| Abstrakt: |
Next Generation Sequencing Technologies (NGS), particularly metabarcoding, are valuable tools for authenticating foodstuffs and detecting eventual fraudulent practices such as species substitution. This technique, mostly used for the analysis of prokaryotes in several environments (including food), is in fact increasingly applied to identify eukaryotes (e.g., fish, mammals, avian, etc.) in multispecies food products. Besides the “wet-lab” procedures (e.g., DNA extraction, PCR, amplicon purification, etc.), the metabarcoding workflow includes a final “dry-lab” phase in which sequencing data are analyzed using a bioinformatic pipeline (BP). BPs play a crucial role in the accuracy, reliability, and interpretability of the metabarcoding results. Choosing the most suitable BP for the analysis of metabarcoding data could be challenging because it might require greater informatics skills than those needed in standard molecular analysis. To date, studies comparing BPs for metabarcoding data analysis in foodstuff authentication are scarce. In this study, we compared the data obtained from two previous studies in which fish burgers and insect-based products were authenticated using a customizable, ASV-based, and command-line interface BP (BP1) by analyzing the same data with a customizable but OTU-based and graphical user interface BP (BP2). The final sample compositions were compared statistically. No significant difference in sample compositions was highlighted by applying BP1 and BP2. However, BP1 was considered as more user-friendly than BP2 with respect to data analysis streamlining, cost of analysis, and computational time consumption. This study can provide useful information for researchers approaching the bioinformatic analysis of metabarcoding data for the first time. In the field of food authentication, an effective and efficient use of BPs could be especially useful in the context of official controls performed by the Competent Authorities and companies’ self-control in order to detect species substitution and counterfeit frauds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
