2011
DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-0998.2011.03098.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Pyrosequencing of prey DNA in reptile faeces: analysis of earthworm consumption by slow worms

Abstract: Little quantitative ecological information exists on the diets of most invertebrate feeding reptiles, particularly nocturnal or elusive species that are difficult to observe. In the UK and elsewhere, reptiles are legally required to be relocated before land development can proceed, but without knowledge of their dietary requirements, the suitability of receptor sites cannot be known. Here, we tested the ability of non-invasive DNA-based molecular diagnostics (454 pyrosequencing) to analyse reptile diets, with … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
58
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 71 publications
(59 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
1
58
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A single pair of general invertebrate primers was selected for amplification of predator gut contents; LCO‐1490 (5′‐GGTCAACAAATCATAAAGATATTGG‐3′) (Folmer, Black, Hoeh, Lutz, & Vrijenhoek, ) and HCO‐1777 (5′‐ACTTATATTGTTTATACGAGGGAA‐3′) (Brown, Jarman, & Symondson, ), which target a 287‐bp fragment of invertebrate CO1 genes. Blocking probes were not used as the phylogenetic proximity of predator and prey made it likely that a blocking probe would prevent amplification of many prey species (Piñol, Mir, Gomez‐Polo, & Agustí, ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A single pair of general invertebrate primers was selected for amplification of predator gut contents; LCO‐1490 (5′‐GGTCAACAAATCATAAAGATATTGG‐3′) (Folmer, Black, Hoeh, Lutz, & Vrijenhoek, ) and HCO‐1777 (5′‐ACTTATATTGTTTATACGAGGGAA‐3′) (Brown, Jarman, & Symondson, ), which target a 287‐bp fragment of invertebrate CO1 genes. Blocking probes were not used as the phylogenetic proximity of predator and prey made it likely that a blocking probe would prevent amplification of many prey species (Piñol, Mir, Gomez‐Polo, & Agustí, ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…) and lizards (Brown et al . ). Likewise, amplification of microbial DNA in skin swabs from several species of cohabiting frogs provided insight into processes underlying biogeographic patterns of free‐living vs. host‐associated microbiota (McKenzie et al .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…It is now possible to identify even the rarest prey from multiple predators to species, genus, or family level in a single sequencing run while maintaining the ability to trace back each prey to the sample from which it came. NGS has been used in barcoding diet studies for fur seals [13], little penguins [14,15], slow worms [16], bats [17,18], leopard cats [19] and tapirs [20]. However prey identification from DNA in diet samples can be greatly influenced by technical issues including the uncertainty about the taxonomic diversity expected in the sample and the poor quality of the genomic DNA, particularly when extracted from fecal samples.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%