Skip to main content

Guidelines for collecting and maintaining archives for genetic monitoring

Conservation Genetics Resources volume 4, pages 527–536 (2012)Cite this article

Abstract

Rapid advances in molecular genetic techniques and the statistical analysis of genetic data have revolutionized the way that populations of animals, plants and microorganisms can be monitored. Genetic monitoring is the practice of using molecular genetic markers to track changes in the abundance, diversity or distribution of populations, species or ecosystems over time, and to follow adaptive and non-adaptive genetic responses to changing external conditions. In recent years, genetic monitoring has become a valuable tool in conservation management of biological diversity and ecological analysis, helping to illuminate and define cryptic and poorly understood species and populations. Many of the detected biodiversity declines, changes in distribution and hybridization events have helped to drive changes in policy and management. Because a time series of samples is necessary to detect trends of change in genetic diversity and species composition, archiving is a critical component of genetic monitoring. Here we discuss the collection, development, maintenance, and use of archives for genetic monitoring. This includes an overview of the genetic markers that facilitate effective monitoring, describes how tissue and DNA can be stored, and provides guidelines for proper practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

Notes

  1. http://www.sandiegozoo.org/conservation/science/at_the_zoo/the_frozen_zoo/.

References

  • Allendorf F, Hohenlohe PA, Luikart G (2010) Genomics and the future of conservation genetics. Nat Rev Genet 11:697–709

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Austin JJ, Melville J (2006) Incorporating historical museum specimens into molecular systematic and conservation genetics research. Mol Ecol Notes 6:1089–1092

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Baker CS (2008) A truer measure of the market: the molecular ecology of fisheries and wildlife trade. Mol Ecol 17:3985–3998

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baxevanis AD (2003) The molecular biology database collection: 2003 update. Nucleic Acids Res 31:1–12

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bellinger MR (2003) Loss of genetic variation in greater prairie chickens following a population bottleneck in Wisconsin, USA. Conserv Biol 17(3):717–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boulanger J, Himmer S, Swan C (2004) Monitoring of grizzly bear population trends and demography using DNA mark-recapture methods in the Owikeno Lake area of British Columbia. Can J Zool 82:1267–1277

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bowen BW, Avise JC (1994) Conservation research and the legal status of PCR products. Science 266:713

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bowen BW, Grant WS, Hills-Starr Z, Shaver DJ, Bjornadal A, Bolten AB, Bass AL (2007) Mixed stock analysis reveals the migrations of juvenile hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys imbricate) in the Caribbean sea. Mol Ecol 16:49–60

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Costello MJ (2009) Motivating online publication of data. Bioscience 59(5):418–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dean FB, Hosono S, Fang L, Wu X, Faruqi AF, Bray-Ward P, Sun Z, Zong Q, Du Y, Du J, Driscoll M, Song W, Kingsmore SF, Egholm M, Lasken RS (2002) Comprehensive human genome amplification using multiple displacement amplification. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:5261–5266

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards SV, Birks S, Brumfield RT, Hanner R (2005) Future of avian genetic resources collections: archives of evolutionary and environmental history. Auk 122(3):979–984

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felsenstein J (2006) Accuracy of coalescent likelihood estimates: do we need more sites, more sequences, or more loci? Mol Biol Evol 23(3):691–700

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Frankham R (2005) Genetics and extinction. Biol Conserv 126(2):131–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groombridge JJ, Jones CG, Bruford MW, Nichols RA (2000) ‘Ghost’ alleles of the Mauritius kestrel. Nature 403:616

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hagelberg E, Sykes B, Hedges R (1989) Ancient bone DNA amplified. Nature 342:485

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hajibabaei M, de Waard JR, Ivanova NV et al (2005) Critical factors for assembling a high volume of DNA barcodes. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 360:1959–1967

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Haussler D et al (2009) Genome 10 K: a proposal to obtain whole-genome sequence for 10,000 vertebrate species. J Hered 100:659–674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howe D, Costanzo M, Fey P et al (2008) The future of biocuration. Nature 455:47–50

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes S (2005) Whole genome amplification. Methods express series. Scion Publishing Limited, Oxfordshire

    Google Scholar 

  • Janecka JE, Grassman LI, Derr JN, Honeycutt RL, Eiadthong W, Tewes ME (2006) Rapid whole genome amplification of DNA from felids: applications for conservation genetics. Wildl Soc Bull 34(4):1134–1141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jorde PE, Ryman N (1996) Demographic genetics of brown trout (Salmo trutta) and estimation of effective population size from temporal change of allele frequencies. Genetics 143:1369–1381

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley Thomas W, Pääbo S, Villablanca FX, Wilson AC (1990) Spatial and temporal continuity of kangaroo rat populations shown by sequencing mitochondrial DNA from museum specimens. J Mol Evol 31(2):101–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendall KC, Stetz JB, Boulanger J, Macleod AC, Paetkau D, White GC (2009) Demography and genetic structure of a recovering grizzly bear population. J Wildl Manage 73(1):3–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilpatrick CW (2001) Noncryogenic preservation of mammalian tissues for DNA extraction: an assessment of storage methods. Biochem Genet 40(1/2):53–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krusar TA (2011) What are the implications of the Nagoya Protocol for research on biodiversity? Bioscience 61(4):256–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsson LC, Charlier J, Laikre L, Ryman N (2009) Statistical power for detecting genetic divergence—organelle versus nuclear markers. Conserv Genet 10(5):1255–1264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leboeuf C, Ratajczak P, Zhao W et al (2008) Long-term preservation at room temperature of freeze-dried human tumor samples dedicated to nucleic acids analysis. Cell Preserv Technol 6:191–198

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard JA (2008) Ancient DNA applications for wildlife conservation. Mol Ecol 17(19):1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Royle JA, Pollock KH, Bailey LL, Hines JE (2006) Occupancy estimation and modeling: inferring patterns and dynamics of species occurrence. Elsevier, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • Makowski GS, Davis EL, Hopfer SM (1998) Amplification of Guthrie card DNA: effect of guanidine thiocyanate on binding of natural whole blood PCR inhibitors. J Clin Lab Anal 11(2):87–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manel S, Gaggiotti O, Waples RS (2005) Assignment methods: matching biological questions with appropriate techniques. Trends Ecol Evol 20:136–142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mariette S, Le Corre V, Austerlitz F, Kremer A (2002) Sampling within the genome for measuring within-population diversity: trade-offs between markers. Mol Ecol 11:1145–1156

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McKelvey KS, Schwartz MK (2005) DROPOUT: a program to identify problem loci and samples for noninvasive genetic samples in a capture-mark-recapture framework. Mol Ecol Notes 5:716–718

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Morgera E, Tsioumani E (2011) Yesterday, today and tomorrow: looking afresh at the Convention on Biological Diversity. University of Edinburgh School of Law Working Paper Series No 2011/21

  • Morin PA, Luikart G, Wayne RK, SNP Workshop Group (2004) SNPs in ecology, evolution and conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 19(4):208–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morin PA, Martien KK, Archer FI, Cipriano F, Steel D, Jackson JA, Taylor BL (2010) Applied conservation genetics and the need for quality control and reporting of genetic data used in fisheries and wildlife management. J Hered 101(1):1–10

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy MA, Waits LP, Kendall KC (2000) Quantitative evaluation of fecal drying methods for brown bear DNA analysis. Wildl Soc Bull 28(4):951–957

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohsako S, Nagano R, Sugimoto Y, Goto K (1997) Comparison of the nuclear DNA stability against freezing-thawing and high temperature treatments between spermatozoa and somatic cells. J Vet Med Sci 59(11):1085–1088

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pääbo S, Poinar H, Serre D et al (2004) Genetic analyses from ancient DNA. Annu Rev Genet 38:645–679

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Paetkau D (2003) An empirical exploration of data quality in DNA-based population inventories. Mol Ecol 12(6):1375–1387

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Palm S, Laikre L, Jorde PE, Ryman N (2003) Effective population size and temporal genetic change in stream resident brown trout (Salmo trutta, L.). Conserv Genet 4:249–264

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Petit RJ, El Mousadik A, Pons O (1998) Identifying populations for conservation on the basis of genetic markers. Conserv Biol 12(4):844–855

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pichler FB, Baker CS (2000) Loss of genetic diversity in the endemic Hector’s dolphin due to fisheries-related mortality. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 267:97–102

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 15:81–91

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Prendini L, Hanner R, Desalle R (2002) Obtaining, storing and archiving specimens and tissue samples for use in molecular studies. In: Desalle R, Giribet G, Wheeler WC (eds) Techniques in molecular evolution and systematics. Birkhaeuser Verlag AG, Basel, pp 176–248

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Proctor MF, McLellan BN, Strobeck C, Barclay RMR (2005) Genetic analysis reveals demographic fragmentation of grizzly bears yielding vulnerably small populations. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 272:2409–2416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prugh LR, Ritland CE, Arthur SM, Krebs CJ (2005) Monitoring coyote population dynamics by genotyping faeces. Mol Ecol 14(5):1585–1596

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Roon DA, Waits LP, Kendall K (2005) A simulation test of the effectiveness of several methods for error-checking non-invasive genetic data. Anim Conserv 8:203–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryman N, Palm S, André C, Carvalho G, Dahlgren T, Jorde PE, Laikre L, Larsson L, Palmé A, Ruzzante D (2006) Power for detecting genetic divergence: differences between statistical methods and marker loci. Mol Ecol 15(8):255–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz MK, Luikart G, Waples RS (2007) Genetic monitoring as a promising tool for conservation and management. Trends Ecol Evol 22(1):25–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2011) Nagoya protocol on access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their utilization to the convention on biological Diversity: text and annex. Montreal, Canada

  • Selkoe KA, Toonen RJ (2006) Microsatellites for ecologists: a practical guide to using and evaluating microsatellite markers. Ecol Lett 9:615–629

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smith LM, Burgoyne LA (2004) Collecting, archiving and processing DNA from wildlife samples using FTA® databasing paper. BMC Ecol 4(4):1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith S, Morin PA (2005) Optimal storage conditions for highly dilute DNA samples: a role for Trehalose as a preserving agent. J Forensic Sci 50(5):1101–1108

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson JJ, Campbell MR, Hess JE et al (2009) A centralized model for creating shared, standardized, microsatellite data that simplifies inter-laboratory collaboration. Conserv Genet 10:1145–1149

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stetz JB, Kendall KC, Vojta CD et al Genetic monitoring for managers: a new online resource. J Fish Wildl Manag (in press)

  • Sunnucks P (2000) Efficient genetic markers for population biology. Trends Ecol Evol 15:199–203

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Taberlet P, Waits LP, Luikart G (1999) Non-invasive genetic sampling: look before you leap. Trends Ecol Evol 14:323–327

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tallmon D, Gregovich D, Waples RS et al (2010) When are genetic methods useful for estimating contemporary abundance and detecting population trends? Mol Ecol Res 10(4):684–692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teo YY, Inouye M, Small KS et al (2008) Whole genome-amplified DNA: insights and imputation. Nat Methods 5(4):279–280

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 6:1091–1097

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Whitlock MC, McPeek MA, Rausher MD, Rieseberg L, Moore AJ (2010) Data archiving. Am Nat 175(2):145–146

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wirgin I, Maceda L, Stabile J, Mesing C (1997) An evaluation of introgression of Atlantic coast striped bass mitochondrial DNA in a Gulf of Mexico population using formalin-preserved museum collections. Mol Ecol 6:907–916

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wright LI, Tregenza T, Hosken DJ (2008) Inbreeding, inbreeding depression and extinction. Conserv Genet 9:833–843

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was conducted as part of the Genetic Monitoring (GeM) Working Group jointly supported by the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center (NSF #EF-0423641) and the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, a center funded by NSF (NSF #EF-0553768), the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the State of California. L.L. also acknowledges the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013) under grant agreement No 217246 made with BONUS, the joint Baltic Sea research and development programme. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the US Government.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Jennifer A. Jackson

    Present address: British Antarctic Survey, High Cross, Madingley Road, Cambridge, CB3 0ET, UK

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Marine Mammal Institute, Oregon State University, 2030 SE Marine Science Drive, Newport, OR, 97365, USA

    Jennifer A. Jackson

  2. Division of Population Genetics, Department of Zoology, Stockholm University, 10691, Stockholm, Sweden

    Linda Laikre

  3. Marine Mammal Institute and Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, 2030 SE Marine Science Drive, Newport, OR, 97365, USA

    C. Scott Baker

  4. School of Biological Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

    C. Scott Baker

  5. US Geological Survey, Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center, Glacier National Park, West Glacier, MT, USA

    Katherine C. Kendall

Authors
  1. Jennifer A. Jackson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Linda Laikre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. Scott Baker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Katherine C. Kendall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

The Genetic Monitoring Working Group

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer A. Jackson.

Additional information

The NCEAS/NESCent Working Group on Genetic Monitoring (GeM) is chaired by F. W. Allendorf, University of Montana, USA, and M. K. Schwartz, USDA Forest Service, USA. The other members are: C. S. Baker (Oregon State University, USA), D. P. Gregovich (University of Alaska, USA), M. M. Hansen (Aarhus University, Denmark), J.A. Jackson (Oregon State University, USA), K. C. Kendall (US Geological Survey, USA), L. Laikre (Stockholm University, Sweden), K. McKelvey (USDA Forest Service, USA), M. C. Neel (University of Maryland, USA), I. Olivieri (Université de Montpellier II, France), N. Ryman (Stockholm University, Sweden), R. Short Bull (University of Montana, USA), J.B. Stetz (University of Montana, USA), D. A. Tallmon (University of Alaska, USA), C. D. Vojta (US Forest Service, USA), D. M. Waller (University of Wisconsin, USA) and R. S. Waples (National Marine Fisheries Service, USA).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jackson, J.A., Laikre, L., Baker, C.S. et al. Guidelines for collecting and maintaining archives for genetic monitoring. Conservation Genet Resour 4, 527–536 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12686-011-9545-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12686-011-9545-x

Keywords

  • Conservation
  • Museum DNA
  • Biodiversity
  • Molecular markers
  • Biological collections