Views provided by UsageCounts
doi: 10.5061/dryad.0fh44
A simple way to quickly optimize microsatellites in non-model organisms is to re-use loci available in closely related taxa; however, this approach can be limited by the stochastic and low cross-amplification success experienced in some groups (e.g. amphibians). An efficient alternative is to develop loci from transcriptome sequences. Transcriptomic microsatellites have been found to vary in their levels of cross-species amplification and variability, but this has to date never been tested in amphibians. Here, we compare the patterns of cross-amplification and levels of polymorphism of 18 published anonymous microsatellites isolated from genomic DNA versus 17 loci derived from a transcriptome, across nine species of tree frogs (Hyla arborea and Hyla cinerea group). We established a clear negative relationship between divergence time and amplification success, which was much steeper for anonymous than transcriptomic markers, with half-lives (time at which 50% of the markers still amplify) of 1.1 and 37 My respectively. Transcriptomic markers are significantly less polymorphic than anonymous loci, but remain variable across diverged taxa. We conclude that the exploitation of amphibian transcriptomes for developing microsatellites is an optimal approach for multi-species surveys (e.g. analyses of hybrid zones, comparative linkage mapping), while anonymous microsatellites may be more informative for fine-scale analyses of intraspecific variation. Moreover, our results confirm the pattern that microsatellite cross-amplification is greatly variable among amphibians, and should be assessed independently within target lineages. Finally, we provide a bank of microsatellites for Palearctic tree frogs (so far only available for H. arborea), which will be useful for conservation and evolutionary studies in this radiation.
Microsatellite genotypes of 10 tree frog taxaThe first 17 microsatellites were developed from a transcriptome of Hyla arborea. The last 18 markers are anonymous microsatellites. Missing data are coded as NA and null/non-amplifying alleles as 0.MsatGenotypes_Dryad_MER13-0308.xlsx
Hyla arborea, Hyla cinerea, Hyla japonica, Hyla sarda, Hyla orientalis, Hyla arborea kretensis, Hyla meridionalis, Hyla intermedia, Hyla savignyi, Hyla molleri
Hyla arborea, Hyla cinerea, Hyla japonica, Hyla sarda, Hyla orientalis, Hyla arborea kretensis, Hyla meridionalis, Hyla intermedia, Hyla savignyi, Hyla molleri
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
| views | 9 |

Views provided by UsageCounts