Factors affecting success of PCR amplification of microsatellite loci from otter faeces

Molecular Ecology Notes

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 559-562

  Hajkova P ^a,b   Zemanova B ^a,b   Bryja, J ^a,b   Hajek B ^c   Roche, K ^d,e   Tkadlec, E ^a,f   Zima, J ^a  

^a INSTITUTE OF VERTEBRATE BIOLOGY   (Czech Republic)

^b MASARYK UNIVERSITY   (Czech Republic)

^c THE NATURE CONSERVANCY   (United States)

^d Czech Otter Foundation Fund   (Czech Republic)

^e ENVIRONMENT AGENCY   (United Kingdom)

^f PALACKÝ UNIVERSITY   (Czech Republic)

Author keywords

Amplification success; Faecal DNA; Lutra; Noninvasive sampling

Indexed keywords

CARNIVORA; LUTRA; LUTRINAE;

EID: 33646871254     PISSN: 14718278     EISSN: 14718286     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-8286.2006.01269.x     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Coxon K, Chanin P, Dallas J, Sykes T 1999) The use of DNA fingerprinting to study population dynamics of otters (Lutra lutra) in southern Britain: a feasibility study. R&D Technical Report W202, Environment Agency, Bristol, UK.
2. Dallas JF, Carss DN, Marshall F et al. 2000 Sex identification of the Eurasian otter Lutra lutra by PCR typing of spraints. Conservation Genetics, 1, 181 183.
3. Dallas JF, Coxon KE, Sykes T et al. 2003 Similar estimates of population genetic composition and sex ratio derived from carcasses and faeces of Eurasian otter Lutra lutra. Molecular Ecology, 12, 275 282.
4. Dallas JF, Piertney SB 1998 Microsatellite primers for the Eurasian otter. Molecular Ecology, 7, 1248 1251.
5. Gorman ML, Jenkins D, Harper RJ 1978 The anal scent sacs of the otter (Lutra lutra). Journal of Zoology, London, 186, 463 474.
6. 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. Animal Conservation, 7, 301 311.
7. Kohn MH, Wayne RK 1997 Facts from feces revisited. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 12, 223 227.
8. Maudet C, Luikart G, Dubray D, von Hardenberg A, Taberlet P 2004 Low genotyping error rates in wild ungulate faeces sampled in winter. Molecular Ecology Notes, 4, 772 775.
9. Murphy MA, Waits LP, Kendall KC 2003 The influence of diet on faecal DNA amplification and sex identification in brown bears (Ursus arctos). Molecular Ecology, 12, 2261 2265.
10. Murphy MA, Waits LP, Kendall KC et al. 2002 An evaluation of long-term preservation methods for brown bear (Ursus arctos) faecal DNA samples. Conservation Genetics, 3, 435 440.
11. Nsubuga AM, Robbins MM, Roeder AD et al. 2004 Factors affecting the amount of genomic DNA extracted from ape faeces and the identification of an improved sample storage method. Molecular Ecology, 13, 2089 2094.
12. 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. Conservation Genetics, 5, 417 420.
13. Roeder AD, Archer FI, Poinar HN, Morin PA 2004 A novel method for collection and preservation of faeces for genetic studies. Molecular Ecology Notes, 4, 761 764.
14. SAS Institute 2004 SAS 9.1.3. Help and Documentation. Cary, North Carolina, USA.
15. Taberlet P, Waits LP, Luikart G 1999 Noninvasive genetic sampling: look before you leap. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 14, 323 327.