{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021490933512424447, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.651785714285714, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Capillary electrophoresis for the analysis of meat authenticity.

In this overview, different meat authenticity issues are presented, as well as a wide variety of methods available for meat authentication. Unlike chromatographic, traditional gel electrophoretic, or immunological methods, which have been routinely used in analytical laboratories, the application of capillary electrophoresis (CE) is relatively new in solving meat authentication issues. Several unique CE applications based on meat protein fingerprinting are discussed for the analysis of meat species in unheated meat products. For protein data interpretation, pattern recognition is used to account for the natural variability present within the same meat species. While gel DNA-based methods are widely used for determining meat species in heat processed products, few DNA-based methods utilizing CE have been reported. Moreover, the methods reported are qualitative or semiquantitative. Thus, the need for quantitative competitive PCR CE methods in the determination of meat species is addressed. For the determination of meat extenders, CE methods were either protein-based or based on specific markers. Polyphenols are used as specific markers for soy detection and hydroxyproline is used as a specific marker for collagen determination. Finally, the potential of electrophoretically mediated miroanalysis (EMMA) for the detection of meat that may have been previously frozen and retailed as "fresh" is highlighted.