Comparison of DNA Extraction Methods for the Detection of Canned Tuna Species with DNA Mini-Barcoding

Tuna is susceptible to species mislabeling due to its high demand, quick rate of production, and wide range of price points. DNA barcoding, a sequencing-based technique, allows for the detection of species mislabeling by targeting a standardized region of DNA. A mitochondrial control region (CR) DNA...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Aubrey J. Emmi, Biola Fatusin, Rosalee S. Hellberg
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Hindawi-Wiley 2023-01-01
Series:Journal of Food Quality
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2023/7121260
_version_ 1797632746947870720
author Aubrey J. Emmi
Biola Fatusin
Rosalee S. Hellberg
author_facet Aubrey J. Emmi
Biola Fatusin
Rosalee S. Hellberg
author_sort Aubrey J. Emmi
collection DOAJ
description Tuna is susceptible to species mislabeling due to its high demand, quick rate of production, and wide range of price points. DNA barcoding, a sequencing-based technique, allows for the detection of species mislabeling by targeting a standardized region of DNA. A mitochondrial control region (CR) DNA barcode has been found to be capable of species discrimination for tuna, but it is challenging to recover the entire DNA fragment from canned tuna. While a short fragment of CR, referred to as a “mini-barcode,” has shown some success with canned tuna species identification, more research is needed to improve identification rates. The objective of this study was to determine the optimal DNA extraction method for species identification of canned tuna using CR mini-barcoding. Four commercial DNA extraction kits were compared using a sample set of 24 different cans of tuna labeled as albacore, light tuna, skipjack, or yellowfin. All samples were tested in duplicate. The greatest success was found using the Qiagen DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit and the Qiagen DNeasy Mericon Food Kit, which resulted in species identification for 42% of the samples. In comparison, the MP Biomedicals FastPrep-24 + Machery-Nagel NucleoSpin Tissue Kit resulted in species identification for 30% of the samples and the Qiagen DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit + PowerClean Pro Cleanup Kit resulted in species identification for 21% of the samples. Overall, the top-performing DNA extraction methods for use with CR mini-barcoding of canned tuna products were determined to be the DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit and the DNeasy Mericon Food Kit.
first_indexed 2024-03-11T11:42:11Z
format Article
id doaj.art-19dd560b006142f0b23f2d331a9055b7
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1745-4557
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-11T11:42:11Z
publishDate 2023-01-01
publisher Hindawi-Wiley
record_format Article
series Journal of Food Quality
spelling doaj.art-19dd560b006142f0b23f2d331a9055b72023-11-10T00:00:04ZengHindawi-WileyJournal of Food Quality1745-45572023-01-01202310.1155/2023/7121260Comparison of DNA Extraction Methods for the Detection of Canned Tuna Species with DNA Mini-BarcodingAubrey J. Emmi0Biola Fatusin1Rosalee S. Hellberg2Chapman UniversityChapman UniversityChapman UniversityTuna is susceptible to species mislabeling due to its high demand, quick rate of production, and wide range of price points. DNA barcoding, a sequencing-based technique, allows for the detection of species mislabeling by targeting a standardized region of DNA. A mitochondrial control region (CR) DNA barcode has been found to be capable of species discrimination for tuna, but it is challenging to recover the entire DNA fragment from canned tuna. While a short fragment of CR, referred to as a “mini-barcode,” has shown some success with canned tuna species identification, more research is needed to improve identification rates. The objective of this study was to determine the optimal DNA extraction method for species identification of canned tuna using CR mini-barcoding. Four commercial DNA extraction kits were compared using a sample set of 24 different cans of tuna labeled as albacore, light tuna, skipjack, or yellowfin. All samples were tested in duplicate. The greatest success was found using the Qiagen DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit and the Qiagen DNeasy Mericon Food Kit, which resulted in species identification for 42% of the samples. In comparison, the MP Biomedicals FastPrep-24 + Machery-Nagel NucleoSpin Tissue Kit resulted in species identification for 30% of the samples and the Qiagen DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit + PowerClean Pro Cleanup Kit resulted in species identification for 21% of the samples. Overall, the top-performing DNA extraction methods for use with CR mini-barcoding of canned tuna products were determined to be the DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit and the DNeasy Mericon Food Kit.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2023/7121260
spellingShingle Aubrey J. Emmi
Biola Fatusin
Rosalee S. Hellberg
Comparison of DNA Extraction Methods for the Detection of Canned Tuna Species with DNA Mini-Barcoding
Journal of Food Quality
title Comparison of DNA Extraction Methods for the Detection of Canned Tuna Species with DNA Mini-Barcoding
title_full Comparison of DNA Extraction Methods for the Detection of Canned Tuna Species with DNA Mini-Barcoding
title_fullStr Comparison of DNA Extraction Methods for the Detection of Canned Tuna Species with DNA Mini-Barcoding
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of DNA Extraction Methods for the Detection of Canned Tuna Species with DNA Mini-Barcoding
title_short Comparison of DNA Extraction Methods for the Detection of Canned Tuna Species with DNA Mini-Barcoding
title_sort comparison of dna extraction methods for the detection of canned tuna species with dna mini barcoding
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2023/7121260
work_keys_str_mv AT aubreyjemmi comparisonofdnaextractionmethodsforthedetectionofcannedtunaspecieswithdnaminibarcoding
AT biolafatusin comparisonofdnaextractionmethodsforthedetectionofcannedtunaspecieswithdnaminibarcoding
AT rosaleeshellberg comparisonofdnaextractionmethodsforthedetectionofcannedtunaspecieswithdnaminibarcoding