51 / 136
4. Based on the
supporting information,
what are the
pros/strengths of the
method?
If additional details on how the supporting
information were generated are provided, it may be
that the method fits a majority (but not all) of the
performance requirements. The results generated
from the in house incurred/spiked food calibration
curve appear to be quite good with respect to
repeatability. In the tested food matrices, the
method also appears to have the specificity
required for a food allergen method.
5. Based on the
supporting information,
what are the
cons/weaknesses of the
method?
As discussed elsewhere in this review, the reporting
units for the method do not match those in the
SMPR, and this issue must be addressed as it affects
whether the method meets many of the
performance requirements. The quantification
strategy that was applied and how an end user
would quantify results needs extensive clarification
(as discussed in previous questions). If the
quantification is to be conducted with a calibration
curve derived from the incurred/spiked foods
produced by the method developer, then the
assessment of method performance must be
conducted on other relevant samples.
6. Any general comments
about the method?
The authors state (on p. 18) that, “For the final
method, two proteins, two unique peptides for
each protein and two MRM transitions for each
peptide, i.e. total of eight MRM transitions, were
used for each allergen commodity to ensure
identification confidence (Table 2).” However, this
statement does not hold true in several cases:
Egg:
- The peptides (EggYolk.Protein_2.Peptide_A and
EggYolk.Protein_2.Peptide_B) listed in Table 1 as
targets for Gal d 5, serum albumin, are not present
in this protein. Instead, these peptides are from
Vitellogenin-2. The other set of peptides from egg
yolk are correctly stated to be from Gal d 6,
Vitellogenin-1, which is another isoform of the
protein.