Identification of CITES-Listed Euphorbia royleana through DNA Barcoding Technology: A New Facet in Wildlife Forensics
Article content
Abstract
Disorganized and chaotic collection of the Euphorbia plant species from the wild is one of the major reasons for its endangered status. According to CITES, the trade in Euphorbia royleana species is prohibited under Appendix II. However, the trade continues unabated as current identification methods do not discriminate between closely related species.
In the present study, a DNA barcoding method has been used to establish inter- and intra-specific divergences of both matK and rbcL regions by using pairwise genetic distance measurement methods for evaluating the maximum barcoding gap.
The matk and rbcL yielded a 100% amplification and sequencing success rate to distinguish closely related species of Euphorbia royleana unambiguously. The matk and rbcL showed average interspecific genetic distance divergence values of 0.031and 0.015, respectively. The maximum number of species-specific SNPs was observed in matK sequences at seven consecutive sites, which could distinguish Euphorbia royleana from closely related species.
The best candidate barcoding region to identify Euphorbia royleana was found to be matK with a single-locus barcoding approach. Furthermore, the species discrimination method was developed with the help of species-specific SNPs derived from the matK barcoding region to accurately authenticate Euphorbia royleana, and it provided 100% species resolution
Keywords
Wildlife forensics, Plant DNA Barcoding, Euphorbia royleana, CITES, Forensic Science
Downloads
References
van Uhm DP, Pires SF, Sosnowski M, Petrossian GA. 7 A comparison of seizures of illegal wildlife between the US and the EU. Quantitative studies in green and conservation criminology: The measurement of environmental harm and crime. 2019 Jul 17:127.https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429453946-7.
Scheffers BR, Oliveira BF, Lamb I, Edwards DP. Global wildlife trade across the tree of life. Science. 2019 Oct 4;366(6461):71-6.https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav5327.
Rizk AM, Hammouda FM, El-Missiry MM, Radwan HM, Evans FJ. Macrocyclic diterpene esters from Euphorbia royleana. Phytochemistry. 1984; 23(10): 2377-9.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9422(00)80559-2.
Casimir MJ, Rao A. Vertical control in the western Himalaya: some notes on the pastoral ecology of the nomadic Bakrwal of Jammu and Kashmir. Mountain Research and Development. 1985; 1:221-32.https://doi.org/10.2307/3673355.
Rao CK, Geetha BL, Suresh GE. Red list of threatened vascular plant species in India. Botanical Survey of India. Kolkata; 2003; 1-2.
Lai XZ, Yang, YB, Shan XL. The investigation of Euphorbiaceous medicinal plants in Southern China. Economic botany. 2004; 1;58(1):S307-20.https://doi.org/10.1663/0013-0001(2004)58[S307:TIOEMP]2.0.CO;2.
Rashid S, Ahmad M, Zafar, M, Sultana S, Ayub M, Khan MA, Yaseen G. Ethnobotanical survey of medicinally important shrubs and trees of Himalayan region of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan. Journal of ethnopharmacology. 2015; 166:340-51.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2015.03.042.
Broad S, Mulliken T, Roe D. The nature and extent of legal and illegal trade in wildlife. The trade in wildlife. 2014; 25-44.
Sharma T, Thakar MK. Evaluation of DNA barcoding methodology and substitution prevailing in “Sandlewood” herbal trade market. Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology. 2018; 35(2):37.https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-4568.2018.00026.1.
Thakar MK, Sharma T, Sahajpal V. Identification of medicinal plants in illegal trade through DNA barcodes. Forensic science international. 2017; 277:137-137.
Kress WJ, Erickson DL, Jones FA, Swenson NG, Perez R, Sanjur O, Bermingham E. Plant DNA barcodes and a community phylogeny of a tropical forest dynamics plot in Panama. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2009; 3;106(44):18621-6.https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0909820106.
Gonçalves PF, Oliveira-Marques AR, Matsumoto TE, Miyaki CY. DNA barcoding identifies illegal parrot trade. Journal of Heredity. 2015; 106:560-564.https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/esv035.
Rehman A, Jafar S, Raja NA, Mahar J. Use of DNA Barcoding to control the Illegal Wildlife Trade: A CITES case report from Pakistan. Journal of Bioresource Management. 2015; 2(2):3-10.https://doi.org/10.35691/JBM.5102.0017
Ferri G, Alu M, Corradini B, Licata M, Beduschi G. Species identification through DNA “barcodes”. Genetic testing and molecular biomarkers. 2009; 1;13(3):421-6.https://doi.org/10.1089/gtmb.2008.0144.
Ogden R, Dawnay N, McEwing R. Wildlife DNA forensics—bridging the gap between conservation genetics and law enforcement. Endangered Species Research. 2009; 2;9(3):179-95.https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00144.
Yang CQ, Lv Q, Zhang AB. Sixteen Years of DNA Barcoding in China: What Has Been Done? What Can Be Done? Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution. 2020; 6;8:57.https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2020.00057.
Hollingsworth PM, Graham SW, Little DP. Choosing and using a plant DNA barcode. PloS one. 2011; 6(5):19254.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0019254.
Linacre A, Tobe SS. An overview to the investigative approach to species testing in wildlife forensic science. Investigative genetics. 2011; 2(1):2-6.https://doi.org/10.1186/2041-2223-2-2
Group CP, Hollingsworth PM, Forrest LL, Spouge, JL Hajibabaei M, Ratnasingham S, Bank M, Chase MW, Cowan RS, Erickson DL, Fazekas AJ. A DNA barcode for land plants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2009; 4;106 (31):12794-7.https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0905845106.
Dunning LT, Savolainen V. Broad-scale amplification of matK for DNA barcoding plants, a technical note. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society. 2010; 164(1): 1-9.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8339.2010.01071.x.
Widmer I, Grande F, Cornejo C, Scheidegger C. Highly variable microsatellite markers for the fungal and algal symbionts of the lichen Lobariapulmonaria and challenges in developing biont-specific molecular markers for fungal associations. Fungal biology. 2010; 114(7): 538-544.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.funbio.2010.04.003.
Chase MW, Cowan RS, Hollingsworth PM, Berg C, Madriñán S, Petersen G, Pedersen N. A proposal for a standardized protocol to barcode all land plants. Taxon. 2007; 56(2):295-299.https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.562004.
Srivathsan A, Meier R. On the inappropriate use of Kimura‐2‐parameter (K2P) divergences in the DNA‐barcoding literature. Cladistics. 2012; 28(2):190-194.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-0031.2011.00370.x.
Mishra P, Kumar A, Nagireddy A, Shukla AK, Sundaresan V. Evaluation of single and multilocus DNA barcodes towards species delineation in complex tree genus Terminalia. PloS one. 2017; 22; 12(8):e0182836.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182836
Li M, Cao H, But PP, Shaw PC. Identification of herbal medicinal materials using DNA barcodes. Journal of Systematics and Evolution. 2011; 49(3):271-83.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-6831.2011.00132.x.
Sahu SK, Thangaraj M, Kathiresan K. DNA extraction protocol for plants with high levels of secondary metabolites and polysaccharides without using liquid nitrogen and phenol. ISRN Molecular Biology. 2012; 23-30.https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/205049
Staats M, Arulandhu AJ, Gravendeel B, Holst-Jensen A, Scholtens I, Peelen T, Prins TW, Kok E. Advances in DNA metabarcoding for food and wildlife forensic species identification. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry. 2016; 1;408(17):4615-30.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-016-9595-8.
Article details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
You must read and accept the copyright terms and conditions(click here for copyright terms).