Advertisement

Conservation Genetics

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 239–242 | Cite as

Characterization of microsatellite loci in the black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis) and white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum): their use for cross-species amplification and differentiation between the two species

  • Lindsey Nielsen
  • Dawn Meehan-Meola
  • Annelisa Kilbourn
  • Acacia Alcivar-Warren
Technical Note

Abstract

As the population sizes of the black and white rhinoceroses continues to decline, more efforts are needed in multiple areas to help with the conservation efforts. One area being explored is the use of genetic diversity information to aid conservation decisions. In this study, we designed 21 microsatellite primers for white and black rhinoceroses, 16 and 17 of which amplified bands in the white and black rhinoceros, respectively. Out of these primers all 16 were polymorphic in the white rhinoceros and 12 of the 17 were polymorphic in the black rhinoceros. The mean number of alleles was 3.31 and 2.12, the expected heterozygosities were 0.420 and 0.372, and the observed heterozygosities were 0.436 and 0.322 for the white and black rhinoceroses, respectively. Seven of the primers produced different allele sizes and variations that distinguished between black and white rhinoceroses. Further genetic analyses with larger wild population sample sizes and markers are recommended to obtain a better understanding of the genetic structure of the black and white rhinoceros populations in order to be useful in the conservation efforts of these critically endangered species.

Keywords

Black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornisWhite rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simumMicrosatellites Cross-species amplification Heterozygosity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Anthony Maddock, Director of Research at Hluhluwe-Umfolozi Reserve, Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa, and Drs. Chip Stem and Mark Pokras of Tufts University’s International Program and Wildlife Clinic, respectively, for their support with sample collection (to AK). This research was made possible by a grant and a scholarship from the Tufts International Veterinary Medicine Program, the Wildlife Clinic, the Department of Environmental and Population Health at Tufts University through the Molecular Genetics and Biotechnology Selective Course (AW), and the Endangered Wildlife Trust of South Africa (AK). LN was supported by a summer fellowship from Tufts Institute of the Environment.

References

  1. Brown S, Houlden A (1999) Isolation and characterization of microsatellite markers in the black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis). Mol Ecol 8:1551–1561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Estoup A, Rousset F, Michalakis Y et al (1998) Comparative analysis of microsatellite and allozyme markers: a case study investigating microgeographic differentiation in brown trout (Salmo trutta). Mol Ecol 3:339–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Florescu A, Davila J, Scout C et al (2003) Polymorphic microsatellites in white rhinoceros. Mol Ecol Notes 3:344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Garcia D, Faggart M, Rhoades L et al (1994) Genetic diversity of cultured Penaeus vannamei shrimp using three molecular genetic techniques. Mol Mar Biol Biotechnol 3:270–280PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Garnier J, Bruford M, Goossens B (2001) Mating system and reproductive skew in black rhinoceros. Mol Ecol 10:2031–2041PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Harley E, Baumgarten I, Cunningham J et al (2005) Genetic variation and population structure in remnant populations of Black Rhinoceros, Diceros bicornis, in Africa. Mol Ecol 14:2981–2990PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. International Rhino Foundation (2006) Rhino information. www.rhinos-irf.org/rhinoinformation/populationtable.htmlGoogle Scholar
  8. Kilbourn A, Nielsen L, Meehan-Meola D, Alcivar-Warren A (2006) RAPD and microsatellite variation in fecal and blood samples from black and white rhinoceroses from South Africa. Poster presented at the 30th International Conference on Animal Genetics, Porto Seguro, Brazil. Belo Horizonte, Brazil: CBRA, August 20–25, 2006Google Scholar
  9. Marshall T, Slate J, Kruuk L, Pemberton J (1998) Statistical confidence for likelihood-based paternity inference in natural populations. Mol Ecol 7:639–655PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Nielsen L, Meehan-Meola D, Alcivar-Warren A, Kilbourn A (2006) The Rhinoceros Genome Project at Tufts University. Poster presented at the EcohealthOne Conference, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, Oct. 6–10, 2006Google Scholar
  11. Rozen S, Skaletsky H (1996, 1997) Primer 3. Code available at http://www-genome.wi.mit.edu/genome_software/other/primer3.html
  12. Whittier C, Dhar A, Stem C, Goodall J, Alcivar-Warren A (1999) Comparison of DNA extraction methods for PCR amplification of mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit II (COII) DNA from primate fecal samples. Biotechnol Tech 13:771–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Yeh F, Boyle T, Rongcai Y et al (1999) PopGene version 1.31 software. Code available at http://www.ualberta.ca/∼fyeh/

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lindsey Nielsen
    • 1
  • Dawn Meehan-Meola
    • 1
  • Annelisa Kilbourn
    • 1
  • Acacia Alcivar-Warren
    • 1
  1. 1.Environmental and Comparative Genomics Section, Department of Environmental and Population HealthCummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts UniversityNorth GraftonUSA

Personalised recommendations