↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Veterinary Research, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cross-contamination in canine and feline dietetic limited-antigen wet diets
Published in
BMC Veterinary Research, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12917-018-1571-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elena Pagani, Maria de los Dolores Soto del Rio, Alessandra Dalmasso, Maria Teresa Bottero, Achille Schiavone, Liviana Prola

Abstract

Adverse food reactions (AFRs) are defined as abnormal responses to an ingested food or food additive. Diagnosis and treatment of AFRs consist of the complete elimination of these ingredients in the dietary trial. Previous studies have demonstrated the presence of undeclared ingredients in commercial limited-antigen dry food diets that can compromise the results and efficacy of dietary elimination trails. The aim of this study was to assess a selection of commercial canine and feline dietetic limited-antigen wet foods for the potential cross-contamination of animal proteins from origins not mentioned on the label. Eleven canine and feline dietetic limited-antigen wet foods (9 novel animal protein foods, 1 vegetarian and 1 hydrolyzed) were analyzed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to detect the presence DNA of animal and vegetal origins. PCR analysis confirmed the contamination of 6 of the 11 (54.5%) limited-antigen wet diets with undeclared animal protein. One of these 6 diets was solely composed of animal protein sources completely unrelated to those declared on the label. None of the foods containing horse meat or fish were contaminated, and neither were the vegetarian or the hydrolyzed food products. Moreover, the results show that had zoological class primers only been used to check for cross-class contaminations, as are generally used in the pet food industry for in-house checks, the apparent contamination rate would have been significantly underestimated: less than 20% (3/11), instead of the actual rate of 54.7% using species-specific primers. This study reveals a high rate of cross-contamination in dietetic limited-antigen wet canine and feline foods, as previously described for dietetic dry limited-antigen foods (reported to be more than 80%). These results add new fuel to the discussion about the potential causes underlying the failure of elimination diets, since animal protein contaminants may actually be present in the commercial dietetic limited-antigen diets. AFRs may therefore occur as a result of inadequate practices in the pet food industry.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 10%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 3 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 8 20%
Unknown 18 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 13 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 10%
Unspecified 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 19 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 November 2023.
All research outputs
#5,348,138
of 25,436,226 outputs
Outputs from BMC Veterinary Research
#375
of 3,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,569
of 348,063 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Veterinary Research
#9
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,436,226 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,304 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 348,063 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.