Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 491–496 | Cite as

Identifying a hunter responsible for killing a hunting dog by individual-specific genetic profiling of wild boar DNA transferred to the canine during the accidental shooting

  • Anna Schleimer
  • Alain C. Frantz
  • Johannes Lang
  • Phillipe Reinert
  • Mike Heddergott
Case Report

Abstract

While genetic profiling can be a powerful tool to solve wildlife crime, comparably few examples of individual identification in wildlife forensics are available in the literature. Here, we report a case of an accidental shooting of a hunting dog during a wild boar drive hunt. The market value of trained hunting dogs can reach several thousand euro. No one admitted to killing the dog. Wild boar hairs were found in the dog’s wound, suggesting that the bullet first hit a wild boar and then the dog. Since it was known who harvested each boar, we aimed to use individual-specific genetic profiles to link these hairs to a bagged animal and to identify the culprit. We genotyped 19 harvested boar and the unknown hair sample using 13 STRs. In the case of the hair sample, we performed multiple genotyping to ensure the reliability of the genetic profile. We showed that we genotyped sufficient loci to distinguish between separate individuals with certainty. While the three most informative loci were enough to differentiate the 19 reference individuals, we did find a perfect match at all 13 STRs between the hair DNA and one tissue sample. Since our methods were reliable and reproducible, we passed the relevant information on to forestry officials who will use the information we have provided to attempt to find an amicable solution.

Keywords

Canis lupus familiaris Case study Microsatellites Sus scofa Wildlife forensics Validation 

References

  1. 1.
    Cassidy B, Gonzales R. DNA testing in animal forensics. J Wildl Manag. 2005;69:1454–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ogden R, Dawnay N, McEwing R. Wildlife DNA forensics – bridging the gap between conservation genetics and law enforcement. Endanger Species Res. 2009;9:179–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baker CS, Palumbi SR. Which whales are hunted? A molecular genetic approach to monitoring whaling. Science. 1994;265:1538–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lorenzini R. DNA forensics and the poaching of wildlife in Italy: a case study. Forensic Sci Int. 2005;153:218–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Glover KA, Haug T, Øien N, Walløe L, Lindblom L, Seliussen BB, Skaug HJ. The Norwegian minke whale DNA register: a data base monitoring commercial harvest and trade of whale products. Fish Fish. 2012;13:313–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Waits LP, Paetkau D. Noninvasive genetic sampling tools for wildlife biologists: a review of applications and recommendations for accurate data collection. J Wildl Manag. 2005;69:1419–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Luikart G, Ryman N, Tallmon DA, Schwartz MK, Allendorf FW. Estimation of census and effective population sizes: the increasing usefulness of DNA-based approaches. Conserv Genet. 2010;11:355–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Martini F. Wert des Jagdhundes: Darf’s auch weniger sein? Wild Hund. 2006;14:58–62.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Miller SA, Dykes DD, Polesky HF. A simple salting out procedure for extracting DNA from human nucleated cells. Nucleic Acids Res. 1988;16:1215.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Linacre A, Gusmão L, Hecht W, Hellmann AP, Mayr WR, Parson W, et al. ISFG: recommendations regarding the use of non-human (animal) DNA in forensic genetic investigations. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2011;5:501–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alexander LJ, Rohrer GA, Beattie CW. Cloning and characterization of 414 polymorphic porcine microsatellites. Anim Genet. 1996;27:137–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hampton JO, Spencer PBS, Alpers DL, Twigg LE, Woolnough AP, Doust J, et al. Molecular techniques, wildlife management and the importance of genetic population structure and dispersal: a case study with feral pigs. J Appl Ecol. 2004;41:735–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Frantz AC, Cellina S, Krier A, Schley L, Burke T. Using spatial Bayesian methods to determine the genetic structure of a continuously distributed population: clusters or isolation by distance? J Appl Ecol. 2009;46:493–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Raymond M, Rousset F. GENEPOP (version 1.2): population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. J Hered. 1995;86:248–9.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Verhoeven KJF, Simonsen KL, McIntyre LM. Implementing false discovery rate control: increasing your power. Oikos. 2005;108:643–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Belkhir K. Genetix 4.05.2. University of Montpellier II, Laboratoire Génome et Populaions. Montpellier: Fance; 2004.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Waits LP, Luikart G, Taberlet P. Estimating the probability of identity among genotypesin natural populations: cautions and guidelines. Mol Ecol. 2001;10:249–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wilberg MJ, Dreher BP. GENECAP: a program for analysis of multilocus genotype data for non-invasive sampling and capture-recapture population estimation. Mol Ecol Notes. 2004;4:783–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Johnson RN, Wilson-Wilde L, Linacre A. Current and future directions of DNA in wildlife forensic science. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2014;10:1–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Musée National d’Histoire NaturelleLuxembourgLuxembourg
  2. 2.Institut für Tierökologie und NaturbildungGonterskirchenGermany

Personalised recommendations