Conservation Genetics

, Volume 8, Issue 6, pp 1465–1470 | Cite as

Rapid multiplex PCR based species identification of wild tigers using non-invasive samples

  • Nibedita Mukherjee
  • Samrat Mondol
  • Anish Andheria
  • Uma Ramakrishnan
Short Communication

Abstract

Conservation and management of rare and elusive species requires accurate data on presence or absence. In such cases, molecular genetics based species identification approaches can prove invaluable, especially in conjuncture with non-invasive DNA sampling. However, non-invasive sources yield DNA in low concentration that is degraded, which could result in false negatives for species identification. In this paper, we developed a set of primers for PCR-based species identification of tigers. Our results reveal high rates (upto 90%) of species identification for both fresh (less than 48 h) and old (between 7 days and 3 months) fecal samples from the field. Experiments reveal that multiplex PCR (amplifying more than one genomic region) results in an increase in conclusive species identification (and a consequent decrease in the number of false negatives) from 55% to 89% for old fecal samples. We demonstrate that this increased success is because we experimentally overcome the problems of low DNA template quantity (using the multiplex PCR kit, increases species identification from 55% to 72%) and low template DNA quality (two sets of primers increase the species identification success from 72% to 89%). We recommend that multiplex PCR based methods be used (in conjuncture with species specific primers) for other rare and elusive species since such methods will potentially significantly decrease error in species identification.

Keywords

Fecal samples Molecular species identification Conservation Degraded DNA 

References

  1. Eggert LS, Eggert JA, Woodruff DS (2001) Estimating population size for elusive animals: the forest elephants of Kakum National Park, Ghana. Mol Ecol 12(6):1389–1402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Höss M, Kohn M, Pääbo S, Knauer F, Shroder W (1992) Excrement analysis by PCR. Nature 359:199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Karanth UK, Sunquist ME (1995) Prey selection by tiger, leopard and dhole in tropical forests. J Anim Ecol 64:439–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Karanth UK, Nichols JD, Kumar SN, Hines N (2006) Assessing tiger population dynamics using photographic mark-recapture sampling. Ecology 87(1):2925–2937PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Karanth UK, Nichols JD, Kumar NS, Link WA, Hines JE (2004) Tigers and their prey: predicting carnivore densities from prey abundance. Proc Natl Acad Sci 101:4854–4858PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kim JH, Antunes A, Luo SJ, Menninger J, Nash WG, O’Brien SJ, Johnson WE (2006) Evolutionary analysis of a large mtDNA translocation (numt) into the nuclear genome of the Panthera genus species. Gene 366:292–302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kitchener AC (1999) Tiger distribution, phenotypic variation and conservation issues. In: Seidensticker J, Christie S, Jackson P (eds) Riding the tiger, tiger conservation in human-dominated landscapes. Cambridge University Press, pp 40–50Google Scholar
  8. Kohn MH, Wayne RK (1997) Facts from faeces revisited. TREE 12:223–227Google Scholar
  9. Kumar S, Tamura K, Nei M (2004) MEGA 3.1Google Scholar
  10. Luo SJ, Kim JH, Johnson WE, Walt JVD, Martenson J, Yuhki N, Miquelle DG, Uphyrkina O, Goodrich JM, Quigley HB, Tilson R, Brady G, Martelli P, Subramaniam V, McDougal C, Hean S, Huang SQ, Pan W, Karanth UK, Sunquist M, Smith JLD, O’Brien SJ (2004) Phylogeography and genetic ancestry of tigers. PLoS Biol 2(12):e442PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nowell K, Jackson P (1996) Wild cats: status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN-World Conservation Union. p 406 Google Scholar
  12. Palomares F, Godoy JA, Piriz A, 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
  13. Paxinos E, McIntosh C, Ralls K, Fleischer R (1997) A non invasive method for distinguishing among canid species: amplification and enzyme restriction of DNA from dung. Mol Ecol 6:225–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 6:225–234PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Treves A, Karanth UK (2003) Human-carnivore conflict and perspectives on carnivore management worldwide. Conserv Biol 17:1491–1499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Valiere N, Taberlet P (2000) Urine collected in the field as a source of DNA for species and individual identification. Mol Ecol 9:2150–2152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wasser SK, Houston CS, Koehler GM, Cadd GG, Fain SR (1997) Techniques for application of faecal DNA methods to field studies of Ursids. Mol Ecol 6:1091–1097PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wikramanayake ED, Dinerstein E, Robinson G, Karanth UK, Rabinowitz A, Olson D, Mathew T, Hedao P, Conner M, Hemley G, Bolze D (1998) An ecology based method of defining priorities for large mammal conservation: the tiger as a case study. Conserv Biol 12:865–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Woods JG, Paetkau D, Lewis B, McLellan B, Proctor M, Strobeck C (1999) Genetic tagging of free-ranging black and brown bears. Wildl Soc Bull 27:616–627Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nibedita Mukherjee
    • 1
    • 2
  • Samrat Mondol
    • 1
  • Anish Andheria
    • 2
  • Uma Ramakrishnan
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.National Centre for Biological SciencesBangalore India
  2. 2.Wildlife Conservation Society-India ProgramCentre for Wildlife StudiesBangaloreIndia
  3. 3.Wildlife Conservation Society-India ProgramBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations