Conservation Genetics

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 267–271 | Cite as

PCR-based sexing in conservation biology: Wrong answers from an accurate methodology?

Article

Abstract

Molecular tests of sex based on the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) are now commonplace in conservation biology, routinely guiding management decisions. While molecular approaches to sexing can be highly reliable, current practices may leave an undesirable level of uncertainty in the sexes identified, because researchers focus on determining the sex-specific nature of a test, largely ignoring the accuracy of the test to correctly sex individuals. This latter step requires considerably more known-sex individuals. We argue that, due to the well-known technical problems associated with PCR amplification, the demonstrated potential for sexing errors and few known-sex individuals being available from threatened species, conservationists should place greater emphasis on verifying the sexes identified with PCR tests. We propose that all individuals of the sex indistinguishable from an amplification failure (e.g., females in mammals XX, males in birds ZZ) should be verified with a second independent sex test. Such a consensus approach to molecular sexing would reduce errors that could arise due to technical failure and PCR anomalies, but may also reduce field and laboratory bookkeeping errors.

Keywords

consensus sex conservation molecular sexing sexing errors 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arnold KE, Orr KJ, Griffiths R (2003) Primary sex ratios in birds: Problems with molecular sex identification of undeveloped eggs. Molec. Ecol., 12, 3451–3458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blomqvist D, Andersson M, Küpper C, Cuthill IC, Kis J, Lanctot RB, Sandercock BK, Szekely T, Wallander J, Kempenaers B (2002) Genetic similarity between mates and extra-pair parentage in three species of waders. Nature, 419, 613–615CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bradley BJ, Chambers KE, Vigilant L (2001) Accurate DNA-based sex identification of apes using non-invasive samples. Conserv. Genet., 2, 179–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clout MN, Elliott GP, Robertson BC (2002) Effects of supplementary feeding on the offspring sex ratio of kakapo: A dilemma for the conservation of a polygynous parrot. Biol. Conserv., 107, 13–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coughlan T, Schartl M, Hornung U, Hope I, Stewart A (1999) PCR-based sex test for Xiphophorus maculates. J. Fish Biol., 54, 218–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dawson DA, Darby S, Hunter FM, Krupa AP, Jones IL, Burke T (2001) A critique of avian CHD-based molecular sexing protocols illustrated by a Z-chromosome polymorphism detected in auklets. Mol. Ecol. Notes, 1, 201–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Deputy J, Ming R, Ma H, Liu Z, Fitch M, Wang M, Manshardt R, Stiles J (2002) Molecular markers for sex determination in papaya (Carica papaya L.). Theor. Appl. Genet., 106, 107–111PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Devlin RH, Park L, Sakhrani DM, Baker JD, Marshall AR, LaHood E, Kolesar SE, Mayo MR, Biagi CA, Uh M (2005) Variation of Y-chromosome DNA markers in Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Can. J. Fish Aquat. Sci., 62, 1386–1399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ewen JG, Cassey P, Møller AP (2004) Facultative primary sex ratio variation: A lack of evidence in birds? Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci., 271, 1277–1282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fridolfsson AK, Ellegren H (1999) A simple and universal method for molecular sexing of non-ratite birds. J. Avian Biol., 30, 116–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gagneux P, Boesch C, Woodruff DS (1997) Microsatellite scoring errors associated with noninvasive genotyping based on nuclear DNA amplified from shed hair. Mol. Ecol., 6, 861–868PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gowans S, Dalebout ML, Hooker SK, Whitehead H (2000) Reliability of photographic and molecular techniques for sexing northern bottlenose whales (Hyperoodon ampullatus). Can. J. Zool., 78, 1224–1229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grant A (2001) DNA sexing of brown kiwi (Apteryx mantelli) from feather samples. DOC Science Internal Series 13. Department of Conservation, Wellington. 16pGoogle Scholar
  14. Griffiths R (2000) Sex identification using DNA markers. In: Molecular Methods in Ecology (ed. Baker AJ), pp. 295–321, Blackwell Science, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Griffiths R, Tiwari B (1995) Identification of the sex of the last wild Spix’s macaw. Nature, 375, 454CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Griffiths R, Double MC, Orr K, Dawson RJB (1998) A DNA test to sex most birds. Mol. Ecol., 7, 1071–1075CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Groombridge JJ, Massey JG, Bruch JC et al. (2004) An attempt to recover the po’ouli by translocation and an appraisal of recovery strategy for bird species extreme rarity. Biol. Conserv., 118, 365–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Handyside AH, Delhanty JDA (1993) Cleavage stage biopsy of human embryos and diagnosis of X-linked recessive disease. In: Preimplantation Diagnosis of Human Genetic Disease (ed. Edwards RG), pp. 239–270. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Handyside AH, Kontogianni EH, Hardy K, Winston RML (1990) Pregnancies from biopsied human preimplantation embryos sexed by Y-specific DNA amplification. Nature 334: 768–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoffman JI, Amos W (2005) Microsatellite genotyping errors: Detection approaches, common sources and consequences for paternal exclusion. Mol. Ecol., 14, 599–612CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Kohn MH, Wayne RK (1997) Facts from feces revisited. Trends Ecol. Evol., 12, 223–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lessells C, Mateman A (1998) Sexing birds using random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) markers. Mol. Ecol., 7, 187–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pemberton JM, Slate J, Bancroft DR, Barrett JA (1995) Non amplifying alleles at microsatellite loci: a cautionary tale for parentage and population studies. Mol. Ecol., 4, 249–252PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pompanon F, Bonin A., Bellemain E, Taberlet P (2005) Genotyping errors: causes, consequences and solutions. Nat. Rev. Genet., 6, 847–859CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Reed JZ, Tollit DJ, Thompson PM, Amos W (1997) Molecular scatology: The use of molecular genetic analysis to assign species, sex and individual identity to seal faeces. Mol. Ecol., 6, 225–234CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Robertson BC, Millar CD, Minot EO, Merton DV, Lambert DM (2000) Sexing the critically endangered kakapo Strigops habroptilus. Emu, 100, 336–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shea BF (1999) Determining the sex of bovine embryos using polymerase chain reaction results: a six-year retrospective study. Theriogenology, 51, 841–854CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Sutherland WJ (2002) Science, sex and the kakapo. Nature, 419, 265–266CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Taberlet P, Griffin S, Goossens B et al. (1996) Reliable genotyping of samples with very low DNA quantities using PCR. Nucleic Acids Res., 24, 3189–3194CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Whittingham LA, Dunn PO (2000) Offspring sex ratios in tree swallows: Females in better condition produce more sons. Mol. Ecol., 9, 1123–1129CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Zeleny R, Bernreuther A, Schimmel H, Pauwels J (2002) Evaluation of PCR-based beef sexing methods. J. Agric. Food Chem., 50, 4169–4175CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations