Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  262 / 328 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 262 / 328 Next Page
Page Background

concentration in spiked sample is calculated to be 35 and 75 mg/kg. In the absence of true

value of secalins in the fermented sourdough the spike values as well as the spike recoveries

calculated in these spike materials remain questionable.

ER 6

The method is a good initiative towards hydrolysed gluten detection in foods and uses well

characterized R5 antibody in the competitive ELISA.

Pros/Strengths of the Manuscript:

ER 1

Pro: uses the R5 monoclonal antibody. R-biopharm is a respectable company.

ER 2

ok

ER 3

While the authors clarify that the accuracy of the test cannot be determined, they indicate

however, that the method is precise and is therefore suitable and fit-for-purpose.

ER 4

The strength of the manuscript is that it shows that the R5 competitive ELISA is suited for

partially hydrolyzed gluten. The reported AACC collab study published in CFW also shows that

the method sufficiently met guidelines on recovery and LOD when challenging matrices were

used (incurred vs spiked). The manuscript is very technical, but correct. The manuscript

describes the current state-of-the-art in detecting hydrolyzed gluten. On the other hand the

collab challenge also revealed a weakness - the AACC collab demonstrated high RSDs.

ER 5

The method is useful in detecting partially hydrolyzed gluten in foods. The other available test

kits for gluten don't have the ability of this analysis.

ER 6

The method shows good precision. Method will be helpful in hydrolyzed gluten (pepsin-

trypsin digested) detection since there is no currently validated method available.

Cons/Weaknesses of the Manuscript:

ER 1

Cons: work as presented is very misleading. Gluten has a specific target level making the

design of quantitative analytical methods straightforward. The validation should have focused

on 20 ppm and bracketed this concentration. The use of a mixture of wheat, barley, and rye

hydrolysate as a standard makes meaningful /accurate quantification impossible. The food

samples should have been made with incurred gluten and subjected to processing/hydrolysis

versus spiking with arbitrarily pre-hydrolyzed gluten. Discussion of these limitations might

help, but none presented.

ER 2

Data tables still need to be in units of mg/kg gluten, not prolamins.

ER 3

None that I can point out in the revised manuscript.

ER 4

The very technical style does make the manuscript not easy to read. Accuracy and/or high RSD

may be identified as weakness - a high lab to lab variation is there. There are however no strict

criteria for the allowed RSDs or Horrats of ELISA methods, by definition - e.g. due to the

complexity of the analyte (no single molecule) it will fall typically in a Type I. The AOAC

guidelines & best practices focus on LOD and recovery of allergen ELISAs. Concerns about

high RSD could be valid, but allowing a gluten ELISA with relatively high RSD in AOAC

methods is not unprecedented: AOAC 991.19 (2001) for intact gluten in foods.

ER 5

The validation of the method could not establish its accuracy in the lack of availability of a

certified reference material. The possibility do exist that the assay could be biased in the lack

ERP PROFILE SUMMARIES

222