Canning Processes Reduce the DNA-Based Traceability of Commercial Tropical Tunas

Canned tuna is one of the most widely traded seafood products internationally and is of growing demand. There is an increasing concern over the vulnerability of canned tuna supply chains to species mislabelling and fraud. Extensive processing conditions in canning operations can lead to the degradation and fragmentation of DNA, complicating product traceability. We here employed a forensically validated DNA barcoding tool (cytochrome b partial sequences) to assess the effects of canning processes on DNA degradation and the identification of four tropical tuna species (yellowfin, bigeye, skipjack and longtail tuna) collected on a global scale, along their commercial chains. Each species was studied under five different canning processes i.e., freezing, defrosting, cooking, and canning in oil and brine, in order to investigate how these affect DNA-based species identification and traceability. The highest percentage of nucleotide substitutions were observed after brine-canning operations and were greatest for yellowfin and skipjack tuna. Overall, we found that DNA degradation significantly increased along the tuna canning process for most specimens. Consequently, most of the specimens canned in oil or brine were misidentified due to the high rate of nucleotide substitution in diagnostic sequences.

[1]  Robin Paul,et al.  Detecting mislabelling in meat products using PCR–FINS , 2020, Journal of Food Science and Technology.

[2]  A. Dall'asta,et al.  Pliocene colonization of the Mediterranean by Great White Shark inferred from fossil records, historical jaws, phylogeographic and divergence time analyses , 2020, Journal of Biogeography.

[3]  S. Thitamadee,et al.  Simple PCR-RFLP detection method for genus- and species-authentication of four types of tuna used in canned tuna industry , 2020, Food Control.

[4]  Zora Piskatá,et al.  Identification of tuna species Thunnus albacares and Katsuwonus pelamis in canned products by real-time PCR method , 2019, Acta Veterinaria Brno.

[5]  L. Webster,et al.  DNA barcoding validates species labelling of certified seafood , 2019, Current Biology.

[6]  L. Tinacci,et al.  Seafood labelling compliance with European legislation and species identification by DNA barcoding: A first survey on the Bulgarian market , 2018, Food Control.

[7]  The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020 , 2018, The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture.

[8]  S. Mariani,et al.  Tuna labels matter in Europe: Mislabelling rates in different tuna products , 2018, PloS one.

[9]  Rosalee S. Hellberg,et al.  Evaluation of DNA Barcoding Methodologies for the Identification of Fish Species in Cooked Products , 2018 .

[10]  E. Komatsu,et al.  Annual Report 2017 , 2018 .

[11]  A. Hobday,et al.  Tunas and their fisheries: safeguarding sustainability in the twenty-first century , 2017, Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries.

[12]  Samantha H. Cheng,et al.  Using DNA barcoding to track seafood mislabeling in Los Angeles restaurants , 2017, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[13]  A. Gordoa,et al.  Tuna Species Substitution in the Spanish Commercial Chain: A Knock-On Effect , 2017, PloS one.

[14]  A. Cariani,et al.  Putting all the pieces together: integrating current knowledge of the biology, ecology, fisheries status, stock structure and management of yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) , 2017, Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries.

[15]  D. Squires,et al.  Local, regional and global markets: what drives the tuna fisheries? , 2017, Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries.

[16]  N. Suzuki,et al.  Species and lineage identification for yellowfin Thunnus albacares and bigeye T. obesus tunas using two independent multiplex PCR assays , 2016, Fisheries Science.

[17]  B. Pérez-Villarreal,et al.  Misdescription incidents in seafood sector , 2016 .

[18]  Sudhir Kumar,et al.  MEGA7: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis Version 7.0 for Bigger Datasets. , 2016, Molecular biology and evolution.

[19]  H. Rehbein,et al.  The differentiation of tuna (family: Scombridae) products through the PCR-based analysis of the cytochrome b gene and parvalbumin introns. , 2016, Journal of the science of food and agriculture.

[20]  W. S. Lakra,et al.  Mislabeling in Indian seafood: An investigation using DNA barcoding , 2016 .

[21]  S. Mariani,et al.  Low mislabeling rates indicate marked improvements in European seafood market operations , 2015 .

[22]  Mehrdad Hajibabaei,et al.  A DNA Mini-Barcoding System for Authentication of Processed Fish Products , 2015, Scientific Reports.

[23]  A. Dettai,et al.  Fish mislabelling in France: substitution rates and retail types , 2015, PeerJ.

[24]  D. Bates,et al.  Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4 , 2014, 1406.5823.

[25]  A. Lambert,et al.  ABGD, Automatic Barcode Gap Discovery for primary species delimitation , 2012, Molecular ecology.

[26]  Rosalee S. Hellberg,et al.  Advances in DNA-Based Techniques for the Detection of Seafood Species Substitution on the Commercial Market , 2011, Journal of laboratory automation.

[27]  S. Botti,et al.  Oligonucleotide indexing of DNA barcodes: identification of tuna and other scombrid species in food products , 2010, BMC Biotechnology.

[28]  P. Galli,et al.  DNA barcoding reveals fraudulent substitutions in shark seafood products: The Italian case of “palombo” (Mustelus spp.) , 2010 .

[29]  G. Amato,et al.  The Real maccoyii: Identifying Tuna Sushi with DNA Barcodes – Contrasting Characteristic Attributes and Genetic Distances , 2009, PloS one.

[30]  Sergi Tudela,et al.  A Validated Methodology for Genetic Identification of Tuna Species (Genus Thunnus) , 2009, PloS one.

[31]  Mollie E. Brooks,et al.  Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. , 2009, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[32]  Daniel Pauly,et al.  Funding Priorities: Big Barriers to Small‐Scale Fisheries , 2008, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[33]  R. S. Rasmussen,et al.  DNA-Based Methods for the Identification of Commercial Fish and Seafood Species. , 2008, Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety.

[34]  R. Pérez-Martín,et al.  Comparison of DNA extraction methods from muscle of canned tuna for species identification , 2007 .

[35]  Elena Maestri,et al.  Applicability of SCAR markers to food genomics: olive oil traceability. , 2007, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry.

[36]  M. T. Bottero,et al.  Differentiation of five tuna species by a multiplex primer-extension assay. , 2007, Journal of biotechnology.

[37]  Mehrdad Hajibabaei,et al.  A minimalist barcode can identify a specimen whose DNA is degraded , 2006 .

[38]  R. Ward,et al.  DNA barcoding Australia's fish species , 2005, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[39]  Nelson Marmiroli,et al.  Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the genomic DNA extracted from GMO and non-GMO foodstuffs with four different extraction methods. , 2004, Journal of agricultural and food chemistry.

[40]  M. Pardo,et al.  Identification of commercial canned tuna species by restriction site analysis of mitochondrial DNA products obtained by nested primer PCR , 2004 .

[41]  Philipp Weller,et al.  The effect of processing parameters on DNA degradation in food , 2003 .

[42]  Jeremy R. deWaard,et al.  Biological identifications through DNA barcodes , 2003, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[43]  J. Lenstra,et al.  2 – DNA methods for identifying plant and animal species in food , 2003 .

[44]  Dennis A. Benson,et al.  GenBank , 2007, Nucleic Acids Res..

[45]  Ricardo I. Pérez-Martín,et al.  Use of mtDNA Direct Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) Sequencing and PCR-Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism Methodologies in Species Identification of Canned Tuna , 1998 .