Dear Sir. Concerning your issue about the best DNA extraction Optimization tips for muscle and fin tissues of marine fish specimens through commercial extraction kits. Extraction of high quality DNA is the first step for many downstream procedures such as pcr, sequencing etc. An experiment was carried out to compare the efficacy among five different DNA extraction methods (i.e. Urea-SDS, Rapid MT, SNET, TNES and Salt out method) applied to extract DNA from Labeo rohita and Tenualosa ilisha. The quantity and quality of the extracted DNA was compared using UV-spectrophotometer and gel electrophoresis. Urea-SDS method produced good quality of DNA from both fish species (value of A260/A280 for L. rohita was 1.77 ± 0.06 and for T. ilisha was 1.74± 0.04). Among all methods, Rapid MT method produced highest quality of DNA from L. rohita (value of A260/A280 was 1.82 ± 0.04) while DNA produced from T. ilisha was not of good quality (value of A260/A280 was 1.69 ± 0.05). The lowest quality of DNA (1.63 ± 0.00) was extracted from L. rohita by TNES method while highest quality of DNA (2.00 ± 0.06) was extracted from T. ilisha by Salt out method. Salt out method proved to be the most efficient. SNET method was the superior method in terms of quantity of isolated DNA from both fish tissue samples (value of DNA concentration of L. rohita was 177.85 ± 49.85 ng/μl and T. ilisha was 200.72 ± 28.97 ng/μl) whereas Rapid MT method performance was the poorest for the same case (value of DNA concentration of L. rohita was 39.35 ± 8.33 ng/μl and T. ilisha was 37.77 ± 5.63 ng/μl). The methods can be ranked on the basis of quantity of DNA from both fish tissues as following order: SNET>Urea-SDS>Salt out>TNES>Rapid MT. So, SNET method can be employed in fish DNA extraction where yield is more important and on the other hand, Urea-SDS method can be employed here quality of extracted DNA is most important. The quality of extracted DNA for genetic study depends on the extraction method used and the type of tissue sampled. For studies that address endangered species, it often becomes necessary to choose a tissue that involves a minimally invasive and non-lethal methodology rather than one that results in the greatest DNA quantity and quality. In this study, three DNA extraction protocols (phenol/chloroform, saline extraction, and Chelex) were tested using three tissues (muscle, liver and caudal fin) from three species of rayed fin bony fish: Epinephelus itajara (Atlantic goliath grouper), Lutjanus jocu (dog snapper), and Centropomus parallelus (fat snook). A sufficient amount of DNA was extracted from the caudal fin samples from all species regardless of the protocol used. Thus, we suggest extracting DNA from the caudal fin of these and other threatened species using the saline solution method, which does not sacrifice the specimens evaluated. This m I think the following below links an the attached file may help you in your analysis:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3233457/pdf/ijms-12-08086.pdf

http://www.panamjas.org/pdf_artigos/PANAMJAS_11(2)_135-142.pdf

http://www.fisheriessciences.com/fisheries-aqua/comparison-of-dnaextraction-methods-suitable-for-pcrbased-applications-to-identify-shrimp-species-in-commercial-products.pdf

Thanks