Martin R, Mullin K E, White N F D, Grimason N, Jehle R, Wilkinson J W, Orozco-terWengel P, Cunningham A A, Maddock S T
Faculty of Science and Engineering, School of Life Sciences University of Wolverhampton Wolverhampton UK.
School of Science, Engineering and Environment University of Salford Salford UK.
Ecol Evol. 2024 Sep 12;14(9):e70294. doi: 10.1002/ece3.70294. eCollection 2024 Sep.
Studies in evolution, ecology and conservation are increasingly based on genetic and genomic data. With increased focus on molecular approaches, ethical concerns about destructive or more invasive techniques need to be considered, with a push for minimally invasive sampling to be optimised. Buccal swabs have been increasingly used to collect DNA in a number of taxa, including amphibians. However, DNA yield and purity from swabs are often low, limiting its use. In this study, we compare different types of swabs, preservation method and storage, and DNA extraction techniques in three case studies to assess the optimal approach for recovering DNA in anurans. Out of the five different types of swabs that we tested, Isohelix MS-02 and Rapidry swabs generated higher DNA yields than other swabs. When comparing storage buffers, ethanol is a better preservative than a non-alcoholic alternative. Dried samples resulted in similar or better final DNA yields compared to ethanol-fixed samples if kept cool. DNA extraction via a Qiagen™ DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit and McHale's salting-out extraction method resulted in similar DNA yields but the Qiagen™ kit extracts contained less contamination. We also found that samples have better DNA recovery if they are frozen as soon as possible after collection. We provide recommendations for sample collection and extraction under different conditions, including budgetary considerations, size of individual animal sampled, access to cold storage facilities and DNA extraction methodology. Maximising efficacy of all of these factors for better DNA recovery will allow buccal swabs to be used for genetic and genomic studies in a range of vertebrates.
进化、生态与保护领域的研究越来越多地基于基因和基因组数据。随着对分子方法的关注度不断提高,需要考虑对具有破坏性或侵入性更强的技术的伦理担忧,同时推动对微创采样进行优化。口腔拭子已越来越多地用于在包括两栖动物在内的多个分类群中收集DNA。然而,拭子的DNA产量和纯度往往较低,限制了其应用。在本研究中,我们通过三个案例研究比较了不同类型的拭子、保存方法和储存方式以及DNA提取技术,以评估在无尾两栖类动物中回收DNA的最佳方法。在我们测试的五种不同类型的拭子中,Isohelix MS - 02拭子和Rapidry拭子产生的DNA产量高于其他拭子。在比较储存缓冲液时,乙醇是比非酒精替代品更好的防腐剂。如果保持凉爽,干燥样本与乙醇固定样本相比,最终DNA产量相似或更高。通过Qiagen™ DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit和McHale的盐析提取方法进行DNA提取,得到的DNA产量相似,但Qiagen™试剂盒提取物的污染较少。我们还发现,样本在采集后尽快冷冻,DNA回收率更高。我们针对不同条件下的样本采集和提取提供了建议,包括预算考虑因素、所采样个体动物的大小、是否有冷藏设施以及DNA提取方法。最大化所有这些因素的功效以实现更好的DNA回收,将使口腔拭子能够用于一系列脊椎动物的基因和基因组研究。