4.7 Review

The use of telomeric length as authenticity marker in fish and seafood-a new perspective in the detection of adulteration

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/10408398.2022.2103643

关键词

Environmental conditions; fish characteristics; fraud; origin; telomeres; traceability

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review proposes the use of telomeric length as an authenticity marker for fish and seafood, discussing the effects of environmental conditions and individual characteristics on telomeric stability. TL shows potential as a means to prevent adulteration.
In this review we propose the use of telomeric length (TL) as an authenticity marker that could provide an alternative method for differentiating fish and seafood samples or detecting fraud. Considering the ever-growing number of incidents of economically motivated fish and seafood adulteration using even more sophisticated methods to overcome current authenticity markers, the need to identify novel authenticity markers becomes essential. The TL of fish and seafood depends on individual characteristics (e.g., sex, age) and the environmental stimuli (e.g., temperature, water quality) to which these are exposed. Hence, both wild marine and freshwater populations occupying different geographical origin habitats might differ substantially because of the environmental cues affecting them. Moreover, the implementation of various rearing practices in aquaculture, such as different levels of fish and seafood density and increased ambient noise combined with site-specific environmental cues could affect TL, providing regulatory authorities with valuable information by distinguishing wild from reared populations and organic from conventional ones. In the present review the effects of both the environmental conditions and individual characteristics on the telomeric stability of fish and seafood telomeres are discussed, suggesting TL as a potential prospect authenticity marker that could be used to prevent fish and seafood adulteration.

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

4.7
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