Comparison of DNA Extraction Methods for the Detection of Canned Tuna Species with DNA Mini-Barcoding

Table 2

PCR amplification consistency and sequencing quality parameters for 24 canned tuna samples extracted in duplicate with four different DNA extraction methods.

DNA extraction methods	Consistency of PCR amplification (%)	Number of samples sequenced	Sequencing quality parameters (ave ± stdev)
			Sequence length (bp)	High quality bases (%)	Ambiguities (%)
DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit	87.5	10	231 ± 11.53	86.1 ± 0.22	0.00 ± 0.00
DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit plus PowerClean Kit	91.7	5	228 ± 12.90	88.4 ± 0.10	0.00 ± 0.01
MP FastPrep plus NucleoSpin Tissue Kit	87.5	7	232 ± 12.61	76.4 ± 0.27	0.01 ± 0.01
DNeasy Mericon Food Kit	79.2	10	234 ± 2.18	74.3 ± 0.24	0.00 ± 0.01

A sample was considered consistent if both duplicates showed the same result for amplification. There were no significant differences () in the sequencing quality parameters across the four extraction methods, according to a Kruskal–Wallis H test.