A polymorphic (AGGAAT), tandem repeat in an intron of the canine von Willebrand factor gene

Shibuya, Hisashi; Collins, B K; Huang, Tim H.M.; Johnson, Gary S.

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2052.1994.tb00094.x

Cited by 63 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…DNA was then extracted using a modified phenol/chloroform protocol (Sambrook et al 1989). Eight autosomal microsatellites were amplified from all samples: 2096 (Francisco et al 1996), u109, u173, u225, u250 (Ostrander et al 1993, vWF (Shibuya et al 1994), PEZ03 and PEZ05 (PerkinElmer, Zoogen; see NHGRI Dog Genome Project at http://research.nhgri.nih.gov/dog_genome/). The same PCR mix and PCR profile was used for all eight markers.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wolf or dog? Genetic identification of predators from saliva collected around bite wounds on prey

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wolf predation on livestock is a management problem in many areas and is often used to justify control measures against the wolves. However, wolves coexist with dogs across their range, and dogs could be responsible for attacks blamed on wolves. In this study we evaluate the possibility of obtaining sufficient DNA for species identification of the predator from saliva remaining close to bite wounds following a canid attack. Predator DNA of reasonably high quality was successfully extracted from bite wounds on two sheep that had been attacked on a farm and were genotyped using six informative microsatellite markers. A single consensus genotype could be constructed from the bite wounds of both sheep which we compared to genotypes obtained from Scandinavian wolves and dogs. The results clearly showed that the saliva sampled originated from a single dog. This report thus demonstrates the feasibility of predator species identification from bite wounds and also illustrates that it can not be taken for granted that wolves are responsible for canid livestock kills.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wolf or dog? Genetic identification of predators from saliva collected around bite wounds on prey

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thirteen unlinked autosomal microsatellite loci, initially developed for dogs, were selected from the literature (Vilà et al 2003b;Sundqvist et al 2006) to type 48 individuals (Table 1), and included u109, u173, u225, u250, u253 (Ostrander et al 1993), vWF (Shibuya et al 1994, c2079, c2088, c2096 (Francisco et al 1996, PEZ3, PEZ5 and PEZ12 (Perkin Elmer, Zoogen). One 3-multiplex with u109, u173 and u225, and two 2-multiplex, one with u250 and vWF and another with c2079 and PEZ3, were performed, whereas all other loci were single-plexed.…”

Section: Typing Microsatellite Locimentioning

confidence: 99%

The genetic legacy of extirpation and re-colonization in Vancouver Island wolves

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hybridization between wild and domestic species is of conservation concern because it can result in the loss of adaptations and/or disappearance of a distinct taxon. Wolves from Vancouver Island, British Columbia (Canada), have been subject to several eradication campaigns during the twentieth century and were considered virtually extirpated between 1950 and 1970. In this study, we use control region mitochondrial DNA sequences and 13 autosomal microsatellite loci to characterize Vancouver Island wolves as well as dogs from British Columbia. We observe a turnover in the haplotypes of wolves sampled before and after the 1950-1970 period, when there was no permanent wolf population on the island, supporting the probable local extinction of wolves on Vancouver Island during this time, followed by re-colonization of the island by wolves from mainland British Columbia. In addition, we report the presence of a domestic dog mtDNA haplotype in three individuals eliminated in 1986 that were morphologically identified as wolves. Here we show that Vancouver Island wolves were also identified as wolves based on autosomal microsatellite data. We attribute the hybridization event to the episodically small size of this population during the recolonization event. Our results demonstrate that at least one female hybrid offspring, resulting from a cross of a male wolf and a female dog or a female hybrid pet with dog mtDNA, successfully introgressed into the wolf population. No dog mtDNA has been previously reported in a population of wild wolves. Genetic data show that Vancouver Island wolves are distinct from dogs and thus should be recognized as a population of wild wolves. We suggest that the introgression took place due to the Allee effect, specifically a lack of mates when population size was low. Our findings exemplify how small populations are at risk of hybridization.

show abstract

“…For wolves, we amplified DNA in 2 multiplex PCRs, one for CPH5 (Fredholm and Winterø 1995), FH2054, and FH2161 (Francisco et al 1996), and the other for FH2010, FH2137, FH2140 (Francisco et al 1996), and vWF (Shibuya et al 1994). CPH5 contains a dinucleotide repeat, FH2010, FH2054, FH2137, FH2140, and FH2161 tetranucleotide repeats, and vWF, a hexanucleotide motif.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental evaluation of genetic predator identification from saliva traces on wildlife kills

Harms¹,

Nowak²,

Carl³

et al. 2015

JMAMMAL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Identification of predators from saliva traces on game species and/or livestock kills is gaining increasing importance in wildlife management, particularly in areas where direct wildlife-human conflicts regularly occur. When the noninvasive sampling of hairs and scats is difficult, as with rare and elusive predators, saliva samples constitute a potentially useful source of DNA. To test the feasibility of this approach in obtaining an accurate genotype of the predator, we applied an experimental approach. Captive wolves (Canis lupus) and lynxes (Lynx lynx) were allowed to feed on freshly killed roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) pieces for 1 min. After removal, pieces were sampled for saliva traces after 1, 24, and 48 h. Microsatellite analysis revealed that error rates and amplification failure increased sharply over time. While samples collected after 1 and 24 h yielded > 83% complete genotypes, values dropped to < 50% for samples collected after 48 h, of which 7% were incorrect even when consensus genotypes from 9 polymerase chain reactions were obtained. Our results stress the importance of rapid sampling after carcass detection, as well as implementing a multiple-tubes approach when using microsatellite markers for genetic predator identification based on saliva traces.

show abstract

A polymorphic (AGGAAT), tandem repeat in an intron of the canine von Willebrand factor gene

Cited by 63 publications

References 3 publications

Wolf or dog? Genetic identification of predators from saliva collected around bite wounds on prey

Wolf or dog? Genetic identification of predators from saliva collected around bite wounds on prey

The genetic legacy of extirpation and re-colonization in Vancouver Island wolves

Experimental evaluation of genetic predator identification from saliva traces on wildlife kills

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About