Molecular Forensics of Indian Wildlife: Species Identification through COI Gene Barcoding and Bioinformatics Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37506/0wm12x39Keywords:
species identification, cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI gene), mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), DNA barcoding, wildlife forensics, bioinformatics toolsAbstract
In wildlife forensics, precise species identification is essential, particularly in cases involving poaching, illegal wildlife
trade, and biodiversity conservation. Molecular technologies are necessary for accurate forensic analysis since traditional
morphological methods frequently fail when biological specimens are processed, incomplete, or degraded. Mitochondrial
DNA (mtDNA) has proven particularly useful in these situations because of its large copy number, maternal mode of
inheritance, and increased stability in damaged tissues. The cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) gene is one of the most
commonly used mtDNA markers for DNA barcoding due to its high interspecies variability, evolutionary conservation,
and inclusion in extensive international databases.
This study examined the COI gene sequences of ten often encountered domestic and wild Indian species: Elephas maximus
(elephant), Bos gaurus (gaur), Bos taurus (domestic cow), Axis axis (chital), Axis porcinus (hog deer), Macaca mulatta (rhesus
macaque), Pavo cristatus (Indian peacock), Sus scrofa (wild boar), and Panthera tigris (tiger) and Panthera pardus (leopard).
COI sequences that are publicly accessible were obtained from NCBI GenBank database. BLAST was used for sequence
validation, and Clustal Omega was used for multiple sequence alignment. Using MEGA12, a neighbor-joining tree was
constructed and pairwise distance analysis was performed to evaluate genetic distance and phylogenetic relationships.
Significant genetic divergence was found among the species under study, and the phylogenetic tree showed grouping
patterns that aligned with established taxonomic relationships. These results demonstrate that COI-based DNA barcoding
is a reliable method for differentiating between closely related species.
References
Alacs EA, Georges A, FitzSimmons NN, Robertson J.
DNA detective: a review of molecular approaches to
wildlife forensics. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2010;6(3):180-
94. doi:10.1007/s12024-009-9131-7.
2. Ogden R, Dawnay N, McEwing R. Wildlife DNA
forensics—bridging the gap between conservation
genetics and law enforcement. Endanger Species Res.
2009;9(3):179-95. doi:10.3354/esr00144.
3. Linacre A, Tobe SS. An overview to the investigative
approach to species testing in wildlife forensic science.
Investig Genet. 2011;2(1):2. doi:10.1186/2041-2223-2-2.
4. Dawnay N, Ogden R, McEwing R, Carvalho GR,
Thorpe RS. Validation of the barcoding gene COI
for use in forensic genetic species identification.
Forensic Sci Int. 2007;173(1):1-6. doi:10.1016/j.
forsciint.2006.09.013.
5. Gouda S, Kerry RG, Das A, Chauhan NS. Wildlife
forensics: a boon for species identification and
conservation implications. Forensic Sci Int.
2020;317:110530. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110530.
6. Sultana GN, Sultan MZ. Mitochondrial DNA and
methods for forensic identification. J Forensic Sci
Criminol Invest. 2018;9(1)
7. Hebert PD, Cywinska A, Ball SL, deWaard JR.
Biological identifications through DNA barcodes.
Proc Biol Sci. 2003;270(1512):313-21. doi:10.1098/
rspb.2002.2218.
8. Ratnasingham S, Hebert PD. BOLD: The Barcode of
Life Data System (http://www.barcodinglife.org).
Mol Ecol Notes. 2007;7(3):355-64. doi:10.1111/j.1471-
8286.2007.01678.x.
9. Nishant K, Vrijesh KY, Ajay KR. Wildlife forensic:
current techniques and their limitations. J Forensic Sci
Criminol. 2017;5(4):402.
10. Tozzo P, Ponzano E, Novelli E, Onisto M, Caenazzo
L. Discrimination between human and animal DNA:
application of a duplex polymerase chain reaction
to forensic identification. Am J Forensic Med Pathol.
2011;32(2):180-2. doi:10.1097/PAF.0b013e3181f69b10.
11. Benson DA, Clark K, Karsch-Mizrachi I, Lipman
DJ, Ostell J, Sayers EW. GenBank. Nucleic Acids Res.
2013;42(Database issue):D32-7. doi:10.1093/nar/
gkt1030.
12. Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman
DJ. Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol. 1990;
215(3):403-10. doi:10.1016/S0022-2836(05)80360-2.
13. Sievers F, Wilm A, Dineen D, Gibson TJ, Karplus K,
Li W, et al. Fast, scalable generation of high-quality
protein multiple sequence alignments using Clustal
Omega. Mol Syst Biol. 2011;7(1):539. doi:10.1038/
msb.2011.75.
14. Kumar S, Stecher G, Suleski M, Sanderford M, Sharma
S, Tamura K. MEGA12: Molecular Evolutionary
Genetic Analysis version 12 for adaptive and green
computing. Mol Biol Evol. 2024;41(12):msae263.
doi:10.1093/molbev/msae263.
15. Linacre A. Animal forensic genetics. Genes (Basel).
2021;12(4):515. doi:10.3390/genes12040515.
16. Staats M, Arulandhu AJ, Gravendeel B, Holst-Jensen
A, Scholtens I, Peelen T, et al. Advances in DNA
metabarcoding for food and wildlife forensic species
identification. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2016;408(17):4615-
30. doi:10.1007/s00216-016-9595-8.
17. Wilson-Wilde L, Norman J, Robertson J, Sarre S,
Georges A. Current issues in species identification for
forensic science and the validity of using the
cytochrome oxidase I (COI) gene. Forensic Sci Med
Pathol. 2010;6(3):233-41. doi:10.1007/s12024-010-9162-0.
18. Devassy A, Kumar R, Shajitha PP, John R, Padmakumar
KG, Basheer VS, et al. Genetic identification and
phylogenetic relationships of Indian clariids based on
mitochondrial COI sequences. Mitochondrial DNA A
DNA Mapp Seq Anal. 2016;27(5):3777-80. doi:10.3109/1
9401736.2015.1079821.
19. Dalton DL, Kotze A. DNA barcoding as a tool for
species identification in three forensic wildlife cases
in South Africa. Forensic Sci Int. 2011;207(1-3):e51-4.
doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.11.010.
20. Hajibabaei M, Smith MA, Janzen DH, Rodriguez
JJ, Whitfield JB, Hebert PD. A minimalist barcode
can identify a specimen whose DNA is degraded.
Mol Ecol Notes. 2006;6(4):959-64. doi:10.1111/j.1471-
8286.2006.01470.x.
21. Ferri G, Alu M, Corradini B, Licata M, Beduschi G.
Species identification through DNA “barcodes”. Genet
Test Mol Biomarkers. 2009;13(3):421-6. doi:10.1089/
gtmb.2008.0116.
22. Kimura M. A simple method for estimating
evolutionary rates of base substitutions through
comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. J Mol
Evol. 1980;16(2):111-20. doi:10.1007/BF01731581.
23. Meusnier I, Singer GA, Landry JF, Hickey DA, Hebert
PD, Hajibabaei M. A universal DNA mini-barcode
for biodiversity analysis. BMC Genomics. 2008;9:214.
doi:10.1186/1471-2164-9-214.
24. Imaizumi K, Akutsu T, Miyasaka S, Yoshino M.
Development of species identification tests targeting
the 16S ribosomal RNA coding region in mitochondrial
DNA. Int J Legal Med. 2007;121(3):184-91. doi:10.1007/
s00414-006-0127-y.
25. Baig MM, Khan AA, Kulkarni KM. Mitochondrial DNA
diversity in tribal and caste groups of Maharashtra
(India) and its implication on their genetic origins.
Ann Hum Genet. 2004;68(5):453-60. doi:10.1046/j.1529-
8817.2003.00104.x.
26. Pun KM, Albrecht C, Castella V, Fumagalli L. Species
identification in mammals from mixed biological
samples based on mitochondrial DNA control region
length polymorphism. Electrophoresis. 2009;30(6):1008-
14. doi:10.1002/elps.200800422.
27. Verma SK, Singh L. Novel universal primers establish
identity of an enormous number of animal species for
forensic application. Mol Ecol Notes. 2003;3(1):28-31.
doi:10.1046/j.1471-8286.2003.00340.x.
28. Hajibabaei M, Singer GA, Clare EL, Hebert PD. Design
and applicability of DNA arrays and DNA barcodes
in biodiversity monitoring. BMC Biol. 2007;5:24.
doi:10.1186/1741-7007-5-24.
29. Moritz C, Cicero C. DNA barcoding: promise and
pitfalls. PLoS Biol. 2004;2(10):e354. doi:10.1371/
journal.pbio.0020354.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
