Assessment of DNA quality in processed tuna muscle tissues
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5219/612Keywords:
canned product, fish food, DNA extraction, PCR, Thunnus albacaresAbstract
Authentication of tuna fish products is necessary to assure consumers of accurate labelling of food products. The quality of species specific DNA crucially affects the efficiency of amplification during the subsequent PCR. The problem in DNA detection in canned products lies in the possibility of the fragmentation of DNA during the processing technologies and the use of ingredients (oil, salt, spice), that may inhibit the PCR reaction. In this study three DNA extraction methods were compared: DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit, DNeasy mericon Food Kit and Chemagic DNA tissue 10 Kit. The quantity and quality of DNA were evaluated by measuring DNA concentration and ratios A260/A280. Several parameters were estimated: the effect of whole and mechanically treated muscle, sterilization procedure used in canned process (high temperature in combination with high pressure) and addition of raw materials. The highest DNA concentrations were observed in non-processed muscle that is not influenced by the sterilization process. Canned whole muscle demonstrated lower DNA yield, and furthermore, the mechanical treatment (canned ground) resulted in lower values of DNA concentration that was registered by using all three types of DNA extraction kits. DNeasy mericon Food Kit produced DNA of higher concentration in non-processed sample, Chemagic DNA tissue 10 Kit delivered higher DNA yields than kits DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit and DNeasy mericon Food Kit in canned samples, although the purity was lower, but still within the range 1.7 - 2.0. DNA was considered to be satisfactorily pure in all three types of samples and using all three types of DNA isolation. In case of the samples enriched of ingredients and treated with sterilization process as whole or ground muscle Chemagic DNA tissue 10 Kit produced in all samples (whole and ground muscle) the highest values of DNA concentration, but almost all values of A260/A280 were lower than 1.7. Therefore DNeasy mericon Food Kit appears to be a favorite one, in all samples with whole muscle gives higher values of DNA concentrations than DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit. Addition of ingredients influenced the DNA yield in terms of decreasing in samples containing vinegar and lemon, but some of the ingredients resulted surprisingly in higher yield of DNA. This was not consistent in whole and ground muscle, and the differences were described also among particular kits. The impact of ingredients was not conclusively approved and their importance to the suitability of extracted DNA for PCR amplification is needed to be discussed in further analysis.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Bartlett, S. E., Davidson, W. S. 1991. Identification of Thunnus tuna species by the polymerase chain reaction and direct sequence analysis of their mitochondrial cytochrome b genes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, vol. 48, p. 309-317. https://doi.org/10.1139/f91-043 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1139/f91-043
Bauer, T., Weller, P., Hammes, W.P., Hertel, C. (2003). The effect of processing parameters on DNA degradation in food. European Food Research Technology, vol. 217, p. 338-343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-003-0743-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-003-0743-y
Bossier, P. 1999. Authentication of seafood products by DNA patterns. Journal of Food Science, vol. 64, p. 189-193. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1999.tb15862.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1999.tb15862.x
Bottero, M. T., Dalmasso, A., Cappelletti, M., Secchi, C., Civera, T. 1997. Differentiation of five tuna species by a multiplex primer-extension assay. Journal of Biotechnology, vol. 129, no. 3, p. 575-580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiotec.2007.01.032 PMid:17353060 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiotec.2007.01.032
Besbes, N., Fattouch, S., Sadok, S. 2011. Comparison of methods in the recovery and amplificability of DNA from fresh and processed sardine and anchovy muscle tissue. Food Chemistry, vol. 129, p. 665-671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2011.05.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2011.05.002
Cawthorn, D., Steinman, H. A., Witthuhn, R. C. 2011. Comparative study of different methods for the extraction of DNA from fish species commercially available in South Africa. Food Control, vol. 22, p. 231-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2010.07.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2010.07.003
Chapela, M. J., Sotelo, C. G., Péez-Martin, R. I., Pardo, M. A., Pérez-Villareal, B., Gilardi, P., Riese, J. 2007. Comparison of DNA extraction methods from muscle of canned tuna for species identification. Food Control, vol. 18, p. 1211-1215. https://doi.org/10.5219/189 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2006.07.016
Colombo, F., Mangiagalli, G., Renon, P. 2005. Identification of tuna species by computer-assisted and cluster analysis of PCR-SSCP electrophoretic patterns. Food Control, vol. 16, p. 51-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2003.11.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2003.11.006
Dalmasso, A., Civera, T., Bottero, M. T. 2006. Biomolecular approaches for the identification of tuna species. Veterinary Research Communications, vol. 30, p. 179-181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11259-006-0035-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11259-006-0035-7
Di Pinto, A., Forte, V. T., Guastadisegni, M.C., Martino, C., Schena, F.P., Tantillo, G. 2007. A comparison of DNA extraction methods for food analysis. Food Control, vol. 18, p. 76-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2005.08.011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2005.08.011
Espineira, M., Gonzalez-Lavín, N., Vieites, J. M., Santaclara, F. J. 2009. Development of a method for the identification of scombroid and common substitute species in seafood products by FINS. Food Chemistry, vol. 117, p. 698-704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2009.04.087 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2009.04.087
Lee, K. W., Kang, N. J., Heo, Y. S., Rogozin, E. A., Pugiliese, A., Hwang, M. K., Bowden, G. T., Bode, A. M., Lee, H. J., Dong, Z. 2008. Raf and MEK Protein kinases are direct molecular targets for the chemopreventive effect of quercetin, a major flavonol in red wine. Cancer Research, vol. 68, p. 946-955. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-3140 PMid:18245498 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-3140
Lin, W. F., Shiau, C. Y., Hwang, D. F. 2005. Identification of four Thunnus tuna species using mitochondrial cytochrome b gene sequence and PCR-RFLP analysis. Journal of Food and Drug Analysis, vol. 13, p. 382-387. DOI: https://doi.org/10.38212/2224-6614.2566
Lin, W. F. and Hwang, D. F. 2007. Application of PCR-RFLP analysis on species identification of canned tuna. Food Control, vol. 18, p. 1050-1057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2006.07.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2006.07.001
Lockley, A. K.; Bardsley, R. G. 2000. DNA-based methods for food authentication. Trends in Food Science and Technology, vol. 11, no. 2, p. 67-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-2244(00)00049-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-2244(00)00049-2
Lopez, I. and Pardo, M. A. 2005. Application of relative quantification TaqMan real-time polymerase chain reaction technology for the identification and quantification of Thunnus alalunga and Thunnus albacares. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, vol. 53, p. 4554-4560. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf0500841 PMid:15913324 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/jf0500841
Mackie, I. M., Pryde, S. E., Gonzales-Sotelo, C., Medina, I., Peréz-Martín, R., Quinteiro, J., Rey-Mandez M., Rehbein, H. 1990. Challenges in the identification of species of canned fish. Trends in Food Science and Technology, vol. 10, p. 9-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-2244(99)00013-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-2244(99)00013-8
Pardo, M. A., Pérez-Villareal, B. 2004. Identification of commercial canned tuna species by restriction site analysis of mitochondrial DNA products obtained by nested primer PCR. Food Chemistry, vol. 86, p. 143-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2003.09.024 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2003.09.024
Ram, J. L., Ram, M. L., Baidoun, F. F. 1996. Authentication of canned tuna and bonito by sequence and restriction site analysis of polymerase chain reaction products of mitochondrial DNA. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, vol. 44, p. 2460-2467. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf950822t DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/jf950822t
Regulation (EC) No 1536/92 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 June 1992 laying down common marketing standards for preserved tuna and bonito. OJ L 163, 17.6.1992, p. 1-4.
Rehbein, H., Mackie, I. M., Pryde, S., Gonzales-Sotelo, C., Medina, I., Perez-Martin, R., Quinteiro, J., Rey-Mendez, M. 1999. Fish species identification in canned tuna by PCR-SSCP: validation by a collaborative study and investigation of intra-species variability of the DNA-patterns. Food Chemistry, vol. 64, p. 263-268. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-8146(98)00125-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-8146(98)00125-3
Santaclara, F. J., Velasco, A., Pérez-Martin, R. I., Quinteiro, J., Rey-Méndez, M., Pardo, M. A., Jimenez, E., Sotelo, C. G. 2015. Development of a multiplex PCR-ELISA method for the genetic authentication of Thunnus species and Katsuwonus pelamis in food products. Analytical Methods, vol. 180, p. 9-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.11.076 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.11.076
Takeyama, H., Chow, S., Tsuzuki, H., Matsunaga, T. 2001. Mitochondrial DNA sequence variation within and between tuna Thunnus species and its application to species identification. Journal of Fish Biology, vol. 58, p. 1646-1657. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2001.tb02319.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2001.tb02319.x
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This license permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
