Evaluation of two commercial lateral-flow test kits for detection of animal proteins in animal feed

• Published in: Journal of food protection Vol. 68; no. 12; pp. 2656 - 2664
• Main Authors: Myers, M.J, Yancy, H.F, Farrell, D.E, Washington, J.D, Frobish, R.A
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Des Moines, IA International Association of Milk, Food and Environmental Sanitarians 01.12.2005
• Subjects: adulterated products; Animal Feed - analysis; animal proteins; Animal, plant, fungal and microbial proteins, edible seaweeds and food yeasts; Animals; Biological and medical sciences; Cattle; Consumer Product Safety; detection; Encephalopathy, Bovine Spongiform - prevention & control; Encephalopathy, Bovine Spongiform - transmission; feed composition; feeds; Food and Drug Administration Food Code; Food Contamination - analysis; Food industries; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; General aspects; Humans; meat and bone meal; Methods of analysis, processing and quality control, regulation, standards; polymerase chain reaction; product authenticity; Proteins - analysis; rapid methods; Reproducibility of Results; Sensitivity and Specificity; Species Specificity; standards of identity; Evaluation; Analysis method; Lateral; Kit; Animal protein; Control method; Detection; Feed
• ISSN: 0362-028X; 1944-9097
• DOI: 10.4315/0362-028X-68.12.2656

Performance characteristics were evaluated for two lateral-flow test kits, Reveal for Ruminant in Feed (Neogen Corporation) and FeedChek (Strategic Diagnostics Inc.), designed to detect ruminant or terrestrial animal proteins in feeds. The stringent acceptance criteria used were developed by the Center for Veterinary Medicine Office of Research to identify test kits with comparable selectivity and sensitivity to microscopy and PCR assay, the analytical methods used by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Guidelines were developed for evaluating the selectivity, sensitivity, ruggedness, and specificity of these kits. These guidelines further stated that ruggedness and specificity testing would be performed only after a test passed both the selectivity and sensitivity assessments. Acceptance criteria for determining success were developed using a statistical approach requiring 90% probability of achieving the correct response, within a 95% confidence interval. A minimum detection level of 0.1% bovine meat and bone meal, consistent with the sensitivity of the methods used by the FDA, was required. Selectivity was assessed by testing 60 dairy feed samples that contained no added animal proteins; sensitivity was determined by evaluating 60 samples (per level of fortification) of the same feed that contained 0.025, 0.05, 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 1, or 2% bovine meat and bone meal. The Reveal test passed the selectivity assessment but failed the sensitivity assessment, detecting only samples fortified at the 2% level and then only 17 to 33% of those samples, when read according to the label directions. The FeedChek test passed the sensitivity assessment but failed the selectivity assessment, with rates for false-positive results ranging from 34 to 38%, depending on the user. The sensitivity of the Reveal test was affected by the concentration of trace minerals present in the feed; concentrations toward the high end of the normal range prevented the detection of true positive feed samples containing bovine meat and bone meal. Better sensitivity assessments were obtained when lamb meal was used either alone or in combination with bovine meat and bone meal. The FeedChek test was not affected by the concentration of trace minerals or by the type of animal meal used. These results indicate that neither of the two tests is adequate for routine regulatory use.