Advertisement

European Food Research and Technology

, Volume 244, Issue 4, pp 685–694 | Cite as

Comparison of five preparatory protocols for fish species identification using MALDI-TOF MS

  • Gesche Spielmann
  • Ingrid Huber
  • Marzena Maggipinto
  • Gerhard Haszprunar
  • Ulrich Busch
  • Melanie Pavlovic
Original Paper

Abstract

Rapid and reliable methods for fish authentication are required to protect consumers against food fraud. Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) is known as a fast and accurate method for microorganisms. In this study, the effect of five preparation protocols for fish samples on the quality and reproducibility of spectra using the MALDI Biotyper platform were evaluated. The suitability of the protocols for the identification of high-fat Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) and low-fat rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) was examined in dependence on different storage temperatures and levels of food processing (fresh, refrigerated, frozen, cooked and smoked). The results of the present study showed that acquisition of reproducible and high quality main spectra projections for high-fat and low-fat fishes in fresh and frozen states was only possible by sample preparation with 25% formic acid followed by chloroform–methanol defatting. MALDI-TOF MS based identification was also possible after treating samples at 99 °C for 5 min but not for smoked fish. Furthermore, log score values for identification of frozen fish remained stable even after 14 months of storage at −20 °C.

Keywords

Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry Fish species identification MALDI Biotyper Sample preparation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Jörg Rau (CVUA Stuttgart, Germany) for permission to quote his private communication. We are also grateful to Dr. Azuka Iwobi for critically reading our manuscript. Furthermore, we would like to acknowledge the financial support of the Bavarian State Ministry of the Environment and Consumer Protection.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Compliance with ethics requirements

This article does not contain any studies with human participants by any of the authors. All institutional and national guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

Informed consent

Not applicable.

References

  1. 1.
    Kappel K, Schröder U (2016) Substitution of high-priced fish with low-priced species: adulteration of common sole in German restaurants. Food Control 59:478–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pappalardo AM, Ferrito V (2015) DNA barcoding species identification unveils mislabeling of processed flatfish products in southern Italy markets. Fish Res 164:153–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cohen NJ, Deeds JR, Wong ES, Hanner RH, Yancy HF, White KD, Thompson TM, Wahl M, Pham TD, Guichard FM, Huh I, Austin C, Dizikes G, Gerber SI (2009) Public health response to puffer fish (Tetrodotoxin) poisoning from mislabeled product. J Food Prot 72:810–817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    BVL (2014) Amtliche Sammlung von Untersuchungsverfahren nach § 64 LFGB, § 35 Vorl. Tabakgesetz, § 28 b Gentechnikgesetz. Berlin, Beuth Verlag GmbHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mazzeo MF, Giulio BD, Guerriero G, Ciarcia G, Malorni A, Russo GL, Siciliano RA (2008) Fish authentication by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry. J Agric Food Chem 56:11071–11076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Volta P, Riccardi N, Lauceri R, Tonolla M (2012) Discrimination of freshwater fish species by matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization- time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS): a pilot study. J Limnol 71:164–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Laakmann S, Gerdts G, Erler R, Knebelsberger T, Martínez Arbizu P, Raupach MJ (2013) Comparison of molecular species identification for North Sea calanoid copepods (Crustacea) using proteome fingerprints and DNA sequences. Mol Ecol Resour 13:862–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stephan R, Johler S, Oesterle N, Näumann G, Vogel G, Pflüger V (2014) Rapid and reliable species identification of scallops by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry. Food Control 46:6–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Salla V, Murray KK (2013) Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization mass spectrometry for identification of shrimp. Anal Chim Acta 794:55–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ulrich S, Kühn U, Biermaier B, Piacenza N, Schwaiger K, Gottschalk C, Gareis M (2017) Direct identification of edible insects by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry. Food Control 76:96–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vogel G, Strauss A, Jenni B, Ziegler D, Dumermuth E, Antz S, Bardouille C, Wipf B, Miscenic C, Schmid G, Pflüger V (2011) Development and validation of a protocol for cell line identification by MALDI-TOF MS. BMC Proc 5(Suppl 8):P45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pavlovic M, Huber I, Konrad R, Busch U (2013) Application of MALDI-TOF MS for the identification of food borne bacteria. Open Microbiol J 7:135–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Demirev P, Sandrin TD (eds) (2016) Applications of mass spectrometry in microbiology from strain characterization to rapid screening for antibiotic resistance. Springer International Publishing, ChamGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bruker Daltonics (2008) MALDI Biotyper user manual Version 2.0 SR1. Bruker Daltonik GmbH, BremenGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lasch P, Grunow R, Antonation K, Weller SA, Jacob D (2016) Inactivation techniques for MALDI-TOF MS analysis of highly pathogenic bacteria–A critical review. TrAC Trends Anal Chem 85:112–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nurhan U (2007) Change in proximate, amino acid and fatty acid contents in muscle tissue of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) after cooking. Int J Food Sci Technol 42:1087–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sebedio JL, Ratnayake WMN, Ackman RG, Prevost J (1993) Stability of polyunsaturated omega-3 fatty acids during deep fat frying of Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus L.). Food Res Int 26:163–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    DIN EN ISO 21571 (2005, modified). Foodstuffs—methods of analysis for the detection of genetically modified organisms and derived products—nucleic acid extraction (ISO 21571:2005 + Amd 1:2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zeller-Péronnet V, Brockmann E, Pavlovic M, Timke M, Busch U, Huber I (2013) Potential and limitations of MALDI-TOF MS for discrimination within the species Leuconostoc mesenteroides and Leuconostoc pseudomesenteroides. J Verbrauch Lebensm 8:205–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Seng P, Drancourt M, Gouriet F, La Scol B, Fournier PE, Rolain JM, Raoult D (2009) Ongoing revolution in bacteriology: routine identification of bacteria by matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Clin Infect Dis 249:543–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    La’Tonzia LA, Dionne K, Fisher S, Parrish N (2016) A rapid, standardized protein extraction method using adaptive focused acoustics for identification of mycobacteria by MALDI-TOF MS. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 86:284–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gesche Spielmann
    • 1
  • Ingrid Huber
    • 1
  • Marzena Maggipinto
    • 1
  • Gerhard Haszprunar
    • 2
  • Ulrich Busch
    • 1
  • Melanie Pavlovic
    • 1
  1. 1.Bavarian Health and Food Safety AuthorityOberschleißheimGermany
  2. 2.SNSB-Bavarian State Collection of ZoologyMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations