Conservation Genetics

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 309–322 | Cite as

Lost but not forgotten: MHC genotypes predict overwinter survival despite depauperate MHC diversity in a declining frog

  • Anna E. Savage
  • Kevin P. Mulder
  • Taina Torres
  • Stuart Wells
Research Article
  • 200 Downloads

Abstract

The amphibian disease chytridiomycosis, caused by the fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd), has contributed to the decline of Chiricahua leopard frogs (Rana chiricahuensis), a federally threatened species native to the Southwestern United States. We characterized immunogenetic variability in R. chiricahuensis by sequencing an expressed Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) class IIβ gene across 13 natural populations in Arizona, USA, as well as 283 individuals that were captive reared from two egg masses. We recovered a total of five class IIβ MHC alleles compared to 84 alleles previously characterized in eight natural populations of the Arizona congener R. yavapaiensis, demonstrating reduced MHC diversity in R. chiricahuensis. One allele was fixed in five populations but none of the R. chiricahuensis alleles were closely related to R. yavapaiensis allele Q, which is significantly associated with chytridiomycosis resistance in laboratory trials. Nine of 13 R. chiricahuensis population localities were Bd positive, and bearing allele RachDRB*04 was the best genetic predictor of an individual being infected with Bd. A total of three class IIβ alleles were recovered from captive reared individuals, which were released to two natural population localities followed by recapture surveys to assess MHC-based survival over winter, the time when chytridiomycosis outbreaks are most severe. At one site, all released animals were fixed for a single allele and MHC-based survival could not be assessed. At the second site, fewer than half of the released but all of the recaptured individuals were homozygous for RachDRB*05, indicating that MHC genotype is important in determining Bd survival under natural field conditions. We conclude that the limited MHC variation in R. chiricahuensis is likely the consequence rather than the cause of natural selection favoring alleles that promote survival in the face of Bd. Our study highlights that preserving even low levels of functional genetic variation may be essential for population persistence, and that local disease adaptation may present as a reduction in genetic diversity. These finding also suggest that for populations that have declined due to a specific infectious pathogen, MHC-based genetically-informed reintroduction approaches may enhance species recovery efforts.

Keywords

Peptide binding region Rana Chytridiomycosis Bd 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Ruth Allard, Shaula Hedwall, David Hall, Bradley Poynter, Christina Akins and Michael Sredl for their assistance in planning and implementing this project in Arizona. We also thank Nancy McInerney and Rob Fleischer for supporting data generation at the Smithsonian’s Center for Conservation Genomics. This study was funded by an Association of Zoos and Aquariums Conservation Grant Fund award (12-1111) to AES and SW and an Arizona Game and Fish Department award (Central Arizona Project) to AES and SW. KPM was supported by a doctoral student grant (PD/BD/52604/2014) from the Portuguese ‘‘Fundaçao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia”.

Supplementary material

10592_2017_1001_MOESM1_ESM.docx (312 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 312 KB)
10592_2017_1001_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (2 mb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 2094 KB)
10592_2017_1001_MOESM3_ESM.jpg (1.7 mb)
Supplementary material 3 (JPG 1790 KB)

References

  1. Altizer S, Harvell D, Friedle E (2003) Rapid evolutionary dynamics and disease threats to biodiversity. Trends Ecol Evol 18:589–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Babik W, Durka W, Radwan J (2005) Sequence diversity of the MHC DRB gene in the Eurasian beaver (Castor fiber). Mol Ecol 14:4249–4257CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Babik W, Pabijan M, Radwan J (2008) Contrasting patterns of variation in MHC loci in the Alpine newt. Mol Ecol 17:2339–2355CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bataille A, Cashins SD, Grogan L, Skerratt LF, Hunter D, McFadden M, Scheele B, Brannelly LA, Macris A, Harlow PS, Bell S, Berger L, Waldman B (2015) Susceptibility of amphibians tochytridiomycosis is associated with MHC class II conformation. Proc R Soc Lond B 282:20143127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker CG, Greenspan SE, Tracy KE, Dash JA, Lambertini C, Jenkinson TS, Leite DS, Toledo LF, Longcore JE, James TY, Zamudio KR (2017) Variation in phenotype and virulence among enzootic and panzootic amphibian chytrid lineages. Fungal Ecol 26:45–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berger L, Speare R, Daszak P, Green DE, Cunningham AA, Goggin CL, Slocombe R, Ragan MA, Hyatt AD, McDonald KR, Hines HB (1998) Chytridiomycosis causes amphibian mortality associated with population declines in the rain forests of Australia and Central America. Proc Natl Acad Sci 95:9031–9036CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Berger L, Roberts AA, Voyles J, Longcore JE, Murray KA, Skerratt LF (2016) History and recent progress on chytridiomycosis in amphibians. Fungal Ecol 19:89–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bernatchez L, Landry C (2003) MHC studies in nonmodel vertebrates: what have we learned about natural selection in 15 years? J Evol Biol 16:363–377CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bollmer JL, Vargas FH, Parker PG (2007) Low MHC variation in the endangered Galapagos penguin (Spheniscus mendiculus). Immunogenetics 59:593–602CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Borghans JAM, Beltman JB, De Boer RJ (2004) MHC polymorphism under host-pathogen coevolution. Immunogenetics 55:732–739CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Boyle DG, Boyle DB, Olsen V, Morgan JAT, Hyatt AD (2004) Rapid quantitative detection of chytridiomycosis (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) in amphibian samples using real-time Taqman PCR assay. Dis Aquat Org 60:141–148CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Bradley GA, Rosen PC, Sredl MJ, Jones TR, Longcore JE (2002) Chytridiomycosis in native Arizona frogs. J Wildl Dis 38:206–212CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Brown JH, Jardetzky TS, Gorga JC, Stern LJ, Urban RG, Strominger JL, Wiley DC (1993) Three-dimensional structure of the human class II histocompatibility antigen HLA-DR1. Nature 364:33–39CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Cassinello J, Gomendio M, Roldan ERS (2001) Relationship between coefficient of inbreeding and parasite burden in endangered gazelles. Conserv Biol 15:1171–1174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clement M, Posada D, Crandall KA (2000) TCS: a computer program to estimate gene genealogies. Mol Ecol 9:1657–1660CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Coltman DW, Pilkington JG, Smith JA, Pemberton JM (1999) Parasite-mediated selection against inbred Soay sheep in a free-living, island population. Evol Int J Org Evol 53:1259–1267Google Scholar
  17. Crawford NG (2010) SMOGD: software for the measurement of genetic diversity. Mol Ecol Resour 10:556–557CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Didinger C, Eimes JA, Lillie M, Waldman B (2017) Multiple major histocompatibility complex class I genes in Asian anurans: ontogeny and phylogeny. Dev Comp Immunol 70:69–79CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Doherty PC, Zinkernagel RM (1975) Enhanced immunological surveillance in mice heterozygous at H-2 gene complex. Nature 256:50–52CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. dos Santos AM, Cabezas MP, Tavares AI, Xavier R, Branco M (2015) TcsBU: a tool to extend TCS network layout and visualization. Bioinformatics 32:627–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eimes JA, Bollmer JL, Whittingham LA, Johnson JA, Van Oosterhout C, Dunn PO (2011) Rapid loss of MHC class II variation in a bottlenecked population is explained by drift and loss of copy number variation. J Evol Biol 24:1847–1856CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Eizaguirre C, Lenz TL, Kalbe M, Milinski M (2012) Rapid and adaptive evolution of MHC genes under parasite selection in experimental vertebrate populations. Nat Commun 3:621CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Ejsmond MJ, Radwan J (2011) MHC diversity in bottlenecked populations: a simulation model. Conserv Genet 12:129–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ellegren H, Hartman G, Johansson M, Andersson L (1993) Major histocompatibility complex monomorphism and low-levels of DNA-fingerprinting variability in a reintroduced and rapidly expanding population of beavers. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 90:8150–8153CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. ESRI 2011. ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10. Environmental Systems Research Institute, RedlandsGoogle Scholar
  26. Faircloth BC, Glenn TC (2012) Not all sequence tags are created equal: designing and validating sequence identification tags robust to indels. PLoS One 7:e42543CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Flajnik MF, Kasahara M (2001) Comparative genomics of the MHC: glimpses into the evolution of the adaptive immune system. Immunity 15:351–362CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Forrest MJ, Schlaepfer MA (2011) Nothing a hot bath won’t cure: infection rates of amphibian chytrid fungus correlate negatively with water temperature under natural field settings. PLoS ONE 6:e28444CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Frankham R, Ralls K (1998) Inbreeding leads to extinction. Nature 392:441–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Germain RN (1994) MHC-dependent antigen processing and peptide presentation: providing ligands for T lymphocyte activation. Cell 76:287–299CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Hale SF, Rosen PC, Jarchow JL, Bradley GA (2005) Effects of the chytrid fungus on the Tarahumara frog (Rana tarahumarae) in Arizona and Sonora, Mexico. USDA Forest Service Proceedings, RMRS-P-36, 407–411Google Scholar
  32. Hansson B, Richardson DS (2005) Genetic variation in two endangered Acrocephalus species compared to a widespread congener: estimates based on functional and random loci. Anim Conserv 8:83–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hedrick PW (2002) Pathogen resistance and genetic variation at MHC loci. Evol Int J org Evol 56:1902–1908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hedrick PW, Kim TJ (1999) Genetics of complex polymorphisms: parasites and maintenance of MHC variation. In: Singh RH, Krimbas CK (eds) Evolutionary genetics from molecules to morphology. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Höglund J, Wengström Å, Rogell B, Meyer-Lucht Y (2015) Low MHC variation in isolated island populations of the Natterjack toad (Bufo calamita). Conserv Genet 16:1007–1010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hughes AL, Nei M (1992) Maintenance of MHC polymorphism. Nature 355:402–403CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Hurvich CM, Tsai C-L (1993) A corrected Akaike information criterion for vector autoregressive model selection. J Time Ser Anal 14:271–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jennions MD, Petrie M (1997) Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol Rev 72:283–327CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Jensen JL, Bohonak AJ, Kelley ST (2005) Isolation by distance, web service. BMC Genet, 6(13):v.3.23. http://ibdws.sdsu.edu/
  40. Jombart T, Ahmed I (2011) Adegenet 1.3–1: new tools for the analysis of genome-wide SNP data. Bioinformatics 27:3070–3071CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Jombart T, Devillard S, Balloux F (2010) Discriminant analysis of principal components: a new method for the analysis of genetically structured populations. BMC Genet 11:94CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Jones EY, Fugger L, Strominger JL, Siebold C (2006) MHC class II proteins and disease: a structural perspective. Nat Rev Immunol 6:271–282CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Jost LOU (2008) GST and its relatives do not measure differentiation. Mol Ecol 17:4015–4026CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Kearse M, Moir R, Wilson A, Stones-Havas S, Cheung M, Sturrock S, Buxton S, Cooper A, Markowitz S, Duran C, Thierer T (2012) Geneious basic: an integrated and extendable desktop software platform for the organization and analysis of sequence data. Bioinformatics 28:1647–1649CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Kiemnec-Tyburczy KM, Richmond JQ, Savage AE, Zamudio KR (2010) Selection, trans-species polymorphism and locus identification of major histocompatibility complex class IIB alleles of New World ranid frogs. Immunogenetics 62:741–751CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Klein J, Bontrop RE, Dawkins RL, Erlich HA, Gyllensten UB, Heise ER, Jones PP, Parham P, Wakeland EK, Watkins DI (1990) Nomenclature for the major histocompatibility complexes of different species: a proposal. Immunogenetics 3:217–219Google Scholar
  47. Kosakovsky Pond SL, Posada D, Gravenor MB et al (2006b) GARD: a genetic algorithm for recombination detection. Bioinformatics 22:3096–3098CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Kosch TA, Bataille A, Didinger C, Eimes JA, Rodríguez-Brenes S, Ryan MJ, Waldman B (2016) Major histocompatibility complex selection dynamics in pathogen-infected túngara frog (Physalaemus pustulosus) populations. Biol Lett 12:20160345CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Krebs CJ (1989) Ecological methodology. Harper Collins, New York, pp 16–29Google Scholar
  50. Lacy RC (1997) Importance of genetic variation to the viability of mammalian populations. J Mammal 78:320–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lande R (1988) Genetics and demography in biological conservation. Science 241:1455–1460CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Lanfear R, Calcott B, Ho SYW, Guindon S (2012) PartitionFinder: combined selection of partitioning schemes and substitution models for phylogenetic analyses. Mol Biol Evol 29:1695–1701CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Langmead B, Salzberg SL (2012) Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nat Methods 9:357–359CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. Little TJ (2002) The evolutionary significance of parasitism: do parasite-driven genetic dynamics occur ex silico? J Evol Biol 15:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mainguy J, Worley K, Côté SD, Coltman DW (2007) Low MHC DRB class II diversity in the mountain goat: past bottlenecks and possible role of pathogens and parasites. Conserv Genet 8:885–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Martin M (2011) Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet J 17:10–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mattila HR, Seeley TD (2007) Genetic diversity in honey bee colonies enhances productivity and fitness. Science 317:362–364CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Meagher S (1999) Genetic diversity and Capillaria hepatica (Nematoda) prevalence in Michigan deer mouse populations. Evol Int J Org Evol 53:1318–1324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mulder KP, Harris J, Cortazar M, Grant EHC, Fleisher RC, Savage AE (2017) Evolutionary dynamics of an expressed MHC class IIβ locus in the Ranidae (Anura) uncovered by genome walking and development of amplicon multiplexing primers for 17 species. Developmental and Comparative Immunology, under reviewGoogle Scholar
  60. O’Brien SJ, Roelke ME, Marker L, Newman A, Winkler CA, Meltzer D, Colly L, Evermann JF, Bush M, Wildt DE (1985) Genetic basis for species vulnerability in the cheetah. Science 227:1428–1434CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Oliver MK, Piertney SB (2012) Selection maintains MHC diversity through a natural population bottleneck. Mol Biol Evolut 29:1713–1720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Perry W, Lugo R, Hathaway SA, Vandergast AG (2011a) Genetic Landscapes GIS Toolbox: Tools to create genetic divergence and diversity landscapes in ArcGIS. U.S. Geological Survey.Google Scholar
  63. Perry G, Wallace MC, Perry D, Curzer H, Muhlberger P (2011b) Toe clipping of amphibians and reptiles: science, ethics, and the law. J Herpetol 45:547–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pfeifer B, Wittelsbürger U, Onsins SE, Lercher MJ (2014) PopGenome: an efficient Swiss army knife for population genomic analyses in R. Mol Biol Evol 31:1929–1936CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. Platz JE, Mecham JS (1979) Rana chiricahuensis, a new species of leopard frog (Rana pipiens Complex) from Arizona. Copeia 1979:383–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pond SLK, Frost SDW, Muse SV (2005) HyPhy: hypothesis testing using phylogenies. Bioinformatics 21:676–679CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. R Development Core Team (2008) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, http://www.R-project.org.
  68. Radwan J, Kawalko A, Wojcik JM, Babik W (2007) MHC-DRB3 variation in a free-living population of the European bison, Bison bonasus. Mol Ecol 16:531–540CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Reed DH, Frankham R (2003) Correlation between fitness and genetic diversity. Conserv Biol 17:230–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Reid NM, Proestou DA, Clark BW, Warren WC, Colbourne JK, Shaw JR, Karchner SI, Hahn ME, Nacci D, Oleksiak MF, Crawford DL (2016) The genomic landscape of rapid repeated evolutionary adaptation to toxic pollution in wild fish. Science 354:1305–1308CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  71. Ronquist F, Teslenko M, van der Mark P, Ayres DL, Darling A, Höhna S, Larget B, Liu L, Suchard MA, Huelsenbeck JP (2012) MrBayes 3.2: Efficient Bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space. Syst Biol 61:539–542CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. Savage AE, Zamudio KR (2011) MHC genotypes associate with resistance to a frog-killing fungus. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:16705–16710CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  73. Savage AE, Zamudio KR (2016) Adaptive tolerance to a pathogenic fungus drives major histocompatibility complex evolution in natural amphibian populations. Proc R Soc Lond B 283:20153115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Savage AE, Sredl MJ, Zamudio KR (2011) Disease dynamics vary spatially and temporally in a North American amphibian. Biol Conserv 144:1910–1915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Savage AE, Becker CG, Zamudio KR (2015) Linking genetic and environmental factors in amphibian disease risk. Evol Appl 8:560–572CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  76. Schlaepfer MA, Sredl MJ, Rosen PC, Ryan MJ (2007) High prevalence of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in wild populations of lowland leopard frogs Rana yavapaiensis in Arizona. EcoHealth 4:421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Scott NJ (1993) Postmetamorphic death syndrome. Froglog 7:1–2Google Scholar
  78. Simone-Finstrom M, Walz M, Tarpy DR (2016) Genetic diversity confers colony-level benefits due to individual immunity. Biol Lett 12:20151007CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  79. Simpson E (1988) Function of the MHC. Immunology 64:27–30PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  80. Spielman D, Brook BW, Briscoe DA, Frankham R (2004) Does inbreeding and loss of genetic diversity decrease disease resistance? Conserv Genet 5:439–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Spurgin LG, Richardson DS (2010) How pathogens drive genetic diversity: MHC, mechanisms and misunderstandings. Proc R Soc Lond B 277:979–988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Sredl MJ, Jennings RD (2005) Rana chiricahuensis: Platz and Mecham, 1979, Chiricahua leopard frogs. Pages 546–549 In: Lanoo M.J. (ed), Amphibian declines: the conservation status of United States Amphibians. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 1094Google Scholar
  83. Stuart SN, Chanson JS, Cox NA, Young BE, Rodrigues AS, Fischman DL, Waller RW (2004) Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science 306:1783–1786CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Stuglik MT, Radwan J, Babik W (2011) jMHC: software assistant for multilocus genotyping of gene families using next-generation amplicon sequencing. Mol Ecol Resour 11:739–742CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Sutton JT, Nakagawa S, Robertson BC, Jamieson IG (2011) Disentangling the roles of natural selection and genetic drift in shaping variation at MHC immunity genes. Mol Ecol 20:4408–4420CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. Sutton JT, Robertson BC, Jamieson IG (2015) MHC variation reflects the bottleneck histories of New Zealand passerines. Mol Ecol 24:362–373CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Takahata N, Nei M (1990) Allelic genealogy under overdominant and frequency-dependent selection and polymorphism of major histocompatibility complex loci. Genetics 124:967–978PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  88. Trowsdale J (2011) The MHC, disease and selection. Immunol Lett 137:1–8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (2007) Chiricahua leopard frog (Rana chiricahuensis) recovery plan. Region 2, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, p 429Google Scholar
  90. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (2009) Spotlight Species Action Plan for the Chiricahua leopard frog (Rana chiricahuensis). Region 2, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, AlbuquerqueGoogle Scholar
  91. Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern applied statistics with S-Plus, 4th edn. Springer, New York. ISBN 0-387-95457-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Waldman B, Tocher M (1998) Behavioral ecology, genetic diversity, and declining amphibian populations. In: Caro T (ed) Behavioral ecology and conservation biology, pp 394–436. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  93. Wells S, Poynter B, Sprankle T, King AD (2001) The Phoenix Zoo Conservation and Science Department Head-starting and Husbandry Manual for the Chiricahua leopard frog (Rana chiricahuensis). The Phoenix Zoo Conservation and Science Department, PhoenixGoogle Scholar
  94. Wenink PW, Groen AF, Roelke-Parker ME, Prins HHT (1998) African buffalo maintain high genetic diversity in the major histocompatibility complex in spite of historically known population bottlenecks. Mol Ecol 7:1315–1322CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. Yuan ZY, Zhou WW, Chen X, Poyarkov NA, Chen HM, Jang-Liaw NH, Chou WH, Matzke NJ, Iizuka K, Min MS, Kuzmin SL (2016) Spatiotemporal diversification of the true frogs (Genus Rana): a historical framework for a widely studied group of model organisms. Syst Biol 65:824–842CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. Zhu L, Ruan XD, Ge YF, Wan QH, Fang SG (2007) Low major histocompatibility complex class II DQA diversity in the Giant Panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca). BMC Genet 8:29CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA
  2. 2.Center for Conservation Genomics, Smithsonian Conservation Biology InstituteNational Zoological ParkWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.CIBIO/InBIO, Research Center in Biodiversity and Genetic ResourcesVairãoPortugal
  4. 4.Conservation and Science Department, Arizona Center for Nature ConservationPhoenix ZooPhoenixUSA

Personalised recommendations