Four types of samples were selected in this study. Firstly, 265 high quality tissue samples preserved in ethanol were used as references. They had been collected in Asia, Africa and Europe from rodents that were unambiguously identified at the species level by specialists, based on either morphological characters or molecular data (www.ceropath.org; www.bdrss.ird.fr/bdrsspub_form.php; [55] ). Specimens were selected in order to maximize the number of species and various geographic locations. The total reference sample comprised 103 species, 38 genera and 8 families. In addition, this reference set included closely related species and cryptic species that were only recently described (e.g. species of the Rattus rattus complex, Microtus complex, Gerbillus complex, etc.). Secondly, 555 samples preserved in ethanol but with uncertain taxonomic status were selected. Feces found in the traps were collected at the same time in order to compare results obtained using high quality DNA (from tissue) or poor quality DNA (from non-invasive samples). Tissue and fecal samples were obtained for 11 and 38 rodents from Mali and Thailand respectively. Thirdly, 54 DNAs were extracted from museum specimens (skins) and kindly provided by the MNHN of Paris. And finally, feces from predators that were likely to have ingested rodents were collected. Feces thought to have originated from four foxes (Vulpes vulpes), four martens (Martes martes) and four wild cats (Felis silvestris), as well as 11 owl pellets were analyzed to determine their rodent diets. Sample information is detailed in Table S1.
Galan M., Pagès M, & Cosson J.F. (2012). Next-Generation Sequencing for Rodent Barcoding: Species Identification from Fresh, Degraded and Environmental Samples. PLoS ONE, 7(11), e48374.
Other organizations :
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement, University of Liège, Centre de Biologie et de Gestion des Populations, Institut Agro Montpellier
Type of sample: high quality tissue samples, samples with uncertain taxonomic status, museum specimens (skins), and feces from predators
dependent variables
Rodent species identification based on morphological characters or molecular data
control variables
Geographic locations of the collected samples (Asia, Africa, and Europe)
Taxonomic status of the reference samples (103 species, 38 genera, and 8 families)
Quality of DNA (high quality from tissue, poor quality from feces)
controls
Positive control: High quality tissue samples from rodents that were unambiguously identified at the species level by specialists
Negative control: Not explicitly mentioned
Annotations
Based on most similar protocols
Etiam vel ipsum. Morbi facilisis vestibulum nisl. Praesent cursus laoreet felis. Integer adipiscing pretium orci. Nulla facilisi. Quisque posuere bibendum purus. Nulla quam mauris, cursus eget, convallis ac, molestie non, enim. Aliquam congue. Quisque sagittis nonummy sapien. Proin molestie sem vitae urna. Maecenas lorem.
As authors may omit details in methods from publication, our AI will look for missing critical information across the 5 most similar protocols.
About PubCompare
Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.
We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.
However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.
Ready to
get started?
Sign up for free.
Registration takes 20 seconds.
Available from any computer
No download required