Advertisement

Conservation Genetics Resources

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 733–735 | Cite as

Evaluation of three methods for high throughput extraction of DNA from challenging fish tissues

  • Helge Meissner
  • Svein-Erik Fevolden
  • Per-Arne Amundsen
  • Kim PræbelEmail author
Technical Note

Abstract

Three methods for extracting DNA were tested on otoliths, scales, fins, and gill tissue from European whitefish [Coregonus lavaratus (L.)]. The aim was to find time-efficient and affordable ways to simultaneously extract DNA suitable for conservation genetic studies from a large number of samples and different tissues. A rapid low-cost method led to 97 % success of microsatellite amplification in otoliths and 100 % in scales. High amplification success was achieved with fin (97 %) and gill (99 %) tissue using a salt lysis-based protocol. A commercial extraction kit delivered good results with all tissues. The findings are useful for conservation genetic studies using both contemporary and archived samples.

Keywords

Plate extraction of DNA Salmonids Population genetics Non-lethal sampling 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The study was financially supported by the Norwegian Research Council (Grant No. 186320/V40).

References

  1. Aljanabi SM, Martinez I (1997) Universal and rapid salt-extraction of high quality genomic DNA for PCR-based techniques. Nucleic Acids Res 25:4692–4693PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Campbell NR, Narum SR (2009) Quantitative PCR assessment of microsatellite and SNP genotyping with variable quality DNA extracts. Conserv Genet 10:779–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chakraborty A, Sakai M, Iwatsuki Y (2006) Museum fish specimens and molecular taxonomy: a comparative study on DNA extraction protocols and preservation techniques. Appl Ichthyol 22:160–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Lucentini L, Caporali S, Palomba A et al (2006) A comparison of conservative DNA extraction methods from fins and scales of freshwater fish: a useful tool for conservation genetics. Conserv Genet 7:1009–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Nielsen EE, Hansen MM (2008) Waking the dead: the value of population genetic analyses of historical samples. Fish Fish 9:450–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Præbel K, Westgaard J-I, Amundsen P-A et al (2013) A diagnostic tool for efficient analysis of population structure, hybridization and conservation status of European whitefish (Coregonus lavaretus (L.)) and vendace (C. albula (L.)). Advanc Limnol (in press)Google Scholar
  7. Truett G, Heeger P, Mynatt R et al (2000) Preparation of PCR-quality mouse genomic DNA with hot sodium hydroxide and tris (HotSHOT). Biotechniques 29:52PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Wasko AP, Martins C, Oliveira C et al (2003) Non-destructive genetic sampling in fish. An improved method for DNA extraction from fish fins and scales. Hereditas 138:161–165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helge Meissner
    • 1
    • 2
  • Svein-Erik Fevolden
    • 1
  • Per-Arne Amundsen
    • 1
  • Kim Præbel
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Arctic and Marine BiologyUniversity of TromsøTromsøNorway
  2. 2.Norwegian Forest and Landscape InstituteÅsNorway

Personalised recommendations