2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.jspr.2006.04.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Detection of Rhyzopertha dominica larvae in stored wheat using ELISA: The impact of myosin degradation following fumigation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Quinn et al (30) described an immunochemical assay with antimyosin Pabs that allowed the measurement of insect contamination at the level corresponded to 28 ng of myosin/ mL. Atui et al (6) adopted this assay to detect the internalfeeding species Rhyzopertha dominica. They reliably detected 10 insects per kg.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Quinn et al (30) described an immunochemical assay with antimyosin Pabs that allowed the measurement of insect contamination at the level corresponded to 28 ng of myosin/ mL. Atui et al (6) adopted this assay to detect the internalfeeding species Rhyzopertha dominica. They reliably detected 10 insects per kg.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The standard ßotation method requires a continuous supply of laboratory chemicals (i.e., hydrochloric acid, mineral oil, and isopropanol), whereas the ELISA procedure also requires purchase of disposable kits and reagents for each sample. The ELISA method to detect myosin also has several technical issues that impact its accuracy: there are variable amounts of myosin in different life stages (Schatzki et al 1993) and myosin degrades during the Þrst 2 wk after insect death, but it remains relatively stable after that initial decay period (Atui et al 2007). After the calibration model is developed, NIRS determination does not require highly skilled labor for operation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, insects are often hidden inside the kernel and are not detected by sieving. To detect both hidden and external insects, the following methods have been developed: flotation and cracking (Brader et al, 2002), acoustic sensor (Gutierez et al, 2010), immunoassay (Krizkova-Kudlikova and Hubert, 2008;Atui et al, 2007), single kernel characterization (SKCS) (Pearson et al, 2003), electrical conductance (Brabec et al, 2010;Pearson and Brabec, 2007), near-infrared hyperspectral imaging (Singh et al, 2009), solid-phase micro extraction (SPME) (Laopongsit et al, 2014), thermal camera imaging (Manickavasagan et al, 2008), and soft eX ray roentgenography (Karunakaran et al, 2004;Nawrocka et al, 2012). Most of these methods are not commercialized or used by the grain industry due to one or some of the following disadvantages: high cost, limited capacity, intensive labour, time consuming, safety issue, and low accuracy.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%