Scholarlink

<p>Seafood products are susceptible to misidentification or fraudulent practices, especially substitution by other species due to relatively similar appearances. This study investigates seafood misrepresentation in the e-commerce markets of Thailand and evaluates the efficiency of two DNA barcoding primers, barcode-COI and mini-COI. Forty-six seafood samples, including fish (salmon, cod, halibut, and tilapia), shrimps, and fish parts (collar bone, head, and tail meats of sushi products), were analyzed using 703&#xa0;bp barcode-COI and 295&#xa0;bp mini-COI primers. The 18S rRNA primers were used as endogenous control. The barcode-COI primers exhibited higher amplification success and species identification accuracy across 46 seafood samples, compared to the mini-COI primers, which successfully amplified only 37 samples. The mini-COI primer posed challenges due to non-specific binding, which led to 12 ambiguous chromatograms. Overall, the mislabeled samples identified by barcode-COI was 24%, while mini-COI detected 7% with an additional 11% as ambiguous identification. Phylogenetic analysis revealed that none of the primer pairs could distinguish Atlantic Bluefin tuna (<i>Thunnus thynnus</i>) and Pacific Bluefin tuna (<i>Thunnus orientalis</i>) due to high sequence similarity. As per the IUCN red list for endangered species, Bluefin tuna (<i>T. maccoyii</i>, <i>T. thynnus</i>) are categorized as endangered species. This study underscores the importance of primer selection and identification reliability. These findings emphasize the need for rigorous primer validation to ensure accurate detection of seafood mislabeling.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparative Study Between COI and Mini-COI Primers for Authentication of Seafood Sold in the Thai E-commerce Market

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月17日

查看全文
  • Deep Nithun Senathipathi,
  • Jirakrit Saetang,
  • Matsapume Detcharoen,
  • Soottawat Benjakul,
  • Phutthipong Sukkapat,
  • Gururaj Moorthy

摘要

Seafood products are susceptible to misidentification or fraudulent practices, especially substitution by other species due to relatively similar appearances. This study investigates seafood misrepresentation in the e-commerce markets of Thailand and evaluates the efficiency of two DNA barcoding primers, barcode-COI and mini-COI. Forty-six seafood samples, including fish (salmon, cod, halibut, and tilapia), shrimps, and fish parts (collar bone, head, and tail meats of sushi products), were analyzed using 703 bp barcode-COI and 295 bp mini-COI primers. The 18S rRNA primers were used as endogenous control. The barcode-COI primers exhibited higher amplification success and species identification accuracy across 46 seafood samples, compared to the mini-COI primers, which successfully amplified only 37 samples. The mini-COI primer posed challenges due to non-specific binding, which led to 12 ambiguous chromatograms. Overall, the mislabeled samples identified by barcode-COI was 24%, while mini-COI detected 7% with an additional 11% as ambiguous identification. Phylogenetic analysis revealed that none of the primer pairs could distinguish Atlantic Bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) and Pacific Bluefin tuna (Thunnus orientalis) due to high sequence similarity. As per the IUCN red list for endangered species, Bluefin tuna (T. maccoyii, T. thynnus) are categorized as endangered species. This study underscores the importance of primer selection and identification reliability. These findings emphasize the need for rigorous primer validation to ensure accurate detection of seafood mislabeling.