title: Comparative Estimation of Genetic Diversity in Population Studies using Molecular Sampling and Traditional Sampling Methods.
abstract: Entomopathogenic nematodes (EPN) are efficient biological pest control agents. Population genetics studies on EPN are seldom known. Therefore, it is of interest to evaluate the significance of molecular sampling method (MSM) for accuracy, time needed, and cost effectiveness over traditional sampling method (TSM). The study was conducted at the Mohican Hills golf course at the state of Ohio where the EPN H. bacteriophora has been monitored for 18 years. The nematode population occupies an area of approximately 3700 m(2) with density range from 0.25-2 per gram soil. Genetic diversity of EPN was studied by molecular sampling method (MSM) and traditional sampling method (TSM) using the mitochondrial gene pcox1. The MSM picked 88% in compared to TSM with only 30% of sequenced cox 1 gene. All studied genetic polymorphism measures (sequence and haplotype) showed high levels of genetic diversity of MSM over TSM. MSM minimizes the chance of mitochondrial genes amplification from non target organisms (insect or other contaminating microorganisms). Moreover, it allows the sampling of more individuals with a reliable and credible representative sample size. Thus, we show that MSM supersedes TSM in labour intensity, time consumption and requirement of no special experience and efficiency.
authors.affiliation: Department of Entomology, Ohio State University, USA ; Information Technology Department, Strategic Center for Diabetes Research, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia.
authors.forename: Amr Tm
authors.initials: AT
authors.lastname: Saeb
authors.affiliation: Information Technology Department, Strategic Center for Diabetes Research, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia.
authors.forename: Satish Kumar
authors.initials: SK
authors.lastname: David
keywords: Bioinformatics analysis; Entomopathogenic nematodes; Genetic analysis; Genetic markers; molecular population genetics; molecular sampling; pcox1
references.citation: PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e41868
references.pmid: 22870257
references.citation: Int J Parasitol. 2002 May;32(5):527-31
references.pmid: 11943225
references.citation: J Parasitol. 1999 Aug;85(4):709-15
references.pmid: 10461953
references.citation: Experientia Suppl. 1987;55:175-95
references.pmid: 2961596
references.citation: Mol Biol Evol. 2013 Dec;30(12):2725-9
references.pmid: 24132122
references.citation: J Nematol. 2014 Mar;46(1):27-34
references.pmid: 24643501
references.citation: Mol Ecol Resour. 2009 Jan;9(1):207-9
references.pmid: 21564604
references.citation: Mol Ecol. 2001 Jun;10(6):1433-7
references.pmid: 11412366
references.citation: Methods Mol Biol. 2009;537:337-50
references.pmid: 19378153
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Oct 12;101(41):14812-7
references.pmid: 15465915
references.citation: Electrophoresis. 2002 Jan;23(1):27-34
references.pmid: 11824618
references.citation: Nucleic Acids Symp Ser. 1999;(42):95-6
references.pmid: 10780396
references.citation: Folia Parasitol (Praha). 2000;47(4):315-8
references.pmid: 11151957
references.citation: J Parasitol. 2014 Apr;100(2):199-214
references.pmid: 24224764
references.citation: Heredity (Edinb). 1999 Sep;83 ( Pt 3):253-9
references.pmid: 10504422