‘ForCyt’ DNA database of wildlife species

Ahlers, Nick; Creecy, James P.; Frankham, Greta J.; Johnson, Rebecca N.; Kotzé, Antoinette; Linacre, Adrian; McEwing, Ross; Mwale, Monica; Rovie-Ryan, Jeffrine J.; Sitam, Frankie Thomas; Webster, Lucy M.I.

doi:10.1016/j.fsigss.2017.09.195

Cited by 23 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is not the case in wildlife forensics, which is characterized by a few small laboratories, each focused on the species assemblage associated with the jurisdictions they serve. Wildlife DNA laboratories, therefore, commonly generate their own, purpose‐built validated reference databases constructed from sequences or genotypes for the species of interest . Assembling databases for the myriad wild taxa is difficult because of both the sheer number of species of interest to law enforcement and the lack of opportunity for representative sample collection for most organisms.…”

Section: Similarities and Differences Between The Common Questions Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An additional concern when constructing databases of wild taxa is that most nonhuman species are more restricted in their movement by natural features such as rivers, lakes, and mountains as well as human‐associated development, resulting in haplotype and genotype frequencies that can vary widely between populations of the same species in different geographic areas, demanding broad sampling of populations over a species’ range. We will explore the need for centralized, managed databases in more detail later, as it is one of the wildlife forensics’ biggest challenges .…”

Section: Similarities and Differences Between The Common Questions Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Wildlife forensic laboratories use mtDNA sequence databases primarily for taxonomic identification, and occasionally for population assignment, exclusions (as in human mtDNA), or for a conservative estimate of the minimum number of individuals. Human forensics has standardized mtDNA loci (hypervariable regions I and II of the control region) and large, quality‐controlled databases accessible by human identity laboratories . The standardized locus and single focal species mean that human laboratories can use an agreed‐upon reference sequence (revised Cambridge Reference Sequence ) and related community‐promulgated haplotype naming rules .…”

Section: Mtdna Sequence Databasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The standardized locus and single focal species mean that human laboratories can use an agreed‐upon reference sequence (revised Cambridge Reference Sequence ) and related community‐promulgated haplotype naming rules . Though there has been a push by some researchers to standardize sequencing part of the mtDNA cytochrome oxidase I (COI) region as a universal “barcode” for animal species identification , laboratories may use different loci even when they work on the same taxa because there is no single “best” locus for species identification across all taxa . Different taxonomic groups diverge at different rates over evolutionary time , and many taxonomic groups have had gene rearrangements within the mitochondrial genome, potentially impacting any ability to use common sets of primers between species .…”

Section: Mtdna Sequence Databasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…GenBank, on the other hand, has fewer quality control measures, but contains sequences for many more organisms and DNA regions. Both databases are known to contain sequences that are attributed to the wrong species, either due to misidentification of the original organism, contamination, or a mix‐up in labeling during laboratory or data analysis . Misidentification can occur because many species require some expertise for proper identification, but sample collection is often performed with little expert confirmation.…”

Section: Mtdna Sequence Databasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Humans Are Animals, Too: Critical Commonalities and Differences Between Human and Wildlife Forensic Genetics

Moore

Frazier

2019

Journal of Forensic Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wildlife forensics has recently been recognized among the wide variety of forensic science disciplines. This review compares human and wildlife DNA forensics, which use the same genetic tools, but often for far different purposes. Human forensic genetics almost invariably attempts to identify individual perpetrators involved in a given crime. Wildlife forensics often determines whether a crime has occurred. In addition to techniques familiar in human laboratories, like individual matching with STRs, wildlife analysts may be asked to determine the taxonomic identity, geographic source, or sex of evidence items, or the familial relationships or minimum number of individuals among a group of samples. This review highlights the common questions, legal framework, databases, and similar validation requirements to foster understanding between disciplines. Based on this understanding, human and wildlife DNA practitioners may work together and learn from each other in order to elevate the discipline of forensic genetics.

show abstract

Section: Similarities and Differences Between The Common Questions Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Similarities and Differences Between The Common Questions Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Mtdna Sequence Databasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Mtdna Sequence Databasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Mtdna Sequence Databasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Humans Are Animals, Too: Critical Commonalities and Differences Between Human and Wildlife Forensic Genetics

Moore

Frazier

2019

Journal of Forensic Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Non‐invasive sampling reveals low mitochondrial genetic diversity for an island endemic species: The critically endangered Grenada Dove Leptotila wellsi

Peters,

Geary,

Hosie

et al. 2023

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As an island endemic with a decreasing population, the critically endangered Grenada Dove Leptotila wellsi is threatened by accelerated loss of genetic diversity resulting from ongoing habitat fragmentation. Small, threatened populations are difficult to sample directly but advances in molecular methods mean that non‐invasive samples can be used. We performed the first assessment of genetic diversity of populations of Grenada Dove by (a) assessing mtDNA genetic diversity in the only two areas of occupancy on Grenada, (b) defining the number of haplotypes present at each site and (c) evaluating evidence of isolation between sites. We used non‐invasively collected samples from two locations: Mt Hartman (n = 18) and Perseverance (n = 12). DNA extraction and PCR were used to amplify 1751 bps of mtDNA from two mitochondrial markers: NADH dehydrogenase 2 (ND2) and Cytochrome b (Cyt b). Haplotype diversity (h) of 0.4, a nucleotide diversity (π) of 0.00023 and two unique haplotypes were identified within the ND2 sequences; a single haplotype was identified within the Cyt b sequences. Of the two haplotypes identified, the most common haplotype (haplotype A = 73.9%) was observed at both sites and the other (haplotype B = 26.1%) was unique to Perseverance. Our results show low mitochondrial genetic diversity and clear evidence for genetically isolated populations. The Grenada Dove needs urgent conservation action, including habitat protection and potentially augmentation of gene flow by translocation in order to increase genetic resilience and diversity with the ultimate aim of securing the long‐term survival of this critically endangered species.

show abstract

Wildlife forensic science in Hong Kong

Hatten

Whitfort

Baker

et al. 2020

WIREs Forensic Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the past decade, Hong Kong has seen an increase in volume and diversity of endangered wildlife imported through its borders. Recent amendments to legislation concerning wildlife crimes in Hong Kong allow for increased sentencing and prosecution of the crimes. This calls for an increased forensic capacity to aid enforcement efforts. Wildlife forensic science in Hong Kong is generally performed ad hoc via a confidential tender-application process. Additionally, minimal communication between forensic scientists, the prosecution and the judiciary on the use and production of wildlife forensic analyses has compounded the problem of wildlife crimes not being addressed as "serious" crimes. Improving communication and collaboration between relevant stakeholders, including the development of a wildlife forensic reference database, shared forensic practices, and shared information concerning expertise and analyses available within Hong Kong, would provide benefits to wildlife crime investigations. This article addresses some of these concerns in more detail and provides suggestions for improvements to the overall wildlife forensic capacity in Hong Kong. Increasing Hong Kong's capacity for wildlife forensic science will not only facilitate law enforcement efforts but also help to change Hong Kong's status as a regional hub for wildlife trade to one for excellence in wildlife crime deterrence.

show abstract

‘ForCyt’ DNA database of wildlife species

Cited by 23 publications

References 8 publications

Humans Are Animals, Too: Critical Commonalities and Differences Between Human and Wildlife Forensic Genetics

Humans Are Animals, Too: Critical Commonalities and Differences Between Human and Wildlife Forensic Genetics

Non‐invasive sampling reveals low mitochondrial genetic diversity for an island endemic species: The critically endangered Grenada Dove Leptotila wellsi

Wildlife forensic science in Hong Kong

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About