Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

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

  • Published:
Conservation Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arnold KE, Orr KJ, Griffiths R (2003) Primary sex ratios in birds: Problems with molecular sex identification of undeveloped eggs. Molec. Ecol., 12, 3451–3458

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 613–615

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley BJ, Chambers KE, Vigilant L (2001) Accurate DNA-based sex identification of apes using non-invasive samples. Conserv. Genet., 2, 179–181

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 13–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coughlan T, Schartl M, Hornung U, Hope I, Stewart A (1999) PCR-based sex test for Xiphophorus maculates. J. Fish Biol., 54, 218–222

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 201–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 107–111

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 1386–1399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 1277–1282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fridolfsson AK, Ellegren H (1999) A simple and universal method for molecular sexing of non-ratite birds. J. Avian Biol., 30, 116–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 861–868

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 1224–1229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant A (2001) DNA sexing of brown kiwi (Apteryx mantelli) from feather samples. DOC Science Internal Series 13. Department of Conservation, Wellington. 16p

  • Griffiths R (2000) Sex identification using DNA markers. In: Molecular Methods in Ecology (ed. Baker AJ), pp. 295–321, Blackwell Science, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths R, Tiwari B (1995) Identification of the sex of the last wild Spix’s macaw. Nature, 375, 454

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths R, Double MC, Orr K, Dawson RJB (1998) A DNA test to sex most birds. Mol. Ecol., 7, 1071–1075

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 365–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Handyside AH, Kontogianni EH, Hardy K, Winston RML (1990) Pregnancies from biopsied human preimplantation embryos sexed by Y-specific DNA amplification. Nature 334: 768–770

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman JI, Amos W (2005) Microsatellite genotyping errors: Detection approaches, common sources and consequences for paternal exclusion. Mol. Ecol., 14, 599–612

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kohn MH, Wayne RK (1997) Facts from feces revisited. Trends Ecol. Evol., 12, 223–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lessells C, Mateman A (1998) Sexing birds using random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) markers. Mol. Ecol., 7, 187–195

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 249–252

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pompanon F, Bonin A., Bellemain E, Taberlet P (2005) Genotyping errors: causes, consequences and solutions. Nat. Rev. Genet., 6, 847–859

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 225–234

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson BC, Millar CD, Minot EO, Merton DV, Lambert DM (2000) Sexing the critically endangered kakapo Strigops habroptilus. Emu, 100, 336–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shea BF (1999) Determining the sex of bovine embryos using polymerase chain reaction results: a six-year retrospective study. Theriogenology, 51, 841–854

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland WJ (2002) Science, sex and the kakapo. Nature, 419, 265–266

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Taberlet P, Griffin S, Goossens B et al. (1996) Reliable genotyping of samples with very low DNA quantities using PCR. Nucleic Acids Res., 24, 3189–3194

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Whittingham LA, Dunn PO (2000) Offspring sex ratios in tree swallows: Females in better condition produce more sons. Mol. Ecol., 9, 1123–1129

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zeleny R, Bernreuther A, Schimmel H, Pauwels J (2002) Evaluation of PCR-based beef sexing methods. J. Agric. Food Chem., 50, 4169–4175

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Fred Allendorf, Jim Briskie, Terry Burke, Louise Chilvers, Debs Dawson, Raphael Didham, John Ewen, Sharyn Goldstien, Tania King, Ed Minot, Tammy Steeves and two anonymous reviewers for discussions and comments that improved the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bruce C. Robertson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Robertson, B., Gemmell, N. PCR-based sexing in conservation biology: Wrong answers from an accurate methodology?. Conserv Genet 7, 267–271 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-005-9105-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-005-9105-6

Keywords

Navigation