Advertisement

Cross-specific markers reveal retention of genetic diversity in captive-bred pygmy hog, a critically endangered suid

  • Deepanwita Purohit
  • Muthuvarmadam Subramanian Ram
  • Virendra Kumar Pandey
  • Satya Pravalika
  • Parag Jyoti Deka
  • Goutam Narayan
  • Govindhaswamy UmapathyEmail author
Methods and Resources Article
  • 124 Downloads

Abstract

As part of the species recovery plan for the critically endangered pygmy hog (Porcula salvania), a conservation-breeding program was initiated, to bolster its wild population. For successful conservation-breeding, it is essential to maintain 90% of the founder genetic diversity over time. Therefore, in the present study, we assessed the genetic diversity of a captive population of pygmy hog across generations using a set of ten, cross-specific microsatellite markers. Our results indicated a genetically heterozygous captive population (HE = 0.603), with stable expected heterozygosities across generations. However, the most recent generation showed a significant decrease in individual heterozygosities, implying possible genetic inbreeding. The current findings warrant a need for genetic evaluation to inform future conservation-breeding decisions. In addition, we also designed and tested primers for PCR-based species and sex-identification in the pygmy hog. The markers standardised in the present study would also help in evaluating the survival and ecology of the reintroduced populations.

Keywords

Pygmy hog Conservation-breeding Genetic diversity Molecular markers Population monitoring 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The study was supported by Central Zoo Authority of India (CZA), Government of India and Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Department of Science and Technology (DST), Government of India. The key partners of Pygmy Hog Conservation Programme are Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust, IUCN-SSC Wild Pig Specialist Group, Assam Forest Dept., MoEF&CC Govt. of India and EcoSystems-India.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors share no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving animals were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution or practice at which studies were conducted.

Supplementary material

12686_2019_1091_MOESM1_ESM.docx (279 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 278 KB)

References

  1. Ballou JD (1997) Genetic and demographic modelling for animal colony and population management. ILAR J 38:69–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blouch RA (1995) Conservation and Research Priorities for Threatened Suids of South and Southeast Asia. JME 3:21–25Google Scholar
  3. Cain CM, Livieri TM, Swanson BJ (2011) Genetic evalution of a reintroduced population of black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes). J Mammal 92:751–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Choudhury A (2006) The status of endangered species in northeast India. JBNHS 103(2/3):157Google Scholar
  5. Costa V, González JP, Santos P, Llario PF, Carranza J et al (2012) Microsatellite markers for identification and parentage analysis in the European wild boar (Sus scrofa). BMC Res Notes 5:479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Deka PJ, Narayan G, Oliver WL, Fa JE (2009) Reintroduced pygmy hogs (Porcula salvania) thrive a year after release—more hogs released in Sonai Rupai Wildlife Sanctuary, Assam, India. Suiform Sound 9:23–28Google Scholar
  7. Funk SM, Verma SK, Larson G, Prasad K, Singh L, Narayan G, Fa JE (2007) The pygmy hog is a unique genus: 19th century taxonomist got it right first time around. Mol Phylogenet Evol 45:427–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Haye MJJL, Reiners TE, Raedts R, Verbist V, Koelewijn HP (2017) Genetic monitoring to evaluate reintroduction attempts of a highly endangered rodent. Conserv Genet 18:877–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kolodziej K, Theissinger J, Brün J, Schulz HK, Schulz R (2012) Determination of the minimum number of microsatellite markers for individual genotyping in wild boar (Sus scrofa) using a test with close relatives. Eur J Wildl Res 58:621–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kumar A, Rai U, Roka B, Jha AK, Reddy PA (2016) Genetic assessment of captive red panda (Ailurus fulgens) population. SpringerPlus 5:1750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Luis A, Davidar P, Reddy PA (2017) Potential of cross-species microsatellite markers to assess population genetics of the endemic, endangered Nilgiri tahr (Nilgiritragus hylocrius). Eur J Wildl R 63:16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Moreno E, González JP, Carranza J, Laraño JM (2015) Better fitness in captive Cuvier’s gazelle despite inbreeding increase: evidence of purging? PLoS ONE 11(3):e0152542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Narayan G, Deka PJ (2002) Pygmy hog conservation programme in Assam, India. Asian Wild Pig News 2:1Google Scholar
  14. Narayan G, Deka P, Oliver W (2008) “Porcula salvania”. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. IUCNGoogle Scholar
  15. Peakall R, Smouse PE (2012) GenAlEx 6.5: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research- an update. Bioinformatics 28:2537–2539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sambrook J, Fritschi EF, Maniatis T (1989) Molecular cloning: a laboratory manual. CSHL Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Sarma et al (2008) Land-use and land-cover change and future implication analysis in Manas National Park, India using multi-temporal satellite data. Curr Sci 95:223–227Google Scholar
  18. Schwartz MK, Luikart G, Waples RS (2007) Genetic monitoring as a promising tool for conservation and management. Trends Ecol Evol 22:25–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tamura K, Peterson D, Peterson N, Stecher G, Nei M, Kumar S (2011) MEGA5: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis using maximum likelihood, evolutionary distance, and maximum parsimony methods. Mol Biol Evol 28:2731–2739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Templeton AR, Read B (1984) Factors eliminating inbreeding depression in a captive herd of Speke’s gazelle (Gazella spekei). Zoo Biol 3:177–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Verma SK, Singh L (2003) Novel universal primers establish identity of enormous number of animal species for forensic application. Mol Ecol Notes 3:28–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deepanwita Purohit
    • 1
  • Muthuvarmadam Subramanian Ram
    • 1
  • Virendra Kumar Pandey
    • 1
  • Satya Pravalika
    • 1
  • Parag Jyoti Deka
    • 2
  • Goutam Narayan
    • 2
  • Govindhaswamy Umapathy
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.LaCONES, CSIR-Centre for Cellular and Molecular BiologyHyderabadIndia
  2. 2.Pygmy Hog Conservation ProgrammeEcoSystems India and Durrell Wildlife Conservation TrustGuwahatiIndia

Personalised recommendations