Literature DB >> 27620907

Identifying a hunter responsible for killing a hunting dog by individual-specific genetic profiling of wild boar DNA transferred to the canine during the accidental shooting.

Anna Schleimer1, Alain C Frantz2, Johannes Lang3, Phillipe Reinert1, Mike Heddergott1.   

Abstract

While genetic profiling can be a powerful tool to solve wildlife crime, comparably few examples of individual identification in wildlife forensics are available in the literature. Here, we report a case of an accidental shooting of a hunting dog during a wild boar drive hunt. The market value of trained hunting dogs can reach several thousand euro. No one admitted to killing the dog. Wild boar hairs were found in the dog's wound, suggesting that the bullet first hit a wild boar and then the dog. Since it was known who harvested each boar, we aimed to use individual-specific genetic profiles to link these hairs to a bagged animal and to identify the culprit. We genotyped 19 harvested boar and the unknown hair sample using 13 STRs. In the case of the hair sample, we performed multiple genotyping to ensure the reliability of the genetic profile. We showed that we genotyped sufficient loci to distinguish between separate individuals with certainty. While the three most informative loci were enough to differentiate the 19 reference individuals, we did find a perfect match at all 13 STRs between the hair DNA and one tissue sample. Since our methods were reliable and reproducible, we passed the relevant information on to forestry officials who will use the information we have provided to attempt to find an amicable solution.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Canis lupus familiaris; Case study; Microsatellites; Sus scofa; Validation; Wildlife forensics

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27620907     DOI: 10.1007/s12024-016-9806-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Forensic Sci Med Pathol        ISSN: 1547-769X            Impact factor:   2.007


  7 in total

1.  Which whales are hunted? A molecular genetic approach to monitoring whaling.

Authors:  C S Baker; S R Palumbi
Journal:  Science       Date:  1994-09-09       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Cloning and characterization of 414 polymorphic porcine microsatellites.

Authors:  L J Alexander; G A Rohrer; C W Beattie
Journal:  Anim Genet       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 3.169

3.  A simple salting out procedure for extracting DNA from human nucleated cells.

Authors:  S A Miller; D D Dykes; H F Polesky
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  1988-02-11       Impact factor: 16.971

Review 4.  Current and future directions of DNA in wildlife forensic science.

Authors:  Rebecca N Johnson; Linzi Wilson-Wilde; Adrian Linacre
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int Genet       Date:  2013-12-30       Impact factor: 4.882

5.  DNA forensics and the poaching of wildlife in Italy: a case study.

Authors:  Rita Lorenzini
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int       Date:  2005-10-29       Impact factor: 2.395

6.  Estimating the probability of identity among genotypes in natural populations: cautions and guidelines.

Authors:  L P Waits; G Luikart; P Taberlet
Journal:  Mol Ecol       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 6.185

7.  ISFG: recommendations regarding the use of non-human (animal) DNA in forensic genetic investigations.

Authors:  A Linacre; L Gusmão; W Hecht; A P Hellmann; W R Mayr; W Parson; M Prinz; P M Schneider; N Morling
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int Genet       Date:  2010-11-23       Impact factor: 4.882

  7 in total
  1 in total

1.  Fatal gunshot injuries in the common buzzard Buteo buteo L. 1758 - imaging and ballistic findings.

Authors:  Filip Pankowski; Grzegorz Bogiel; Sławomir Paśko; Filip Rzepiński; Joanna Misiewicz; Alfred Staszak; Joanna Bonecka; Małgorzata Dzierzęcka; Bartłomiej J Bartyzel
Journal:  Forensic Sci Med Pathol       Date:  2018-08-31       Impact factor: 2.007

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.