and insect-resistant maize (Maximizer). European Food Research and Technology 209: 77-82. Vollenhofer, S., Burg, K., Schmidt, J. and Kroath, H. (1999). Genetically modified organisms in food - screening and specific detection by polymerase chain reaction. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 47: 5038-5043. Berdal, K.G. and Holst-Jensen, A. (2001). Roundup Ready soybean event-specific real-time quantitative PCR assay and estimation of the practical detection and quantification limits in GMO analyses. European Food Research and Technology 213: 432-438. Anklam, E., Gadani, F., Heinze, P., Pijnenburg, H. and Van Den Eede, G. (2002). Analytical methods for detection and determination of genetically modified organisms in agricultural crops and plant-derived food products. European Food Research and Technology 214: 3-26. Holst-Jensen, A., Ronning, S.B., Lovseth, A. and Berdal K.G. (2003). PCR technology for the screening and quantification of genetically modified organisms (PCR). Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 375: 985-993. James, D., Schmidt, A.M., Wall, E., Green, M. and Masri, S. (2003). Reliable detection of genetically modified maize, soybean, and canola by multiplex PCR a nalysis. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 51: 5829-5834.

O lsen, J.E., Aabo, S., Hill, W., Notemans, S., Wernars, K., Granum, P.E., Popovic, T., Rasmussen, H.N. and Olsvik, O. (1995). Probes and polymerase chain reaction for detection of food-borne bacterial pathogens. International Journal of Food Microbiology 28: 1-78. Hill, W.E. (1996). The polymerase chain reaction - applications for the detection of food-borne pathogens. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 36: 123-173. Wang, R.-F., Cao, W.-W. and Cerniglia, C.F. (1997). A universal protocol for PCR detection of 13 species of food-borne pathogens in foods. Journal of Applied Microbiology 83: 727-736. Scheu, P.M., Berghof, K. and Stahl, U. (1998). Detection of pathogenic and spoilage micro-organisms in food with the polymerase chain reaction. Food Microbiology 15: 13-31. Chikuni, K., Tabata, T., Kosugiyama, M., Monna, M. and Saito, M. (1994). Polymerase chain reaction assay for detection of sheep and goat meats. Meat Science 37: 337-345. Meyer, R., Hfelein, C., Lthy, J. and Candrian, U. (1995). Polymerase Chain Reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis: a simple method for species identification in food. Journal of AOAC International 78: 1542-1551. Unseld, M., Beyermann, D., Brandt, P. and Hiesel, R. (1995). Identification of the species origin of highly processed meat products by mitochondrial DNA sequences. PCR Methods and Applications 4: 241-243. Rodrguez, M.A., Garca, T., Gonzlez, I., Asensio, L., Hernndez, P.E. and Martn R. (2004). PCR identification of beef, sheep, goat, and pork in raw and heat-treated meat mixtures. Journal of Food Protection 67: 172-177. Holzhauser, T., Wangorsch, A. and Vieths, S. (2000). Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detection of potentially allergenic hazelnut residues in complex food matrixes. European Food Research and Technology 211: 360-365. Hird, H., Lloyd, J., Goodier, R., Brown, J. and Reece, P. (2003). Detection of peanut using real-time polymerase chain reaction. European Food Research and Technology 217: 265-268. Stephan, O. and Vieths, S. (2004). Development of a real-time PCR and a sandwich ELISA for detection of potentially allergenic trace amounts of peanut (Arachis hypogaea) in processed foods. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 52: 37543760. Poms, R.E., Anklam, E. and Kuhn, H. (2004). Polymerase chain reaction techniques for food allergen detection. Journal of AOAC International 87: 1391-1397. Arlorio, M., Cereti, E., Cosson, J.D., Travaglia, F. and Martelli, A. (2007). Detection of hazelnut (Corylus spp.) in processed foods using real-time PCR. Food Control 18: 140-148. Meyer, R., Candrian, U. and Lthy, J. (1994). Detection of pork in heated meat products by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Journal of AOAC International 77: 617-622. Meyer, R., Candrian, U. and Lthy, J. (1996). Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in the quality and safety assurance of food: detection of soya in meat products. Zeitschrift fr Lebensmittel-Untersuchung und -Forschung 202: 339-344. Konietzny, U. and Greiner, R. (2003). The application of PCR in the detection of mycotoxigenic fungi in foods. Brazilian Journal of Microbiology 34: 283-300. Frber, P., Geisen, R. and Holzapfel, W.H. (1997). Detection of aflatoxigenic fungi in figs by a PCR reaction. International Journal of Food Microbiology 36: 215-220.

Kppel, E., Stadler, M., Lthy, J. and Hbner, P. (1998). Detection of wheat contamination in oats by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Zeitschrift fr Lebensmittel-Untersuchung und Forschung 206: 400-403. Monteil-Sosa, J.F., Ruiz-Pesini, E., Montoya, J., Roncals, P., Lpez-Prez, M.J. and Prez-Martos, A. (2000). Direct and highly species-specific detection of pork meat and fat in meat products by PCR amplification of mitochondrial DNA. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 48: 2829-2832. Bluhm, B.H., Flaherty, J.E., Cousin, M.A. and Woloshuk, C.P. (2002). Multiplex polymerase chain reaction assay for the differential detection of trichothecene- and fumonisin-producing species of Fusarium in cornmeal. Journal of Food Protection 65: 1955-1961. Chen, R.-S., Tsay, J.-G., Huang, Y.-F. and Chiou, R.Y.-Y. (2002). Polymerase chain reaction-mediated characterization of moulds belonging to the Aspergillus flavus group and detection of Aspergillus parasiticus in peanut kernels by a multiplex polymerase chain reaction. Journal of Food Protection 65: 840-844. Tanabe, S., Miyauchi, E., Muneshige, A., Mio, K., Sato, C. and Sato M. (2007). PCR method of detecting pork in foods for verifying allergen labelling and for identifying hidden pork ingredients in processed foods. Bioscience, Biotechnology and Biochemistry 71: 1663-1667. Terry, C.F., Harris, N. and Parkes, H.C. (2002). Detection of genetically modified crops and their derivatives: Critical steps in sample preparation and extraction. Journal of AOAC International 85: 768-774. Pietsch, K., Waiblinger, H.U., Brodmann, P. and Wurz, A. (1997). Screeningverfahren zur Identifizierung gentechnisch vernderter pflanzlicher Lebensmittel. Deutsche Lebensmittel Rundschau 93: 35-38. Zimmermann, A., Lthy, J. and Pauli, U. (1998). Quantitative and qualitative evaluation of nine different extraction methods for nucleic acids on soybean food samples. Zeitschrift fr Lebensmittel-Untersuchung und -Forschung 207: 81-90. Greiner, R., Konietzny, U. and Villavicencio, A.L.C.H. (2005). Qualitative and quantitative detection of genetically modified maize and soy in processed foods sold commercially in Brazil by PCR-based methods. Food Control 16: 753759. Pauli, U., Lininger, M. and Zimmermann, A. (1998). Detection of DNA in soybean oil. Zeitschrift fr Lebensmittel-Untersuchung und -Forschung 207: 264-267. Hupfer, C., Schmitz-Winnenthal, J. and Engel, K.H. (1999). Nachweis der gentechnischen Vernderung im Verlauf des Brennprozesses zur Gewinnung von Ethanol aus transgenen Kartoffeln. Lebensmittelchemie 53: 2-20. Pauli, U., Lininger, M., Zimmermann, A. and Schrott, M. (2000). Extraction and amplification of DNA from 55 foodstuffs. Mitteilung Lebensmittel Hygiene 91: 491501. Rossen, L., Nrskov, P., Holmstrm, K. and Rasmussen, O.F. (1992). Inhibition of PCR by components of food samples, microbial diagnostic assays and DNAextraction solutions. International Journal of Food Microbiology 17: 37-45. Dickinson, J.H., Kroll, R.G. and Grant, K.A. (1995). The direct application of the polymerase chain reaction to DNA extracted from foods. Letters in Applied Microbiology 20: 212-216. Greiner, R. and Jany, K.-D. (2002). Use of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in food control: Detection of genetically modified food and food-borne pathogens. Polish Journal of Food and Nutrition Sciences 11: 112-118.

Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed. OJ No L268/1, 18.10.2003. Stave, J.W. (2002). Protein immunoassay methods for detection of biotech crops: Applications, limitations, and practical considerations. Journal of AOAC International 85: 780-786. Official Collection of Test Methods in accordance with Article 35 LMBG, classification no. L 24.01-1, February 1997 (loose-leaf edition), (1997). Detection of a genetically modification of potatoes by amplification of the modified DNA sequence by means of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and hybridization of the PCR product with a DNA probe. German Federal Food Act - Food Analysis, article 35, Beuth, Berlin Kln. http://bgmo.jrc.ec.europa.eu/home/ict/methodsdatabase.htm Kwaga, J., Iverson, J.O. and Misra, V. (1992). Detection of pathogenic Yersinia enterocolitica by polymerase chain reaction and digoxigenin-labelled polynucleotide probes. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 30: 2668-2673. Tsen, H.-Y., Chi, W.-R. and Lin, C.-K. (1996). Use of novel polymerase chain reaction primers for the specific detection of heat-labile toxin I, heat-stable toxin I and II enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli in milk. Journal of Food Protection 59: 795-802. Villalobo, E. and Torres, A. (1998). PCR for detection of Shigella spp. in mayonnaise. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 64: 1242-1245. Nogva, H.K., Bergh, A., Holck, A. and Rudi, K. (2000). Application of the 5nuclease PCR assay in evaluation and development of methods for quantitative detection of Campylobacter jejuni. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 66: 4029-4036. Hein, I., Klein, D., Lehner, A., Bubert, A., Brandl, E. and Wagner, M. (2001). Detection and quantification of the iap gene of Listeria monocytogenes and Listeria innocua by a new real-time quantitative PCR assay. Research in Microbiology 152: 37-46. Malorny, B., Hoorfar, J., Hugas, M., Heuvelink, A., Fach, P., Ellerbroek, L., Bunge, C., Dorn, C. and Helmuth, R. (2003). Interlaboratory diagnostic accuracy of a Salmonella specific PCR-based method. International Journal of Food Microbiology 89: 241 249. Knutsson, R., Blixt, Y., Grage, H., Borch, E. and Rdstrm, P. (2002). Evaluation of selective enrichment PCR procedures for Yersinia enterocolitica. International Journal of Food Microbiology 73: 35-46. Klein, P.G. and Juneja, V.K. (1997). Sensitive detection of viable Listeria monocytogenes by reverse transcription-PCR. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 63: 4441-4448. Norton, D.M. and Batt, C.A. (1999). Detection of viable Listeria monocytogenes with a 5 Nuclease PCR Assay. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 65: 2122-2127. Smith, J.E., Lewis, C.W., Anderson, J.G. and Solomons, G.L. (1994). Mycotoxins in human nutrition and health. European Commission, Brussels, 300 p. van Quekelberghe, S., De Graeve, K. and Cordonnier, J. (2003). Simultaneous screening of 12 mycotoxins by Liquid Chromatography Tandem Mass Spectrometry. In: Eklund, T., De Brabander, H., Daeseleire, E., Dirinck, I. and Ooghe, W. (eds). EURO FOOD CHEM XII. Strategies for safe food. Analytical, industrial and legal aspects: Challenges in organisation and communication. Proceedings Vol. 2, Koninklijke Vlaamse Chemische Vereniging, Heverlee, p. 706-709.

Yong, R.K. and Cousin, M.A. (2001). Detection of moulds producing aflatoxins in maize and peanuts by an immunoassay. International Journal of Food Microbiology 65: 27-38. Paterson, R.R.M., Archer, S., Kozakiewicz, Z., Lea, A., Locke, T. and OGrady, E. (2000). A gene probe for the patulin metabolic pathway with potential for use in patulin and novel disease control. Biocontrol Science and Technology 10: 509-512. Dao, H.P., Mathieu, F. and Lebrihi, A. (2005). Two primer pairs to detect OTA producers by PCR method. International Journal of Food Microbiology 104: 61-67. Bogs, C., Battilani, P. and Geisen, R. (2006). Development of a molecular detection and differentiation system for ochratoxin A producing Penicillium species and its application to analyse the occurrence of Penicillium nordicum in cured meats. International Journal of Food Microbiology 107: 39-47. Niessen, L. and Vogel, R. (1998). Group specific PCR-detection of potential trichothecene-producing Fusarium-species in pure cultures and cereal samples. Systematic and Applied Microbiology 21: 618-631. Snchez-Rangel, D., Sanjuan-Badillo, A. and Plasencia, J. (2005). Fumonisin production by Fusarium verticillioides strains isolated from maize in Mexico and development of a polymerase chain reaction to detect potential toxigenic strains in grains. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 53: 8565-8571. Niessen, L., Schmidt, H., Mhlencoert, E., Frber, P., Karolewiez, A. and Geisen, R. (2005). Advances in the molecular diagnosis of ochratoxin A-producing fungi. Food Additives and Contaminants 22: 324-334. Tominaga, M., Lee, Y.-H., Hayashi, R., Suzuki, Y., Yamada, O., Sakamoto,K., Gotoh, K. and Akita, O. (2006). Analysis of an inactive aflatoxin biosynthesis gene cluster in Aspergillus oryzae RIB strains. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 72: 484490. Geisen, R., Mulfinger, S. and Niessen, L. (1998). Detection of Aspergillus flavus in wheat by PCR. Journal of Food Mycology 1: 211-218. http://www.biohytec.de/ Chikuni, K., Ozutsumi, K., Koishikawa, T. and Kato, S. (1990). Species identification of cooked meats by DNA hybridization assay. Meat Science 27: 119-128. Wintero, A.K. and Thomsen, P.D. (1990). A comparison of DNA hybridization, immunodiffusion, countercurrent immunoelectrophoresis and isoelectric focusing for detecting the admixture of pork to beef. Meat Science 27: 75-85. Rodrguez, M.A., Garca, T., Gonzlez, I., Asensio, L., Fernndez, A., Lobo, E., Hernndez, P.E. and Martn, R. (2001). Identification of goose (Anser anser) and mule duck (Anas platyrhynchos x Cairina moschata) foie gras by multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction amplification of the 5S rDNA gene. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 49: 2717-2721. Quintero, J., Sotelo, C.G., Rehbein, H., Pryde, S.E., Medina, I., Prez-Martin, R.I., Rey-Mndez, M. and Mackie, I.M. (1998). Use of mtDNA direct polymerase chain reaction (PCR) sequencing and PCR-restriction fragment length polymorphism methodologies in species identification of canned tuna. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 46: 1662-1669.

Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to: R. Greiner Universidade Federal do Paran Diviso de Engenharia de Bioprocessos e Biotecnologia

Centro Politcnico, Caixa Postal 19011 Jardim das Amricas 81531-970 - Curitiba, PR Brazil Phone / Fax: +55 (0) 41 / 3361 3272 e-mail: [email protected] Figure Legends Figure 1: Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) Standard PCR reaction mixture: 4-20 ng/L genomic DNA or 4-10 pg/L plasmid DNA, 1.5 nmol/L MgCl 2, 0.2 nmol/L each nucleotide, 0.4 pmol/L each primer, 40 mU/L polymerase Figure 2: Visualization of PCR products by agarose gel electrophoresis and ethidium bromide staining Soybean specific PCR targeting the soybean lectin gene; agarose concentration 1.5%; lane 1: soybean flour, lane 2: soybean grits, lane 3: soybeans, lane 4: soybean oil, lane 5: biscuits, lane 6: DNA ladder, lane 7: chocolate, lane 8: soy protein isolate, lane 9: soy milk, lane 10: sausage, lane 11: tofu, lane 12: infant food, lane 13: negative control, lane 14: positive control Figure 3: Real-time PCR (TaqMan format) A: Annealing of the PCR primers and the target-specific fluorescent-labelled oligonucleotide probe , B: Due to the proximity of the quencher to the reporter, the quencher suppresses the fluorescence emitted by the reporter by Frster Resonance Energy Transfer (FRET) through space, C: Extension of the primers by the polymerase, D: Separation of the reporter from the quencher, which results in emission of fluorescence by the reporter, E: Completion of PCR Figure 4: PCR Amplification Plot The cycle number required until the fluorescence level crosses a threshold of detection (C T = threshold-cycle) is used to calculate quantitative data. Therefore the Real-time system has to be calibrated.