4.3 Article

Identification of Bactrian camel cell lines using genetic markers

Journal

IN VITRO CELLULAR & DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY-ANIMAL
Volume 54, Issue 4, Pages 265-271

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11626-018-0238-6

Keywords

Bactrian camel; Identification cell line; RAPD; Microsatellite

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Iranian Bactrian camel population is less than 100 animals. Iranian biological resource center produced more than 50 Bactrian camel fibroblast cell lines as a somatic cell bank for conservation animal genetic resources. We compared two type markers performance, including 14 random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPDs) (dominant) and eight microsatellite (co-dominant) for cell line identification, individual identification and investigation genetic structure of these samples. Based on clarity, polymorphism, and repeatability, four RAPD primers were selected for future analysis. Four RAPD primers and eight microsatellite markers have generated a total of 21 fragments and 45 alleles, respectively. RAPD primers revealed fragment size between 150 to 2000 bp and gene diversity since 0.27 (IBRD) to 0.46 (GC10), with an average of 0.37. Microsatellite markers generated number of alleles per locus ranged from 3 to 11, with an average of 5.62 alleles. The observed heterozygosity ranged from 0.359 (IBRC02) to 0.978 (YWLL08), and expected heterozygosity ranged from 0.449 (IBRC02) to 0.879 (YWLL08). Bottleneck analysis and curve showed that Bactrian camel population did not experience a low diversity. RAPD profiles were especially suitable for investigation population genetics. All primers generated novel and polymorphic fragments. Briefly, our results show that a multiplex PCR based on these markers can still be valuable and suitable for authentication of cell lines, investigating gene diversity and conservation genetic resources in Bactrian camel, while new technologies are continuously developed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available