4.4 Article

Application of DNA barcoding and metabarcoding for species identification in salmon products

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/19440049.2020.1869324

关键词

Salmon; DNA barcoding; DNA metabarcoding; NGS; species identification

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2017YFE0110800]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study tested the feasibility of next-generation sequencing in identifying mixed salmon products and found that 50% of the commercial salmon food products surveyed were mislabelled. DNA barcoding and metabarcoding methods are useful for the identification of salmon species in food and can be used for quality control of various types of salmon products.
Mislabelling is a significant manifestation of food fraud. Traditional Sanger sequencing technology is the gold standard for seafood species identification. However, this method is not suitable for analysing processed samples that may contain more than one species. This study tested the feasibility of next-generation sequencing in identifying mixed salmon products. Salmon samples containing up to eight species were amplified using 16S rRNA mini-barcode primers, and sequenced on an Illumina HiSeq2500 platform. All species were accurately identified, and mixtures as low as 1% (w/w) could be detected. Furthermore, this study conducted a market survey of 32 products labelled as salmon. For pure and mixed fish products, Sanger and next-generation sequencing techniques were respectively used for species identification, and for NGS results, we also used real-time PCR method to cross-validate the mixed products to further verify the accuracy of the DNA metabarcoding technology established in this study. DNA barcoding and metabarcoding of commercial salmon food products revealed the presence of mislabelling in 16 of 32 (50%) samples. The developed DNA barcoding and metabarcoding methods are useful for the identification of salmon species in food and can be used for quality control of various types of salmon products.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据