Advertisement

Conservation Genetics

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 509–511 | Cite as

Buccal swabs allow efficient and reliable microsatellite genotyping in amphibians

  • Thomas Broquet
  • Laura Berset-Braendli
  • Guillaume Emaresi
  • Luca Fumagalli
Technical Note

Abstract

Buccal swabs have recently been used as a minimally invasive sampling method in genetic studies of wild populations, including amphibian species. Yet it is not known to date what is the level of reliability for microsatellite genotypes obtained using such samples. Allelic dropout and false alleles may affect the genotyping derived from buccal samples. Here we quantified the success of microsatellite amplification and the rates of genotyping errors using buccal swabs in two amphibian species, the Alpine newt Triturus alpestris and the Green tree frog Hyla arborea, and we estimated two important parameters for downstream analyses, namely the number of repetitions required to achieve typing reliability and the probability of identity among genotypes. Amplification success was high, and only one locus tested required two to three repetitions to achieve reliable genotypes, showing that buccal swabbing is a very efficient approach allowing good quality DNA retrieval. This sampling method which allows avoiding the controversial toe-clipping will likely prove very useful in the context of amphibian conservation.

Keywords

Non-destructive sampling Amplification success Genotyping errors Probability of identity Hyla arborea Triturus alpestris 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Nathaniel Valière who kindly answered our questions about the software Gemini, to Jérôme Pellet who provided H. arborea tissue samples, and to an anonymous referee who made useful suggestions. This work was supported by Swiss National Fund grant No. 3100A0-108100 to Nicolas Perrin.

References

  1. Arens P, Van’t Westende W, Bugter R, Smulders MJM, Vosman B (2000) Microsatellite markers for the European tree frog Hyla arborea. Mol Ecol 9:1919–1952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Broquet T, Petit E (2004) Quantifying genotyping errors in noninvasive population genetics. Mol Ecol 13:3601–3608PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dickinson JL, Sale MM, Craig JE, Mackey DA (2001) Laboratory methods in ophthalmic genetics: obtaining DNA from patients. Ophthalmic Genet 22:49–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Garner TWJ, Schmidt BR, Hoeck P, Van Buskirk J (2003) Di-and tetranucleotide microsatellite markers for the Alpine newt (Triturus alpestris): characterization and cross-priming in five congeners. Mol Ecol Notes 3:186–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. McCarthy MA, Parris KM (2004) Clarifying the effect of toe clipping on frogs with Bayesian statistics. J Appl Ecol 41:780–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Miller HC (2006) Cloacal and buccal swabs are a reliable source of DNA for microsatellite genotyping of reptiles. Conserv Genet DOI 10.1007/s10592-006-9120-2Google Scholar
  7. Morin PA, Chambers KE, Boesch C, Vigilant L (2001) Quantitative polymerase chain reaction analysis of DNA from noninvasive samples for accurate microsatellite genotyping of wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus). Mol Ecol 10:1835–1844PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Pidancier N, Miquel C, Miaud C (2003) Buccal swabs as a non-destructive tissue sampling method for DNA analysis in amphibians. Herpetolo J 13:175–178Google Scholar
  9. Poschadel JR, Möller D (2004) A versatile field method for tissue sampling on small reptiles and amphibians, applied to pond turtles, newts, frogs and toads. Conserv Genet 5:865–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Smalley JV, Campanella JJ (2005) Buccal swabbing and extraction of high quality sunfish (Lepomis) DNA for use in PCR analysis. Biotechniques 38:188–192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Taberlet P, Griffin S, Goossens B, Questiau S, Manceau V, Escaravage N, Waits LP, Bouvet J (1996) Reliable genotyping of samples with very low DNA quantities using PCR. Nucleic Acids Res 24:3189–3194PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Waits L, Luikart G, Taberlet P (2001) Estimating the probability of identity among genotypes in natural populations: cautions and guidelines. Mol Ecol 10:249–256PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Broquet
    • 1
  • Laura Berset-Braendli
    • 1
  • Guillaume Emaresi
    • 1
  • Luca Fumagalli
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolution, Laboratory for Conservation BiologyUniversity of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations