{"title":"更正“DNA微型条形码检测金枪鱼罐头品种的DNA提取方法比较”","authors":"","doi":"10.1155/jfq/9828214","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>A. J. Emmi, B. Fatusin, and R. S. Hellberg, “Comparison of DNA Extraction Methods for the Detection of Canned Tuna Species with DNA Mini-Barcoding,” <i>Journal of Food Quality</i> 2023 (2023): 7121260, https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/7121260.</p><p>In the article, there are errors in Section 2.3:</p><p>“The reaction mixture for canned tuna fish samples included the following: 11.2 mL sterile H2O, 17.5 mL Qiagen HotStarTaq Plus Master Mix (2X), 0.7 mL each of one 10-μM forward primer (CR_F) and two 10-μM reverse primers (CR_R1 and CR_R2) (Mitchell and Hellberg, 2016), and 4.2 mL of DNA template, for a total reaction volume of 35 μL.”</p><p>Should read:</p><p>“The reaction mixture for canned tuna fish samples included the following: 11.2 μL sterile H2O, 17.5 μL Qiagen HotStarTaq Plus Master Mix (2X), 0.7 μL each of one 10-μM forward primer (CR_F) and two 10-μM reverse primers (CR_R1 and CR_R2) (Mitchell and Hellberg, 2016), and 4.2 μL of DNA template, for a total reaction volume of 35 μL.”</p><p>“Precast 2.0% E-Gels with ethidium bromide (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA) were used to confirm DNA amplification, with 20 mL PCR product loaded into each sample lane.”</p><p>Should read:</p><p>“Precast 2.0% E-Gels with ethidium bromide (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA) were used to confirm DNA amplification, with 20 μL PCR product loaded into each sample lane.”</p><p>Lastly, there are errors in Section 3.4:</p><p>“Legally, the term “light tuna” applies to tuna with a Munsell value not greater than 5.3, while the term “white tuna” is reserved specifically for albacore and must not exceed a Munsell value of 6.3 (21 CFR 161.190 canned tuna). The presence of albacore tuna in a sample labeled as “light tuna” was also reported by Mitchell and Hellberg [6]. Both instances of mislabeling identified in the current study could cause potential harm to at-risk groups, such as women and children, because of differences in mercury levels between tuna species.”</p><p>Should read:</p><p>“Section 3.4: Legally, the term “light tuna” applies to tuna with a Munsell value not darker than 5.3, while the term “white tuna” is reserved specifically for albacore and must not be darker than a Munsell value of 6.3 (21 CFR 161.190 canned tuna). The presence of albacore tuna in a sample labeled as “light tuna” was also reported by Mitchell and Hellberg [6]. Both labeling concerns identified in the current study could cause potential harm to at-risk groups, such as women and children, because of differences in mercury levels between tuna species.”</p><p>We apologize for these errors.</p>","PeriodicalId":15951,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Food Quality","volume":"2025 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/jfq/9828214","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Correction to “Comparison of DNA Extraction Methods for the Detection of Canned Tuna Species with DNA Mini-Barcoding”\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/jfq/9828214\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>A. J. Emmi, B. Fatusin, and R. S. Hellberg, “Comparison of DNA Extraction Methods for the Detection of Canned Tuna Species with DNA Mini-Barcoding,” <i>Journal of Food Quality</i> 2023 (2023): 7121260, https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/7121260.</p><p>In the article, there are errors in Section 2.3:</p><p>“The reaction mixture for canned tuna fish samples included the following: 11.2 mL sterile H2O, 17.5 mL Qiagen HotStarTaq Plus Master Mix (2X), 0.7 mL each of one 10-μM forward primer (CR_F) and two 10-μM reverse primers (CR_R1 and CR_R2) (Mitchell and Hellberg, 2016), and 4.2 mL of DNA template, for a total reaction volume of 35 μL.”</p><p>Should read:</p><p>“The reaction mixture for canned tuna fish samples included the following: 11.2 μL sterile H2O, 17.5 μL Qiagen HotStarTaq Plus Master Mix (2X), 0.7 μL each of one 10-μM forward primer (CR_F) and two 10-μM reverse primers (CR_R1 and CR_R2) (Mitchell and Hellberg, 2016), and 4.2 μL of DNA template, for a total reaction volume of 35 μL.”</p><p>“Precast 2.0% E-Gels with ethidium bromide (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA) were used to confirm DNA amplification, with 20 mL PCR product loaded into each sample lane.”</p><p>Should read:</p><p>“Precast 2.0% E-Gels with ethidium bromide (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA) were used to confirm DNA amplification, with 20 μL PCR product loaded into each sample lane.”</p><p>Lastly, there are errors in Section 3.4:</p><p>“Legally, the term “light tuna” applies to tuna with a Munsell value not greater than 5.3, while the term “white tuna” is reserved specifically for albacore and must not exceed a Munsell value of 6.3 (21 CFR 161.190 canned tuna). The presence of albacore tuna in a sample labeled as “light tuna” was also reported by Mitchell and Hellberg [6]. Both instances of mislabeling identified in the current study could cause potential harm to at-risk groups, such as women and children, because of differences in mercury levels between tuna species.”</p><p>Should read:</p><p>“Section 3.4: Legally, the term “light tuna” applies to tuna with a Munsell value not darker than 5.3, while the term “white tuna” is reserved specifically for albacore and must not be darker than a Munsell value of 6.3 (21 CFR 161.190 canned tuna). The presence of albacore tuna in a sample labeled as “light tuna” was also reported by Mitchell and Hellberg [6]. Both labeling concerns identified in the current study could cause potential harm to at-risk groups, such as women and children, because of differences in mercury levels between tuna species.”</p><p>We apologize for these errors.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15951,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Food Quality\",\"volume\":\"2025 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/jfq/9828214\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Food Quality\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/jfq/9828214\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Food Quality","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/jfq/9828214","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
A. J. Emmi, B. Fatusin和R. S. Hellberg,“DNA提取方法与DNA迷你条形码检测罐装金枪鱼物种的比较”,《食品质量杂志》2023 (2023):7121260,https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/7121260.In文章中,2.3节有错误:“罐装金枪鱼样品的反应混合物包括以下内容:11.2 mL的灭菌水,17.5 mL Qiagen HotStarTaq Plus Master Mix (2X), 1个10-μM正引物(CR_F)和2个10-μM反向引物(CR_R1和CR_R2)各0.7 mL (Mitchell and Hellberg, 2016), 4.2 mL DNA模板,总反应体积为35 μL。应注意:金枪鱼罐头样品的反应混合物包括:11.2 μL无菌H2O, 17.5 μL Qiagen HotStarTaq Plus Master Mix (2X), 1个10 μ m正向引物(CR_F)和2个10 μ m反向引物(CR_R1和CR_R2)各0.7 μL (Mitchell and Hellberg, 2016), 4.2 μL DNA模板,总反应体积为35 μL。“使用含有溴化乙啶的预制2.0% e -凝胶(Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA)确认DNA扩增,每个样品通道装入20ml PCR产物。”应读:“使用含有溴化乙啶的预制2.0% e -凝胶(Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA)确认DNA扩增,每个样品通道装入20 μL PCR产物。”最后,在第3.4节中有错误:“法律上,术语“轻金枪鱼”适用于孟塞尔值不大于5.3的金枪鱼,而术语“白金枪鱼”专门用于长鳍金枪鱼,不得超过孟塞尔值6.3 (21 CFR 161.190罐装金枪鱼)。在标注为“轻金枪鱼”的样本中也发现了长鳍金枪鱼,这也是米切尔和海尔伯格的报道。目前研究中发现的这两种标签错误都可能对妇女和儿童等高危人群造成潜在伤害,因为不同金枪鱼种类的汞含量不同。”应阅读:“第3.4节:法律上,术语“浅金枪鱼”适用于蒙塞尔值不高于5.3的金枪鱼,而术语“白金枪鱼”专门用于长鳍金枪鱼,不得高于蒙塞尔值6.3 (21 CFR 161.190罐装金枪鱼)。在标注为“轻金枪鱼”的样本中也发现了长鳍金枪鱼,这也是米切尔和海尔伯格的报道。目前研究中发现的两种标签问题都可能对妇女和儿童等高危人群造成潜在伤害,因为不同金枪鱼种类的汞含量存在差异。”我们为这些错误道歉。
Correction to “Comparison of DNA Extraction Methods for the Detection of Canned Tuna Species with DNA Mini-Barcoding”
A. J. Emmi, B. Fatusin, and R. S. Hellberg, “Comparison of DNA Extraction Methods for the Detection of Canned Tuna Species with DNA Mini-Barcoding,” Journal of Food Quality 2023 (2023): 7121260, https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/7121260.
In the article, there are errors in Section 2.3:
“The reaction mixture for canned tuna fish samples included the following: 11.2 mL sterile H2O, 17.5 mL Qiagen HotStarTaq Plus Master Mix (2X), 0.7 mL each of one 10-μM forward primer (CR_F) and two 10-μM reverse primers (CR_R1 and CR_R2) (Mitchell and Hellberg, 2016), and 4.2 mL of DNA template, for a total reaction volume of 35 μL.”
Should read:
“The reaction mixture for canned tuna fish samples included the following: 11.2 μL sterile H2O, 17.5 μL Qiagen HotStarTaq Plus Master Mix (2X), 0.7 μL each of one 10-μM forward primer (CR_F) and two 10-μM reverse primers (CR_R1 and CR_R2) (Mitchell and Hellberg, 2016), and 4.2 μL of DNA template, for a total reaction volume of 35 μL.”
“Precast 2.0% E-Gels with ethidium bromide (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA) were used to confirm DNA amplification, with 20 mL PCR product loaded into each sample lane.”
Should read:
“Precast 2.0% E-Gels with ethidium bromide (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA) were used to confirm DNA amplification, with 20 μL PCR product loaded into each sample lane.”
Lastly, there are errors in Section 3.4:
“Legally, the term “light tuna” applies to tuna with a Munsell value not greater than 5.3, while the term “white tuna” is reserved specifically for albacore and must not exceed a Munsell value of 6.3 (21 CFR 161.190 canned tuna). The presence of albacore tuna in a sample labeled as “light tuna” was also reported by Mitchell and Hellberg [6]. Both instances of mislabeling identified in the current study could cause potential harm to at-risk groups, such as women and children, because of differences in mercury levels between tuna species.”
Should read:
“Section 3.4: Legally, the term “light tuna” applies to tuna with a Munsell value not darker than 5.3, while the term “white tuna” is reserved specifically for albacore and must not be darker than a Munsell value of 6.3 (21 CFR 161.190 canned tuna). The presence of albacore tuna in a sample labeled as “light tuna” was also reported by Mitchell and Hellberg [6]. Both labeling concerns identified in the current study could cause potential harm to at-risk groups, such as women and children, because of differences in mercury levels between tuna species.”
期刊介绍:
Journal of Food Quality is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that publishes original research articles as well as review articles related to all aspects of food quality characteristics acceptable to consumers. The journal aims to provide a valuable resource for food scientists, nutritionists, food producers, the public health sector, and governmental and non-governmental agencies with an interest in food quality.