Revisiting traditional SSR based methodologies available for elephant genetic studies - Nature

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

You have full access to this open access article

Asian elephant ( Elephas maximus ) plays a significant role in natural ecosystems and it is considered as an endangered animal. Molecular genetics studies on elephants’ dates back to 1990s. Microsatellite markers have been the preferred choice and have played a major role in ecological, evolutionary and conservation research on elephants over the past 20 years. However, technical constraints especially related to the specificity of traditionally developed microsatellite markers have brought to question their application, specifically when degraded samples are utilized for analysis. Therefore, we analyzed the specificity of 24 sets of microsatellite markers frequently used for elephant molecular work. Comparative wet lab analysis was done with blood and dung DNA in parallel with in silico work. Our data suggest cross-amplification of unspecific products when field-collected dung samples are utilized in assays. The necessity of Asian elephant specific set of microsatellites and or better molecular techniques are highlighted.

Elephants are the largest living land mammals on the earth and they play an important role in ecosystems. Other than the large body size, they are distinct from other animals having long muscular trunks and tusks 1 . Further, the elephants are famous for their extraordinary sensory system and chemical communication 2 , unique vocal communication 3 , 4 , 5 , memory power and intelligence 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 and social behavior 5 , 10 , 11 .

Elephants belong to the family Elephantidae and the other Proboscidae evolved over 60 million years ago 12 . There are two elephant species; the Asian elephant, Elephas maximus and the African elephant, Loxodonta africana 1 , 13 . Nevertheless, some morphological and molecular evidences suggest, African elephants are not one species but, two. The Savannah elephant L. africana africana 14 and forest elephant L. africana cyclotis 13 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 are deeply divergent lineages separated about 4–7 million years ago 17 , 21 . It is also recognized that there are three subspecies of Asian elephant; Elephas maximus maximus from Sri Lanka (1758), Elephas maximus indicus from Asian mainland/India (1978) and Elephas maximus sumatranus from Sumatra (1847) 22 , 23 , 24 .

Historical evidences suggest that the Asian elephant ranged from Mesopotamia in the west to the South and Southeast Asia, China and to the Yangtze River 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 . However, currently it exists on about 15% of the historical range, in a fragmented and isolated population in South and Southeast Asia 24 , 30 . Further, E. maximus is classified as an ‘endangered’ species in IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) red list 31 , 32 . Nevertheless, Sri Lanka is the homage of a considerable E. maximus population consisting of about 5000–6000 elephants (DWC records 2011).

The molecular work on elephant started in the early 1990s and initial studies focused on a few mitochondrial regions 28 , 29 , 30 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , nuclear genes and microsatellites or simple sequence repeats (SSR) 20 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 . The recent studies include techniques such as multiplex genotyping 44 , protein electrophoresis 56 , single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) 57 , 58 , shotgun and restriction site-associated DNA sequencing (RAD-seq) 57 , 58 and transcriptomics 59 , 60 , 61 . Further, relatively high coverage ~ 33.4X Savannah African elephant genome 21 and ~ 94.4X of Asian elephant genome 62 are also available now. Scientists have also studied the phylogenetic relationship between E. maximus, L.africana and Mammuthus primigenius (woolly mammoth) 21 , 63 , 64 .

However, thus far SSR is the most widely used technology in elephant molecular analysis, for resolving phylogenetic relationships 12 , 21 , 39 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , population structure and social organization 5 , 37 , 41 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , illegal poaching and ivory trade 19 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , ecology and conservation 23 , 27 , 28 , 77 , 78 , 79 , distribution and behavior 24 and sex determination 73 , 77 , 80 , 81 , 82 . While the early SSR studies were based on PCR amplification followed by polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis and silver staining 55 , 83 , later studies utilized relatively advanced technologies such as fragment analysis or capillary electrophoresis 19 , 40 , 52 , 84 , 85 , 86 . Elephant blood or tissues, as well as dung, have been utilized in the previous studies 37 , 87 , 88 . Interestingly, the SSRs developed for the African elephant have been successfully utilized for Asian elephant studies 50 , 52 , 54 , 89 and vice versa 19 , 90 . When the first SSR study on Asian elephant was conducted in 2001, neither the human genome nor the elephant genome was available. Therefore, the specificity of SSRs and the possibility of amplification from other animals, plants and fungal species were not tested. Interestingly, the same set of SSR is still being used around the world 84 , 86 , 91 , 92 . Nevertheless, the specificity of recently developed SSRs was tested in silico using available genomic data and only the specific ones were selected for subsequent lab work 84 . The specificity is very critical when the wild-collected dung samples are the only available material for molecular studies. Here we report lessons learned while utilizing previously published SSRs for amplification of blood DNA from identified elephants and dung DNA extracted from wild-collected samples from Sri Lankan forests.

The quality and quantity of DNA are the key factors to the success of any downstream application. As expected, quality DNA was obtained from the elephant blood using a commercially available kit. However, the commercial kit QIAGEN QIAamp Fast DNA Stool Mini Kit (Cat.No, 51,604) protocol that is optimized for faecal samples had to be modified to extract good quality DNA from elephant dung. From the studied temperature and time combinations, 56 °C for 4 h incubation resulted in high-quality DNA with the least PCR inhibitors and therefore, was selected for dung DNA extraction from the rest of the samples (Supplementary Figure S1 A). The optimized protocol worked efficiently for fresh dung less than 24 h old, and for the outermost mucus layer stored at 4 °C for 2 weeks (Supplementary Figure S1 B).

Among the tested reaction and thermocycler conditions, the optimum PCR mixture consisted of 1 × GoTaq Flexi buffer (Promega, Cat No: M891A), 160 µM dNTP mixture (Promega, Cat No: U151B), 1.5 mM MgCl 2 (Promega, Cat No: A35H), 0.12 M Spermidine, 0.8% PVP, 0.2 µM Reverse Primer, 0.2 µM FAM-labeled M13 Forward Primer, 0.08 µM M13 tailed Forward primer (Integrated DNA Technologies IDT, Singapore), 1 Unit Go Taq Flexi DNA polymerase (Promega, Cat No: M8295) and 100 ng RNase treated DNA template in a 25 µL reaction volume. The touchdown PCR program consisted of initial denaturation at 94 °C for 5 min, followed by 30 cycles of 94 °C for 1 min, 58 °C for 30 s and 72 °C for 1 min and 08 cycles of 94 °C for 1 min, 55 °C for 30 s and 72 °C for 1 min and final extension at 72 °C for 5 min.

First, we selected the ten most polymorphic SSRs from previous studies to assess their suitability for studying the genetic relationship of the current Sri Lankan elephant population. For this, we selected six elephants housed in the National Zoological Garden of Sri Lanka. This could be considered as a representative sample of Sri Lankan elephants since they have different morphological features and were from different geographical locations. The blood DNA extracted amplified with ten SSRs resulted di, tri and tetra-nucleotide repeats. However, of the ten markers, only eight were polymorphic (Table 1 ). The EMU17 presented the highest number of alleles (Table 1 ), while both EMU10 and EMU13 amplified only two alleles. The UPGMA dendrogram built with capillary sequencing data (Supplementary Figure S2 ) showed the relationship among the six elephants in the National Zoological Garden (Fig. 1 ).

Relationship among Asian elephants in the National Zoological Garden, Sri Lanka. The phylogenetic tree developed based on the binary data matrix obtained by reading distinctive peaks of fragment analysis data, using UPGMA method. Bootstrap probability values for 1000 bootstrap resamples are indicated at each node.

The six individuals were grouped into two clusters, where Namalee, Bandula, Devi and Ganga clustered together while Kema and Indi were together. Interestingly, Bandula and Namalee have similar morphological features, such as, the abundance of freckles (depigmentation) on the trunk (Supplementary Figure S3 a,b respectively). Devi and Ganga have an average number of freckles on the trunk (Supplementary Figure S3 c,d respectively). The tusker, Kema grouped separately with Indi and both do not have freckles on the trunk (Supplementary Figure S3 e,f).

We initially selected ten most polymorphic SSRs from previous studies and assessed the suitability of them using blood DNA extracted from a representative group of elephants. Since only eight of them were polymorphic and number of alleles observed were less than previous studies, we included 24 SSRs identified from the literature. Further, we selected another set of elephants including one animal with Indian origin to address the possibility of less overall genetic diversity among elephants in National Zoological Garden of Sri Lanka. At this point, we also moved from blood to dung, since collecting blood from a large number of wild elephants are not practically possible for any study. Therefore, dung samples from four randomly selected domesticated elephants were included in this experiment.

Of the multiple bands detected in 1.5% Agarose gel (Fig. 2 ), some were approximately similar to the previously reported work and for the bands resulted from blood samples in the current study, while the others were much bigger. Therefore, only the fragments with the expected size were considered in the analysis (Table 1 ). Except for LafMS06, LA4, EMU13 and EMU17, all the other SSRs showed more alleles than previous reports. Nine out of ten SSRs used for blood DNA work, amplified more alleles when those were used for amplification from dung (Table 1 ). The EMU06 had interesting amplification even in the blood where only 50% (3 out of 6) of samples resulted visible products. Though the blood and dung were not from the same elephants, monomorphic bands were consistently present in all the samples. Further, numbers of bands were consistently higher in dung samples. Though one of the elephants used in dung analysis is with Indian origin, no clear differences were observed in amplification patterns (Fig. 2 d). The current analysis also showed that the primers designed for African elephants are applicable for Asian elephants having both Sri Lankan and Indian origin. Of the 24 SSRs, LafMS02 amplified the highest total number of alleles, ten (Table 1 ), with no obvious multiple amplifications on gels (Fig. 2 ). Therefore, LafMS02 ranked top among tested SSRs was selected for analysis of selected Sri Lankan wild elephant population.

Identification of polymorphic markers for amplification of dung DNA. Primer names are given on the top of each well. L-100 bp ladder (Promega, Cat no: G2101), ( a ) – ( c ) Sri Lankan origin, ( d ) Indian origin. Full-length gels are presented in Supplementary Figure S4 .

A total of 93 wild elephant dung DNA samples collected from different wildlife parks in Sri Lanka (Fig. 3 ) were amplified with LafMS02 primers. There were obvious multiple amplifications, representing different sizes in some samples, for example, samples 09, 81, 82, 83 and 84 (Fig. 4 ). This observation led us to further test the specificity of the selected SSRs.

Distribution of wild elephant dung sampling sites in Sri Lanka. The number of dung samples collected varied and decided in proportion to the number of elephants in a considered population. A total of 93 samples were collected covering most of the National Parks in Sri Lanka from wild elephants.

Amplification with SSR—LafMS02. L-100 bp ladder (Promega Cat no: G2101), 1–93 dung DNA samples collected from wild elephants. Full-length gels are presented in Supplementary Figure S5 .

For that, first, we used LafMS02 primers to amplify DNA from blood and dung from the same wild elephant, a sample inside of the dung bolus, a mixture of inner layers of dung bolus and a mixture of plant DNA (Fig. 5 a). The plant mixture included equal amounts of DNA from Cinnamomum zeylanicum, Oryza rhizomatis, Santalum album and Strobilanthes zeylanica . Aclear single band appeared on the gel from blood DNA while multiple bands were resulted from the outermost mucus layer of a dung bolus of the same elephant. Interestingly, plant DNA mixture also resulted approximately similar size band to that of the blood DNA. Further, similar size products were detectable in the DNA extracted from the inner fibrous layer of the dung bolus as well as with a mixture of fibrous layers from different dung bolus. To further verify the results, the same analysis was done with another set of primers, EMU14, selected from the list. Results were similar for having multiple amplifications in dung DNA and parallel size products amplified from blood and plant DNA (Fig. 5 b).

taken from inside of the bolus 3: Fibers taken from multiple samples 4: Mixture of Plant DNA ( C. zeylanicum , O. rhizomatis , S. album and S. zeylanica ) 5: Elephant Blood DNA (from elephant no: 66) 6: Negative control-water. ( b ) Amplification of EMU14 primer. L-100 bp molecular weight marker 1: Elephant dung DNA (from the mucus layer), 2: Fibers taken from inside of the bolus 3: Mixture of Plant DNA ( C. zeylanicum , O. rhizomatis , S. album and S. zeylanica ), 4: Elephant Blood DNA (from elephant no: 66). ( c ) Amplification of plant DNA with 24 primers.1: EMU03, 2: EMU04, 3: EMU06, 4: EMU07, 5: EMU10, 6: EMU09, 7: EMU11, 8: EMU12, 9: EMU13, 10: EMU14, 11: EMU15, 12: EMU17, 13: LafMS02, 14: LafMS06, 15: LA2, 16: LA3, 17: LA4, 18: LA5, 19: LA6, 20: EMX-1, 21: EMX-2, 22: EMX-3, 23: EMX-4, 24: EMX-5, L-100 bp ladder. ( d ) Amplification of plant DNA with nine selected primers (repeated PCR). L-100 bp ladder 1: EMU07, 2: EMU09, 3: EMU10, 4: EMU13, 5: EMU14, 6: EMU15, 7: LafMS06, 8: EMX-4, 9:LA6, 10: Negative control (water). Full-length gels are presented in Supplementary Figure S6 .

Testing the specificity of SSR primers. ( a ) Amplification of LafMS02 primer. L-100 bp molecular weight marker 1: Elephant dung DNA (from the mucus layer) 2: Fibers

The results above directed us to test whether such cross-amplification exists in other SSRs selected from previous studies. The same plant DNA mixture was used as the template with the other 24 primers sets selected (Fig. 5 c). The PCR was repeated for eight selected primers from above and products were separated on a 2.0% agarose gel (Fig. 5 d). Out of 24, only three SSRs, EMU06, LA4 and LA5 did not show clear amplification. PCR of plant DNA mixture also resulted in bands of similar size as that from blood DNA.

It is suggested to use higher annealing temperatures to avoid unspecific amplifications 93 . The majority of selected primers had the melting temperature of 58 °C while few had little higher or lower temperatures (Supplementary Table S1 ). We used a touchdown PCR algorithm to increase the specificity of primer binding. Nevertheless, higher annealing temperatures of 62–58 °C and 69–65 °C were tested for a selected set of primers (Fig. 6 a,b). Increasing the annealing temperature to 62 °C reduced the intensity of the expected products, for example in EMU17 and LafMS06. However, there was no clear change in the intensity of unexpected amplifications, without affecting the expected product. All three primer sets; EMU13, EMU17 and LafMS06 resulted clear multiple amplifications even at 62 °C. However, increasing the annealing temperature to 69 °C affected amplification in all three primers tested (Fig. 6 b). These results suggest that increasing annealing temperature does not help to get rid of cross-amplification of contaminating plant DNA possibly co-extracted with elephant DNA.

Optimization of annealing temperature. ( a ) Annealing temperatures 62–58 °C in ‘touchdown 58’ PCR for randomly selected samples (09,81,82,83,37) using five polymorphic primers; LafMS02, EMU10, EMU13, EMU17, LafMS06), L-100 bp ladder (Promega, Cat no: G2101), P—Plant DNA mixture, N—Negative control (water). ( b ) Annealing temperatures 69–65 °C in ‘touchdown 65’ PCR for three primers having high annealing temperature for randomly selected samples (09,81,82,83,84,37), L-100 bp ladder (Promega, Cat no: G2101), P—Plant DNA mixture, N—Negative control (water). Full-length gels are presented in Supplementary Figure S7 .

Human DNA contamination is also a possibility of assessing the degraded DNA 84 . Therefore, twelve selected SSRs from the list were assessed with human blood DNA, plant DNA mixture together with three elephant dung DNA samples in three different annealing temperatures 58 °C, 62 °C and 65 °C (Table 2 ). While there was clear amplification in 58 °C and 62 °C, no clear products were observed at 65 °C in EMU04, EMU06, EMU11, EMU14 and EMU15. However, EMU07, EMU09 and EMU10 resulted clear products in all the temperatures in all the samples. Human DNA resulted clear products with most of the tested SSRs with matching size of elephants. Therefore, there is less possibility to discriminate human DNA contaminations either in gel electrophoresis or by capillary electrophoresis.

Overall, majority of the selected primers amplified single or multiple products from plant DNA and human blood DNA. Therefore, the specificity of primers was further tested against available sequence information in National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). Only the products smaller than 500 bp were considered in the BLAST analysis against selected plant and animal genomes (Supplementary Table S2 ). Except for EMU06 and EMU07, all the other primers had hits in selected genomic sequence data. Further, except LafMS02, LA2, LA6 and EMU10, all the others had hits with comparable size in the human genome. While Kongrit et al. in 2007 48 reported amplification of four alleles from Asian elephant blood and dung samples for EMU06, we observed clear products only in three out of six blood samples (Table 2 ). Further, EMU06 resulted amplification in some dung samples. However, it did not result amplification either from plant or human blood DNA tested in the current study. Nevertheless, EMU07 resulted clear multiple products from elephants’ dung DNA samples, plant DNA mix, and human blood DNA.

SSR technique was first introduced by Michael Litt and Jeffrey A. Luty in 1989 94 . Since then, it is probably the most widely used technique in DNA fingerprinting of both animals and plants 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 . Human DNA fingerprinting also relies on 13 Short Tandem Repeat (STR) regions and a universally accepted set of primers 99 .

Fernando et al., in 2001 49 used five sets of SSRs (EMX-1, EMX-2, EMX-3, EMX-4 and EMX-5) for Asian elephant genetic analysis for the first time. Since 2001, the same set of SSR has been used 77 for both blood DNA 92 and dung DNA analysis 77 and all of them were included in this study. Similarly, all the other primers included in this study have been used more than once. Nevertheless, the first set of SSRs for the elephant genetic analysis was developed before the rapid growth of next-generation sequencing data. In the past, the PCR products were separated in polyacrylamide gels and stained with silver nitrate 46 , 55 . In the current work we used an advanced technique, PCR followed by capillary electrophoresis using a genetic analyzer, also known as fragment analysis 86 . Even a single base-pair length difference can be distinguished using this technique. The selected SSRs have also previously been used for fragment analysis-based studies.

Nevertheless, here we compared the amplification in blood and dung DNA, which has not been done before in a single study. We first used the ten most polymorphic SSRs from the previous research to analyze blood DNA extracted from six elephants housed at the National Zoological Garden, Sri Lanka. Interestingly, only eight out of ten were polymorphic and the total number of alleles and the number of polymorphic loci were less than those of previous studies. Since lower overall genetic diversity among them could be a reason for the next set of experiments, we selected another population of four elephants, including one elephant with Indian origin. We also expanded the list of SSRs from ten to 24, including all the SSRs repeatedly used in previous studies. Further, we selected dung, as the material of choice since obtaining blood from a large number of wild elephants would be a difficult task for any future study. Interestingly, when the same primers used for the blood were used for the analysis of dung DNA, it resulted multiple amplifications in many cases. Those products did not disappear when the annealing temperature increased, suggesting they are to be specific amplifications. To best of our knowledge, there are no reports on testing the specificity of the selected set of SSRs either in the wet lab or in silico. Therefore, the possibility of miscounting and interpretation in previous studies cannot be excluded. However, a recently developed set of SSRs was analyzed in silico to test the possibility of amplification from human since it is a possible contaminant with highly degraded samples 84 . Gugala and colleagues 84 used NCBI BLAST to search each sequence of the locus against African Savannah elephant, L. africana non-redundant database. Then they used the software in silico PCR on the UCSC Genome Browser to query the primers against the human genome. Interestingly, about 57% of the primers picked from the initial analysis resulted hits in the human genome suggesting those primers would result products from possible human genome contaminants. Further, when they conducted the wet lab analysis with SSRs with no hits in the in silico PCR work, template resulted expected products with human DNA. Our work also showed similar results for some primers, for example, EMU06 and EMU07. The necessity of in silico analysis for testing specificity of SSRs is highlighted for other wild animals, for example, leopard 100 .

Nevertheless, the current study suggests that the analysis should extend beyond the human genome especially when dung DNA is used as starting materials. It is even critical when wild-collected or degraded samples are included in the analysis 101 . Except for rice, Oryza sativa, no plant selected in the study has fully sequenced and assembled genomes. Even the O. rhizomatis could have different SSR motives than O. sativa genomic data in the NCBI. Similarly, the Sri Lankan human DNA randomly selected for the study could have differences compared to the sequences available in the database. Some primers resulted multiple hits in the same organism while the others had hits in several organisms. Here, we considered only a subset of eukaryotic organisms with available sequencing data and majority of the possible contaminants in the wilderness; both flora and fauna are yet to be sequenced. Further, we have not considered any microbial genomes, fungal and algal genomes in the analysis. Therefore, the in silico analysis data presented are not complete and possible cross amplifications could be much higher for the same primers. Further, we only considered the products smaller than 500 bp in size. The presence of larger products as observed in wet-lab experiments is possible and such amplification would reduce the efficiency of PCR amplification reaction. Contaminants can be avoided by taking extra precautionary steps when the blood samples are collected from wild or captive elephants. However, such options are not possible when dung or degraded tissue samples are collected from the wild, especially in forensic cases. Therefore, the specificity of primers is a critical factor deciding the success of traditional SSR based methods adopted for such analysis.

During our sample collection, we noticed that bugs and small wild creatures get onto the dung piles within minutes of defecation. Even though we removed them physically before harvesting the outermost mucus layer, their mucus would also have been mixed with the outer mucus layer collected. Therefore, even though we harvested the outermost mucus layer, contaminations could be possible. Further, there are limited options in the type of sample or availability of samples, especially in forensic analysis. Therefore, having an elephant specific set of SSR is a necessity to continue genetic and forensic work with this technology. Based on our study, no primer set out of 24 tested SSRs could be recommended for future work when the elephant dung is used as the starting material. If blood samples are drawn carefully with no human or other contaminations, those with no multiple hits in the elephant genome, for example, EMU06 and EMU07 could still be used. As such, results of the previous studies done with elephant dung would be questionable with the evidence gathered from current findings. Nevertheless, no one could challenge the past since the revolutionary technologies pawed the path for the success of current studies. However, our results suggest the necessity of revisiting available methods.

Alternatively, more specific methodologies with improved statistical power and high genome representation like ddRAD sequencing 57 , 102 , 103 , SNP genotyping 57 , 104 , genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) 86 , 105 , 106 may need to be applied. Having good coverage Asian and African elephant genome would speed up such attempts.

Blood DNA samples were collected individually from six Asian elephants in the Dehiwala National Zoological Garden, Sri Lanka (Supplementary Figure S3 a–f) to a vial with K 3 EDTA. Name, sex, age, morphological characteristics and appearance of elephants were recorded.

For the optimization of dung DNA extraction, elephant dung samples were collected from four domesticated elephants belonging to the Temple of Tooth Relic, Kandy, Sri Lanka. Three of them have Sri Lankan origin while the other one is a donation from India.

A total of 93 dung samples were collected from different locations of Sri Lanka (Fig. 3 ). The sample collection was carried out by the Department of Wildlife Conservation, Sri Lanka. All the samples were collected with direct sightings. The samples were collected right after the elephant left the site. The collector observed the elephant from the water holes or tanks and waited till they come to drink water where the pictures were taken and morphological characters, for example, approximate size, sex of the elephant and GPS locations of sample sites were recorded. Each sample was given an ID and collected into a polyethene ziplock bag and the samples were packed in a plastic box (Supplementary Figure S3 g–h). The boxes were brought to the lab within 24 h as much as possible. The outer mucus layer was carefully and immediately transferred to four 2.0 mL tubes for separate extractions. Another sample from the outer mucus layer and inner bolus were collected to separate 50 mL tubes and stored in − 80 °C for future studies (Supplementary Figure S3 i–j). Fibres inside the dung bolus were taken separately and washed thoroughly to remove other impurities. These clean fibres were taken as a source of plant DNA.

Plant samples for DNA extraction were collected from different locations of the country, Cinnamomum zeylanicum from Cinnamon Research Station, Palolpitiya, Matara, Oryza rhizomatis from Yala National Park, Santalum album from Livestock Farm, Udaperadeniya, Peradeniya, and Strobilanthes zeylanica from Sripada Peak Wilderness sanctuary. Leaf samples collected were ground with liquid nitrogen and stored in the − 80 °C freezer.

Human buccal cells were obtained from a volunteer individual, after getting a written informed consent clearing the ethical clearance guidelines.

Elephant blood DNA was extracted using Wizard Genomic DNA Purification kit (Promega, A1120) following the manufacturer’s protocol.

All previous studies depended on fresh dung samples collected less than 24 h time. We also tried to use fresh samples as much as possible. However, since some collection sites were in deep forests/reserves in Sri Lanka, taking them to the lab on time would not possible. Therefore, we optimized a DNA extraction protocol, starting with QIAGEN QIAamp Fast DNA Stool Mini Kit (Cat. No: 51604) which can even be used for samples reach the lab within a week time. We changed the incubation time and temperature combination to reduce PCR inhibitors and get quality DNA. About 100 mg of the dung samples collected were incubated with 1 mL of inhibitex buffer at different temperatures and time intervals; 56 °C overnight incubation, 56 °C 4 h incubation, 56 °C 3 h incubation, 56 °C 2 h incubation, 70 °C > 1 h incubation and 70 °C 1 h incubation. The rest of the steps followed the manufacturer's guidelines. The extracted DNA was dissolved in 50 µL of Tris–acetate-EDTA (TAE) buffer provided with the kit. DNA quality and integrity were tested by running samples on 1% Agarose gel and using Nanodrop 2000 Spectrophotometer (Thermo Scientific).

Plant DNA was extracted using QIAGEN DNeasy Plant Mini Kit (Cat. No. 69104) following manufacturers’ guidelines and stored in Tris–EDTA (TE) buffer supplied in the kit, at − 20 °C. About 1 µg of DNA from each species was mixed to obtain the plant DNA mix. DNA from the fibres collected from the dung bolus was also extracted using the same kit. Human DNA was extracted using the method described by 107 and dissolved in TE buffer (Sigma, Cat no: 93283).

A total of 24 SSRs were selected based on previous literature. Of those, 17 have resulted polymorphic loci in Asian elephants where seven were used for African elephants (Supplementary Table S1 ). All the primers were synthesized at the Integrated DNA technologies IDT, Singapore and M13 forward sequence (5′-TGTAAAACGACGGCCAGT-3′) was added to the 5′ end of one set of forward primers to facilitate fluorescent dye labelling in PCR amplicon to be used for capillary sequencing. Therefore, for each SSR, two sets of forward primers were available with one set of reverse primer.

For initial testing, the most polymorphic SSRs were selected. As such, PCR was carried out with ten SSRs, EMU04, EMU06, EMU07, EMU09, EMU10, EMU11, EMU12, EMU13, EMU15 and EMU17 by varying the reaction conditions and thermocycler conditions—‘Touchdown 55’ (Supplementary Table S3 ). PCR amplicons were examined on 1.5% agarose gel with 0.5 µL of SYBR Safe (Applied Biosystems) under UV light using the Imager—ChemiDoc BioRad (Software version 6.0.1.34) using the standard filter settings. Amplified products were subjected to capillary electrophoresis in an ABI PRISM 3100 Genetic Analyzer (Macrogen, Korea).

DNA extracted from the dung samples collected from four elephants rearing at the Temple of the Tooth Relic, Kandy were PCR amplified under the optimized PCR conditions ‘Touchdown 55’ with the selected 24 SSRs. The PCR products were visualized on 1.5% Agarose gels with SYBR safe dye under UV light and subjected to capillary electrophoresis using the ABI PRISM 3100 Genetic Analyzer (Macrogen, Korea).

LafMS02 was the most polymorphic locus and was selected for amplification of 93 wild elephant samples under the same experimental setup.

Twenty four selected SSRs specifically designed for elephant fingerprinting work, were tested with the plant DNA mixture. Blood and dung DNA from the same elephant (sample no: 66) and DNA extracted from fibers inside the dung bolus were also included in the analysis. The same plant DNA was reamplified with EMU07, EMU09, EMU10, EMU13, EMU14, EMU15, LafMS06, EMX-4 and LA06 to check the repeatability. The same PCR reaction mixture and the thermocycler conditions ‘Touchdown 55’ were used. (Supplementary Table S3 ). The products were resolved in either in 1.5% or 2% agarose gels.

Previous studies suggested annealing temperature of 58 °C for most of the primers. Three different touchdown annealing temperatures were tested to get rid of unspecific amplification; ‘Touchdown 58’ ‘Touchdown 62’ and ‘Touchdown 65’ (Supplementary Table S3 ). Three randomly selected dung DNA samples, the same plant DNA mixture mentioned above and a human blood DNA sample were included in the analysis. The effect of FAM labelling was tested for primers with and without labelling.

The specificity of each primer set was assessed on August 15th, 2019 using NCBI primer BLAST ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/tools/primer-blast/ ) (non-redundant database) against the same set of organisms selected from the dropdown menu options: the BLAST parameters included, maximum target size, 500 bp minimum of blast target sequence = 10,000, Blast expected value = 10 and maximum pair to screen = 2000.

Chromatograms were visualized using Peak Scanner Software Version:1.0 (Applied Biosystems). GS350 and GS500 size standards were used in capillary electrophoresis analysis. The scale of Y axis and X axis were zoomed according to the length size of the product. Well distinctive peaks in the chromatogram were scored as discrete variables as presence (1) and absence (0). In order to calculate the polymorphic percentage, total number of loci and polymorphic loci were counted. For the phylogenetic analysis, binary data matrix was bootstrapped for 1000 resamples using seqboot program in PHYLIP-3.698 phylogenetic inference package 108 and subjected to restdist program to generate distance matrix 109 . Then neighbor joining program was used to construct a tree by Unweighted Pair Group Method with Arithmetic means (UPGMA) method of clustering and the tree generated was viewed with FigTree 1.4.2 110 .

The study was conducted under the research permit number: WL/3/2/2017/1 provided by the Research Committee of the Department of Wildlife Conservation, Sri Lanka. All the methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations for animals. Human genomic DNA was obtained from the buccal cells collected and stored in Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka. Ethical approval was obtained from the ethics review committee, Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka and it was approved for humans (Ethical approval No: EC-12-138). Buccal cells were collected after getting the informed consent from all the subjects. All the methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.

Whyte, I. Studying elephant movements, in studying elephants, in African Wildl. Found. Tech. Ser. 7. African Wildl. Found. (ed Kangwana, K.) 75–89 (1996).

Rasmussen, L. E. L. & Krishnamurthy, V. How chemical signals integrate Asian elephant society: The known and the unknown. Zoo Biol. 19 , 405–423 (2000).

Nair, S., Balakrishnan, R., Seelamantula, C. S. & Sukumar, R. Vocalizations of wild Asian elephants ( Elephas maximus ): structural classification and social context. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 126 , 2768–2778 (2009).

Stoeger, A. S. & Manger, P. Vocal learning in elephants: neural bases and adaptive context. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 28 , 101–107 (2014).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Moss, C. J. & Poole, J. H. Relationships and social structure in African elephants. Primate Soc. Relationsh.: An Integr. Approach 315-325 (1983).

Foerder, P., Galloway, M., Barthel, T., Moore, D. E. & Reiss, D. Insightful problem solving in an asian elephant. PLoS ONE 6 , e23251 (2011).

Article ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Lee, P. C. Allomothering among African elephant. Animal Behaviour 35 , 278-291 (1987).

Byrne, R. W., Bates, L. & Moss, C. J. Comparative cognition & behavior reviews. Elephant Cogn. 4 , 65–79 (2009).

Bates, L. A., Poole, J. H. & Byrne, R. W. Elephant cognition. Curr. Biol. 18 , 544–546 (2008).

Vance, E. A., Archie, E. A. & Moss, C. J. Social networks in African elephants. Comput. Math. Organ. Theory 15 , 273–293 (2009).

de Silva, S. & Wittemyer, G. A comparison of social organization in Asian elephants and African savannah elephants. Int. J. Primatol. 33 , 1125–1141 (2012).

Shoshani, J. Understanding proboscidean evolution: a formidable task. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13 , 480–487 (1998).

Rohland, N. et al. Proboscidean mitogenomics: chronology and mode of elephant evolution using mastodon as outgroup. PLoS Biol. 5 , 1663–1671 (2007).

de Flamingh, A. Genetic structure of the savannah elephant population ( Loxodonta africana (Blumenbach 1797)) in the Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area. ProQuest Diss. Theses 102 (2013).

Grubb, P., Groves, C. P., Dudley, J. P. & Shoshani, J. Living African elephants belong to two species: Loxodonta africana (Blumenbach, 1797) and Loxodonta cyclotis (Matschie, 1900). Elephant 2 , 1–4 (2000).

Roca, A. L., Georgiadis, N., Pecon-Slattery, J. & O’Brien, S. J. Genetic evidence for two species of elephant in Africa. Science 293 , 1473–1477 (2001).

Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Roca, A. L. et al. Elephant natural history: a genomic perspective. Annu. Rev. Anim. Biosci. 3 , 139–167 (2015).

Wasser, S. K. et al. Assigning African elephant DNA to geographic region of origin: applications to the ivory trade. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 101 , 14847–14852 (2004).

Ishida, Y. et al. Distinguishing forest and savanna African elephants using short nuclear DNA sequences. J. Hered. 102 , 610–616 (2011).

Comstock, K. E. et al. Patterns of molecular genetic variation among African elephant populations. Mol. Ecol. 11 , 2489–2498 (2002).

Palkopoulou, E. et al. A comprehensive genomic history of extinct and living elephants. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 115 , E2566–E2574 (2018).

Shoshani, J. & Eisenberg, J. F. Elephas maximus. Mamm. Species 182 , 1–8 (1982).

Sukumar, R. The Living Elephants (Oxford University Press, 2003).

Sukumar, R. A brief review of the status, distribution and biology of wild Asian elephants Elephas maximus . Int. Zoo Yearb. 40 , 1–8 (2006).

Olivier, R. Distribution and status of the Asian elephant. Oryx 14 (4), 379–424. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003060530001601X (1978).

Santiapillai, C. The Asian elephant conservation: a global strategy. Gajah 18 , 21–39 (1997).

Sukumar, R. Ecology of the Asian elephant in Southern India. i. movement and habitat utilization patterns. J. Trop. Ecol. 5 , 1–18 (1989).

Vidya, T. N. C., Fernando, P., Melnick, D. J. & Sukumar, R. Population genetic structure and conservation of Asian elephants ( Elephas maximus ) across India. Anim. Conserv. 8 , 377–388 (2005).

Fleischer, R. C., Perry, E. A., Muralidharan, K., Stevens, E. E. & Wemmer, C. M. Phylogeography of the Asian elephant ( Elephas maximus ) based on mitochondrial DNA. Evolution (N. Y.) 55 , 1882–1892 (2001).

Fernando, P., Pfrender, M. E., Encalada, S. E. & Lande, R. Mitochondrial DNA variation, phylogeography and population structure of the Asian elephant. Heredity (Edinb). 84 , 362–372 (2000).

Fernando, P. Elephants in Sri Lanka: past, present, and future. Loris 22 , 38–44 (2000).

Hendavitharana, W., Dissanayake, S. & de Silva, M. The survey of elephants in Sri Lanka. Gajah 12 , 1–30 (1994).

Eggert, L. S., Rasner, C. A. & Woodruff, D. S. The evolution and phylogeography of the African elephant inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequence and nuclear microsatellite markers. Hungarian Q. 49 , 1993–2006 (2008).

Ishida, Y., Georgiadis, N. J., Hondo, T. & Roca, A. L. Triangulating the provenance of African elephants using mitochondrial DNA. Evol. Appl. 6 , 253–265 (2013).

Liu, C. Z., Wang, L., Xia, X. J. & Jiang, J. Q. Characterization of the complete mitochondrial genome of cape elephant shrew, Elephantulus edwardii . Mitochondrial DNA Part B Resour. 3 , 738–739 (2018).

Fernando, P. et al. DNA analysis indicates that Asian elephants are native to Borneo and are therefore a high priority for conservation. PLoS Biol. 1 , 110–115 (2003).

Ahlering, M. A. et al. Genetic diversity, social structure, and conservation value of the elephants of the Nakai Plateau, Lao PDR, based on non-invasive sampling. Conserv. Genet. 12 , 413–422 (2011).

Goossens, B. et al. Habitat fragmentation and genetic diversity in natural populations of the Bornean elephant: implications for conservation. BIOC 196 , 80–92 (2016).

Shoshani, J., Golenberg, E. M. & Yang, H. Elephantidae phylogeny: Morphological versus molecular results. Acta Theriol. (Warsz) 43 , 89–122 (1998).

Vidya, T. N. C. & Sukumar, R. Amplification success and feasibility of using microsatellite loci amplified from dung to population genetic studies of the Asian elephant ( Elephas maximus ). Curr. Sci. 88 , 489–492 (2005).

Vidya, T. N. C., Varma, S., Dang, N. X., Van Thanh, T. & Sukumar, R. Minimum population size, genetic diversity, and social structure of the Asian elephant in Cat Tien National Park and its adjoining areas, Vietnam, based on molecular genetic analyses. Conserv. Genet. 8 , 1471–1478 (2007).

Suwattana, D., Jirasupphachok, J., Kanchanapangka, S. & Koykul, W. Tetranucleotide microsatellite markers for molecular testing in Thai domestic elephants ( Elephas maximus indicus ). Thai J. Vet. Med. 40 , 405–409 (2010).

Eggert, L. S. et al. Using genetic profiles of African forest elephants to infer population structure, movements, and habitat use in a conservation and development landscape in Gabon. Conserv. Biol. 28 , 107–118 (2014).

Kinuthia, J. et al. The selection of a standard STR panel for DNA profiling of the African elephant ( Loxodonta africana ) in Kenya. Conserv. Genet. Resour. 7 , 305–307 (2015).

Hedges, S. Monitoring elephant populations and assessing threats. Universities Press (India) Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad, India 259–292 (2012).

Eggert, L. S., Ramakrishnan, U., Mundy, N. I. & Woodruff, D. S. Polymorphic microsatellite DNA markers in the African elephant ( Loxondonta africana ) and their use in the Asian elephant ( Elephas maximus ). Mol. Ecol. 9 , 2222–2224 (2000).

Nyakaana, S., Arctander, P. & Siegismund, H. R. Population structure of the African savannah elephant inferred from mitochondrial control region sequences and nuclear microsatellite loci. Heredity (Edinb). 89 , 90–98 (2002).

Kongrit, C. et al. Isolation and characterization of dinucleotide microsatellite loci in the Asian elephant ( Elephas maximus ). Mol. Ecol. Resour. 8 , 175–177 (2007).

Fernando, P., Vidya, T. N. C. & Melnick, D. J. Isolation and characterization of tri- and tetranucleotide microsatellite loci in the Asian elephant, Elephas maximus . Mol. Ecol. Resour. 8 , 232–233 (2001).

Archie, E. A., Moss, C. J. & Alberts, S. C. Characterization of tetranucleotide microsatellite loci in the African Savannah Elephant ( Loxodonta africana africana ). Mol. Ecol. Notes 3 , 244–246 (2003).

Lieckfeldt, D., Schmidt, A. & Pitra, C. Isolation and characterization of microsatellite loci in the great bustard, Otis tarda. Mol. Ecol. Notes 1 , 133–134 (2001).

Nyakaana, S., Okello, J. B. A., Muwanika, V. & Siegismund, H. R. Six new polymorphic microsatellite loci isolated and characterized from the African savannah elephant genome. Mol. Ecol. Notes 5 , 223–225 (2005).

Okello, J. B. A. et al. Population genetic structure of savannah elephants in Kenya: conservation and management implications. J. Hered. 99 , 443–452 (2008).

Nyakaana, S. & Arctander, P. Isolation and characterization of microsatellite loci in the African elephant, Loxodonta africana . Mol. Ecol. 10 , 1436–1437 (1998).

Comstock, K. E., Wasser, S. K. & Ostrander, E. A. Polymorphic microsatellite DNA loci identified in the African elephant ( Loxodonta africana ). Mol. Ecol. 9 , 1004–1006 (2000).

Hartl, G. B., Hartl, K. F., Hemmer, W. & Nadlinger, K. Electrophoretic and chromosomal variation in captive Asian elephants ( Elephas maximus ). Zoo Biol. 14 , 87–95 (1995).

Bourgeois, S. et al. Single-nucleotide polymorphism discovery and panel characterization in the African forest elephant. Ecol. Evol. 8 , 2207–2217 (2018).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Sharma, R. et al. Two different high throughput sequencing approaches identify thousands of De Novo genomic markers for the genetically depleted Bornean elephant. PLoS ONE 7 , e49533 (2012).

Reddy, P. C. et al. Comparative sequence analyses of genome and transcriptome reveal novel transcripts and variants in the Asian elephant Elephas maximus . J. Biosci. 40 , 891–907 (2015).

Mondol, S. et al. New evidence for hybrid zones of forest and savanna elephants in Central and West Africa. Mol. Ecol. 24 , 6134–6147 (2015).

Hou, Z. C. et al. Elephant transcriptome provides insights into the evolution of eutherian placentation. Genome Biol. Evol. 4 , 713–725 (2012).

Article PubMed PubMed Central CAS Google Scholar

Tollis, M. et al. Elephant Genomes Reveal Insights into Differences in Disease Defense Mechanisms between Species. bioRxiv 2020.05.29.124396 (2020).

Rohland, N. et al. Genomic DNA sequences from mastodon and woolly mammoth reveal deep speciation of forest and savanna elephants. PLoS Biol. 8 , 16–19 (2010).

Lynch, V. J. et al. Elephantid genomes reveal the molecular bases of woolly mammoth adaptations to the Arctic. Cell Rep. 12 , 217–228 (2015).

Yang, H., Golenberg, E. M. & Shoshani, J. Phylogenetic resolution within the elephantidae using fossil DNA sequence from the American mastodon ( Mammut americanum ) as an outgroup. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 93 , 1190–1194 (1996).

Orlando, L., Hänni, C. & Douady, C. J. Mammoth and elephant phylogenetic relationships: Mammut americanum , the missing outgroup. Evol. Bioinforma. 3 , 45–51 (2007).

Eggert, L. S., Eggert, J. A. & Woodruff, D. S. Estimating population sizes for elusive animals: the forest elephants of Kakum National Park, Ghana. Mol. Ecol. 12 , 1389–1402 (2003).

Vidya, T. N. C. Evolutionary history and population genetic structure of Asian elephants in India. Indian J. Hist. Sci. 51 , 391–405 (2016).

Schuttler, S. G., Whittaker, A., Jeffery, K. J. & Eggert, L. S. African forest elephant social networks: fission-fusion dynamics, but fewer associations. Endanger. Species Res. 25 , 165–173 (2014).

Ahlering, M. A. et al. Identifying source populations and genetic structure for savannah elephants in human-dominated landscapes and protected areas in the Kenya-Tanzania borderlands. PLoS ONE 7 , e52288 (2012).

Vidya, T. N. C., Fernando, P., Melnick, D. J. & Sukumar, R. Population differentiation within and among Asian elephant ( Elephas maximus ) populations in southern India. Heredity (Edinb). 94 , 71–80 (2005).

Sukumar, R., Ramakrishnan, U. & Santosh, J. A. Impact of poaching on an Asian elephant population in Periyar, southern India: a model of demography and tusk harvest. Anim. Conserv. 1 , 281–291 (1998).

Mondol, S., Mailand, C. R. & Wasser, S. K. Male biased sex ratio of poached elephants is negatively related to poaching intensity over time. Conserv. Genet. 15 , 1259–1263 (2014).

Breuer, T., Maisels, F. & Fishlock, V. The consequences of poaching and anthropogenic change for forest elephants. Conserv. Biol. 30 , 1019–1026 (2016).

Mailand, C. & Wasser, S. K. Isolation of DNA from small amounts of elephant ivory. Nat. Protoc. 2 , 2228–2232 (2007).

Lee, E. et al. The identification of elephant ivory evidences of illegal trade with mitochondrial cytochrome b gene and hypervariable D-loop region. J. Forensic Leg. Med. 20 , 174–178 (2015).

Chakraborty, S., Boominathan, D., Desai, A. A. & Vidya, T. N. C. Using genetic analysis to estimate population size, sex ratio, and social organization in an Asian elephant population in conflict with humans in Alur, southern India. Conserv. Genet. 15 , 897–907 (2014).

Fernando, P. & Pastorini, J. Range-wide status of Asian elephants. Gajah 35 , 15–20 (2011).

Ishida, Y., Gugala, N. A., Georgiadis, N. J. & Roca, A. L. Evolutionary and demographic processes shaping geographic patterns of genetic diversity in a keystone species, the African forest elephant ( Loxodonta cyclotis ). Ecol. Evol. 8 , 4919–4931 (2018).

Kongrit, C. Genetic tools for the conservation of wild Asian elephants. Int. J. Biol. 9 , 1 (2017).

McComb, K., Shannon, G., Sayialel, K. N. & Moss, C. Elephants can determine ethnicity, gender, and age from acoustic cues in human voices. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 111 , 5433–5438 (2014).

Prithiviraj, F. & Melnick, D. J. Molecular sexing eutherina mammals. Mol. Ecol. Notes 1 , 350–353 (2001).

Vandebona, H. et al. DNA fingerprints of the Asian elephant in Sri Lanka, Elephas maximus maximus, using multilocus probe 33.15 (Jeffreys). J. Natl. Sci. Found. Sri Lanka 32 , 83–96 (2004).

Gugala, N. A., Ishida, Y., Georgiadis, N. J. & Roca, A. L. Development and characterization of microsatellite markers in the African forest elephant ( Loxodonta cyclotis ). BMC Res. Notes 9 , 4–9 (2016).

Zhang, L. et al. Asian elephants in China: estimating population size and evaluating habitat suitability. PLoS ONE 10 , 1–13 (2015).

Vartia, S. et al. A novel method of microsatellite genotyping-by-sequencing using individual combinatorial barcoding. R. Soc. Open Sci. 3 , 150565 (2016).

Article ADS MathSciNet PubMed PubMed Central CAS Google Scholar

Tighe, A. J. et al. Testing PCR amplification from elephant dung using silica-dried swabs. Pachyderm 59 , 56–65 (2018).

Bourgeois, S. et al. Improving cost-efficiency of faecal genotyping: new tools for elephant species. PLoS ONE 14 , e0210811 (2019).

Hedges, S., Johnson, A., Ahlering, M., Tyson, M. & Eggert, L. S. Accuracy, precision, and cost-effectiveness of conventional dung density and fecal DNA based survey methods to estimate Asian elephant ( Elephas maximus ) population size and structure. Biol. Conserv. 159 , 101–108 (2013).

Moßbrucker, A. M. et al. Non-invasive genotyping of Sumatran elephants : implications for conservation The Sumatran elephant ( Elephas maximus sumatranus ) is one of three currently recognized subspecies. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 8 , 745–759 (2015).

Ishida, Y. et al. Short amplicon microsatellite markers for low quality elephant DNA. Conserv. Genet. Resour. 4 , 491–494 (2012).

Thitaram, C. et al. Evaluation and selection of microsatellite markers for an identification and parentage test of Asian elephants ( Elephas maximus ). Conserv. Genet. 9 , 921–925 (2008).

Lorenz, T. C. Polymerase chain reaction: basic protocol plus troubleshooting and optimization strategies. J. Vis. Exp. 2 , 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3791/3998 (2012).

Litt, M. & Luty, J. A. Hypervariable amplification. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 44 , 397–401 (1989).

CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Park, Y. J., Lee, J. K. & Kim, N. S. Simple sequence repeat polymorphisms (SSRPs) for evaluation of molecular diversity and germplasm classification of minor crops. Molecules 14 , 4546–4569 (2009).

Vieira, M. L. C., Santini, L., Diniz, A. L. & Munhoz, C. D. F. Microsatellite markers: what they mean and why they are so useful. Genet. Mol. Biol. 39 , 312–328 (2016).

Stafne, E. T., Clark, J. R., Weber, C. A., Graham, J. & Lewers, K. S. Simple sequence repeat (SSR) markers for genetic mapping of raspberry and blackberry. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 130 , 722–728 (2005).

Tommasini, L. et al. The development of multiplex simple sequence repeat (SSR) markers to complement distinctness, uniformity and stability testing of rape ( Brassica napus L.) varieties. Theor. Appl. Genet. 106 , 1091–1101 (2003).

Norrgard, K. Forensics, DNA Fingerprinting, and CODIS. Nat. Educ. 1 , 35 (2008).

Maroju, P. A. et al. Schrodinger’s scat: A critical review of the currently available tiger ( Panthera Tigris ) and leopard ( Panthera pardus ) specific primers in India, and a novel leopard specific primer. BMC Genet. 17 , 1–6 (2016).

Waits, L. P. & Pearkau, D. Noninvasive genetic sampling tools for wildlife biologists: a review of applications and recommendations for accurate data collection. J. Wildl. Manag. 69 , 1419–1433 (2005).

Baird, N. A. et al. Rapid SNP discovery and genetic mapping using sequenced RAD markers. PLoS ONE 3 , 1–7 (2008).

Miller, M. R., Dunham, J. P., Amores, A., Cresko, W. A. & Johnson, E. A. Rapid and cost-effective polymorphism identification and genotyping using restriction site associated DNA (RAD) markers. Genome Res. 17 , 240–248 (2007).

Delord, C. et al. A cost-and-time effective procedure to develop SNP markers for multiple species: a support for community genetics. Methods Ecol. Evol. 9 , 1959–1974 (2018).

Magwanga, R. O. et al. GBS mapping and analysis of genes conserved between Gossypium tomentosum and Gossypium hirsutum cotton cultivars that respond to drought stress at the seedling stage of the BC2F2generation. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 19 , 1614 (2018).

Article PubMed Central CAS Google Scholar

Elshire, R. J. et al. A robust, simple genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) approach for high diversity species. PLoS ONE 6 , 1–10 (2011).

Chandrasekara, C. H. W. M. R. B., Wijesundera, W. S. S., Perera, H. N., Chong, S. S. & Rajan-Babu, I. S. Cascade screening for fragile X syndrome/CGG repeat expansions in children attending special education in Sri Lanka. PLoS ONE 10 , 1–10 (2015).

Felsenstein, J. 2002. {PHYLIP}(Phylogen. I. P. ver. 3. 6a3.—P. by the author. PHYLIP(Phylogeny Inference Package) ver. 3.6a3. (2002).

Nei, M. & Li, W. H. Mathematical model for studying genetic variation in terms of restriction endonucleases. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 76 , 5269–5273 (1979).

Article ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central MATH Google Scholar

Rambaut, A. FigTree ver.1. 3.1: tree figure drawing tool. http://tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/software/figtree . (2009).

We are grateful to the Eco-System Conservation Management Project (ESCAMP) of the World Bank for providing the funds to the Department of Wildlife Conservation (DWC), Sri Lanka to conduct the research. We greatly appreciate the contribution of Dr. Sumith Pilapitiya, former Director General of the DWC for helpful comments and suggestions to improve the quality throughout the project. We specially thank the Dehiwala National Zoological Garden, Sri Lanka and the field staff of the DWC for the collection of samples and the staff of Agricultural Biotechnology Centre, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka for their immense support throughout the Project.

These authors contributed equally: M. S. L. R. P. Marasinghe, R. M. R. Nilanthi, H. A. B. M. Hathurusinghe, M. G. C. Sooriyabandara and C. H. W. M. R. B. Chandrasekara.

Department of Wildlife Conservation, 811/A, Jayanthipura Road, Battaramulla, 10120, Sri Lanka

M. S. L. R. P. Marasinghe, R. M. R. Nilanthi, M. G. C. Sooriyabandara & K. A. N. C. Jayawardana

Agricultural Biotechnology Centre, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya, 20400, Sri Lanka

H. A. B. M. Hathurusinghe, C. H. W. M. R. B. Chandrasekara, M. M. Kodagoda & P. C. G. Bandaranayake

Department of National Zoological Gardens, Anagarika Dharmapala Mawatha, Dehiwala, 10350, Sri Lanka

Search author on: PubMed Google Scholar

P.C.G.B. wrote the initial draft, H.A.B.M.H. prepared the figures and tables. P.C.G.B. edited the subsequent drafts with the assistance of H.A.B.M.H. R.M.R.N. and K.A.N.C.J. conducted the dung sample collection and R.C.R. helped in blood sample collection. C.H.W.M.R.B.C., H.A.B.M.H. and M.M.K. conducted the wet lab analysis. P.C.G.B., C.H.W.M.R.B.C. and H.A.B.M.H. contributed to data analysis, P.C.G.B., M.S.L.R.P.M., M.G.C.S., R.M.R.N., C.H.W.M.R.B.C. and H.A.B.M.H. contributed to data interpretation. M.G.C.S., M.S.L.R.P.M., P.C.G.B. and R.M.R.N. designed the study. All authors provided critical feedback and helped shape the research, analysis and manuscript.

Correspondence to P. C. G. Bandaranayake .

The authors declare no competing interests.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Marasinghe, M.S.L.R.P., Nilanthi, R.M.R., Hathurusinghe, H.A.B.M. et al. Revisiting traditional SSR based methodologies available for elephant genetic studies. Sci Rep 11 , 8718 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-88034-9

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-88034-9

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

© 2026 Springer Nature Limited