An optimisation approach to increase DNA amplification success of otter faeces
Faeces have proved to be a suitable non-invasive DNA source for microsatellite analysis in wildlife research. For the success of such studies it is essential to obtain the highest possible PCR amplification success rate. These rates are still relatively low in most carnivorous species, especially in the otter (Lutra lutra). We therefore optimised the entire microsatellite genotyping process by combining our findings with results from previous studies to gain a high rate of reliable genotypes. We investigated the influence of otter faecal quality in relation to the quantity of slimy secretions and three levels of storage periods at −20°C on amplification success. Further, we tested the cost-effective and time-saving Chelex extraction method against the profitable QIAamp® DNA Stool Kit (Qiagen), and compared three PCR methods - a standard single-step PCR protocol, a single-locus two-step PCR procedure and a multiplex two-step PCR procedure - regarding success rate and genotyping errors. The highest amplification success rate (median: 94%; mean: 78%) was achieved using faecal samples consisting only of jelly extracted with the QIAamp® DNA Stool Mini Kit (Qiagen) immediately after collection and amplified following the time and cost efficient multiplex two-step PCR protocol. The two-step procedure, also referred to as pre-amplification approach, turned out to be the main improvement as it increases amplification success about 11% and reduces genotyping errors about 53%, most notably allelic dropouts.
KeywordsFaecal DNA Lutra lutra Microsatellites Non-invasive samples Pre-amplification
We would like to thank R. Klenke for helpful discussions and pertinent knowledge about the otter biology. A. Vallentin and U. Hempel are thanked for collecting faecal samples. Thanks to E. Küster and the Department of Bioanalytical Ecotoxicology and also to W. Durka and the Department of Community Ecology for giving access to the laboratories. We are grateful to the members of the Institute of Applied Ecology, University of Canberra for proof-reading the manuscript and to the anonymous reviewers who have greatly contributed to improve a first version of this paper. We kindly acknowledge private landowners for their permission to access the ponds.
- Conroy JWH, French DD (1991) Seasonal patterns in the sprainting behaviour of otters (Lutra lutra L.) in Shetland. In: Reuther C, Röchert R (eds) Proceedings of 5th International Otter Colloquium, Hankensbüttel, 1989Google Scholar
- Coxon K, Chanin P, Dallas J, Sykes T (1999) The use of DNA fingerprinting to study the population dynamics of otters (Lutra lutra) in southern Britain a feasibility study. Environment Agency R&D Project W1-025Google Scholar
- Gerloff U, Schlötterer C, Rassmann K, Rambold I, Hohmann G, Fruth B, Tautz D (1995) Amplification of hypervariable simple sequence repeats (microsatellites) from excremental DNA of wild living bonobos (Pan paniscus). Mol Ecol 4:515–518Google Scholar
- Jansman HAH, Chanin PRF, Dallas JF (2001) Monitoring otter populations by DNA typing of spraints. IUCN Otter Spec Group Bull 18:12–19Google Scholar
- Liebich HG (1999) Funktionelle Histologie der Haussäugetiere: Lehrbuch und Farbatlas für Studium und Praxis, 3rd edn. Schattauer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
- Macdonald SM, Mason CF (1987) Seasonal marking in an otter population. Acta Theriol 32:449–462Google Scholar
- Murphy MA, Waits LP, Kendall KC (2000) Quantitative evaluation of fecal drying methods for brown bear DNA analysis. Wildlife Soc B 28:951–957Google Scholar
- Tschirch W (1995) Neue biomedizinische Methoden für die Feldforschung - dargestellt am Beispiel des Fischotters (Lutra lutra). In: Stubbe M, Stubbe A, Heidecke D (eds) Methoden der feldökologischen Säugetierforschung (Methods in mammalian field ecology), vol 1. Martin-Luther-Universität, Halle/Saale, pp 203–210Google Scholar
- Welsch U (2006) Lehrbuch Histologie, 2nd edn. Urban & Fischer, MünchenGoogle Scholar