Conservation Genetics

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 123–131 | Cite as

An efficient method for screening faecal DNA genotypes and detecting new individuals and hybrids in the red wolf (Canis rufus) experimental population area

  • Jennifer R. AdamsEmail author
  • Lisette P. Waits
Original Paper


Previously, sequencing of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from non-invasively collected faecal material (scat) has been used to help manage hybridization in the wild red wolf (Canis rufus) population. This method is limited by the maternal inheritance of mtDNA and the inability to obtain individual identification. Here, we optimize the use of nuclear DNA microsatellite markers on red wolf scat DNA to distinguish between individuals and detect hybrids. We develop a data filtering method in which scat genotypes are compared to known blood genotypes to reduce the number of PCR amplifications needed. We apply our data filtering method and the more conservative maximum likelihood ratio method (MLR) of Miller et al. (2002 Genetics 160:357–366) to a scat dataset previously screened for hybrids by sequencing of mtDNA. Using seven microsatellite loci, we obtained genotypes for 105 scats, which were matched to 17 individuals. The PCR amplification success rate was 50% and genotyping error rates ranged from 6.6% to 52.1% per locus. Our data filtering method produced comparable results to the MLR method, and decreased the time and cost of analysis by 25%. Analysis of this dataset using our data filtering method verified that no hybrid individuals were present in the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, North Carolina in 2000. Our results demonstrate that nuclear DNA microsatellite analysis of red wolf scats provides an efficient and accurate approach to screen for new individuals and hybrids.


Canis rufus Faecal DNA Genotyping errors Hybrid detection 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



We thank Buddy Fazio, team leader of the Red Wolf Recovery Program, and the Recovery Implementation Team for continued support of our research efforts. Craig Miller, the Waits lab group and three anonymous reviewers provided helpful comments on this manuscript. Members of the red wolf field crew, Arthur Beyer, Chris Lucash, Scott McLellan, Michael Morse, Leslie Schutte, and Kathy Whidbee, and program volunteers assisted in collecting the scats. Bruce Creef and the ARNWR maintenance facility staff provided help with the ATVs. The US Department of Defense and Gary Melton, Wayne Daniels (AFBR), Harry Mann (NBR) allowed access to the bombing ranges. Debra Montgomery assisted with statistical analyses. Andrea Bristol, Jonathan Teeters and Melanie Murphy provided assistance in the laboratory. Funding was provided by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.


  1. Adams JR, Kelly BT, Waits LP (2003) Using faecal DNA sampling and GIS to monitor hybridization between red wolves (Canis rufus) and coyotes (Canis latrans). Mol Ecol 12:2175–2186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Banks SC, Piggott MP, Hansen BD, Robinson NA, Taylor AC (2002) Wombat coprogenetics: enumerating a common wombat population by microsatellite analysis of faecal DNA. Aust J Zool 50:193–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bellemain E, Taberlet P (2004) Improved noninvasive genotyping method: application to brown bear (Ursus arctos) faeces. Mol Ecol Notes 4:519–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bellemain E, Swenson JE, Tallmon D, Brunberg S, Taberlet P (2005) Estimating population size of elusive animals with DNA from hunter-collected feces: four methods for brown bears. Conserv Biol 19:150–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Broquet T, Petit E (2004) Quantifying genotyping errors in noninvasive population genetics. Mol Ecol 13:3601–3608PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Constable JL, Ashley MV, Goodall J, Pusey AE (2001) Noninvasive paternity assignment in Gombe chimpanzees. Mol Ecol 10:1279–1300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Creel S, Spong G, Sands JL, Rotella J, Zeigle J, Joe L, Murphy KM, Smith D (2003) Population size estimation in Yellowstone wolves with error-prone noninvasive microsatellite genotypes. Mol Ecol 12:2003–2009PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dalén L, Götherström A, Angerbjörn A (2004) Identifying species from pieces of faeces. Conserv Genet 5:109–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davison A, Birks JDS, Brookes RC, Braithwaite TC, Messenger JE (2002) On the origin of faeces: morphological versus molecular methods for surveying rare carnivores from their scats. J Zool Lond 257:141–143Google Scholar
  10. De Barba M, Waits LP, Genovesi P, Randi E (2005) Monitoring the brown bear in the Italian alps through non-invasive genetic sampling. Abstract. International Bear Association Meeting, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  11. Ernest HB, Penedo MCT, May BP, Syvanen M, Boyce WM (2000) Molecular tracking of mountain lions in the Yosemite Valley region in California: genetic analysis using microsatellites and faecal DNA. Mol Ecol 9:433–441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eggert LS, Eggert JA, Woodruff DS (2003) Estimating population sizes for elusive animals: the forest elephants of Kakum National Park, Ghana. Mol Ecol 12:1389–1402PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Farrell LE, Roman J, Sunquist ME (2000) Dietary separation of sympatric carnivores identified by molecular analysis of scats. Mol Ecol 9:1583–1590PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Flagstad Ø, Hedmark E, Landa A, Broseth H, Persson J, Andersen R, Segerstrom P, Ellegren H (2004) Colonization history and noninvasive monitoring of a reestablished wolverine population. Conserv Biol 18:676–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frantz AC, Pope LC, Carpenter PJ, Roper TJ, Wilson GJ, Delahay RJ, Burke T (2003) Reliable microsatellite genotyping of the Eurasian badger (Meles meles) using faecal DNA. Mol Ecol 12:1649–1661PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frantzen MAJ, Silk JB, Ferguson JWH, Wayne RK, Kohn MH (1998) Empirical evaluation of preservation methods for faecal DNA. Mol Ecol 7:1423–1428PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gagneux P, Boesch C, Woodruff DS (1997) Microsatellite scoring errors associated with noninvasive genotyping based on nuclear DNA amplified from shed hair. Mol Ecol 6:861–868PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Gerloff U, Schlötterer C, Rassmann K, Rambold I, Hohmann G, Fruth B, Tautz D (1995) Amplification of hypervariable simple sequence repeats (microsatellites) from excremental DNA of wild living bonobos (Pan Paniscus). Mol Ecol 4:515–518Google Scholar
  19. Gerloff U, Hartung B, Fruth B, Hohmann G, Tautz D (1999) Intracommunity relationships, dispersal pattern and paternity success in a wild living community of Bonobos (Pan paniscus) determined from DNA analysis of faecal samples. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 266:1189–1195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goossens B, Waits LP, Taberlet P (1998) Plucked hair samples as a source of DNA: reliability of dinucleotide microsatellite genotyping. Mol Ecol 7:1237–1241PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goossens B, Chikhi L, Jalil MF, Ancrenaz M, Lackman-Ancrenaz I, Mohamed M, Andau P, Bruford MW (2005) Patterns of genetic diversity and migration in increasingly fragmented and declining orang-utan (Pongo pygmaeus) populations from Sabah, Malaysia. Mol Ecol 14:441–456Google Scholar
  22. Hansen MM, Jacobsen L (1999) Identification of mustelid species: otter (Lutra lutra), American mink (Mustela vison) and polecat (Mustela putorius), by analysis of DNA from faecal samples. J Zool Lond 247:177–181Google Scholar
  23. Hedmark E, Ellegren H (2005) A test of the multiplex pre-amplification approach in microsatellite genotyping of wolverine faecal DNA. Conserv Genet (in press)Google Scholar
  24. Holmes NG, Dickend HF, Parker HL, Binns MM, Mellersh CS, Sampson J (1995) Eighteen canine microsatellites. Anim Genet 26:132–133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hung CM, Li SH, Lee LL (2004) Faecal DNA typing to determine the abundance and spatial organisation of otters (Lutra lutra) along two stream systems in Kinmen. Anim Conserv 7:301–311Google Scholar
  26. Iyengar A, Babu VN, Hedges S, Venkataraman AB, Maclean N, Morin PA (2005) Phylogeography, genetic structure, and diversity in the dhole (Cuon alpinus). Mol Ecol 14:2281–2297PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kohn MH, York EC, Kamradt DA, Haught G, Sauvajot RM, Wayne RK (1999) Estimating population size by genotyping faeces. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 266:657–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Launhardt K, Epplen C, Epplen JT, Winkler P (1998) Amplification of microsatellites adapted from human systems in faecal DNA of wild Hanuman langurs (Presbytis entellus). Electrophoresis 19:1356–1361PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Longmire JL, Ambrose RE, Brown NC, Cade TJ, Maechtle T, Seegar WS, Ward FP, White CM (1991) Use of sex-linked minisatellite fragments to investigate genetic differentiation and migration of North American populations of the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus). In: Burke T, Dolf G, Jeffreys A, Wolff R (eds) DNA fingerprinting: approaches and applications. Birkhauser Press, Brazil, pp 217–229Google Scholar
  30. Lucchini V, Fabbri E, Marucco F, Ricci S, Boitani L, Randi E (2002) Noninvasive molecular tracking of colonizing wolf (Canis lupus) packs in the western Italian Alps. Mol Ecol 11:857–868PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mech LD (1994) Buffer zones of territories of gray wolves as regions of intraspecific strife. Journal of Mammalogy 75:199–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mellersh CS, Langston AA, Acland GM, Fleming MA, Ray K, Wiegand NA, Francisco LV, Gibbs M, Aguirre GD, Ostrander EA (1997) A linkage map of the canine genome. Genomics 46:326–336PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Messier F (1985) Solitary living and extraterritorial movements of wolves in relation to social status and prey abundance. Can J Zool 63:239–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Miller CR, Joyce P, Waits LP (2002) Assessing alleleic dropout and genotype reliability using maximum likelihood. Genetics 160:357–366PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Miller CR, Adams JR, Waits LP (2003) Pedigree-based assignment tests for reversing coyote (Canis latrans) introgression into the wild red wolf (Canis rufus) population. Mol Ecol 12:3287–3301PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Morin PA, Chambers KE, Boesch C, Vigilant L (2001) Quantitative polymerase chain reaction analysis of DNA from noninvasive samples for accurate microsatellite genotyping of wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus). Mol Ecol 10:1835–1844PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Murphy MA, Waits LP, Kendall KC (2000) Quantitative evaluation of fecal drying methods for brown bear DNA analysis. Wildlife Soc Bull 28:951–957Google Scholar
  38. Murphy MA, Waits LP, Kendall KC, Wasser SK, Higbee JA, Bogden R (2002) Long-term preservation methods for brown bear (Ursus arctos) faecal DNA samples. Conserv Genet 3:435–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ostrander EA, Sprague GF, Rine J (1993) Identification and characterization of dinucleotide repeat (CA)n markers for genetic mapping in dogs. Genomics 16:207–213PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ostrander EA, Mapa FA, Yee M, Rine J (1995) One hundred and one new simple sequence repeat-based markers for the canine genome. Mamm Genome 6:192–195PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Palomares F, Godoy JA, Piriz A, Oȁ9Brien SJ, Johnson WE (2002) Faecal genetic analysis to determine the presence and distribution of elusive carnivores: design and feasibility for the Iberian lynx. Mol Ecol 11:2171–2182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Paxinos E, Mcintosh C, Ralls K, Fleischer R (1997) A noninvasive method for distinguishing among canid species: amplification and enzyme restriction of DNA from dung. Mol Ecol 6:483–486PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Piggott MP (2004) Effect of sample age and season of collection on the reliability of microsatellite genotyping of faecal DNA. Wildlife Res 31:485–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Piggott MP, Bellemain E, Taberlet P, Taylor AC (2004) A multiplex pre-amplification method that significantly improves microsatellite amplification and error rates for faecal DNA in limiting conditions. Conserv Genet 5:417–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Piggott MP, Banks SC, Stone N, Banffy C, Taylor AC (2006) Estimating population size of endangered brush-tailed rock-wallaby (Petrogale Penicillata) colonies using faecal DNA. Mol Ecol 15:81–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Prugh LR, Ritland CE, Arthur SM, Krebs CJ (2005) Monitoring coyote population dynamics by genotyping faeces. Mol Ecol 14:1585–1596PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Taberlet P, Griffin S, Goossens B, Questiau S, Manceau V, Escaravage N, Waits LP, Bouvet J (1996) Reliable genotyping of samples with very low DNA quantities using PCR. Nucl Acids Res 24:3189–3194PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. USFWS (1989) Red wolf recovery plan. USFWS, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  49. Valiere N (2002) GIMLET: a computer program for analysing genetic individual identification data. Mol Ecol Notes 2:377–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Waits LP, Luikart G, Taberlet P (2001) Estimating the probability of identity among genotypes in natural populations: cautions and guidelines. Mol Ecol 10:249–256PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Fish and WildlifeUniversity of Idaho, College of Natural ResourcesMoscowUSA

Personalised recommendations