ArticleScientific reports2020
Forensic validation of a panel of 12 SNPs for identification of Mongolian wolf and dog.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Genomic Method for Combating Wildlife Trafficking: SNP-Based Traceability of Four Endangered Species in China.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Animal Species and Identity Testing: Developments, Challenges, and Applications to Non-Human Forensics.Genes · 2025Review
- Development of a SNP Panel for Geographic Assignment and Population Monitoring of Jaguars (Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Using loop-primer mediated PCR to enhance the detection of poorly preserved DNA.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Combination of Multiple Microsatellite Analysis and Genome-Wide SNP Genotyping Helps to Solve Wildlife Crime: A Case Study of Poaching of a Caucasian tur (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Wolf (Canis lupus) is a species included in appendices of CITES and is often encountered in cases of alleged poaching and trafficking of their products. When such crimes are suspected, those involved may attempt to evade legal action by claiming that the animals involved are domestic dogs (C. l. familiaris). To respond effectively to such claims, law enforcement agencies require reliable and robust methods to distinguish wolves from dogs. Reported molecular genetic methods are either unreliable (mitogenome sequence based), or operationally cumbersome and require much DNA (un-multiplexed microsatellites), or financially expensive (genome wide SNP genotyping). We report on the validation of a panel of 12 ancestral informative single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers for discriminating wolves from dogs. A SNaPshot multiplex genotyping system was developed for the panel, and 97 Mongolian wolves (C. l. chanco) and 108 domestic dogs were used for validation. Results showed this panel had high genotyping success (0.991), reproducibility (1.00) and origin assignment accuracy (0.97 ± 0.05 for dogs and 1.00 ± 0.03 for wolves). Species-specificity testing suggested strong tolerance to DNA contamination across species, except for Canidae. The minimum DNA required for reliable genotyping was 6.25 pg/μl. The method and established gene frequency database are available to support identification of wolves and dogs by law enforcement agencies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.