An alternative minimally invasive technique for genetic sampling of bats: Wing swabs yield species identification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Bat species are traditionally identified morphologically, but in some cases, species can be difficult to differentiate. Wing punches (biopsies) of wing or tail membranes are commonly used to collect tissue for DNA analysis, but less invasive techniques are preferable. As such, DNA acquired using buccal and wing swabs or from fecal pellets are increasingly being employed. We compared a dry swabbing technique with the wing biopsy technique for DNA collection. We compared species identification between tissue biopsies and wing swabs collected from bats in Alberta and British Columbia, Canada, between April and November, 2014, and September and October 2015. Species identification was achieved with varying methods of field collection and lab processing. DNA was extracted, sequenced, and compared with reference sequences and field identifications. We concluded that wing swabs are an effective way to identify bat species genetically and far less invasive than biopsy techniques. These methods should be considered for genetically sampling bats, especially during seasons when wounds from biopsy are slow to heal. © 2017 The Wildlife Society.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".