Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31925943›Full record

ArticleMolecular ecology resources2020

Applying genomic data in wildlife monitoring: Development guidelines for genotyping degraded samples with reduced single nucleotide polymorphism panels.

Alina von Thaden, Carsten Nowak, Annika Tiesmeyer, Tobias E Reiners, Paulo C Alves, Leslie A Lyons, Federica Mattucci, Ettore Randi, Margherita Cragnolini, José Galián and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular ecology resources, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Rewilded horses in European nature conservation - a genetics, ethics, and welfare perspective.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2025
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Ectoparasites of the European wildcat (International journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

Alina von ThadenConservation Genetics Group, Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum Frankfurt, Gelnhausen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9060-0912
Carsten NowakConservation Genetics Group, Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum Frankfurt, Gelnhausen, Germany.
Annika TiesmeyerConservation Genetics Group, Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum Frankfurt, Gelnhausen, Germany.
Tobias E ReinersConservation Genetics Group, Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum Frankfurt, Gelnhausen, Germany.
Paulo C AlvesCIBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, InBIO - Laboratório Associado, Universidade do Porto, Vairão, Portugal.
Leslie A LyonsDepartment of Veterinary Medicine and Surgery, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA.
Federica MattucciArea per la Genetica della Conservazione, ISPRA, Ozzano dell'Emilia, Bologna, Italy.
Ettore RandiDepartment BIGEA, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Margherita CragnoliniInstitut für Spezielle Zoologie und Evolutionsbiologie, Biologisch-Pharmazeutische Fakultät, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Jena, Germany.
José GaliánDepartamento de Zoología y Antropología Física, Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad de Murcia, Murcia, Spain.
Zsolt Hegyeli"Milvus Group" Bird and Nature Protection Association, Tîrgu Mureş, Romania.
Andrew C KitchenerDepartment of Natural Sciences, National Museums Scotland, Edinburgh, UK.
Clotilde LambinetDepartment of Science and Environmental Management, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.
José M LucasDepartamento de Zoología y Antropología Física, Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad de Murcia, Murcia, Spain.
Thomas MölichLandesverband Thüringen e.V., BUND für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland (BUND), Erfurt, Germany.
Luana RamosCIBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, InBIO - Laboratório Associado, Universidade do Porto, Vairão, Portugal.
Vinciane SchockertDepartment of Science and Environmental Management, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.
Berardino CocchiararoConservation Genetics Group, Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum Frankfurt, Gelnhausen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8427-7861

Funding

Genetic Mapping Resources for Common Mammalian DiseasesR24RR016094 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS · PI LYONS, LESLIE A · 2002 to 2011
$3.0M
Research training in infection, nutrition and neurodevelopment in UgandaD43TW010928 · FIC · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI Chandy C. John · 2018 to 2026
$1.9M
Genetic Mapping Resources for Common Mammalian DiseasesR24OD010928 · OD · UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA · PI LYONS, LESLIE A · 2012 to 2015
$911k
Cat Health Network D12FE-505Friedrich-Schiller-University of JenaKarl und Marie Schack-StiftungLeibniz Association SAW-2011-SGN-3National Institutes of Health - National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) R24 RR016094R24NCRR NIH HHS R24 RR016094Negaunee FoundationNIH HHS R24 OD010928Office of Research Infrastructure Programs (ORIP) R24OD010928University of California, Davis, Center for Companion Animal Health, School of Veterinary Medicine 2011-30-F/M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The genomic era has led to an unprecedented increase in the availability of genome-wide data for a broad range of taxa. Wildlife management strives to make use of these vast resources to enable refined genetic assessments that enhance biodiversity conservation. However, as new genomic platforms emerge, problems remain in adapting the usually complex approaches for genotyping of noninvasively collected wildlife samples. Here, we provide practical guidelines for the standardized development of reduced single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) panels applicable for microfluidic genotyping of degraded DNA samples, such as faeces or hairs. We demonstrate how microfluidic SNP panels can be optimized to efficiently monitor European wildcat (Felis silvestris S.) populations. We show how panels can be set up in a modular fashion to accommodate informative markers for relevant population genetics questions, such as individual identification, hybridization assessment and the detection of population structure. We discuss various aspects regarding the implementation of reduced SNP panels and provide a framework that will allow both molecular ecologists and practitioners to help bridge the gap between genomics and applied wildlife conservation.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnimals, WildBiodiversityBiomarkersCatsGenetics, PopulationGenomicsGenotypeGenotyping TechniquesHybridization, GeneticPolymorphism, Single NucleotideBiomarkersconservation biologydegraded DNAFelis silvestrisgenetic noninvasive samplingreduced SNP panelwildlife genomics

Identifiers

PMID31925943
PMCPMC7199164

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.