Search USGS⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70029254

Evaluating mixed samples as a source of error in non-invasive genetic studies using microsatellites

David A. Roon·M.E. Thomas·K.C. Kendall·L.P. Waits
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The use of noninvasive genetic sampling (NGS) for surveying wild populations is increasing rapidly. Currently, only a limited number of studies have evaluated potential biases associated with NGS. This paper evaluates the potential errors associated with analysing mixed samples drawn from multiple animals. Most NGS studies assume that mixed samples will be identified and removed during the genotyping process. We evaluated this assumption by creating 128 mixed samples of extracted DNA from brown bear (Ursus arctos) hair samples. These mixed samples were genotyped and screened for errors at six microsatellite loci according to protocols consistent with those used in other NGS studies. Five mixed samples produced acceptable genotypes after the first screening. However, all mixed samples produced multiple alleles at one or more loci, amplified as only one of the source samples, or yielded inconsistent electropherograms by the final stage of the error-checking process. These processes could potentially reduce the number of individuals observed in NGS studies, but errors should be conservative within demographic estimates. Researchers should be aware of the potential for mixed samples and carefully design gel analysis criteria and error checking protocols to detect mixed samples.

Explore related subjects

Molecular EcologyArticle

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

David A. Roon, M.E. Thomas, K.C. Kendall, L.P. Waits. 2004-11-19. Evaluating mixed samples as a source of error in non-invasive genetic studies using microsatellites. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294x.2004.02385.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2025

Evaluating the central–marginal hypothesis: Introgression and genetic variation at the trailing edge of Quercus bicolor

The central–marginal hypothesis (CMH) predicts reduced genetic diversity and increased differentiation in range-edge populations due to ecological marginality and limited gene flow. Deviations from this pattern, however, can result from historical demographic processes, variation in reproductive strategies or interspecific hybridization. The genus Quercus , known for hybridization and long-distance pollination, offers an excellent model to examine the spatial patterns of genetic diversity, structure and introgression across species distributions. Here, we investigate these dynamics in Quercus bicolor Willd., a widespread eastern North American oak. Using RADseq, we genotyped 142 individuals from 12 sites at the fragmented trailing range edge and nine sites from the range core. To detect introgression, we incorporated reference data from six sympatric white oak species. We reveal extensive introgression, particularly from Q. lyrata Walt., in nearly all southern edge populations, but none in core populations despite sympatry with closely related congeners. Southern populations also showed increased genetic structure and differentiation, but not reduced diversity or increased inbreeding, even when only examining non-admixed individuals. Regression analyses reveal relationships between introgressed ancestry and heterozygosity, inbreeding and differentiation, indicating that introgression may buffer range-edge populations against genetic erosion by introducing novel alleles. Hindcast, current and forecast ecological niche models demonstrate temporally changing degrees of overlap between the geographic range of Q. lyrata and Q. bicolor and suggest higher hybridization potential in the future. These findings offer mixed support for the CMH while underscoring the evolutionary relevance of introgression in shaping genetic landscapes at range margins with significant implications for conservation.

Molecular Ecology↗
USGS2025

Metabarcoding analysis of arthropod pollinator diversity: A methodological comparison of eDNA derived from flowers and DNA derived from bulk samples of insects

Limitations of traditional insect sampling methods have motivated the development and optimisation of new non-lethal methods capable of quantifying diverse arthropod communities. Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding using arthropod-specific primers has recently been investigated as a novel way to characterise arthropod communities from the DNA they deposit on the surface of plants. This sampling method has had demonstrated success, but pollinators—especially bees—are oddly underrepresented in these studies. To evaluate this inconsistency, we investigated the limitations of eDNA metabarcoding for bees and other pollinators. We compared pollinator diversity derived from eDNA extracted from flowers and DNA extracted from pulverised bulk samples of insects collected from vane traps deployed at the same sites using three metabarcoding primers, two of which target arthropods generally (COI-Jusino and 16S-Marquina) and one that targets bumblebees ( Bombus spp., COI-Milam). Across methods, we detected 77 insect families from 9 orders. The COI-Jusino marker amplified the highest taxonomic diversity compared to 16S-Marquina and COI-Milam. More amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) were recovered from vane traps (blue: 1357, yellow: 1542) than flowers (245), but only 23% of families and 13% of genera were shared among methods, indicating that flowers and blue and yellow vane traps may each sample different parts of the available arthropod community. Of 29 flower samples with known bee visitations, only 10 samples had bee detections from eDNA, and incomplete reference databases hindered assignment to species. Although our study provides additional evidence for the usefulness of eDNA metabarcoding for characterising arthropod communities, significant challenges remain when using eDNA metabarcoding methods to identify and quantify pollinator communities, especially bees.

Molecular Ecology↗