Conservation Genetics

, Volume 7, Issue 4, pp 543–549 | Cite as

Non-destructive sampling of maternal DNA from the external shell of bird eggs

  • Gregory Schmaltz
  • Christopher M. Somers
  • Priya Sharma
  • James S. Quinn
Article

Abstract

The use of non-destructive sampling methods to collect genetic material from wildlife allows researchers to minimize disturbance. Most avian studies employ capturing and handling of young and parents to draw blood for DNA analysis. In some cases adult female birds are difficult to catch, so maternal genotyping has required collection of contour feathers from nests, or destructive sampling of eggs. Many species do not leave contour feathers in the nest, and destructive sampling has been unreliable due to contamination with embryonic DNA. Alternative field sampling techniques for collection of maternal DNA from birds are therefore desirable. Here we demonstrate that avian maternal DNA can be isolated in a non-invasive and non-destructive way from the external surface of eggs. We used cotton swabs to collect maternal DNA from the external shells of herring gull (Larus argentatus) and Caspian tern (Sterna caspia) eggs. DNA was then amplified by the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for microsatellite genotyping. We verified that the DNA samples were maternal by comparing microsatellite profiles to those obtained from adults and chicks from the same nests. In 100% of Caspian tern (n=16) and herring gull families (n=12), the egg swabs that amplified matched the maternal microsatellite genotype. In a screening of many nests of both species, we successfully amplified microsatellite markers from 101/115 (88%) egg swabs. Swabs from eggs with blood stains on the shell were more likely to amplify successfully than those from clean eggs. The advantages of this new method include increased parentage assignment/exclusion power, and increased availability of maternal DNA for genotyping of species that do not deposit contour feathers in nests.

Keywords

avian maternal DNA Caspian terns egg swabbing herring gulls non-destructive genotyping 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Avise JC (2004) Molecular Markers, Natural History, and Evolution, 2nd edition. Sinauer.Google Scholar
  2. Bety J, Gauthier G (2001) Effects of nest visits on predator activity and predation rate in a Greater Snow Goose colony. J. Field Ornithol. 72, 573–586.Google Scholar
  3. Cariello MO, Schwabl HG, Lee RW, Macedo RH (2002) Individual female clutch identification through yolk protein electrophoresis in the communally-breeding guira cuckoo (Guira guira). Mol. Ecol., 11, 2417–2424.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cotter RC, Gratto CJ (1995) Effects of nest and brood visits and radio transmitters on Rock Ptarmigan. J. Wild. Manage., 1, 93-98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Criscuolo F (2001) Does blood sampling during incubation induce nest desertion in the female Common Eider Somateria mollissima? Marine Ornithol. 29, 47–50.Google Scholar
  6. Emlen ST, Wrege PH (2004) Size dimorphism, intrasexual competition, and sexual selection in wattled jacana (Jacana jacana), a sex-role-reversed shorebird in Panama. Auk, 121, 391–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Flagstad Ø, Røed K, Stacy JE, Jakobsen KS (1999) Reliable non-invasive genotyping based on excremental PCR of nuclear DNA purified with a magnetic bead protocol. Mol. Ecol., 8, 879–883.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gibbs HL, Sorenson MD, Marchetti K, Brooke MD, Davies NB, Nakamura H (2000) Genetic evidence for female host-specific races of the common cuckoo. Nature, 407, 183–186.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Götmark F (1992) The effects of investigator disturbance on nesting birds. Curr. Ornithol., 9, 63–104.Google Scholar
  10. Gregory SM, Quinn JS Microsatellite isolation from four avian species comparing two isolation techniques. Mol. Ecol. Notes, in press.Google Scholar
  11. Griffiths R, Double MC, Orr K, Dawson RJG (1998) A DNA test to sex most birds. Mol. Ecol., 7, 1071–1075.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jarne P, Ladoga PJL (1996) Microsatellites, from molecules to populations and back. Trends Ecol. Evol., 11, 424–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Komeda, S (1983) Nest attendance of parent birds in the painted snipe (Rostratula benghalensis). Auk, 100, 48–55.Google Scholar
  14. Macedo RHF, Cariello MO, Pacheco AM, Schwabl HG (2004) Significance of social parameters on differential nutrient investment in guira cuckoo, Guira guira, eggs. Anim. Behav., 68, 485–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. MayerGross H, Crick HQP, Greewood JJD (1997) The effect of observers visiting the nests of passerines: An experimental study. Bird Study, 44, 53–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Parsons J (1976) Factors determining number and size of eggs laid by herring gulls. Condor, 78, 481–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pearce JM, Fields RL, Scribner, KT (1997) Nest materials as a source of genetic data for avian ecological studies. J. Field Ornithol., 68, 471–481.Google Scholar
  18. Queller DC, Strassmann JE, Hughes CR (1993) Microsatellites and kinship. Trends Ecol. Evol., 8, 285–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Quinn JS, Morris RD (1986) Intraclutch egg-weight apportionment and chick survival in Caspian terns. Can. J. Zool., 64, 2116–2122.Google Scholar
  20. Quinn JS, Morris RD, Blokpoel H, Weseloh DV, Ewins P (1996) Design and management of bird nesting habitat: Tactics for conserving colonial waterbird biodiversity on artificial islands in Hamilton Harbour, Ontario. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 53, 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Quinn JS, Sirdevan J (1998) Experimental measurement of nesting substrate preference in Caspian Terns, Sterna caspia and the successful colonisation of human-constructed islands. Biol. Conserv., 85, 63–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Quinn JS, Startek-Foote JM (2000) Smooth-billed ani (Crotophaga ani). In: The Birds of North America (eds. Poole A, Gill F), Vol. 539, pp. 1–16. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PAGoogle Scholar
  23. Safina C. and Buger J (1983). Effect of human disturbance on reproductive success in the black skimmer. Condor, 85, 164–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Singer VL, Jones LJ, Yue ST, Haugland RP (1997) Characterization of PicoGreen reagent and development of a fluorescence-based solution assay for double-stranded DNA quantitation. Anal. Biochem., 249, 228–238.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stouffer, PC (1997) Interspecific Aggression in Formicarius Antthrushes? The view from Central Amazonian Brazil. Auk, 114, 780–785.Google Scholar
  26. Strausberger BM, Ashley ME (2001) Eggs yield nuclear DNA from egg-laying female cowbirds, their embryos and offspring. Conserv. Genet., 2, 385–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Taberlet P, Waits LP, Luikart G (1999) Non-invasive genetic sampling: Look before you leap. Trends Ecol. Evol., 14, 323–327.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vehrencamp SL, Quinn JS (2004) Joint laying systems. In: Ecology and Evolution of Cooperative Breeding in Birds (eds. Koening WD, Dickinson JL), pp. 177–278. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Verboven N, Ens BJ, Dechesne, S (2001) Effect of investigator disturbance on nest attendance and egg predation in Eurasian oystercatchers. Auk, 118, 503–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Winfree R (1999) Cuckoos, cowbirds and the persistence of brood parasitism. Trends Ecol. Evol., 14, 338–343.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gregory Schmaltz
    • 1
  • Christopher M. Somers
    • 1
    • 2
  • Priya Sharma
    • 1
  • James S. Quinn
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of ReginaReginaCanada

Personalised recommendations