Advertisement

Food Analytical Methods

, Volume 12, Issue 11, pp 2474–2479 | Cite as

Multi-instrument Evaluation of a Real-time PCR Assay for Identification of Atlantic Salmon: a Case Study on the Use of a Pre-packaged Kit for Rapid Seafood Species Identification

  • Amanda M. NaaumEmail author
  • Rosalee S. Hellberg
  • Tara A. Okuma
  • Robert H. Hanner
Article
  • 61 Downloads

Abstract

Protecting the seafood supply chain from species substitution is critical for economic, health, and conservation reasons. DNA-based methods represent an effective means to detect species substitution, but current methods can be time consuming or costly, and require specialized instruments and operators. Real-time PCR provides an alternative that can be performed quickly, and in some cases even on-site. The use of commercial kits reduces the expertise required by the operator and therefore increases accessibility to testing. This potentially increases the likelihood of adoption into the supply chain, but only if the kits are robust across multiple operators, instruments, and samples. In this study, the InstantID™ Atlantic salmon kits were tested on a variety of instruments with market samples of fresh, frozen, smoked, and canned Atlantic salmon. Results were repeatable across all samples and instruments tested. This kit, and others like it that have undergone appropriate evaluation, represents a means for expanded access to testing for industry or regulators to screen seafood for species authenticity. Portable equipment can bring testing on-site, further reducing analysis time.

Keywords

Real-time PCR Atlantic salmon Food authenticity Species substitution 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Marco Bisoffi, Ph.D., for use of the CFX Connect. They are grateful for the technical support and equipment provided by teams at InstantLabs and Biomeme.

Funding Information

This work was partially funded by a University of Guelph Commercialization Grant and by a Canadian Food Inspection Agency Federal Assistance Partnership program.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

These kits were manufactured using primers and a probe designed at the University of Guelph for use by InstantLabs. The authors currently have no financial or personal investment with InstantLabs. No input from InstantLabs was made into the design, outcome, or reporting of results for this study and no financial gain was made by any of the parties involved in this study. A. Naaum and R. Hanner are involved with a separate commercial company offering authenticity testing services for food and natural health products, but which also had no oversight of this study, made no financial gain, and provided no funding. R. Hellberg and T. Okuma declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was not applicable in this study.

References

  1. Bourque DA, Naaum AM, Distel DL, Hanner RH (2017) Whole genome amplification provides suitable control DNA for use in DNA barcoding applications. Biopreserv Biobank 15.  https://doi.org/10.1089/bio.2016.0078 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carvalhoa DC, Guedes D, Trinidade MG, Coelh RMS, Araujo PHL (2017) Nationwide Brazilian governmental forensic programme reveals seafood mislabelling trends and rates using DNA barcoding. Fish Res 191:30–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cawthorn DM, Hoffman LC (2017) Deceit with decapods? Evaluating labelling accuracy of crustacean products in South Africa. Food Control 73:741–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cawthorn DM, Mariani S (2017) Global trade statistics lack granularity to inform traceability and management of diverse and high-value fishes. Sci Rep 7:12852.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-12301-x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Chang CH, Lin HY, Ren Q, Lin YS, Shao KT (2016) DNA barcode identification of fish products in Taiwan: Government-commissioned authentication cases. Food Control 66:38–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Charlebois S, Juhasz M, Foti L, Chamberlain S (2017) Food fraud and risk perception: awareness in Canada and projected trust on risk-mitigating agents. J Int Food Agribus Market 29:260–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chin TC, Adibah AB, Danial Hariz ZA, Siti Azizah MN (2016) Detection of mislabelled seafood products in Malaysia by DNA barcoding: improving transparency in food market. Food Control 64:247–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. FAO (2014) The State of world fisheries and aquaculture http://www.fao.org/resources/infographics/infographics-details/en/c/231544/. Accessed 9 Jan 2018
  9. Galimberti A, De Mattia F, Losa A, Bruni I, Federici S, Casiraghi M, Martellos S, Labra M (2013) DNA barcoding as a new tool for food traceability. Food Res Int 50:55–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Handy SM, Deeds JR, Ivanova NV, Hebert PDN, Hanner RH, Ormos A, Weigt LA, Moore MM, Yancy HF (2011) A single-laboratory validated method for the generation of DNA barcodes for the identification of fish for regulatory compliance. J. AOAC Int 94:201–210Google Scholar
  11. Kyrova V, Surmanova P, Ostry V, Rehurkova I, Ruprich J, Jechova M (2017) Sea fish fraud? A confirmation of gadoid species food labelling. Br Food J 119:122–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mariani S, Griffiths AM, Velasco A, Kappel K, Jérôme M, Perez-Martin RI, Schröder U, Verrez-Bagnis V, Silva H, Vandamme SG, Boufana B, Mendes R, Shorten M, Smith C, Hankard E, Hook SA, Weymer AS, Gunning D, Sotelo CG (2015) Low mislabeling rates indicate marked improvements in European seafood market operations. Front Ecol Environ 13:536–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Munoz-Colmenero M, Juanes F, Dopico E, Martinez JL, Garcia-Vazquez E (2017) Economy matters: a study of mislabeling in salmon products from two regions, Alaska and Canada (Northwest of America) and Asturias (Northwest of Spain). Fish Res 195:180–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Naaum AM, Hanner R (2016) Seafood traceability and authenticity: a DNA-based perspective. Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  15. Nedunoori A, Turanov SV, Kartavtsev YP (2017) Fish product mislabeling identified in the Russian far east using DNA barcoding. Gene Rep 8:144–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rasmussen Hellberg RS, Naaum AM, Handy SM, Hanner RH, Deeds JR, Yancy HF, Morrissey MT (2011) Interlaboratory evaluation of a real-time multiplex polymerase chain reaction method for identification of salmon and trout species in commercial products. J Agric Food Chem 59:876–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Stern DB, Nallar EC, Rathod J, Crandall KA (2017) DNA barcoding analysis of seafood accuracy in Washington, D.C. restaurants. PeerJ 5.  https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3234 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amanda M. Naaum
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Rosalee S. Hellberg
    • 3
  • Tara A. Okuma
    • 3
  • Robert H. Hanner
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Integrative BiologyUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada
  2. 2.Biodiversity Institute of OntarioUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada
  3. 3.Food Science ProgramChapman UniversityOrangeUSA

Personalised recommendations