Skip to main content

Detection of chicken DNA in commercial dog foods

Abstract

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.

Peer Review reports

Background

Food is a key element necessary to meet the basic needs of both humans and animals. That is why food quality and safety are so important and are constantly of interest to food analysts. A changing environment is forcing the food sector to modify food trends and change food consumption practices [1]. Nowadays, all consumer trends are moving towards healthier and more natural food options. Population growth generates an increasing demand for food, which leads to an increase in the production of processed food [2]. Therefore, governmental and official agencies must enforce guaranteed compliance with food labeling, nutritional quality and food origin, as well as the perception of health and diet claims in order to avoid false declarations of food producers. Therefore, the authenticity of food plays a significant role in food analysis.

Currently, the pet food market is constantly developing, but the most popular are maintenance foods, referred to as over-the-counter diets (OTC). Chicken-based ingredients are commonly used in pet food products. They are highly palatable, relatively inexpensive and provide an excellent source of protein, although individual products vary greatly in nutrient composition and processing conditions that may affect their protein quality and digestibility [3]. Dog caregivers are interested in OTC foods with limited protein sources because of their easy availability and relatively lower cost compared to veterinary therapeutic diets (VDT). For most dogs, chicken meat is easy to digest but its widespread usage in dog foods has likely led to more common allergies to this ingredient [4, 5]. Nowadays the number of potential food allergens is very large, but chicken is one of the most common allergens in dogs, after beef and dairy products [6]. Therefore, more and more dogs’ caregivers are avoiding pet food with added chicken for the fear of adverse reactions. Skin diseases are one of the most frequent presenting ailments for cats and dogs in veterinary practice [7, 8] and they are frequently caused by adverse food reactions (AFR). AFR is a common problem that may cause cutaneous and/or gastrointestinal signs in dogs and cats, including food intolerance, food intoxication and food allergy [9]. Neither in dogs nor in cats it is possible to distinguish food allergy (FA) from atopic dermatitis (AD). In the case of FA (which is an etiological diagnosis), it is possible to develop AD (which is a clinical diagnosis) [10]. Diagnosis of these diseases is difficult because AD and FA share common symptoms such as self-injury leading to erythema, alopecia, secondary infections, lichenification. However, there is often a coexistence of food allergy and atopic dermatitis in one individual [11, 12]. Dogs with AD have elevated levels of antibodies to food allergens (although an increase in these antibodies is not the same as food allergy) [13]. Establishing a reliable diagnosis of FA is only possible on the basis of an elimination diet and then a provocation test with food suspected of causing symptoms. The restriction diet is most commonly carried out by feeding dogs, relying on the ingredients on the label to select an elimination diet not containing previously eaten foods [14]. However, this process is time-consuming and heavily dependent on caregiver compliance and, apparently, on the integrity and reliability of pet food manufacturers [15]. According to an extensive review of the literature written by Olivry and Mueller [14], mislabeling of pet food is quite common.

The information provided on the dog food label should be comprehensive and include detailed information. Manufacturers, by law, must indicate on the label either all ingredients or categories, in a transparent, consistent, and understandable way [16]. Although the law and European Pet Food Industry Federation (FEDIAF) [17] stated that labels must be accurate and provide complete information on the ingredients, mislabeling of pet food has been documented by several authors. Already in the early twentieth century, species-specific ingredients in dog food were identified [18, 19], in which from thirty-one pet foods tested more than 30% dog foods contained ingredients not declared on the label. In a study conducted in Italy, considering the problem of contamination and mislabeling in dry and wet novel protein diets (NPDs) and hydrolyzed protein diets (HPDs), Ricci et al. [20] observed that out of forty analyzed products only ten (25%) presented a content correctly matched to the label. Many products were mislabeled, in which five did not contain the declared animal species and twenty-three revealed the presence of undeclared animal species. Moreover, it was found that 13 out of 14 brands tested, presented at least one mislabeled product. In a previous study by Ricci et al. [4], percentage of tested diets with detected ingredients not declared on the label exceeded 80% (ten out of twelve foods tested). Thus, discrepancies between ingredients and labeling seem to be alarmingly common for many years.

Therefore, 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 commercial complete foods for adult dogs with verifying the correctness of the composition on the label.

Results

DNA isolation and determinate standard curve

The concentration of DNA isolated from the analyzed samples was in the range 79.4–556.8 ng/µl (Table S2). The working range of repeatability for independent DNA isolation concentrations of the same dog food was in the range of 0.83–1.19% (Table S2). The purity of the concentrations expressed by the A260/280 parameter took values from 1.83 to 1.99 (Table S2) and their difference for repetitions did not exceed 5%. Working range of repeatability and little difference between absorbance ratio (< 5.0% higher value of absorbance ratio) (Table S2) allow to conclude that the applied isolation was performed with the appropriate accuracy and precision.

DNA isolated from chicken meat, which was used to generate the standard curve, reacted specifically in quantitative PCR. The shift coefficient was 21.2, the slope was -3.308, and the regression coefficient was 0.999. These parameters clearly indicate the biological specificity and linearity of the curve used. Such determined standard curve made it possible to accurately determine the potential content of chicken DNA. Additionally, the correct course of the reaction was confirmed by the results for both negative (NC) and positive controls (PC), which were determinate as 0.00 and 0.40%, respectively.

Determination of chicken DNA

Dry foods

The results obtained for the analyzed dog foods are shown in Fig. 1, Table 1. These results are reproducible, the RSD for the average concentration was below 17.14% for food D1 and in most cases below 10% (foods D2, D4, D6, D7). The obtained results in most cases confirmed the manufacturer's declaration of chicken protein on the label. Chicken DNA was identified in foods D1 and D3, which was consistent with the manufacturer's declaration. However, the obtained results cannot be compared with the producer's declaration, because the quantitative composition was not given for the D1 feed, while for the D3 feed only the amount of poultry liver (4.5%) was given (Table 2). The obtained value of 13.65% may be proof of the declaration in accordance with reality. The results for D4 and D7 foods may be most questionable. Food D4 showed a content below 1% although the manufacturer declared the chicken protein presence, while D7 contained more than 2% chicken protein, which should be declared, and the information on the packaging does not contain any details about it. In the other foods, quantities of less than 1% or almost 0% (D8) were identified. Such a small amount is acceptable as an unintended artifact from the production line. In twelve tested dog foods (80%) the amount of chicken DNA was detected.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Calibration curves for evaluated dry dog food. Red points—points belonging to standard curve made of DNA isolated from chicken meat; Blue points—points belonging to researched dry dog foods; Quantity—concentration % chicken ingredients in researched samples (dry food); cT- amplification cut-off cycle

Table 1 Concentrations of chicken DNA in tested foods
Table 2 Marketing claims and ingredients containing or potentially containing chicken DNA declared on product labels

Wet foods

For most of the tested wet foods (W1-W4 and W7) (Fig. 2, Table 1) no chicken DNA was identified, which was consistent with the declaration on the package. Although traces of less than 0.02% were identified for the foods W1, W4, W7, this rather indicates the presence of artifacts from the production line than a conscious or intentional addition of the poultry component. For one of the tested foods (W5) no chicken DNA addition was detected although the eggs supplement was declared on the label. The manufacturer claimed that the dog food contained 3% eggs, but the analysis ruled out such an addition. The opposite situation was observed for the W6 food, in which it was identified an almost 6% addition of chicken DNA, despite the manufacturer's declaration that the food contains only protein from cattle (Table 2). For this food the result was repetitive, RSD was less than 9%.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Calibration curves for evaluated wet dog food. Red points—points belonging to standard curve made of DNA isolated from chicken meat; Blue points—points belonging to researched wet dog foods; Quantity—concentration % chicken ingredients in researched samples (wet food); cT- amplification cut-off cycle

Discussion

Food safety is an extremely important issue related to human and animal health. Both raw materials and food ingredients must be constantly monitored, because some of the substances present in food are pollutants of anthropological origin, while others arise as a result of food processing or storage. Unfortunately, food counterfeiting is a common phenomenon. It can cause unfair competition, but also a feeling of cheating on the part of the consumer [21]. It also reduces the quality of food and may even pose a health risk. Both consumers and industry are asking the research community to implement tests that can help analyze food for authenticity.

Mentioned above problems are forcing food safety and quality scientists to constantly search for new approaches and tools to address the main current problems with food quality, safety and authenticity [22].

In recent years, many techniques have been developed to allow food traceability through DNA barcoding techniques even for complex and highly processed mixtures such as pet food. These techniques can identify adulteration in pet food products, which are an increasing problem among consumers and underpin several lawsuits in recent years [23, 24]. Properly selected methods can also provide a way to confirm that pet food is indeed "grain free", "corn free" or "chicken free" for example, claims that are becoming more common in many commercial pet products [25].

Considering the importance of precise pet food labelling, especially for animals with mild or life-threatening allergies, accurate detection of mislabeled or undeclared animal species is important for the safety of pets [23]. What is more, large variation among commercially available diets marketed for support the treatment of various medical conditions, such as skin and coat health or allergies, may cause confusion for caregivers during diet selection [26]. One of the problems with pet food mislabeling is the ingredient listing itself. Often, general or intentionally unclear ingredients are given [27]. Commission Regulation No. 767/09 allows the listing of ingredients by categories in pet foods [16].

Even despite existing mandatory traceability requirements for pet food, it has previously been reported that labels do not provide enough information on the sources of the various nutrients in the product. It is worth to borne in mind that pork, poultry and beef are the most commonly slaughtered animal species in Europe for human consumption [28]. Thus, they provide the largest amount of animal by-products to pet food producers. Consequently, the most common animal species not declared on the pet food labels seem to be pork, chicken and turkey. In one of the most extensive studies (number of foods tested = 52), chicken was even the most common meat species found in almost all (98%) tested pet food products [29].

Currently, there are several different methods of detecting protein in food and feed materials. For example, there is a study that determined the amount of herbicide (glyphosate) residues in commercial animal feed using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), in which each product tested contained detectable glyphosate residues [30]. However, Hsieh et al. [31] showed that ELISA-based methods appear to provide lower sensitivity and accuracy and were unable to fully identify the presence of animal by-products compared to PCR in commercial canine foods. At this time, PCR is as an official method of the determination of the ingredients of animal origin in animal food [32].

In this study, we also focused on one of the most common undeclared animal species on the label – chicken protein – and we performed DNA analyses on a total of 15 products to investigate possible contaminants and mislabeling. The results showed some inaccuracies. However, most of them were trace amounts below 1%, which indicates compliance with the label (D2, D5, D6, D8, W1, W4, W7). Two dry foods declared chicken protein added on the label (foods D1 and D3), which was confirmed by our research. In one of the tested dry foods (D4), chicken DNA was specified in the amount below 1%, despite the fact that the manufacturer declared the addition of chicken protein on the packaging. Setting the cut-off point to differentiate negative from positive samples at 1% has own source in the EURL-AP [33] in methods of the identification of meat components. In the reference methods, all identified components below 1% are considered an artifact. According to the information in Table 2, this food contains poultry fat and hydrolyzed protein. The term “animal fat” covers chicken fat, which may contain traces of this species' protein. It would have to be purified so as not to cause an allergic reaction. It happens that it is mentioned on the label, but not often [34, 35].

Food allergies are immunological reactions to food mediated by IgE (IgE-mediated) antibodies (type I hypersensitivity), but there are also IgE independent (non-IgE-mediated, T-cell dependent) (type II, III, IV) reactions [35]. Hydrolyzed proteins in commercial dog diets have a molecular weight of less than 10 kDa, and even less than 5 kDa. Generally, the theory behind the use of hydrolyzed diets in FA is that if proteins are split into molecular weights below 4–5 kDa, they will be too small to bridge two molecules of IgE on mast cells required to trigger the allergic reaction in IgE-mediated allergic diseases. At the same time, the enzymatic breakdown of proteins alone does not change their biological value [36]. While hydrolyzed diets have been shown to be useful in the diagnosis of dogs with suspected AFRs, most of these studies do not address the question of whether hydrolyzed diets control clinical signs in dogs hypersensitive to the parent protein. It is also unknown whether AFRs in dogs are necessarily IgE mediated [37]. In the dog, peptides with a molecular weight (MW) higher than 4.5 kDa could still be capable of starting the immunologic reaction which contributes to the allergic reaction [38, 39]. The process of protein treatment in order to create a hydrolyzed feed, unfortunately, is more and more often insufficient and does not guarantee the reduction of allergy to this protein, and even more so, it may be ineffective in the case of food allergy with non-IgE mediated reactions [34, 35, 38, 40, 41]. Hydrolyzed diets may still contain proteins that stimulate helpful T-cells responsible for regulating the immune response and may therefore be ineffective in treating hypersensitivity in animals. The same applies to an anallergenic diet (peptides below 1 kDa). As many as 40% of dogs show allergic reactions to proteins of even this MW [39, 42]. The above information is important because although hydrolyzed protein can also cause allergies, it is often incorrectly recommended for feeding dogs with food allergies.

A similar situation as in the case of dry food took place in the case of wet food (W5), where the declaration of the addition of 3% eggs on the packaging was not reflected in the actual amount of chicken DNA (0%). Chicken DNA was not found in this food (W5), but it should be borne in mind that egg (both whole egg and egg white, egg yolk) also causes allergies in dogs [43,44,45]. Jeffers et al. [46] conducted a study on thirteen dogs with food allergies to test the effectiveness of feeding with commercially available egg and rice food. They described a case of a dog with reaction to eggs, which in response to provocation ate dry diet with impunity, whereas another dog with severe pruritus while consuming the dry diet was not allergic to rice and hard-boiled eggs in response to dietary provocation. This collectively indicates that the processing of food may either partially or totally alter antigenicity, at least of eggs, or that the concentration of antigen may have an important role [46].

On the other hand, in foods D7 and W6, DNA levels above 2% were detected, despite the declaration of a single non-poultry protein source in the food. Our results showed that undeclared animal species could be as common as the lack of animal protein declared on the label. The studies of Dunham-Cheatham et al. [25] have shown that adulteration is common in commercial pet food. This fact is confirmed by the analyzes of Palumbo et al. [24] who found that 16 of 18 commercial pet foods tested were adulterated. Both studies have shown that ingredients with higher economic value (e. g. fish) are often supplemented or completely replaced with ingredients with lower economic value (e. g. chicken). In our research, less than 1% chicken DNA was found in fish feed. Detailed ingredients present on the tested dog food according to label information are presented in Table S1.

Such results lead to concern that consumers are paying unfairly prices for products that purportedly contain high-value ingredients, but in fact contain low-value ingredients. The incidence of adulteration in commercial pet food is also of concern for animals with food allergies. If the consumer cannot trust that pet food is free of these allergens, despite the label on the package, pets may still be exposed to hidden allergens and confidence in the pet food industry is seriously declining [25].

Similar results to our own research were obtained in previous studies. Hołda et al. [47] verified the potential presence of undeclared chicken-derived ingredients in ten commercially available dry dog foods using PCR technology and in most of the analyzed samples the chicken DNA was detectable. However, quantified amounts were mostly low (except one dog food with relatively high amounts of undeclared DNA) and the authors speculated that poor quality poultry fat might been used in the production of tested foods, most likely contaminated with proteins. Multiplex PCR was also used to screen the DNA of 10 mammalian species in a study to determine proteins in commercial dry dog foods with uncommon and limited ingredients [5]. The presence of DNA from one or more non-labeled species was identified in all 21 diets. However, no quantification of the contamination was determined, which precludes the determination of whether the addition of undeclared proteins was intentional or unavoidable cross-contamination. Similar studies were conducted on wet foods. Out of eleven canine and feline dietetic limited-antigen wet foods, analyzed by PCR, in six foods the contamination was confirmed [48].

Research by Horvath-Ungerboeck et al. [49] confirmed that the presence of undeclared protein on the label is quite common. In this study, nine out of ten OTC foods identified the DNA of one or more animal species other than those declared on the label. The most commonly detected DNA was from beef and pork. OTC “single protein” diets or wet foods should not be recommended for the diagnosis of dogs with AFR, as contamination may cause an elimination diet to fail.

The use of maintenance foods (OTC) as an elimination diet may be ineffective and result in false-negative results. OTC “single protein” diets should not be recommended for the diagnosis and treatment of food hypersensitivity.

According to Cox et al. [50], raw meat-based diets (RMBDs) are becoming more and more popular in the market, gaining acceptance by pet caregivers despite the potential health risks. In studies by Cox et al. [50], 9 commercial canine and 9 feline RMBDs were assessed for the presence of species-specific DNA. DNA from one or more unlisted animal species was identified in over 60% of diets. The most commonly detected, unlisted DNA was lamb in the diet of dogs and turkey in the diet of cats. Based on Cox et al. [50] results, the use of commercially available RMBD cannot be recommended as an elimination diet in the clinical diagnosis of AFR.

Undeclared animal proteins have also been detected in commercial vegetarian diets for dogs and cats. Out of fourteen commercially available dry and canned canine and feline diets marketed as vegetarian or vegan, seven (50%) were positive for one or more undeclared mammalian DNA source (bovine, porcine, or ovine) [51]. On the other hand, further studies examining prescription vegetarian diets for dogs for 11 species of mammals and poultry found that the food did not contain undeclared mammalian or avian proteins [52].

Vegan food producers declare that the food does not contain any animal-derived materials. However, such information must be verified by food control authorities and laboratory controls. The method used to detect trace amounts of animal-derived materials must be sensitive and enable the detection of DNA after processing and storage. These controls are designed to protect the consumer from fraud or mislabeling. European Union guidelines set a limit for unintended traces of animal residues to less than 0.1% (1 g/kg) of animal components [53, 54]. In the research by Köppel et al. [55], animal and fish DNA was detected in two products. One was found to contain cheese and egg, it was a vegetarian product, not a vegan product. The second showed a weak signal for the fish DNA. These studies suggest that further research is needed to move from qualitative screening to quantifying contamination in animals. Moreover, highly processed products, such as gelatin, eggs, and some ripened cheeses, do not contain enough DNA to exclude the presence of mammalian or fish residues in the products [55].

Conclusions

The results of this study suggest that mislabeling occurs in various ways. It can refer to the lack of the declared ingredient on the label or conversely—the lack of the declaration of the added ingredient. It applies to both dry and wet food.

In the era of unprecedented DNA sequencing technology, the relative degree of mislabeling can be assessed by examining a wide range of pet food products for animal protein sources. The problem of discrepancies between ingredients and labeling still seems to be unsolved.

Accordingly, manufacturers are advised to systematically carry out stringent quality control. The aim of the controls should be to minimize cross-contact between components. They should also pay more attention to changed labeling information to increase consumer confidence when choosing food for their pets. The results of the research made it possible to verify the assumptions of our research. They can be the starting point for further research into the safety of commercial pet food.

Methods

Samples

The inclusion criteria for the diets selected for this study were that they had to be commercially available, popular and commonly available, dry or wet canine diets obtained from local pet stores and from online stores. All pet food were bought at pet stores. All of the selected products belonged to international brands and can be found in other European countries. Popularity was determined based on the sales information of pet stores.

Three packages of dry / canned (wet) of each pet food were purchased with different batch numbers. After opening, from three packages of individual dog foods samples were collected, in order to obtain one representative sample for chemical analyzes. The size of the packages ranged from 500 g to 2 kg (dry extruded food) and 400 g to 800 g (wet food).

In all, the research material consisted of fifteen complete maintenance diets for adult dogs, of which eight were dry extruded foods (D1-D8) and seven wet foods (W1-W7) (Table 2, Table S1). Dog foods were selected based on database of all products available on the local market, taking into account both foods that declare the addition of chicken protein on the ingredients list and foods that declared no chicken added. Pet foods labels were carefully read to identify every source of protein and fat in the ingredients list. Key nutritional information provided on the label was recorded such as ingredients list, macronutrient content (percentage protein, fat, moisture, ash and fiber, as fed) alongside the country of origin and batch number. The marketing claims and ingredients containing or potentially containing chicken DNA declared, on product labels of analyzed dog foods is shown in Table 2.

All analyzed dry and wet foods were packaged in sealed bags. Each analyzed feed was homogenized and made into a representative sample, and then three laboratory samples, each weighing 100 mg, were weighed. Between the homogenization of the samples, the grinding device was sterilized to avoid contamination.

DNA identification

All food samples (D1-D8, W1-W7) were tested in triplicate. Total DNA was obtained with the AX Food kit (A&A Biotechnology, Gdynia, Poland), using the isolation methodology provided by the manufacturer, finally suspending the DNA in 50 µl of TE buffer. The DNA concentration was measured with a NanoDrop spectrophotometer (ND 2000; NanoDrop Technologies, Wilmington, DE, USA) while determining the purity of the extracted DNA by measuring the A260/280 absorbance ratio. The repeatability of the obtained isolates, and thus their suitability for further analysis, was determined by comparing the mass of the analyzed sample, the resulting DNA concentration and DNA purity for all three replicates of a given sample. In numerical terms, the working range of repeatability (Wr) was determined with the following formula:

$$\mathrm{Wr}\hspace{0.17em}=\frac{{c}_{1}{m}_{2} }{{c}_{2}{m}_{1}}$$
(1)

where:

m1—weight of first repeat of sample;

c1—the concentration of DNA obtained from it;

\(\frac{{m}_{2}}{{c}_{2}}\)—the same parameters obtained for the next repetition.

Determination of the amount of chicken DNA was performed at Step One Plus™ Real-Time PCR v2.3 (Thermo Fisher Scientific, MA USA). Primers complementary to the fragment encoding 16 SrRNA in chickens and TaqMan® MGB (minor groove binder, Thermo Fisher Scientific, MA USA) probes were used, described in detail by Natonek-Wiśniewska and Krzyścin [26]. The thermal program included 40 cycles and its annealing temperature was 60 °C. The method used has been previously validated and is used for commercial analyses.

To confirm the accuracy of the analyses, three controls were performed—positive control of DNA isolation and PCR (PC), negative control of DNA isolation (NC) and negative control of PCR (NTC). The PC control was a meat sample containing 0.5% chicken meat addition and the negative control was a water sample. From both controls DNA was obtained simultaneously with the tested samples. NTC was water, which was added to the reaction mixture instead of DNA.

Amplification thresholds (Cт) were determined for all samples, and then the amounts of DNA were calculated based on a standard curve of five dilutions 0.01–100% (factor = 10) of DNA obtained from a mixture of a single species template of the designated species.

All calculations were performed in the quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) monitoring program which is an integral part of the thermocycler. To evaluate the curve, parameters such as shift, slope and regression coefficient (R2) were determined. An additional control of the test reliability was the determination of the compliance of the obtained result with the actual composition of the control samples (PC, NC).

The concentration was presented as an average of three measurements for the same sample and standard deviation (SD%) between them and relative standard deviation (RSD%). For positive samples, the relative accuracy expressed as a percentage of the value determined in the actual value was also determined.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.

Abbreviations

AD:

Atopic dermatitis

AFR:

Adverse food reactions

DNA:

Deoxyribonucleic acid

Cт:

Threshold cycle

ELISA:

Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay

FA:

Food allergy

FEDIAF:

The European Pet Food Industry Federation

FOS:

Fructooligosaccharides

HPDs:

Hydrolyzed protein diets

MOS:

Mannooligosaccharides

MW:

Molecular weight

NC:

Negative control of DNA isolation

NDPs:

Novel protein diets

NTC:

Negative control of PCR

OTC:

Over-the-counter diets

PC:

Positive control of DNA isolation and PCR

PCR:

Polymerase chain reaction

PTC:

Positive control of PCR

qPCR:

Quantitative polymerase chain reaction

RMBDs:

Raw meat based diets

RSD:

Relative standard deviation

SD:

Standard deviation

VTD:

Veterinary therapeutic diets

Wr:

Working range of repeatability

References

  1. Kuo SH, Lin HC. Effects of food environments and eating environments on consumers’ food consumption volume. J Food Qual. 2019;2019:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/7237602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Botelho AM, de Camargo AM, Medeiros KJ, Irmão GB, Dean M, Rataichesck Fiates GM. Supermarket circulars promoting the sales of ‘healthy’ foods: Analysis based on degree of processing. Nutrients. 2020;12:2877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Oba PM, Utterback PL, Parsons CM, de Godoy MRC, Swanson KS. Chemical composition, true nutrient digestibility, and true metabolizable energy of chicken-based ingredients differing by processing method using the precision-fed cecectomized rooster assay. J Anim Sci. 2019;97(3):998–1009. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/sky461.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ricci R, Granato A, Vascellari M, Boscarato M, Palagiano C, Andrighetto I. Identification of undeclared sources of animal origin in canine dry foods used in dietary elimination trials. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr. 2013;97:32–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.12045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Fossati LA, Larsen JA, Villaverde C, Fascetti AJ. Determination of mammalian DNA in commercial canine diets with uncommon and limited ingredients. Vet Med Sci. 2019;5(1):30–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/vms3.125.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mueller RS, Olivry T, Prélaud P. Critically appraised topic on adverse food reactions of companion animals (2): common food allergen sources in dogs and cats. BMC Vet Res. 2016;12(1):1–4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-016-0633-8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Chesney CJ. Systematic review of evidence for the prevalence of food sensitivity in dogs. Vet Rec. 2001;148(14):445–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.148.14.445.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Picco F, Zini E, Nett C, Naegeli C, Bigler B, Rüfenacht S, et al. A prospective study on canine atopic dermatitis and food-induced allergic dermatitis in Switzerland. Vet Dermatol. 2008;19(3):150–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3164.2008.00669.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gaschen FP, Merchant SR. Adverse food reactions in dogs and cats. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 2011;41(2):361–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cvsm.2011.02.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. DeBoer DJ, Hillier A. The ACVD task force on canine atopic dermatitis (XV): fundamental concepts in clinical diagnosis. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2001;81(3–4):271–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0165-2427(01)00312-9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hillier A, Griffin CE. The ACVD task force on canine atopic dermatitis (X): is there a relationship between canine atopic dermatitis and cutaneous adverse food reactions? Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2001;81(3–4):227–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0165-2427(01)00302-6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Saridomichelakis MN, Koutinas AF, Gioulekas D, Leontidis L. Canine atopic dermatitis in Greece: clinical observations and the prevalence of positive intradermal test reactions in 91 spontaneous cases. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 1999;69(1):61–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0165-2427(99)00040-9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Foster AP, Knowles TG, Moore AH, Cousins PD, Day MJ, Hall EJ. Serum IgE and IgG responses to food antigens in normal and atopic dogs, and dogs with gastrointestinal disease. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2003;92(3–4):113–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0165-2427(03)00033-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Olivry T, Mueller RS. Critically appraised topic on adverse food reactions of companion animals (5): discrepancies between ingredients and labeling in commercial pet foods. BMC Vet Res. 2018;14(1):1–5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-018-1346-y.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Martin Á, Sierra MP, González JL, Arévalo MÁ. Identification of allergens responsible for canine cutaneous adverse food reactions to lamb, beef and cow’s milk. Vet Dermatol. 2004;15(6):349–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3164.2004.00404.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Regulation (EC) No 767/2009 of 13 July 2009 on the placing on the market and use of feed, amending Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 and repealing Council Directive 79/373/EEC, Commission Directive 80/511/EEC, Council Directives 82/471/EEC, 83/228/EEC, 93/74/EEC, 93/113/EC and 96/25/EC and Commission Decision 2004/217/EC, Official Journal of the European Union.

  17. FEDIAF Code of Good Labelling Practice for Pet Food. Bruxelles: The European Pet Food Industry; 2018. p. 1–78.

  18. Yman IM, Eriksson A, Everitt G, Yman L, Karlsson T. Analysis of food proteins for verification of contamination or mislabelling. Food Agric Immunol. 1994;6(2):167–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540109409354827.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Myers MJ, Farrell DE, Heller DN, Yancy HF. Development of a polymerase chain reaction-based method to identify species-specific components in dog food. Am J Vet Res. 2004;65(1):99–103. https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.2004.65.99.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ricci R, Conficoni D, Morelli G, Losasso C, Alberghini L, Giaccone V, et al. Undeclared animal species in dry and wet novel and hydrolyzed protein diets for dogs and cats detected by microarray analysis. BMC Vet Res. 2018;14(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-018-1528-7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Banti M. Food adulteration and some methods of detection. Int J Nutr Food Sci. 2020;9:86–94.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Artavia G, Cortés-Herrera C, Granados-Chinchilla F. Selected instrumental techniques applied in food and feed: quality, safety and adulteration analysis. Foods. 2021;10(5):1081. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10051081.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Dunham-Cheatham SM, Klingler K, Peacock M, Teglas MB, Gustin MS. What is in commercial cat and dog food? The case for mercury and ingredient testing. Sci Total Environ. 2019;684:276–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.337.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Palumbo F, Scariolo F, Vannozzi A, Barcaccia G. NGS-based barcoding with mini-COI gene target is useful for pet food market surveys aimed at mislabeling detection. Sci Rep. 2020;10:17767.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Dunham-Cheatham SM, Klingler KB, Estrada MV, Gustin MS. Using a next-generation sequencing approach to DNA metabarcoding for identification of adulteration and potential sources of mercury in commercial cat and dog foods. Sci Total Environ. 2021;778:146102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146102.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Natonek-Wiśniewska M, Krzyścin P. The use of PCR and real-time PCR for qualitative and quantitative determination of poultry and chicken meals. Ann Anim Sci. 2016;16(3):731–41. https://doi.org/10.1515/aoas-2016-0003.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Maine IR, Atterbury R, Chang KC. Investigation into the animal species contents of popular wet pet foods. Acta Vet Scand. 2015;57(1):1–4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13028-015-0097-z.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. FAO. FAOSTAT. http://www.fao.org/faostat/. Accessed 7 Dec 2020.

  29. Okuma TA, Hellberg RS. Identification of meat species in pet foods using a real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay. Food Control. 2015;50:9–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2014.08.017.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Zhao J, Pacenka S, Wu J, Richards BK, Steenhuis T, Simpson K, Hay AG. Detection of glyphosate residues in companion animal feeds. Environ Pollut. 2018;243:1113–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.08.100.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hsieh MK, Shih PY, Wei CF, Vickroy TW, Chou CC. Detection of undeclared animal by-products in commercial canine canned foods: Comparative analyses by ELISA and PCR-RFLP coupled with slab gel electrophoresis or capillary gel electrophoresis. J Sci Food Agric. 2016;96(5):1659–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.7268.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Regulation (EU) No 51/2013 of 16 January 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 152/2009 as regards the methods of analysis for the determination of constituents of animal origin for the official control of feed, Official Journal of the European Union.

  33. European Reference Laboratory for Animal Proteins in Feedingstuffs. https://www.eurl.craw.eu/. Accessed 1 July 2020.

  34. Loeffler A, Soares-Magalhaes R, Bond R, Lloyd DH. A retrospective analysis of case series using home-prepared and chicken hydrolysate diets in the diagnosis of adverse food reactions in 181 pruritic dogs. Vet Dermatol. 2006;17(4):273–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3164.2006.00522.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Verlinden A, Hesta M, Millet S, Janssens GPJ. Food allergy in dogs and cats: a review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2006;46(3):259–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408390591001117.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Loeffler A, Lloyd DH, Bond R, Kim JY, Pfeiffer DU. Dietary trials with a commercial chicken hydrolysate diet in 63 pruritic dogs. Vet Rec. 2004;154(17):519–22. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.154.17.519.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Ricci R, Hammerberg B, Paps J, Contiero B, Jackson H. A comparison of the clinical manifestations of feeding whole and hydrolysed chicken to dogs with hypersensitivity to the native protein. Vet Dermatol. 2010;21(4):358–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3164.2010.00871.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Olivry T, Bizikova P. A systematic review of the evidence of reduced allergenicity and clinical benefit of food hydrolysates in dogs with cutaneous adverse food reactions. Vet Dermatol. 2010;21(1):32–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3164.2009.00761.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Masuda K, Sato A, Tanaka A, Kumagai A. Hydrolyzed diets may stimulate food-reactive lymphocytes in dogs. J Vet Med Sci. 2019;82(2):177–83. https://doi.org/10.1292/jvms.19-0222.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Sprecher E. Plenary Session Abstracts: Thursday Morning, June 2nd Theme: genetics and genomics of the skin and skin diseases. Vet Dermatol. 2016;27(1):6–121.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Lesponne I, Naar J, Planchon S, Serchi T, Montano M. DNA and protein analyses to confirm the absence of cross-contamination and support the clinical reliability of extensively hydrolysed diets for adverse food reaction-pets. Vet Sci. 2018;5:3–63. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci5030063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Olson ME, Hardin JA, Buret AG, Gal DG, Hayek MG. Hypersensitivity reactions to dietary antigens in atopic dogs. In: Reinhart GA, Carey DP, editors. Recent Advances in Canine and Feline Nutrition. Wilmington: Orange Frazer Press; 2000. p. 69–77.

  43. Wills J, Harvey R. Diagnosis and management of food allergy and intolerance in dogs and cats. Aust Vet J. 1994;71(10):322–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-0813.1994.tb00907.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Kawano K, Oumi K, Ashida Y, Horiuchi Y, Mizuno T. The prevalence of dogs with lymphocyte proliferative responses to food allergens in canine allergic dermatitis. Pol J Vet Sci. 2013;16(4):735–9. https://doi.org/10.2478/pjvs-2013-0104.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Hardy JI, Hendricks A, Loeffler A, Chang YM, Verheyen KL, Garden OA, Bond R. Food-specific serum IgE and IgG reactivity in dogs with and without skin disease: lack of correlation between laboratories. Vet Dermatol. 2014;25(5):447-e70. https://doi.org/10.1111/vde.12137.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Jeffers JG, Shanley KJ, Meyer EK. Diagnostic testing of dogs for food hypersensitivity. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1991;198:245–50.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Hołda K, Natonek-Wiśniewska M, Krzyścin P, Głogowski R. Qualitative and quantitative detection of chicken deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) in dry dog foods. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr. 2018;102:37–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.12887.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Pagani E, de los Dolores Soto del Rio M, Dalmasso A, Bottero MT, Schiavone A, Prola L. Cross-contamination in canine and feline dietetic limited-antigen wet diets. BMC Vet Res. 2018;14(1):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-018-1571-4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Horvath-Ungerboeck C, Widmann K, Handl S. Detection of DNA from undeclared animal species in commercial elimination diets for dogs using PCR. Vet Dermatol. 2017;28(4):373-e86. https://doi.org/10.1111/vde.12431.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Cox A, Defalque VE, Udenberg TJ, Barnum S, Wademan C. Detection of DNA from undeclared animal species in commercial canine and feline raw meat diets using qPCR. Can Vet J. 2020;61:977–84.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Kanakubo K, Fascetti AJ, Larsen JA. Determination of mammalian deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) in commercial vegetarian and vegan diets for dogs and cats. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr. 2017;101(1):70–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.12506.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Aufox EE, May ER, Frank LA, Kania SA. PCR analysis of a prescription vegetarian diet and use in three dogs with cutaneous adverse food reactions. Vet Dermatol. 2018;29(4):345-e122. https://doi.org/10.1111/vde.12545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Regulation (EU) No 56/2013 of 16 January 2013 amending Annexes I and IV to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, Official Journal of the European Union.

  54. EFSA BIOHAZ Panel (EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards). Scientific Opinion on the revision of the quantitative risk assessment (QRA) of the BSE risk posed by processed animal proteins (PAPs). EFSA J. 2011:1–80. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2011.1947.

  55. Köppel R, Lederman R, van Velsen F, Ganeshan A. Detection of animal DNA in vegan food by multiplex qPCR system. Eur Food Res Technol. 2020;247(1):77–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-020-03608-7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

Presented here research received external funding in project “ZUT 2.0—Modern Integrated University” grant number POWR.03.05.00–00-Z205/17.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

WB, EC-P—conceived and designed the research; WB, EC-P—methodology; MN-W, PK—formal analysis; WB, MN-W, KK, JK-P—interpretation of data; WB, KK, JK-P, MN-W—writing; JK-P, WB—original draft preparation; MN-W, JK-P – supplementary files preparation; WB, JK-P, MN-W – review, commentary, editing, revision pre- and postpublication stages. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jagoda Kępińska-Pacelik.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Biel, W., Natonek-Wiśniewska, M., Kępińska-Pacelik, J. et al. Detection of chicken DNA in commercial dog foods. BMC Vet Res 18, 92 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-022-03200-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-022-03200-z

Keywords

  • Adverse food reactions
  • Chicken DNA
  • Extruded dog food
  • Wet dog food
  • Pet food control
  • Ingredients
  • Mislabeling
  • Polymerase chain reaction