Abstract
DNA obtained from museum specimens provides a historical perspective on levels of genetic diversity. Archived samples are irreplaceable so it is desirable that only parts of the specimens are used, which constrains the amount of DNA obtained from small taxa. However, at present there are no quantitative data on yields of DNA from such samples. In this paper we determine the amount of DNA that may be extracted from the legs of museum-archived specimens of the damselfly Coenagrion mercuriale (Charpentier) and the suitability of this DNA for PCR-amplification of nuclear genetic loci (microsatellites). We find that (i) the yield of DNA correlates with the genotyping success rate and (ii) the amount of DNA obtained from the legs decreases with time since sample collection until 1954, before which no DNA could be detected (although DNA may be present in very low quantities). This cut-off point for successful DNA extraction corresponds with the date until reliable genotypes could be obtained by routine PCR. Thus, air-dried insect legs more than 50 years old appear to have limited usefulness for studies that seek to amplify many nuclear loci without the use of other techniques that may be used to increase the possible low-quantities of template DNA present.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Dean MD, Ballard WO (2001) Factors affecting mitochondrial DNA quality from museum preserved Drosophila simulans. Ent Exp App 98:279–283
Dillon N, Austin AD, Bartowsky E (1996) Comparison of preservation techniques for DNA extraction from hymenopterous insects. Ins Mol Biol 5:21–24
Goldstein PZ, DeSalle R (2003) Calibrating phylogenetic species formation in a threatened insect using DNA from historical specimens. Mol Ecol 12:1993–1998
Hanson EK, Ballantyne J (2005) Whole genome amplification strategy for forensic genetic analysis using single or few cell equivalents of genomic DNA. Analyt Biochem 346:246–257
Hofreiter M, Serre D, Poinar HN, Kuch M, Pääbo S (2001) Ancient DNA. Nat Rev Gen 2:353–359
Lodge RJ, Freeland JR (2003) The use of Odonata museum specimens in questions of molecular evolution. Odonatologica 32:375–380
Miller CR, Waits LP (2003) The history of effective population size and genetic diversity in the Yellowstone grizzly (Ursus arctos): implications for conservation. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 100:4334–4339
Pääbo S, Poinar H, Serre D, Jaenicke-Després V, Hebler J, Rohland N, Kuch M, Krause J, Vigilant L, Hofreiter M (2004) Genetic analyses from ancient DNA. Ann Rev Gen 38:645–679
Rohland N, Siedel H, Hofreiter M (2004) Nondestructive DNA extraction method for mitochondrial DNA analyses of museum specimen. Biotechniques 36:814–821
Watts PC, Thompson DJ, Kemp SJ (2004a) Cross-species amplification of microsatellite loci in some European zygopteran species (Odonata: Coenagrionidae). Int J Odonat 7:87–96
Watts PC, Wu JH, Westgarth C, Thompson DJ, Kemp SJ (2004b) A panel of microsatellite loci for the Southern Damselfly, Coenagrion mercuriale (Odonata: Coenagrionidae). Cons Gen 5:117–119
Wisely SM, Maldonado JE, Fleischer RC (2004) A technique for sampling ancient DNA that minimises damage to museum specimens. Cons Gen 5:105–107
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to K. Goodger (Natural History Museum), G. Hancock (Hunterian Museum), G. Legg (Booth Museum), D.V. Logunov (Manchester Museum), G. McGavin (Oxford University Museum of Natural History), C. Palmer (Andover Museum), P.M. Pavett (National Museum and Gallery of Wales) and A.E. Whittington (National Museums of Scotland) who kindly supplied the C. mercuriale leg samples and the NERC (grant no. NER/A/S/2000/01322) for provision of funds. We also would like to thank two anonymous referees for their helpful comments on the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Watts, P.C., Thompson, D.J., Allen, K.A. et al. How useful is DNA extracted from the legs of archived insects for microsatellite-based population genetic analyses?. J Insect Conserv 11, 195–198 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-006-9024-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-006-9024-y