Decades of population genetic research reveal the need for harmonization of molecular markers: the grey wolf Canis lupus as a case study

Abstract

1.Following protection measures implemented since the 1970s, large carnivores are currently increasing in number and returning to areas from which they were absent for decades or even centuries. Monitoring programmes for these species rely extensively on non-invasive sampling and genotyping. However, attempts to connect results of such studies at larger spatial or temporal scales often suffer from the incompatibility of genetic markers implemented by researchers in different laboratories. This is particularly critical for long-distance dispersers, revealing the need for harmonized monitoring schemes that would enable the understanding of gene flow and dispersal dynamics. 2. Based on a review of genetic studies on grey wolves Canis lupus from Europe, we provide an overview of the genetic markers currently in use, and identify opportunities and hurdles for studies based on continent-scale datasets. 3. Our results highlight an urgent need for harmonization of methods to enable transnational research based on data that have already been collected, and to allow these data to be linked to material collected in the future. We suggest timely standardization of newly developed genotyping approaches, and propose that action is directed towards the establishment of shared single nucleotide polymorphism panels, next-generation sequencing of microsatellites, a common reference sample collection and an online database for data exchange. 4. Enhanced cooperation among genetic researchers dealing with large carnivores in consortia would facilitate streamlining of methods, their faster and wider adoption, and production of results at the large spatial scales that ultimately matter for the conservation of these charismatic species.

Large-scale genetic census of an elusive carnivore, the European wildcat (Felis s. silvestris)

“…Obtaining the results of this study was only possible through the involvement of more than 100 project partners and thousands of local volunteers involved in a variety of local lure stick trapping and roadkill monitoring projects. Although genetics is not a cheap task to do, genetic monitoring of rare, elusive carnivores is in many circumstances cheaper than traditional methods that require more intensive fieldwork (de Groot et al 2016). When comparing our data to the area described by Birlenbach and Klar (2009) it has to be considered that the latter summarised hard distribution data based on viable populations including reproduction evidence available to this date, whereas anecdotal evidence, such as unconfirmed sightings or single roadkill data was not considered sufficient for an area to be included as wildcat range.…”

Comparison of Behavior and Genetic Structure in Populations of Family and Kenneled Beagles

“…In the human genome, thousands of such microsatellite markers have been identified (32), accounting for nearly 3% of our DNA (33) and the same ratio is expected in the dog genome (34). Microsatellites are commonly used in population genetic studies in canine species (35,36), in forensic caseworks (37,38) and in conservation biology (39,40) due to their Mendelian inheritance and informativeness. They are neutral, multi-allelic and have greater discriminatory power than biallelic markers such as SNPs.…”

Wolf population genetics inEurope: a systematic review, meta‐analysis and suggestions for conservation and management

“…Nuclear data derived from biparental autosomal loci or from the paternal Y chromosome are thus required to gain a more complete understanding of evolutionary and contemporary population processes of wolves across Europe. Contrary to mtDNA and SNP data that can be combined between studies to cover large areas, the use of microsatellites has an important shortcoming: the data cannot be easily compared between different studies (de Groot et al., ). Thus, some microsatellite data sets have been used for specific countries or for a limited region (e.g.…”

“…Nonetheless, a major drawback of microsatellites is the limited comparability of data produced in different laboratories, or even different projects in the same laboratory, requiring careful calibration to overcome the problem. Another drawback has been the lack of a commonly agreed set of microsatellite loci, which makes the direct comparison of results generated in different studies problematic (de Groot et al., ). However, with the advent of the genomic era, massively parallel array‐based SNP genotyping and whole‐genome sequencing have started to replace microsatellite analysis as the method of choice for many population‐level questions.…”