Optimising recovery of DNA from minimally invasive sampling methods: Efficacy of buccal swabs, preservation strategy and DNA extraction approaches for amphibian studies

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Ecology and Evolution
Published
2024-09-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.70294
Citations
4
Primary Topic
Environmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.84

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Optimising recovery of DNA from minimally invasive sampling methods: Efficacy of buccal swabs, preservation strategy and DNA extraction approaches for amphibian studies

Rémi Martin, Pablo Orozco‐terWengel, Nina F. D. White, Andrew A. Cunningham et al.
4 citations
Ecology and Evolution
Environmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
1.84
article

Optimising recovery of DNA from minimally invasive sampling methods: Efficacy of buccal swabs, preservation strategy and DNA extraction approaches for amphibian studies

Rémi Martin, Pablo Orozco‐terWengel, Nina F. D. White, Andrew A. Cunningham, Simon T. Maddock, John W. Wilkinson, Robert Jehle, Katherine E. Mullin, Nicole Grimason
article en
4 citations

Abstract

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.

Ecology and EvolutionVol. 14(9)
University of Wolverhampton (GB), Zoological Society of London (GB), Natural History Museum (GB), University of Seychelles (SC), University of Salford (GB), Cardiff University (GB), Newcastle University (GB)
University of Wolverhampton, Directorate for Biological Sciences, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, Natural Environment Research Council
Life in Land
Openalex Percentile: Top 15%
Environmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
1.84
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.