Pierre Taberlet

Universal primers for amplification of three non-coding regions of chloroplast DNA.

Six primers for the amplification of three non-coding regions of chloroplast DNA via the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) have been designed. In order to find out whether these primers were universal, we used them in an attempt to amplify DNA from various plant species. The primers worked for most species tested including algae, bryophytes, pteridophytes, gymnosperms and angiosperms. The fact that they amplify chloroplast DNA non-coding regions over a wide taxonomic range means that these primers may be used to study the population biology (in supplying markers) and evolution (inter- and probably intraspecific phylogenies) of plants.

Comparative phylogeography and postglacial colonization routes in Europe

The Quaternary cold periods in Europe are thought to have heavily influenced the amount and distribution of intraspecific genetic variation in both animals and plants. The phylogeographies of 10 taxa, including mammals (Ursus arctos, Sorex spp., Crocidura suaveolens, Arvicola spp.), amphibians (Triturus spp.), arthropods (Chorthippus parallelus), and plants (Abies alba, Picea abies, Fagus sylvatica, Quercus spp.), were analysed to elucidate general trends across Europe. Only a small degree of congruence was found amongst the phylogeographies of the 10 taxa, but the likely postglacial colonization routes exhibit some similarities. A Brooks parsimony analysis produced an unrooted area phylogram, showing that: (i) the northern regions were colonized generally from the Iberic and Balkanic refugia; and (ii) the Italian lineages were often isolated due to the presence of the Alpine barrier. The comparison of colonization routes highlighted four main suture‐zones where lineages from the different refugia meet. Some of the intraspecific genetic distances among lineages indicated a prequaternary divergence that cannot be connected to any particular cold period, but are probably related mainly to the date of arrival of each taxon in the European continent. As a consequence, molecular genetics so far appears to be of limited use in dating Quaternary events.

Landscape genetics: combining landscape ecology and population genetics

Understanding the processes and patterns of gene flow and local adaptation requires a detailed knowledge of how landscape characteristics structure populations. This understanding is crucial, not only for improving ecological knowledge, but also for managing properly the genetic diversity of threatened and endangered populations. For nearly 80 years, population geneticists have investigated how physiognomy and other landscape features have influenced genetic variation within and between populations. They have relied on sampling populations that have been identified beforehand because most population genetics methods have required discrete populations. However, a new approach has emerged for analyzing spatial genetic data without requiring that discrete populations be identified in advance. This approach, landscape genetics, promises to facilitate our understanding of how geographical and environmental features structure genetic variation at both the population and individual levels, and has implications for ecology, evolution and conservation biology. It differs from other genetic approaches, such as phylogeography, in that it tends to focus on processes at finer spatial and temporal scales. Here, we discuss, from a population genetic perspective, the current tools available for conducting studies of landscape genetics.

How to track and assess genotyping errors in population genetics studies

Genotyping errors occur when the genotype determined after molecular analysis does not correspond to the real genotype of the individual under consideration. Virtually every genetic data set includes some erroneous genotypes, but genotyping errors remain a taboo subject in population genetics, even though they might greatly bias the final conclusions, especially for studies based on individual identification. Here, we consider four case studies representing a large variety of population genetics investigations differing in their sampling strategies (noninvasive or traditional), in the type of organism studied (plant or animal) and the molecular markers used [microsatellites or amplified fragment length polymorphisms (AFLPs)]. In these data sets, the estimated genotyping error rate ranges from 0.8% for microsatellite loci from bear tissues to 2.6% for AFLP loci from dwarf birch leaves. Main sources of errors were allelic dropouts for microsatellites and differences in peak intensities for AFLPs, but in both cases human factors were non‐negligible error generators. Therefore, tracking genotyping errors and identifying their causes are necessary to clean up the data sets and validate the final results according to the precision required. In addition, we propose the outline of a protocol designed to limit and quantify genotyping errors at each step of the genotyping process. In particular, we recommend (i) several efficient precautions to prevent contaminations and technical artefacts; (ii) systematic use of blind samples and automation; (iii) experience and rigor for laboratory work and scoring; and (iv) systematic reporting of the error rate in population genetics studies.

THE POWER AND PROMISE OF POPULATION GENOMICS: FROM GENOTYPING TO GENOME TYPING

Population genomics has the potential to improve studies of evolutionary genetics, molecular ecology and conservation biology, by facilitating the identification of adaptive molecular variation and by improving the estimation of important parameters such as population size, migration rates and phylogenetic relationships. There has been much excitement in the recent literature about the identification of adaptive molecular variation using the population-genomic approach. However, the most useful contribution of the genomics model to population genetics will be improving inferences about population demography and evolutionary history.

Estimating the probability of identity among genotypes in natural populations: cautions and guidelines

Individual identification using DNA fingerprinting methods is emerging as a critical tool in conservation genetics and molecular ecology. Statistical methods that estimate the probability of sampling identical genotypes using theoretical equations generally assume random associations between alleles within and among loci. These calculations are probably inaccurate for many animal and plant populations due to population substructure. We evaluated the accuracy of a probability of identity (P(ID)) estimation by comparing the observed and expected P(ID), using large nuclear DNA microsatellite data sets from three endangered species: the grey wolf (Canis lupus), the brown bear (Ursus arctos), and the Australian northern hairy‐nosed wombat (Lasiorinyus krefftii). The theoretical estimates of P(ID) were consistently lower than the observed P(ID), and can differ by as much as three orders of magnitude. To help researchers and managers avoid potential problems associated with this bias, we introduce an equation for P(ID) between sibs. This equation provides an estimator that can be used as a conservative upper bound for the probability of observing identical multilocus genotypes between two individuals sampled from a population. We suggest computing the actual observed P(ID) when possible and give general guidelines for the number of codominant and dominant marker loci required to achieve a reasonably low P(ID) (e.g. 0.01–0.0001).

Genotyping errors: causes, consequences and solutions

Although genotyping errors affect most data and can markedly influence the biological conclusions of a study, they are too often neglected. Errors have various causes, but their occurrence and effect can be limited by considering these causes in the production and analysis of the data. Procedures that have been developed for dealing with errors in linkage studies, forensic analyses and non-invasive genotyping should be applied more broadly to any genetic study. We propose a protocol for estimating error rates and recommend that these measures be systemically reported to attest the reliability of published genotyping studies.

Noninvasive genetic sampling: look before you leap.

Noninvasive sampling allows genetic studies of free-ranging animals without the need to capture or even observe them, and thus allows questions to be addressed that cannot be answered using conventional methods. Initially, this sampling strategy promised to exploit fully the existing DNA-based technology for studies in ethology, conservation biology and population genetics. However, recent work now indicates the need for a more cautious approach, which includes quantifying the genotyping error rate. Despite this, many of the difficulties of noninvasive sampling will probably be overcome with improved methodology.

DNA barcoding for ecologists

DNA barcoding - taxon identification using a standardized DNA region - has received much attention recently, and is being further developed through an international initiative. We anticipate that DNA barcoding techniques will be increasingly used by ecologists. They will be able to not only identify a single species from a specimen or an organisms remains but also determine the species composition of environmental samples. Short DNA fragments persist in the environment and might allow an assessment of local biodiversity from soil or water. Even DNA-based diet composition can be estimated using fecal samples. Here we review the new avenues offered to ecologists by DNA barcoding, particularly in the context of new sequencing technologies.

Species detection using environmental DNA from water samples

The assessment of species distribution is a first critical phase of biodiversity studies and is necessary to many disciplines such as biogeography, conservation biology and ecology. However, several species are difficult to detect, especially during particular time periods or developmental stages, potentially biasing study outcomes. Here we present a novel approach, based on the limited persistence of DNA in the environment, to detect the presence of a species in fresh water. We used specific primers that amplify short mitochondrial DNA sequences to track the presence of a frog (Rana catesbeiana) in controlled environments and natural wetlands. A multi-sampling approach allowed for species detection in all environments where it was present, even at low densities. The reliability of the results was demonstrated by the identification of amplified DNA fragments, using traditional sequencing and parallel pyrosequencing techniques. As the environment can retain the molecular imprint of inhabiting species, our approach allows the reliable detection of secretive organisms in wetlands without direct observation. Combined with massive sequencing and the development of DNA barcodes that enable species identification, this approach opens new perspectives for the assessment of current biodiversity from environmental samples.