Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34171993›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2021

Reliable wolf-dog hybrid detection in Europe using a reduced SNP panel developed for non-invasively collected samples.

Jenni Harmoinen, Alina von Thaden, Jouni Aspi, Laura Kvist, Berardino Cocchiararo, Anne Jarausch, Andrea Gazzola, Teodora Sin, Hannes Lohi, Marjo K Hytönen and 10 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner": Molecular Tools to ReconstructAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Article
  14. 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

20 authors at 13 institutions in 9 countries.

Jenni HarmoinenEcology and Genetics Research Unit, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland. jenni.harmoinen@oulu.fi.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5402-7127
Alina von ThadenConservation Genetics Group, Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum Frankfurt, Gelnhausen, Germany.
Jouni AspiEcology and Genetics Research Unit, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.
Laura KvistEcology and Genetics Research Unit, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.
Berardino CocchiararoConservation Genetics Group, Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum Frankfurt, Gelnhausen, Germany.
Anne JarauschConservation Genetics Group, Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum Frankfurt, Gelnhausen, Germany.
Andrea GazzolaAssociation for the Conservation of Biological Diversity, Focşani, Romania.
Teodora SinAssociation for the Conservation of Biological Diversity, Focşani, Romania.
Hannes LohiDepartment of Veterinary Biosciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Marjo K HytönenDepartment of Veterinary Biosciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Ilpo KojolaNatural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Eteläranta 55, FI-96300, Rovaniemi, Finland.
Astrid Vik StronenDepartment of Biology, Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Romolo CanigliaUnit for Conservation Genetics (BIO-CGE), Department for the Monitoring and Protection of the Environment and for Biodiversity Conservation, Italian Institute for Environmental Protection and Research, Bologna, Italy.
Federica MattucciUnit for Conservation Genetics (BIO-CGE), Department for the Monitoring and Protection of the Environment and for Biodiversity Conservation, Italian Institute for Environmental Protection and Research, Bologna, Italy.
Marco GalaverniScientific Area, WWF Italy, Rome, Italy.
Raquel GodinhoCIBIO/InBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, Universidade do Porto, Campus de Vairão, 4485-661, Vairão, Portugal.
Aritz Ruiz-GonzálezUnit for Conservation Genetics (BIO-CGE), Department for the Monitoring and Protection of the Environment and for Biodiversity Conservation, Italian Institute for Environmental Protection and Research, Bologna, Italy.
Ettore RandiDepartment of Biological, Geological and Environmental Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Violeta Muñoz-Fuentes *Conservation Genetics Group, Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum Frankfurt, Gelnhausen, Germany.
Carsten Nowak *Conservation Genetics Group, Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum Frankfurt, Gelnhausen, Germany.
University of Oulu · FIGoethe University Frankfurt · DEIstituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale · ITSenckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum Frankfurt/M · DEUniversity of Helsinki · FIAalborg University · DKEuropean Bioinformatics Institute · GBNatural Resources Institute Finland · FIUniversidade do Porto · PTUniversity of Bucharest · ROUniversity of Insubria · ITUniversity of the Basque Country · ESWWF Italia · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnderstanding the processes that lead to hybridization of wolves and dogs is of scientific and management importance, particularly over large geographical scales, as wolves can disperse great distances. However, a method to efficiently detect hybrids in routine wolf monitoring is lacking. Microsatellites offer only limited resolution due to the low number of markers showing distinctive allele frequencies between wolves and dogs. Moreover, calibration across laboratories is time-consuming and costly. In this study, we selected a panel of 96 ancestry informative markers for wolves and dogs, derived from the Illumina CanineHD Whole-Genome BeadChip (174 K). We designed very short amplicons for genotyping on a microfluidic array, thus making the method suitable also for non-invasively collected samples.

resultsGenotypes based on 93 SNPs from wolves sampled throughout Europe, purebred and non-pedigree dogs, and suspected hybrids showed that the new panel accurately identifies parental individuals, first-generation hybrids and first-generation backcrosses to wolves, while second- and third-generation backcrosses to wolves were identified as advanced hybrids in almost all cases. Our results support the hybrid identity of suspect individuals and the non-hybrid status of individuals regarded as wolves. We also show the adequacy of these markers to assess hybridization at a European-wide scale and the importance of including samples from reference populations.

conclusionsWe showed that the proposed SNP panel is an efficient tool for detecting hybrids up to the third-generation backcrosses to wolves across Europe. Notably, the proposed genotyping method is suitable for a variety of samples, including non-invasive and museum samples, making this panel useful for wolf-dog hybrid assessments and wolf monitoring at both continental and different temporal scales.

Indexed as

WolvesAnimalsDogsEuropeHybridization, GeneticMicrosatellite RepeatsPolymorphism, Single NucleotideCanis lupusCanis lupus familiarisHybridizationMuseum samplesNon-invasive samplingSNP genotyping

Identifiers

PMID34171993
PMCPMC8235813
OpenAlexW3122968938

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.