A quantitative evaluation of two methods for preserving hair samples

  1. D. A. Roon1,*,
  2. L. P. Waits1,
  3. K. C. Kendall2

Article first published online: 8 JAN 2003

DOI: 10.1046/j.1471-8286.2003.00358.x

Issue

Molecular Ecology Notes

Molecular Ecology Notes

Volume 3, Issue 1, pages 163–166, March 2003

Additional Information

How to Cite

Roon, D. A., Waits, L. P. and Kendall, K. C. (2003), A quantitative evaluation of two methods for preserving hair samples. Molecular Ecology Notes, 3: 163–166. doi: 10.1046/j.1471-8286.2003.00358.x

Author Information

  1. 1

    Department of Fish and Wildlife, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844-1136, USA,

  2. 2

    USGS-NRMSC Science Center, Glacier National Park, West Glacier, USA

* D. A. Roon. Fax: +1-208-885–9080; roon8505@uidaho.edu

Publication History

  1. Issue published online: 8 JAN 2003
  2. Article first published online: 8 JAN 2003
  3. Received 2 July 2002; revision accepted 19 August 2002

SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

ARTICLE TOOLS

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (234K)

Keywords:

  • DNA extraction;
  • DNA preservation;
  • hair;
  • noninvasive genetic sampling;
  • PCR;
  • Ursus arctos

Abstract

Hair samples are an increasingly important DNA source for wildlife studies, yet optimal storage methods and DNA degradation rates have not been rigorously evaluated. We tested amplification success rates over a one-year storage period for DNA extracted from brown bear (Ursus arctos) hair samples preserved using silica desiccation and −20 °C freezing. For three nuclear DNA microsatellites, success rates decreased significantly after a six-month time point, regardless of storage method. For a 1000 bp mitochondrial fragment, a similar decrease occurred after a two-week time point. Minimizing delays between collection and DNA extraction will maximize success rates for hair-based noninvasive genetic sampling projects.

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (234K)