Testing compatibility between molecular and morphological techniques for arthropod systematics: a minimally destructive DNA extraction method that preserves morphological integrity, and the effect of lactic acid on DNA quality
- 308 Downloads
Three practical aspects related to the preservation and destruction of DNA and/or morphological characters of spiders were examined: potential morphological damage during non-destructive DNA extraction was assessed by counting trichobothria, a fragile sensorial feature found on spider legs; the effect on yield of non-destructive DNA extraction; and whether possible DNA degradation is caused by residues of lactic acid, which is used as a temporary mounting medium for the study of morphological structures in spiders and insects. Destructive extractions yielded higher amounts of DNA than non-destructive methods. However, non-destructive methods yielded usable amounts of DNA while leaving delicate trichobothria intact. Of the non-destructive extractions, a longer digestion period (36 h vs. 12) yielded higher amounts of DNA and did not damage trichobothria. Lactic acid did not induce short-term DNA degradation or inhibit PCR reactions, even at high concentrations. These results show compatibility between molecular and morphological requirements without compromising DNA quality or specimen integrity.
KeywordsDNA extraction Morphology Lactic acid Specimen integrity Museum
We are grateful to Marshal Hedin for the use of facilities and resources of his laboratory and for comments on the manuscript; we thank Joe Deas, Jr. for laboratory assistance; and Darrell Ubick for his company on the field trip. Tim New, Darren Smalley and two anonymous reviewers provided suggestions that improved the manuscript.
- Coddington JA (1983) A temporary slide mount allowing precise manipulation of small structures. Verh Naturwiss Ver Hamburg 26:291–292Google Scholar
- Cruickshank RH (2002) Molecular markers for the phylogenetics of mites and ticks. Syst Appl Acarol 7:3–14Google Scholar
- Hoy MA (2003) Insect molecular genetics. an Introduction to principles and applications, 2nd edn. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
- Levi HW (1965) Techniques for the study of spider genitalia. Psyche Camb 72:152–158Google Scholar
- Martin JEH (1977) Collecting, preparing and preserving insects, mites, and spiders. Agriculture, Canada, OttawaGoogle Scholar
- Phillips CB, Iline II, Vink CJ, Winder LM, McNeill MR (2006) Methods to distinguish between the Microctonus aethiopoides strains that parasitise Sitona lepidus and Sitona discoideus. NZ Plant Prot 59:297–303Google Scholar
- Prendini L, Hanner R, DeSalle R (2002) Obtaining, storing and archiving specimens and tissue samples for use in molecular studies. In: DeSalle R, Giribet G, Wheeler WC (eds) Techniques in molecular evolution and systematics. Birkhaeuser Verlag AG, Basel, pp 176–248Google Scholar
- Sambrook J, Russell DW (2001) Molecular cloning: a laboratory manual, 3rd edn. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring HarborGoogle Scholar
- Vink CJ (2002) Lycosidae (Arachnida: Araneae). Manaaki Whenua Press, LincolnGoogle Scholar
- Vink CJ, Evans AM, Phillips CB, Murdoch TC, Tubbs MB (2003) Molecular phylogenetic analysis supports the synonymy of Prodontria modesta (Broun) and Prodontria bicolorata given (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Melolonthinae). J Insect Conserv 7:215–221. doi: 10.1023/B:JICO.0000021011.23585.d7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar