Multiplex pre-amplification for noninvasive genetic sampling: Is the extra effort worth it?

Molecular Ecology Resources

Volumn 10, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 659-665

  De Barba, M ^a   Waits, L P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO   (United States)

Author keywords

DNA quality; Hair and faecal DNA; Microsatellite genotyping; Pre amplification

Indexed keywords

URSUS ARCTOS;

EID: 77954718341     PISSN: 1755098X     EISSN: 17550998     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-0998.2009.02818.x     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Adams JR, Waits LP. An efficient method for screening faecal DNA genotypes and detecting new individuals and hybrids in the red wolf (Canis rufus) experimental population area. Conservation Genetics 2007, 8:123-131.
2. Arandjelovic M, Guschanski K, SChubert G. Two-step multiplex polymerase chain reaction improves the speed and accuracy of genotyping using DNA from noninvasive and museum samples. Molecular Ecology Resources 2009, 9:28-36.
3. Bellemain E, Taberlet P. Improved non invasive genotyping method: application to brown bear (Ursus arctos) faeces. Molecular Ecology Notes 2004, 4:519-522.
4. Broquet T, Petit E. Quantifying genotyping errors in noninvasive population genetics. Molecular Ecology 2004, 13:3601-3608.
5. Broquet T, Menard N, Petit E. Noninvasive population genetics: a review of sample source, diet, fragment length and microsatellite motif effects on amplification success and genotyping error rates. Conservation Genetics 2007, 8:249-260.
6. De Barba M, Waits LP, Genovesi P, Randi E, Chirichella R, Cetto E. Comparing opportunistic and systematic sampling methods for non-invasive genetic monitoring of a small translocated brown bear population. Journal of Applied Ecology
7. Flagstad O, Roed K, Stacy JE, Jakobsen KS. Reliable noninvasive genotyping based on excremental PCR of nuclear DNA purified with a magnetic bead protocol. Molecular Ecology 1999, 8:879-883.
8. Frantzen MAJ, Silk JB, Ferguson JWH, Wayne RK, Kohn MH. Empirical evaluation of preservation methods for faecal DNA. Molecular Ecology 1998, 7:1427-1428.
9. Hàjkovà P, Zemanovà B, Bryja J. Factors affecting success of PCR amplification of microsatellite loci otter faeces. Molecular Ecology Notes 2006, 6:559-562.
10. Hedmark E, Ellegren H. A test of the multiplex pre-amplification approach in microsatellite genotyping of wolverine faecal DNA. Conservation Genetics 2006, 7:289-293.
11. Lampa S, Gruber B, Nenle K, Hoehn M. An optimization approach to increase DNA amplification success of otter faeces. Conservation Genetics 2008, 9:201-210.
12. Lucchini V, Fabbri E, Marucco F. Noninvasive molecular tracking of colonizing wolf (Canis lupus) packs in the western Italian Alps. Molecular Ecology 2002, 11:857-868.
13. Maudet C, Luikart G, Dubray D, Hardenberg AV, Taberlet P. Low genotyping error rates in wild ungulate faeces sampled in winter. Molecular Ecology Notes 2004, 4:772-775.
14. Murphy MA, Waits LP, Kendall KC. The influence of diet on faecal DNA amplification and sex identification in brown bears (Ursus arctos). Molecular Ecology 2003, 12:2261-2265.
15. Murphy MA, Kendall KC, Robinson A, Waits LP. The impact of time and field conditions on brown bear (Ursus arctos) faecal DNA amplification. Conservation Genetics 2007, 8:1219-1224.
16. Paetkau D, Strobeck C. Microsatellite analysis of genetic variation in black bear populations. Molecular Ecology 1994, 3:489-495.
17. Paetkau D, Shields GF, Strobeck C. Gene flow between insular, coastal and interior populations of brown bears in Alaska. Molecular Ecology 1998, 7:1283-1292.
18. Piggott MP. Effect of sample age and season of collection on the reliability of microsatellite genotyping of faecal DNA. Wildlife Research 2004, 31:485-493.
19. Piggott MP, Taylor AC. Remote collection of animal DNA and its applications in conservation management and understanding the population biology of rare and cryptic species. Wildlife Research 2003, 30:1-13.
20. Piggott MP, Bellemain E, Taberlet P, Taylor AC. A multiplex pre-amplification method that significantly improves microsatellite amplification and error rates for faecal DNA in limiting conditions. Conservation Genetics 2004, 5:417-420.
21. Puechmaille SJ, Mathy G, Petit EJ. Good DNA from bat droppings. Acta Chiropterologica 2007, 9:269-276.
22. Roon DA, Waits LP, Kendall KC. A quantitative evaluation of two methods for preserving hair samples. Molecular Ecology Notes 2003, 3:163-166.
23. Rudnick JA, Katzner TE, Bragin EA, Rhodes OE, DeWoody JA. Using naturally shed feathers for individual identification, genetic parentage analyses, and population monitoring in an endangered Eastern imperial easgle (Aquila heliaca) population from Kazakhstan. Molecular Ecology 2005, 14:2959-2967.
24. Santini A, Lucchini V, Fabbri E, Randi E. Ageing and environmental factors affect PCR success in wolf (Canis lupus) excremental DNA samples. Molecular Ecology Notes 2007, 7:955-961.
25. Skrbinšek T, Jelenčič M, Waits L, Kos I, Trontelj P. Highly efficient multiplex PCR of noninvasive DNA does not require pre-amplification. Molecular Ecology Resources 2009, 10.1111/j.1755-0998.2009.02670.x, doi
26. Stenglein JL, De Barba M, Ausband DE, Waits LP. Impacts of sampling location within a faeces on DNA quality in two carnivore species. Molecular Ecology Resources 2009, 10.1111/j.1755-0998.2009.02780.x, doi
27. Taberlet P, Griffin S, Goossens B. Reliable genotyping of samples with very low DNA quantities using PCR. Nucleic Acids Research 1996, 24:3189-3194.
28. Taberlet P, Camarra JJ, Griffin S. Non-invasive genetic tracking of the endangered Pyrenean brown bear population. Molecular Ecology 1997, 6:869-876.
29. Waits LP, Paetkau D. Noninvasive genetic sampling tools for wildlife biologists: a review of applications and recommendations for accurate data collection. Journal of Wildlife Management 2005, 69:1419-1433.