Efficiency of DNA Extractions Methods from Pigeons and Cockatiels Feathers

Year 2023, , 636 - 642, 01.11.2023

Özden Çobanoğlu , Nursen Şentürk , Sena Ardıclı

https://doi.org/10.47115/bsagriculture.1364218

Cited By: 1

Abstract

This study aimed to compare different DNA extraction methods to achieve higher amounts and purity levels from molted feathers of pigeons (Columba livia f. domestica) and cockatiels (Nymphicus hollandicus). We evaluated 226 animals consisting of 202 pigeons and 24 cockatiels for these purposes. We performed three commercially available DNA extraction kits to isolate DNA from the feather samples. These kits were compared regarding DNA yield and quality depending on the different applications made during the isolation. DNA concentration (ng/mL) and absorbance ratio (260/280) were measured using a Nanodrop spectrophotometer. Kruskal-Wallis test with the Dunn’s post hoc comparison was performed for the statistical comparisons. The mean DNA concentration was the highest in isolation with the kit C. Among three commercial kits, statistically significant differences were observed concerning nucleic acid concentration (ng/µL) (P<0.001). Also, the best 260/280 nm ratio absorbance was obtained with the kit B, while the lowest purity was obtained from kit C. Moreover, the concentration and purity of DNA were detected as higher in cockatiels than in pigeons, and the significant differences were determined between birds based on spectrometric measurements (P<0.001). In conclusion, the reported findings in this study may be helpful for the DNA extraction from the feather samples collected non-invasively in the field for genetic analysis in birds.

Keywords

Feather, DNA extraction, Pigeon, Cockatiel, DNA quality, Spectrophotometer

References

• Adam I, Scharff C, Honarmand M. 2014. Who is who? Non-invasive methods to individually sex and mark altricial chicks. JoVE, 87: e51429.
• Avanus K, Koenhemsi L. 2018. Investigating T-the usage of molted feather samples as a DNA source with two methods in gender identification of African Grey Parrot (Psittacus erithacus) by molecular analyses of CHDW and CHDZ genes. Kocatepe Vet J, 11(1): 40-44.
• Banaszewska D, Ostrowski D, Biesiada-Drzazga B, Andraszek K, Górski K, Flis-Chrusciel M. 2015. The influence of different breeding units and breeding systems on reproductive results of cockatiels (Nymphicus hollandicus). Acta Sci Polon Zootech, 14(1).
• Bello N, Francino O, Sanchez A. 2001. Isolation of genomic DNA from feathers. J Vet Diag Invest, 13(2): 162-164.
• De Volo SB, Reynolds RT, Douglas MR, Antolin MF. 2008. An improved extraction method to increase DNA yield from molted feathers. The Condor, 110(4): 762-766.
• Ellegren H. 1991. DNA typing of museum birds. Nature 354(6349) 113-113.
• Freedman B, Ammer FK, Fritz RS. 2008. Optimization of DNA isolation from feathers. J Pennsylvania Acad Sci, 2008: 48-51.
• Grindol D. 1998. Is your cockatiel being weird. In: The Grindol G, editors. Complete book of cockatiels. Macmillan Publishing, New York NY USA, pp: 99-104.
• Horváth MB, Martínez‐Cruz B, Negro JJ, Kalmár L, Godoy JA. 2005. An overlooked DNA source for non‐invasive genetic analysis in birds. J Avian Biol, 36(1): 84-88.
• Presti FT, Meyer J, Antas PT, Guedes NM, Miyaki C. Y. 2013. Non-invasive genetic sampling for molecular sexing and microsatellite genotyping of hyacinth macaw (Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus. Gen Molec Biol, 36: 129-133.
• Sacchi P, Soglia D, Maione S, Meneguz G, Campora M, Rasero R. 2004. A non-invasive test for sex identification in Short-toed Eagle (Circaetus gallicus). Molec Cellular Prob, 18(3): 193-196.
• Sakyi SA, Effah A, Naturinda E, Senu E, Opoku S, Amoani B, Agordzo SK, Mensah OSO, Grant J, Abban E, Buckman TA, Kwarteng A, Ephraim RKD, Danquah KO. 2023. Comparison of modified manual acid-phenol chloroform method and commercial RNA extraction kits for resource limited laboratories. Inter J Clin Pract, 2023: 95937961-8.
• Şentürk N, Çobanoğlu Ö, Taşkın S, Ardıçlı S. Comparison of the effectiveness of different DNA isolation methods and methodological modifications in molted feathers of pigeons and nightingales. Proceedings of 12th International Medicine and Heath Sciences Researches Congress, 18 - 19 March, Ankara, Türkiye, pp: 515-516.
• Silva ANBD, Souza RCM, Honorato NRM, Martins RR, Câmara ACJD, Galvão LMDC, Chiari E. 2020. Comparison of phenol-chloroform and a commercial deoxyribonucleic acid extraction kit for identification of blood meal sources from triatomines (Hemiptera: Reduviidae). Rev Soc Bras Med Trop, 53: e20200189.
• Taberlet P, Bouvet J. 1991. A single plucked feather as a source of DNA for bird genetic studies short communications. The Auk, 108(4): 959–960.
• William W, Wilfinger KM, Chomczynski P. 1997. Effect of pH and ionic strength on the spectrophotometric assessment of nucleic acid purity. BioTechniques, 22:474-481.
• Yılmaz O, Boz A. 2012. Tarihten günümüze Türkiye’de güvercin (Columbia livia) yetiştiriciliği. Adnan Menderes Üniv Zir Fak Derg, 9(1): 45-51.
• Zemanova MA. 2021. Noninvasive genetic assessment is an effective wildlife research tool when compared with other approaches. Genes, 12(11): 1672.