Next Article in Journal
Use of Artificial Neural Networks and NIR Spectroscopy for Non-Destructive Grape Texture Prediction
Previous Article in Journal
Preparation of Water-in-Oil Nanoemulsions Loaded with Phenolic-Rich Olive Cake Extract Using Response Surface Methodology Approach
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Multiplex PCR Assay Combined with Capillary Electrophoresis for the Simultaneous Identification of Atlantic Cod, Pacific Cod, Blue Whiting, Haddock, and Alaska Pollock
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 11
Issue 3
10.3390/foods11030280
foods-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Communication

Multiplex PCR Assay for Simultaneous Identification of Five Types of Tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis, Thunnus alalonga, T. albacares, T. obesus and T. thynnus)

by
Ga-Young Lee
,
Seung-Man Suh
,
Yu-Min Lee
and
Hae-Yeong Kim
*
Institute of Life Sciences & Resources, Department of Food Science & Biotechnology, Kyung Hee University, Yongin 17104, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2022, 11(3), 280; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11030280
Submission received: 28 December 2021 / Revised: 17 January 2022 / Accepted: 18 January 2022 / Published: 20 January 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue DNA-Based Authentication of Fish and Fish Products)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
There is a need to identify the species of similar types of fish, especially those that are commercially sold. Particularly, the price of tuna varies depending on its type, which is difficult to determine as they are sold in cut or processed forms. This study developed a multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay to identify the five most common tuna species: bigeye, skipjack, Atlantic bluefin, albacore, and yellowfin tunas. Newly designed species-specific primer sets for these five tuna species were created. Subsequently, the amplicon sizes obtained were 270, 238, 200, 178, and 127 base pairs for bigeye, skipjack, Atlantic bluefin, albacore, and yellowfin tunas, respectively. Each primer’s specificity was further tested using 15 other fish species, and no cross-reactivity was observed. To identify multiple targets in a single reaction, multiplex PCR was optimized to increase its resolution and accuracy. The detection levels of the multiplex PCR assay were confirmed to be 1 pg for all the five tunas. Additionally, it was successfully applied to 32 types of commercial tuna products. Therefore, this multiplex PCR assay could be an efficient identification method for various tuna species.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Recently, species identification in fish and fishery products has been a topic of increasing concern [1,2,3]. Seafood fraud occurs due to intentional fish species substitution and the incorrect labeling of fresh or processed fishery products. Tuna is one of the most popular fish [4] with a high consumption rate. However, since tuna is usually sold in vacuum-packaged pieces or canned form [5], its morphological characteristics cannot be distinguished, making accurate species identification difficult [6]. Additionally, the quality and price of each tuna species are different [4]. For this reason, fraudulent substitutions may occur with relatively inexpensive species (e.g., Katsuwonus pelamis) [1], which means that identification of the fish species is important to avoid fraudulent and vague labeling of canned tuna [7]. Therefore, analysis procedures for the identification of different tuna species are required.
Protein-based assays for fish species identification have been previously reported, such as isoelectric focusing, isoelectric focusing in immobilized pH gradients, two-dimensional electrophoresis, and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15]. However, protein-based analytical methods for species identification are limited because of the proclivity of proteins to denature during heat and high-pressure treatment [16]. DNA-based methods can also be employed to characterize seafood species [17]. Compared to proteins, DNA is more stable during heat and high-pressure processing [18,19]. In addition, mitochondria remain after processing, which avoids DNA loss, and since mitochondrial DNA is more abundant than nuclear DNA, it is easier to detect [20,21]. Real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) [4,5,22,23,24], multiple PCR [19,21,25,26], loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) [6], PCR restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP) [7,27], and others have been reported as viable DNA-based PCR techniques for tuna species identification. Real-time PCR assays require an expensive machine and have the disadvantage that it must be done by skilled experimenters. On the other hand, multiplex PCR assays use a simple PCR machine and a gel-doc system available in most laboratories [28]. Additionally, in the classical PCR, template DNA of a single species is amplified in a single PCR run, requiring several runs to detect multiple target species, resulting in additional cost and time [29]. However, multiplex PCR amplifies multiple DNA templates simultaneously in a single reaction, making it both cost- and time-effective [30,31,32].
The most commercially available tuna species are Katsuwonus pelamis, Thunnus alalonga, T. albacares, T. obesus, and T. thynnus. Previous studies involving multiplex PCR targeting these species included multiplex primer-extension assays [25].
Therefore, this study aimed to develop a multiplex PCR assay for the rapid and sensitive detection of five commercially available tuna species.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Samples

The five species of tuna: bigeye (T. obesus), skipjack (K. pelamis), Atlantic bluefin (T. thynnus), albacore (T. alalunga), and yellowfin (T. albacares) and longtooth grouper (Epinephelus bruneus), convict grouper (Epinephelus septemfasciatus), marlin (Tetrapturus angustirostris), and sailfish (Istiophorus platypterus) were obtained from the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (Osong, Korea) as reference samples. Eleven other nontarget seafood (fish) products such as common carp (Cyprinus carpio), goldfish (Carassius auratus), Chinese muddy loach (Misgurnus mizolepis), snakehead (Channa argus), Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus), Alaska pollock (G. chalcogrammus), Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), Pacific saury (Cololabis saira), Pacific chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus), Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), and masu salmon (Oncorhynchus masou) were purchased from the online store and morphologically confirmed through the image database of the National Institute of Fisheries Science. Thirty-two processed food products were purchased from online shops in Korea as monitoring samples. All samples were stored at −20 °C prior to DNA extraction.

2.2. DNA Extraction

Fresh raw materials were used for specificity and limit of detection (LOD), and processed tuna products, including dried, heated, and canned products, were used as the monitoring samples. DNA was extracted from 25-mg ground samples using the DNeasy Tissue Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany), as per the manufacturer’s instructions, except for from canned tuna, which was pretreated in water to remove oil and lipids. Then, DNA was extracted from the pretreated canned tuna using the cetyl trimethyl ammonium bromide method [32,33]. The extracted DNA’s concentration and purity were measured using a Maestro Nano Micro-Volume Spectrophotometer (Maestro, Las Vegas, NV, USA).

2.3. Species-Specific Multiplex Primer Design

The target genes of bigeye, skipjack, Atlantic bluefin, albacore, and yellowfin tunas were selected from their mitochondrial DNA sequences. The gene sequences of the five tuna species and the 15 nontarget species were obtained from the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/, accessed on 21 August 2021) and aligned using the Clustal Omega program (http://www.ebi.ac.uk/Tools/msa/clustalo/, accessed on 21 August 2021). Primers were designed by the Primer Design program version 3.0 (Scientific and Educational Software, Durham, NC, USA) and synthesized by Bionics (Seoul, Korea); their sequences and details are listed in Table 1. The sequence alignment of the target gene and the position of the designed primer are shown in Figure S1.

2.4. Single and Multiplex PCR

Single PCR was conducted under the following conditions: the final volume was 25 µL, containing 2.5 µL 10× buffer (Bioneer, Daejeon, Korea), 0.2 mM dNTPs, 0.5 unit Hot Start Taq DNA polymerase (Bioneer), 0.4 µM of each primer, and 10 ng template DNA. Amplification was conducted in a thermal cycler (Model PC 808, ASTEC, Fukuoka, Japan) as follows: predenaturation at 95 °C for 5 min; 40 cycles of 95 °C for 30 s, 62 °C for 30 s, and 72 °C for 30 s; and a final extension at 72 °C for 5 min. The amplification products were electrophoresed on 2% agarose gel stained with ethidium bromide at 150 V for 12 min.
For multiplex PCR, the optimized concentration of primers (Table 1) and 1 unit of Hot Start Taq DNA polymerase were used, and the rest of the conditions were the same as single PCR. The amplification products from the multiplex PCR were electrophoresed on 3% agarose gel stained with ethidium bromide at 150 V for 30 min. Additionally, capillary electrophoresis was conducted using an Agilent 2100 Bioanalyzer (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) to confirm the sensitive accuracy of multiplex PCR.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Species-Specific Multiplex Primer Design

The mitochondrial DNA of Atlantic bluefin tuna was found to be ≥98% and 97% identical to that of yellowfin and bigeye tunas and albacore tuna, respectively. The degree of similarity was further confirmed by Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST) search on the NCBI database. Koenig and Ziebell (2014) developed a primer with a modified base sequence for the real-time PCR detection [34]. We develop a species-specific primer with a modified base sequence for Atlantic bluefin tuna.

3.2. Specificity and Sensitivity of Single PCR

To verify the designed primer’s specificity, single PCR was conducted with the DNA extracted from raw materials. The bigeye, skipjack, Atlantic bluefin, albacore, and yellowfin tuna primers produced amplification products of 270, 238, 200, 178, and 172 base pairs, respectively. The primers did not cross-react with the 15 nontarget species, including common carp, goldfish, Chinese muddy loach, snakehead, Pacific cod, Alaska pollock, Nile tilapia, Pacific saury, Pacific chub mackerel, longtooth grouper, convict grouper, Atlantic salmon, masu salmon, marlin, and sailfish (Figure 1).
Additionally, each primer underwent sensitivity tests. Primer sensitivity was confirmed by diluting the DNA of the target species by 10-fold, from 10 ng to 0.00001 ng. Skipjack tuna demonstrated a sensitivity of 1 pg, bigeye tuna of 0.1 pg, and albacore, yellowfin, and Atlantic bluefin tunas of 0.01 pg (Figure 2). Compared to previous study [35], the primers developed in this study could detect bigeye, skipjack, albacore, and yellowfin tunas’ DNA even in low concentrations. Conventional PCR has been reported to be less specific and sensitive than real-time PCR [35,36]. However, the assay conducted in this study based on conventional PCR had higher detection sensitivity than reported by previous studies. The sensitivities of bigeye, albacore, yellowfin, and skipjack tunas in the real-time PCR assay were 1.81, 1.68, 4.49, and 2.41 pg, respectively [35]. Therefore, the detection limit of the method used in this study was within 0.01 pg, which indicates that it is more sensitive than other methods.

3.3. Specificity and Sensitivity of Multiplex PCR

To determine the optimal concentration of multiplex PCR primer sets, we performed preliminary experiments (data not shown). As a result, we found that the multiplex PCR condition (i.e., 1.4 µM/1.2 µM/0.4 µM/0.6 µM/1.2 µM for bigeye tuna/skipjack tuna/Atlantic bluefin tuna/albacore tuna/yellowfin tuna, respectively) was most suitable considering the cross-reactivity of the primer sets and sensitivity. The multiplex PCR was optimized by setting the annealing temperature and time to 62 °C and 30 s, respectively, which is the same as single PCR. This optimized multiplex PCR was developed for the simultaneous identification of the five types of tuna. Additionally, the specificity of multiplex PCR was confirmed by gel electrophoresis. The target fish species was amplified by its specific primer and no nonspecific band or false-positive amplification of the negative control group was observed (Figure 3).
The sensitivity of multiplex PCR was confirmed by gel (Figure 4) and capillary electrophoreses (Figure 5) using diluted DNA (10 ng to 0.01 pg). Capillary electrophoresis has been reported to provide higher resolution than agarose-based electrophoresis when distinguishing DNA amplicons [36]. Then, the multiplex PCR method coupled with capillary electrophoresis was conducted to detect the five species of tunas [36]. The sensitivity of the developed multiplex PCR detected by capillary and agarose-based electrophoreses was 1 pg (Figure 4 and Figure 5). Similar studies have reported a sensitivity of 5 ng for tuna and billfish and 1 ng for blowfish and freshwater fish species [26,37,38]. Our assay demonstrates better sensitivity than those in previously reported studies. These results indicated that primers specific for the five tuna species did not cross-react with nontarget species and only amplified the target species, which enabled discrimination among the five similar species. Additionally, this assay displays a sensitivity of 1 pg, which provides accuracy and sensitivity in the detection and differentiation of the target species from the five tuna species. The detailed data on specificity, accuracy, and sensitivity calculated in accordance with ISO standards are shown in Table S1.

3.4. Application and Validation toward Commercial Food Products

To evaluate the applicability of the multiplex PCR assay developed in this study, we employed it to identify the presence of the five species of tuna in 32 commercial tuna and food products (18 raw tunas, 12 tuna cans, and 2 dried tunas) (Table 2) by three different experimenters. The results obtained were compared to the species that was indicated on the label of the products to determine its correctness. As shown in Table 2, commercially available tuna and food products displayed contradictory results for tuna species when compared to what was indicated in their labels.
Five (numbers 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32) of the twelve cans had no tuna species identification on their labeling. Consequently, the product labeled “Light Tuna” comprised a mixture of several tuna species. Atlantic bluefin and albacore tunas were mixed in three of the five products (numbers 28, 29, and 31). Of the two other products, one (number 30) contained skipjack, Atlantic bluefin, and albacore tunas, and the other (number 32) included Atlantic bluefin, albacore, and yellowfin tunas. In the remaining seven cans (numbers 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 22, and 23), the tuna content of only two products (numbers 22 and 23) matched their labels. Five cans (numbers 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12) were labeled with skipjack tuna, one (number 22) with albacore tuna, and the remaining one (number 23) with yellowfin tuna. Of the five skipjack-marked tuna cans, two contained yellowfin and albacore tunas (numbers 8 and 11, respectively) and two (numbers 9 and 12) contained a mixture of Atlantic bluefin and albacore tunas. The remaining one (number 10) was a mixture of skipjack, Atlantic bluefin, and albacore tunas. Of the 18 raw tunas, 14 amplified a species that matched their respective labels and 4 (numbers 2, 6, 24, and 26) amplified a species that did not match their respective labels. Of the two products (numbers 2 and 6) marked with bigeye tuna, one (number 2) amplified yellowfin tuna and the other (number 6) amplified the Atlantic bluefin tuna, and the two products (number 24 and 26) marked as yellowfin tuna amplified the Atlantic bluefin tuna. Dried tunas (numbers 7 and 17) amplified a species that did not match their corresponding labeling. The product marked as dried skipjack tuna (number 7) contained a mixture of skipjack, Atlantic bluefin, and yellowfin tunas. It was also confirmed that the dried product (number 17) marked as Atlantic bluefin tuna contained albacore tuna.
To identify the PCR amplicons of commercial samples that were inconsistent with their labels, a single PCR was conducted with each primer of the amplified target. The PCR amplicons were then isolated and sequenced. The results of the single PCR were consistent with those of the multiplex PCR (Table 2 and Figure 6). Furthermore, the nucleotide sequences of the PCR product were compared with BLAST nucleotide sequences in the NCBI database (data not shown). The sequencing results were identical to those shown in Table 2, indicating that a few commercial samples were mislabeled or mixed with species other than what their labels specified.
Servusova and Piskata (2021) tested 70 samples and reported 12 products to be mislabeled, and 2 products to be a mixture of two species [22]. Bojolly et al. (2017) tested 10 commercial products labeled with yellowfin tuna, five of which were found to be a mixture of yellowfin and skipjack tunas [24]. Substitutions among tuna species occur during the filleting and can manufacturing processes, leading to inaccurate labels [24]. Additionally, the identification of the species is difficult due to processes such as sterilization, and hence, species other than the marked species may be present. In addition, some Atlantic populations of T. thynnus might exhibit introgression of mitochondrial DNA from T. alalonga [39]. Therefore, some mislabeling involving Atlantic bluefin and albacore tunas could remain undetected [40]. However, with single and multiplex specificity verification, the primers developed in this study can be used as genetic markers for tuna species identification.

4. Conclusions

We designed five primer sets to develop the multiplex PCR for simultaneously distinguishing and identifying five tuna species (bigeye, skipjack, Atlantic bluefin, albacore, and yellowfin tunas). Primer sets for multiplex PCR assay were species-specific and sensitive with a 1 pg detection limit. The applicability test accurately identified the types of tuna in commercial tuna products. Hence, this multiplex PCR assay can be employed to confirm the validity of the labels of highly degraded, commercially processed foods quickly and at low cost.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/foods11030280/s1, Figure S1: Sequence alignment of Cyb (A,B), NADH4 (C), ATP6 (D), and NADH5 (E) gene and designation of species-specific primers, Table S1: Specificity, accuracy, and sensitivity calculated in accordance with ISO standards.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.-Y.K.; formal analysis, G.-Y.L., S.-M.S. and Y.-M.L.; investigation, G.-Y.L.; methodology, G.-Y.L. and H.-Y.K.; validation, S.-M.S. and Y.-M.L.; writing—original draft preparation, G.-Y.L.; writing—review and editing, G.-Y.L. and H.-Y.K.; supervision, H.-Y.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety in Korea, grant number 17162MFDS065.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Pardo, M.A.; Pérez-Villareal, B. Identification of commercial canned tuna species by restriction site analysis of mitochondrial DNA products obtained by nested primer PCR. Food Chem. 2004, 86, 143–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ceruso, M.; Mascolo, C.; Anastasio, A.; Pepe, T.; Sordino, P. Frauds and fish species authentication: Study of the complete mitochondrial genome of some Sparidae to provide specific barcode markers. Food Control 2019, 103, 36–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ceruso, M.; Mascolo, C.; De Luca, P.; Venuti, I.; Smaldone, G.; Biffali, E.; Anastasio, A.; Pepe, T.; Sordino, P. A Rapid Method for the Identification of Fresh and Processed Pagellus erythrinus Species against Frauds. Foods 2020, 9, 1397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Krcmar, P.; Piskata, Z.; Servusova, E. Identification of tuna species thunnus albacares and katsuwonus pelamis in canned products by real-time PCR method. Acta Vet. Brno 2019, 88, 323–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Dalmasso, A.; Fontanella, E.; Piatti, P.; Civera, T.; Secchi, C.; Bottero, M.T. Identification of four tuna species by means of real-time PCR and melting curve analysis. Vet. Res. Commun. 2007, 31, 355–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Xu, W.; Li, Q.; Cui, X.; Cao, M.; Xiong, X.; Wang, L.; Xiong, X. Real-time Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification (LAMP) Using Self-quenching Fluorogenic Probes: The Application in Skipjack Tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) Authentication. Food Anal. Methods, 2021; in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lin, W.-F.; Hwang, D.-F. Application of PCR-RFLP analysis on species identification of canned tuna. Food Control 2007, 18, 1050–1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Guglielmetti, C.; Brusadore, S.; Sciuto, S.; Esposito, G.; Manfredi, M.; Marengo, E.; Bozzetta, E.; Acutis, P.L.; Mazza, M. Wild or Farmed Gilthead Seabream (Sparus aurata)? How to Distinguish between Them by Two-Dimensional Gel Electrophoresis. J. Food Prot. 2021, 84, 592–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kwok, C.S.-N.; Lai, K.K.-Y.; Lam, S.-W.; Chan, K.-K.; Xu, S.J.-L.; Lee, F.W.-F. Production of high-quality two-dimensional gel electrophoresis profile for marine medaka samples by using Trizol-based protein extraction approaches. Proteome Sci. 2020, 18, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Berrini, A.; Tepedino, V.; Borromeo, V.; Secchi, C. Identification of freshwater fish commercially labelled “perch” by isoelectric focusing and two-dimensional electrophoresis. Food Chem. 2006, 96, 163–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Carrera, E.; Terni, M.; Montero, A.; García, T.; González, I.; Martín, R. ELISA-based detection of mislabeled albacore (Thunnus alalunga) fresh and frozen fish fillets. Food Agric. Immunol. 2014, 25, 569–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Esteve-Romero, J.S.; Yman, I.M.; Bossi, A.; Righetti, P.G. Fish species identification by isoelectric focusing of parvalbumins in immobilized pH gradients. Electrophoresis 1996, 17, 1380–1385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ortea, I.; Cañas, B.; Calo-Mata, P.; Barros-Velázquez, J.; Gallardo, J.M. Identification of commercial prawn and shrimp species of food interest by native isoelectric focusing. Food Chem. 2010, 121, 569–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Pepe, T.; Ceruso, M.; Carpentieri, A.; Ventrone, I.; Amoresano, A.; Anastasio, A. Proteomics analysis for the identification of three species of Thunnus. Vet. Res. Commun. 2010, 34, 153–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Rehbein, H.; Etienne, M.; Jerome, M.; Hattula, T.; Knudsen, L.B.; Jessen, F.; Luten, J.B.; Bouquet, W.; Mackie, I.M.; Ritchie, A.H.; et al. Influence of variation in methodology on the reliability of the isoelectric focusing method of fish species identification. Food Chem. 1995, 52, 193–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Soares, S.; Amaral, J.S.; Oliveira, M.B.P.P.; Mafra, I. A SYBR Green real-time PCR assay to detect and quantify pork meat in processed poultry meat products. Meat Sci. 2013, 94, 115–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Naaum, A.M.; Hellberg, R.S.; Okuma, T.A.; Hanner, R.H. 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. Food Anal. Methods 2019, 12, 2474–2479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kim, M.J.; Kim, H.Y. A fast multiplex real-time PCR assay for simultaneous detection of pork, chicken, and beef in commercial processed meat products. Lwt 2019, 114, 108390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lin, W.F.; Hwang, D.F. A multiplex PCR assay for species identification of raw and cooked bonito. Food Control 2008, 19, 879–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Mascolo, C.; Ceruso, M.; Sordino, P.; Palma, G.; Anastasio, A.; Pepe, T. Comparison of mitochondrial DNA enrichment and sequencing methods from fish tissue. Food Chem. 2019, 294, 333–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Michelini, E.; Cevenini, L.; Mezzanotte, L.; Simoni, P.; Baraldini, M.; De Laude, L.; Roda, A. One-step triplex-polymerase chain reaction assay for the authentication of yellowfin (Thunnus albacares), bigeye (Thunnus obesus), and skipjack (Katsuwonus pelamis) tuna DNA from fresh, frozen, and canned tuna samples. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2007, 55, 7638–7647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Servusova, E.; Piskata, Z. Identification of selected tuna species in commercial products. Molecules 2021, 26, 1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chuang, P.S.; Chen, M.I.; Shiao, J.C. Identification of tuna species by a real-time polymerase chain reaction technique. Food Chem. 2012, 133, 1055–1061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bojolly, D.; Doyen, P.; Le Fur, B.; Christaki, U.; Verrez-Bagnis, V.; Grard, T. Development of a qPCR method for the identification and quantification of two closely related tuna species, bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) and Yellowfin Tuna (Thunnus albacares), in canned tuna. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2017, 65, 913–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Bottero, M.T.; Dalmasso, A.; Cappelletti, M.; Secchi, C.; Civera, T. Differentiation of five tuna species by a multiplex primer-extension assay. J. Biotechnol. 2007, 129, 575–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Kim, N.Y.S.; Park, E.J.; Lee, S.H.; Mun, K.H.; Yang, J.Y.; Kim, J.B. Development and validation of multiplex PCR assay for differentiating tunas and billfishes. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2021, 30, 497–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Xu, K.; Feng, J.; Ma, X.; Wang, X.; Zhou, D.; Dai, Z. Identification of tuna species (Thunnini tribe) by PCR-RFLP analysis of mitochondrial DNA fragments. Food Agric. Immunol. 2016, 27, 301–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ahamad, M.N.U.; Ali, M.E.; Hossain, M.A.M.; Asing, A.; Sultana, S.; Jahurul, M.H.A. Multiplex PCR assay discriminates rabbit, rat and squirrel meat in food chain. Food Addit. Contam. Part A 2017, 34, 2043–2057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ali, M.E.; Razzak, M.A.; Hamid, S.B.A. Multiplex PCR in Species Authentication: Probability and Prospects—A Review. Food Anal. Methods 2014, 7, 1933–1949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Asensio Gil, L. PCR-based methods for fish and fishery products authentication. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2007, 18, 558–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zhang, C. Semi-nested multiplex PCR enhanced method sensitivity of species detection in further-processed meats. Food Control 2013, 31, 326–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Suh, S.M.; Park, S.B.; Kim, M.J.; Kim, H.Y. Simultaneous detection of fruit allergen-coding genes in tomato, apple, peach and kiwi through multiplex PCR. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2019, 28, 1593–1598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Chapela, M.J.; Sotelo, C.G.; Pérez-Martín, R.I.; Pardo, M.Á.; Pérez-Villareal, B.; Gilardi, P.; Riese, J. Comparison of DNA extraction methods from muscle of canned tuna for species identification. Food Control 2007, 18, 1211–1215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Koenig, R.; Ziebell, H. Sequence-modified primers for the differential RT-PCR detection of Andean potato latent and Andean potato mild mosaic viruses in quarantine tests. Arch. Virol. 2014, 159, 1169–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Liu, S.; Xu, K.; Wu, Z.; Xie, X.; Feng, J. Identification of five highly priced tuna species by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction. Mitochondrial DNA Part A 2016, 27, 3270–3279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lee, Y.-M.; Lee, S.; Kim, H.-Y. A Multiplex PCR Assay Combined with Capillary Electrophoresis for the Simultaneous Identification of Atlantic Cod, Pacific Cod, Blue Whiting, Haddock, and Alaska Pollock. Foods 2021, 10, 2631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Hulley, E.N.; Tharmalingam, S.; Zarnke, A.; Boreham, D.R. Development and validation of probe-based multiplex real-time PCR assays for the rapid and accurate detection of freshwater fish species. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0210165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Sangthong, P.; Ngernsiri, L.; Sangthong, D. Identification of Puffer Fish of the Genus Lagocephalus: L. lunaris, L. spadiceus and L. inermis, Using Multiplex PCR. Food Biotechnol. 2014, 28, 216–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Alvarado Bremer, J.R.; Viñas, J.; Mejuto, J.; Ely, B.; Pla, C. Comparative phylogeography of Atlantic bluefin tuna and swordfish: The combined effects of vicariance, secondary contact, introgression, and population expansion on the regional phylogenies of two highly migratory pelagic fishes. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2005, 36, 169–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Viñas, J.; Tudela, S. A Validated Methodology for Genetic Identification of Tuna Species (Genus Thunnus). PLoS ONE 2009, 4, e7606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Foods 11 00280 g001 550
Figure 1. Specificity of single PCR using newly designed primers. Lane M, 100-bp DNA ladder; lanes 1–23, bigeye tuna, skipjack tuna, Atlantic bluefin tuna, albacore tuna, yellowfin tuna, common carp, goldfish, Chinese muddy loach, snakehead, Pacific cod, Alaska pollock, Nile tilapia, Pacific saury, Pacific chub mackerel, longtooth grouper, convict grouper, Atlantic salmon, masu salmon, marlin, sailfish; lane N, non-template.
Figure 1. Specificity of single PCR using newly designed primers. Lane M, 100-bp DNA ladder; lanes 1–23, bigeye tuna, skipjack tuna, Atlantic bluefin tuna, albacore tuna, yellowfin tuna, common carp, goldfish, Chinese muddy loach, snakehead, Pacific cod, Alaska pollock, Nile tilapia, Pacific saury, Pacific chub mackerel, longtooth grouper, convict grouper, Atlantic salmon, masu salmon, marlin, sailfish; lane N, non-template.
Foods 11 00280 g001
Foods 11 00280 g002 550
Figure 2. Sensitivity of single PCR using newly designed primers. Lane M, 100-bp DNA ladder; lanes 1–7, positive gDNA 10, 1, 0.1, 0.01, 0.001, 0.0001, 0.00001 ng; lane N, non-template.
Figure 2. Sensitivity of single PCR using newly designed primers. Lane M, 100-bp DNA ladder; lanes 1–7, positive gDNA 10, 1, 0.1, 0.01, 0.001, 0.0001, 0.00001 ng; lane N, non-template.
Foods 11 00280 g002
Foods 11 00280 g003 550
Figure 3. Specificity of multiplex PCR. Lane M, 100-bp DNA ladder; lane P, positive control (10 ng of DNA from target species); lanes 1–20, bigeye tuna, skipjack tuna, Atlantic bluefin tuna, albacore tuna, yellowfin tuna, common carp, goldfish, Chinese muddy loach, snakehead, Pacific cod, Alaska pollock, Nile tilapia, Pacific saury, Pacific chub mackerel, longtooth grouper, convict grouper, Atlantic salmon, masu salmon, marlin, sailfish; lane N, non-template.
Figure 3. Specificity of multiplex PCR. Lane M, 100-bp DNA ladder; lane P, positive control (10 ng of DNA from target species); lanes 1–20, bigeye tuna, skipjack tuna, Atlantic bluefin tuna, albacore tuna, yellowfin tuna, common carp, goldfish, Chinese muddy loach, snakehead, Pacific cod, Alaska pollock, Nile tilapia, Pacific saury, Pacific chub mackerel, longtooth grouper, convict grouper, Atlantic salmon, masu salmon, marlin, sailfish; lane N, non-template.
Foods 11 00280 g003
Foods 11 00280 g004 550
Figure 4. Sensitivity of multiplex PCR. Lane M, 100-bp DNA ladder; lanes 1–7, positive gDNA 10, 1, 0.1, 0.01, 0.001, 0.0001, 0.00001 ng; lane N, non-template.
Figure 4. Sensitivity of multiplex PCR. Lane M, 100-bp DNA ladder; lanes 1–7, positive gDNA 10, 1, 0.1, 0.01, 0.001, 0.0001, 0.00001 ng; lane N, non-template.
Foods 11 00280 g004
Foods 11 00280 g005 550
Figure 5. Electropherograms of sensitivity results of the multiplex PCR assay. Gel image (A) and electropherograms (B). FU, fluorescence; M, alignment marker; lanes 1–7, positive gDNA 10, 1, 0.1, 0.01, 0.001, 0.0001, 0.00001 ng; lane N, non-template; a,b,c,d, and e indicate yellowfin tuna, albacore tuna, Atlantic bluefin tuna, skipjack tuna, bigeye tuna respectively.
Figure 5. Electropherograms of sensitivity results of the multiplex PCR assay. Gel image (A) and electropherograms (B). FU, fluorescence; M, alignment marker; lanes 1–7, positive gDNA 10, 1, 0.1, 0.01, 0.001, 0.0001, 0.00001 ng; lane N, non-template; a,b,c,d, and e indicate yellowfin tuna, albacore tuna, Atlantic bluefin tuna, skipjack tuna, bigeye tuna respectively.
Foods 11 00280 g005
Foods 11 00280 g006 550
Figure 6. Single PCR of the adulterated commercial sample. Lane M, 100 bp DNA ladder; lane P, positive control (10 ng of DNA from target species); lane N, non-template; the lane number matches the monitoring number in Table 2.
Figure 6. Single PCR of the adulterated commercial sample. Lane M, 100 bp DNA ladder; lane P, positive control (10 ng of DNA from target species); lane N, non-template; the lane number matches the monitoring number in Table 2.
Foods 11 00280 g006
Table
Table 1. Primers used in the multiplex PCR.
Table 1. Primers used in the multiplex PCR.
Target
Species		Target
Gene		Primer
Name		Sequence
(5′ → 3′)		Amplicon Size (bp)Concentration (μM)Accession No.Reference
Thunnus
obesus		ATP6Obe-FACT TGC ATT CCC CCT ATG G2701.4KY400011.1This study
Obe-RGCT GTT AGG ATT GCC ACA G
Katsuwonus pelamisCytbKat-FGGT CCT AGC TCT TCT TGC A2381.2NC_005316.1This study
Kat-RTGC AAG TGG GAA GAA GAT G
Thunnus thynnusNADH5Thy-FAAC TCT TTA TCG GGT GGG AG2000.4KF906720.1This study
Thy-R1 AGC GGT TAC GAA CAT TTG CTT C
Thunnus
alalunga		CytbAla-FGTT TCG TGA TCC TGC TAG TG1780.6NC_005317.1This study
Ala-RCCT CCT AGT TTG TTG GAA TAG AT
Thunnus
albacares		NADH4Alba-FCAT GAT TGC CCA CGG ACT TA1271.2KM588080.1This study
Alba-RTGT TGT TAT AAG GGG CAG C
1 The nucleotide sequence G was replaced with T (in bold).
Table
Table 2. Application and intra-laboratory validation results of the multiplex PCR assay to commercial tuna products.
Table 2. Application and intra-laboratory validation results of the multiplex PCR assay to commercial tuna products.
NoProduct TypeLabeled Species Multiplex PCR Results
Bigeye TunaSkipjack TunaAtlantic Bluefin TunaAlbacore
Tuna		Yellowfin Tuna
1RawBigeye tuna+++
2RawBigeye tuna +++
3RawBigeye tuna+++
4RawBigeye tuna+++
5RawBigeye tuna+++
6RawBigeye tuna +++
7DriedSkipjack tuna ++++++ +++
8CannedSkipjack tuna +++
9CannedSkipjack tuna ++++++
10CannedSkipjack tuna +++++++++
11CannedSkipjack tuna +++
12CannedSkipjack tuna ++++++
13RawSkipjack tuna +++
14RawSkipjack tuna +++
15RawSkipjack tuna +++
16RawSkipjack tuna +++
17DriedAtlantic bluefin tuna +++
18RawAtlantic bluefin tuna +++
19RawAtlantic bluefin tuna +++
20RawAtlantic bluefin tuna +++
21RawAtlantic bluefin tuna +++
22CannedAlbacore tuna +++
23CannedYellowfin tuna +++
24RawYellowfin tuna +++
25RawYellowfin tuna +++
26RawYellowfin tuna +++
27RawYellowfin tuna +++
28CannedLight Tuna ++++++
29CannedLight Tuna ++++++
30CannedLight Tuna +++++++++
31CannedLight Tuna ++++++
32CannedLight Tuna +++++++++
‘+’ means a positive result.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lee, G.-Y.; Suh, S.-M.; Lee, Y.-M.; Kim, H.-Y. Multiplex PCR Assay for Simultaneous Identification of Five Types of Tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis, Thunnus alalonga, T. albacares, T. obesus and T. thynnus). Foods 2022, 11, 280. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11030280

AMA Style

Lee G-Y, Suh S-M, Lee Y-M, Kim H-Y. Multiplex PCR Assay for Simultaneous Identification of Five Types of Tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis, Thunnus alalonga, T. albacares, T. obesus and T. thynnus). Foods. 2022; 11(3):280. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11030280

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lee, Ga-Young, Seung-Man Suh, Yu-Min Lee, and Hae-Yeong Kim. 2022. "Multiplex PCR Assay for Simultaneous Identification of Five Types of Tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis, Thunnus alalonga, T. albacares, T. obesus and T. thynnus)" Foods 11, no. 3: 280. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11030280

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop