Noninvasive population genetics: a review of sample source, diet, fragment length and microsatellite motif effects on amplification success and genotyping error rates
- 1.3k Downloads
Noninvasive population genetics has found many applications in ecology and conservation biology. However, the technical difficulties inherent to the analysis of low quantities of DNA generally tend to limit the efficiency of this approach. The nature of samples and loci used in noninvasive population genetics are important factors that may help increasing the potential success of case studies. Here we reviewed the effects of the source of DNA (hair vs. faeces), the diet of focal species, the length of mitochondrial DNA fragments, and the length and repeat motif of nuclear microsatellite loci on genotyping success (amplification success and rate of allelic dropout). Locus-specific effects appeared to have the greatest impact, amplification success decreasing with both mitochondrial and microsatellite fragments’ length, while error rates increase with amplicons’ length. Dinucleotides showed best amplification success and lower error rates compared to longer repeat units. Genotyping success did not differ between hair- versus faeces-extracted DNA, and success in faeces-based analyses was not consistently influenced by the diet of focal species. While the great remaining variability among studies implies that other unidentified parameters are acting, results show that the careful choice of genetic markers may allow optimizing the success of noninvasive approaches.
Keywordsallelic dropout amplification success genotyping errors low DNA noninvasive
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
We are grateful to E. Paradis, J.-S. Pierre, N.␣Salamin and J. Yearsley for answering our questions on generalized linear models and generalized estimating equations. We thank authors of the papers reviewed that gave us some details on their respective studies. We thank also J. Jaquiéry and two anonymous reviewers for comments on a previous draft.
- Buchan JC, Archie EA, Van Horn RC, Moss CJ, Alberts SC (2005) Locus effects and sources of error in noninvasive genotyping. Mol Ecol Notes 5(3): 680–683Google Scholar
- Crawley MJ (2005) Statistical computing: an introduction to data analysis using S-Plus. John Wiley and sons Ltd, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
- Gerloff U, Schlötterer C, Rassmann K, Rambold I, Hohmann G, Fruth B, Tautz D (1995) Amplification of hypervariable simple sequence repeats (microsatellites) from excremental DNA of wild living bonobos (Pan paniscus). Mol Ecol 4:515–518Google Scholar
- Huber S, Bruns U, Arnold W (2003) Genotyping herbivore feces facilitating their further analyses. Wildlife Soc Bull 31: 692–697Google Scholar
- Mowat G, Strobeck C (2000) Estimating population size of grizzly bears using hair capture, DNA profiling, and mark-recapture analysis. J Wildlife Manage 64:183–193Google Scholar
- Murphy MA, Waits LP, Kendall KC (2000) Quantitative evaluation of fecal drying methods for brown bear DNA analysis. Wildlife Soc Bull 28:951–957Google Scholar
- Nievergelt CM, Mutschler T, Feistner ATC, Woodruff DS (2002) Social system of the Alaotran Gentle Lemur (Hapalemur griseus alaotrensis): genetic characterization of group composition and mating system. Am J Primatol 57:157–176Google Scholar
- Paradis E, Strimmer K, Claude J, Gangolf J, Opgen-Rhein R, Dutheil J, Noel Y, Bolker B (2005) ape: Analyses of Phylogenetics and Evolution. R package version 1.8Google Scholar
- Parsons KM (2001) Reliable microsatellite genotyping of dolphin DNA from faeces. Mol Ecol 1:341–344Google Scholar
- Valière N, Berthier P, Mouchiroud D, Pontier D (2002) GEMINI: software for testing the effects of genotyping errors and multitubes approach for individual identification. Mol Ecol Notes 2:83–86Google Scholar
- Vege S, McCracken GF (2001) Microsatellite genotypes of big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus: Vespertilionidae, Chiroptera) obtained from their feces. Acta Chiropterol 3:237–244Google Scholar
- Woods JG, Paetkau D, Lewis B, McLellan B, Proctor M, Strobeck C (1999) Genetic tagging of free-ranging black and brown bears. Wildlife Soc Bull 27:616–627Google Scholar