profile of S. pilchardus reference. Sample CA2 and SA3, canned and
salted products labelled “anchovy filets”, displayed the same profile
as the E. encrasicolus reference.
To conclude, DNA sequencing and nucleotide analysis confirmed
that samples CSa2-CSa3 were S. aurita, species, CS2-CS9 were S.
pilchardus, and samples CA2-SA3 were E. encrasicolus. Such results
show a mislabelling of the sardine pilchardus species.
The PCR-RFLP method, aimed at the molecular analysis of the
252 pb mtDNA cytochrome b fragment, based on the use of novel
U24/L252 primers, was found to be suitable for the identification of
sardine and anchovy species in commercial food products. These
techniques are less time-consuming and less expensive than
sequencing and, therefore, are more convenient for routine use in
species identification to assess rapidly the incidence of incorrect
labelling of sardine and anchovy in commercial products. Such
On the other hand, a unique AluI sitewas present in S. aurita but not in E. encrasicolus or S. pilchardus. Figs. 3 and 4 show the restriction profiles obtained after digestion of PCR products of fresh and processed sardine and anchovy which were in agreement with those
expected from the sequence analysis.