The utility of the forensically important Sarcophagidae (Diptera) for time since death estimates has been severely limited, as morphological identification is difficult and thermobiological histories are inadequately documented. A molecular identification method involving the sequencing of a 658-bp ‘barcode’ fragment of the mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase subunit I (COI) gene from 85 specimens, representing 16 Australian species from varying populations, was evaluated. Nucleotide sequence divergences were calculated using the Kimura-two-parameter distance model and a neighbour-joining phylogenetic tree generated. All species were resolved as reciprocally monophyletic, except Sarcophaga dux. Intraspecific and interspecific variation ranged from 0.000% to 1.499% (SE = 0.044%) and 6.658% to 8.983% (SE = 0.653%), respectively. The COI ‘barcode’ sequence was found to be suitable for the molecular identification of the studied Australian Sarcophagidae: 96.5% of the examined specimens were assigned to the correct species. Given that the sarcophagid fauna is poorly described, it is feasible that the few incorrectly assigned specimens represent cryptic species. The results of this research will be instrumental for implementation of the Australian Sarcophagidae in forensic entomology.
Sarcophagidae Diptera Forensic entomology COI DNA ‘barcoding’ Identification
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
We would like to acknowledge Melanie Archer, Kelly George, Steve and Ruth McKillup and Lisa Mingari for providing specimens. We are grateful to the Australian Biological Resources Study (ABRS) for their financial support.
Kimura M (1980) A simple model for estimating the evolutionary rates of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. J Mol Evol 16:111–120CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Swofford DL (2001) PAUP*-Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (* and Other Methods). Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
Saitou N, Nei M (1987) The neighbour-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol Biol Evol 4:406–425PubMedGoogle Scholar
Ball SL, Hebert PDN, Burian SK, Webb JM (2005) Biological identifications of mayflies (Ephemeroptera) using DNA barcodes. J North Am Benthol Soc 24:508–524Google Scholar
Foottit RG, Maw HEL, Von Dohlen CD, Hebert PDN (2008) Species identification of aphids (Insecta: Hemiptera: Aphididae) through DNA barcodes. Mol Ecol Resour 8:1189–1201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hajibabaei M, Janzen D, Burns J, Hallwachs W, Hebert PDN (2006) DNA barcodes distinguish species of tropical Lepidoptera. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:968–971CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Hebert PDN, Cywinska A, Ball SL, deWaard JR (2003) Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:313–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hebert PDN, Ratnasingham S, deWaard JR (2003) Barcoding animal life: cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 divergences among closely related species. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:s96–s99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward R, Zemalk T, Innes B, Last P, Hebert PDN (2005) DNA barcoding Australia's fish species. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 360:1847–1857CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Smith MA, Woodley NE, Janzen DH, Hallwachs W, Hebert PDN (2006) DNA barcodes reveal cryptic host-specificity within presumed polyphagous members of a genus of parasitoid flies (Diptera: Tachinidae). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:3657–3662CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar