|Appears in Collections:||Biological and Environmental Sciences Journal Articles|
|Peer Review Status:||Refereed|
|Title:||Effects of storage type and time on DNA amplification success in tropical ungulate faeces|
|Authors:||Soto-Calderon, Ivan D|
Wickings, E Jean
Anthony, Nicola M
|Citation:||Soto-Calderon ID, Ntie S, Mickala P, Maisels F, Wickings EJ & Anthony NM (2009) Effects of storage type and time on DNA amplification success in tropical ungulate faeces, Molecular Ecology Resources, 9 (2), pp. 471-479.|
|Abstract:||The present study compares the effect of three storage media (silica, RNAlater®, ethanol) and time to extraction (1 week, 1 month and 3 months) on mitochondrial and nuclear marker amplification success in faecal DNA extracts from a sympatric community of small to medium-sized Central African forest ungulates (genera Cephalophus, Tragelaphus, Hyemoschus). The effect of storage type and time on nuclear DNA concentrations, genotyping errors and percentage recovery of consensus genotypes was also examined. Regardless of storage method, mitochondrial and nuclear amplification success was high in DNA extracted within the first week after collection. Over longer storage periods, RNAlater yielded better amplification success rates in the mitochondrial assay. However, samples stored on silica showed (i) highest nuclear DNA concentrations, (ii) best microsatellite genotyping success, (iii) lowest genotyping errors, and (iv) greatest percentage recovery of the consensus genotype. The quantity of nuclear DNA was generally a good predictor of microsatellite performance with 83% amplification success or greater achieved with sample DNA concentrations of ≥ 50 pg/µL. If faecal DNA samples are to be used for nuclear microsatellite analyses, we recommend silica as the best storage method. However, for maximum mitochondrial amplification success, RNAlater appears to be the best storage medium. In contrast, ethanol appeared inferior to the other two methods examined here and should not be used to store tropical ungulate faeces. Regardless of storage method, samples should be extracted as soon as possible after collection to ensure optimal recovery of DNA.|
|Rights:||The publisher does not allow this work to be made publicly available in this Repository. Please use the Request a Copy feature at the foot of the Repository record to request a copy directly from the author. You can only request a copy if you wish to use this work for your own research or private study.|
|Molec Ecol Res 2009.pdf||206.85 kB||Adobe PDF||Under Embargo until 31/12/2999 Request a copy|
Note: If any of the files in this item are currently embargoed, you can request a copy directly from the author by clicking the padlock icon above. However, this facility is dependant on the depositor still being contactable at their original email address.
This item is protected by original copyright
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.