Conservation Genetics Resources

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 117–120

Polymorphic microsatellite loci for the endangered pine hoverfly Blera fallax (Diptera: Syrphidae)

  • E. L. Rotheray
  • M. P. Greminger
  • A. Nater
  • M. Krützen
  • D. Goulson
  • L. F. Bussière
Technical Note

Abstract

We describe eleven polymorphic microsatellite loci developed for Blera fallax using ‘next generation’ 454 whole genome shotgun sequencing, along with conditions for three multiplex PCR reactions. We tested allelic variation on forty B. fallax individuals from Scotland and Sweden. Allelic richness and expected heterozygosity were 3.03 (±0.274) and 0.391 (±0.057) respectively. The number of alleles per locus ranged from 2 to 6. We anticipate that these loci will assist conservation management by allowing the monitoring of translocated populations, estimating effective population size, and assessing population structure and dispersal in Scotland and across Europe.

Keywords

Syrphid Pine hoverfly 454 pyrosequencing Microsatellite SSR Conservation 

References

  1. Brownstein MJ, Carpten D, Smith JR (1996) Modulation of non-templated nucleotide addition by Taq DNA polymerase: primer modifications that facilitate genotyping. Biotechniques 20:1004–1010PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Faircloth BC (2008) Msatcommander: detection of microsatellite repeat arrays and automated, locus-specific primer design. Mol Ecol Resour 8:92–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Goudet J (1995) FSTAT (version 1.2): a computer program to calculate F-statistics. J Hered 86:485Google Scholar
  4. Meglecz E, Anderson SJ, Bourguet D, Butcher R, Caldas A, Cassel-Lundhagen A et al (2007) Microsatellite flanking region similarities among different loci within insect species. Insect Mol Biol 16:175–185PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Peakall ROD, Smouse PE (2006) GENALEX 6: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research. Mol Ecol Notes 6:288–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Raymond M, Rousset F (1995) GENEPOP (version 1.2): population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. J Hered 86:248Google Scholar
  7. Rice WR (1989) Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43:223–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Rotheray EL (2010) Restoring the endangered pine hoverfly in the UK. In: Soorae PS (ed) Global re-introduction perspectives: 2010 additional case-studies from around the globe. IUCN, pp 21–24Google Scholar
  9. Rotheray GE, MacGowan I (2000) Status and breeding sites of three presumed endangered scottish saproxylic syrphids (Diptera, Syrphidae). J Insect Conserv 4:215–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Rozen S, Skaletsky H (2000) Primer3 on the WWW for general users and for biologist programmers. Methods Mol Biol 132:365–386PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Santana QC, Coetzee MPA, Steenkamp ET, Mlonyeni OX, Hammond GNA, Wingfield MJ et al (2009) Microsatellite discovery by deep sequencing of enriched genomic libraries. BioTechniques 46:217–223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Schönrogge K, Gardner MG, Elmes GW, Napper EKV, Simcox DJ, Wardlaw JC et al (2006) Host propagation permits extreme local adaptation in a social parasite of ants. Ecol Lett 9:1032–1040PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Scottish Natural Heritage (2007) A five year species action framework: making a difference for Scotland’s species. Scottish Natural Heritage Publications, BattlebyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. L. Rotheray
    • 1
  • M. P. Greminger
    • 2
  • A. Nater
    • 2
  • M. Krützen
    • 2
  • D. Goulson
    • 1
  • L. F. Bussière
    • 1
  1. 1.Biological and Environmental SciencesUniversity of StirlingStirlingUK
  2. 2.Anthropological Institute and MuseumUniversity of ZürichZürichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations