颊拭子和剪尾对监测爬行动物生物多样性的利弊

IF 1.5 4区 综合性期刊 Q2 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES South African Journal of Science Pub Date : 2023-11-29 DOI:10.17159/sajs.2023/16217
Matthew G Adair, Jean-Jacque Forgus, Devon C. Main, J. Taft, J. D. da Silva, K. Tolley
{"title":"颊拭子和剪尾对监测爬行动物生物多样性的利弊","authors":"Matthew G Adair, Jean-Jacque Forgus, Devon C. Main, J. Taft, J. D. da Silva, K. Tolley","doi":"10.17159/sajs.2023/16217","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In biodiversity research, the retrieval of genetic material from organisms is a common and essential component for assessing genetic diversity. The welfare of the organism, however, needs to be balanced against the overall goal of the intended research. One sampling technique often applied to retrieve DNA material from small reptiles is the removal of a small portion of the distal end of the tail. While most squamate reptiles have tail autotomy, some species (e.g. many iguanid lizards and snakes) do not regenerate tail tissue. We therefore explored the efficacy of a minimally disruptive technique, buccal swabbing, as an alternative to tissue sampling via tail clipping, particularly for species without tail autotomy, using dwarf chameleons (Bradypodion spp.) as a case study. The two sampling techniques were compared to assess the efficacy of DNA retrieval. We also evaluated the financial implications of each technique. The results indicate that buccal swabs paired with a specialised DNA extraction kit offer a feasible (although expensive), once-off alternative to tissue sampling, but with no material left for biobanking. Deviations in swab type used and the DNA extraction process (i.e. using more affordable extraction procedures) resulted in poor DNA retrieval and unreadable sequences. This finding suggests that buccal swabbing can be a suitable alternative when finances are not constrained, an expensive extraction kit is available, and biobanking is not a concern. For researchers from low- to middle-income economies, this expensive alternative may hamper research progress by placing a financial obstacle in the way, and therefore the next best option is tissue sampling.","PeriodicalId":21928,"journal":{"name":"South African Journal of Science","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The pros and cons of buccal swabbing and tail clipping for monitoring reptilian biodiversity\",\"authors\":\"Matthew G Adair, Jean-Jacque Forgus, Devon C. Main, J. Taft, J. D. da Silva, K. Tolley\",\"doi\":\"10.17159/sajs.2023/16217\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In biodiversity research, the retrieval of genetic material from organisms is a common and essential component for assessing genetic diversity. The welfare of the organism, however, needs to be balanced against the overall goal of the intended research. One sampling technique often applied to retrieve DNA material from small reptiles is the removal of a small portion of the distal end of the tail. While most squamate reptiles have tail autotomy, some species (e.g. many iguanid lizards and snakes) do not regenerate tail tissue. We therefore explored the efficacy of a minimally disruptive technique, buccal swabbing, as an alternative to tissue sampling via tail clipping, particularly for species without tail autotomy, using dwarf chameleons (Bradypodion spp.) as a case study. The two sampling techniques were compared to assess the efficacy of DNA retrieval. We also evaluated the financial implications of each technique. The results indicate that buccal swabs paired with a specialised DNA extraction kit offer a feasible (although expensive), once-off alternative to tissue sampling, but with no material left for biobanking. Deviations in swab type used and the DNA extraction process (i.e. using more affordable extraction procedures) resulted in poor DNA retrieval and unreadable sequences. This finding suggests that buccal swabbing can be a suitable alternative when finances are not constrained, an expensive extraction kit is available, and biobanking is not a concern. For researchers from low- to middle-income economies, this expensive alternative may hamper research progress by placing a financial obstacle in the way, and therefore the next best option is tissue sampling.\",\"PeriodicalId\":21928,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"South African Journal of Science\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"South African Journal of Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2023/16217\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African Journal of Science","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2023/16217","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在生物多样性研究中,从生物体中获取遗传物质是评估遗传多样性的一个常见且重要的组成部分。然而,生物的福利需要与预期研究的总体目标相平衡。从小型爬行动物身上提取 DNA 材料经常采用的一种取样技术是切除尾巴远端的一小部分。虽然大多数有鳞类爬行动物都有尾部自体切除术,但有些物种(如许多巨蜥和蛇)的尾部组织不会再生。因此,我们以侏儒变色龙(Bradypodion spp.)我们对两种取样技术进行了比较,以评估 DNA 提取的效果。我们还评估了每种技术的财务影响。结果表明,颊拭子与专门的 DNA 提取试剂盒配对使用,是一种可行的一次性组织取样替代方法(尽管价格昂贵),但不会留下任何材料用于生物库。咽拭子类型和 DNA 提取过程的偏差(即使用更经济的提取程序)导致 DNA 提取效果不佳,序列无法读取。这一研究结果表明,当资金不紧张、有昂贵的提取试剂盒且不担心生物库问题时,颊拭子法不失为一种合适的替代方法。对于来自中低收入经济体的研究人员来说,这种昂贵的替代方法可能会因经济障碍而阻碍研究进展,因此下一个最佳选择是组织采样。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The pros and cons of buccal swabbing and tail clipping for monitoring reptilian biodiversity
In biodiversity research, the retrieval of genetic material from organisms is a common and essential component for assessing genetic diversity. The welfare of the organism, however, needs to be balanced against the overall goal of the intended research. One sampling technique often applied to retrieve DNA material from small reptiles is the removal of a small portion of the distal end of the tail. While most squamate reptiles have tail autotomy, some species (e.g. many iguanid lizards and snakes) do not regenerate tail tissue. We therefore explored the efficacy of a minimally disruptive technique, buccal swabbing, as an alternative to tissue sampling via tail clipping, particularly for species without tail autotomy, using dwarf chameleons (Bradypodion spp.) as a case study. The two sampling techniques were compared to assess the efficacy of DNA retrieval. We also evaluated the financial implications of each technique. The results indicate that buccal swabs paired with a specialised DNA extraction kit offer a feasible (although expensive), once-off alternative to tissue sampling, but with no material left for biobanking. Deviations in swab type used and the DNA extraction process (i.e. using more affordable extraction procedures) resulted in poor DNA retrieval and unreadable sequences. This finding suggests that buccal swabbing can be a suitable alternative when finances are not constrained, an expensive extraction kit is available, and biobanking is not a concern. For researchers from low- to middle-income economies, this expensive alternative may hamper research progress by placing a financial obstacle in the way, and therefore the next best option is tissue sampling.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
South African Journal of Science
South African Journal of Science 综合性期刊-综合性期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
4.20%
发文量
131
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The South African Journal of Science is a multidisciplinary journal published bimonthly by the Academy of Science of South Africa. Our mandate is to publish original research with an interdisciplinary or regional focus, which will interest readers from more than one discipline, and to provide a forum for discussion of news and developments in research and higher education. Authors are requested to write their papers and reports in a manner and style that is intelligible to specialists and non-specialists alike. Research contributions, which are peer reviewed, are of three kinds: Review Articles, Research Articles and Research Letters.
期刊最新文献
Response to Brand et al. (2022) ‘Data sharing governance in sub-Saharan Africa during public health emergencies’ Reconsidering consent for biomedical research using human biological material and associated data Shedding light on the vexed question of science and uncertainty The next steps in human evolutionary palaeoecology The pros and cons of buccal swabbing and tail clipping for monitoring reptilian biodiversity
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1