Document Type


Publication Date



DNA barcoding is a powerful sequencing-based tool for the detection of fish species substitution. However, various cooking methods have the potential to reduce the quality and success of DNA sequencing. The objective of this study was to determine the effects of common cooking methods on DNA sequencing results with both full-length (655 bp) and mini-barcodes (208–226 bp), and to determine the optimal methodology to use for species identification of various fish products. Six types of fish (salmon, tuna, scad, pollock, swai and tilapia) were prepared in triplicate using the following methods: uncooked, baked, fried, broiled, acid-cooked, smoked and canned. DNA was extracted from each sample and tested using full and mini-barcoding of the cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) gene. The resulting sequences were compared based on quality parameters, success rates, and genetic identifications. SH-E mini-barcoding showed the highest overall success rates (92–94%), followed by full barcoding (90%), and SH-D mini-barcoding (67–90%). Across the individual cooking methods, SH-E mini-barcodes performed as well or better than full barcodes for most samples. The sequencing results were fairly consistent across cooking methods with the exception of canning, which showed marked decreases in sequencing success, quality, and length. Despite the reduced sequence length of mini-barcodes compared to full barcodes, identification of fish species was largely consistent across the methods. Overall, the results of this study show that DNA barcoding is a robust tool for fish species identification, and that mini-barcoding has high potential for use as a complement to full barcoding.


NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Food Control. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Food Control, volume 84, in 2017. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2017.08.013

The Creative Commons license below applies only to this version of the article.

Peer Reviewed




Creative Commons License

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.