The Neotropical region is currently facing a critical period of biodiversity loss, with deer species (family Cervidae) being particularly affected by severe habitat degradation, genetic bottlenecks, and population fragmentation. In this context, germplasm biobanks emerge as strategic tools for conservation efforts. This article presents a comprehensive review of the Deer Research and Conservation Center germplasm bank, the largest repository of genetic material for Neotropical deer worldwide. We detail the diversity of species represented, the types and quantities of cryopreserved samples, and the operational costs associated with maintaining the biobank. Additionally, we discuss the main advantages of germplasm banking, such as preserving genetic diversity without the logistical challenges of managing large captive populations, as well as critical challenges, particularly those arising from ongoing taxonomic uncertainties that complicate species identification and sample management. Scientific applications and conservation actions already enabled by this resource are presented, alongside a discussion of future perspectives, including potential expansions of sample types and integrative genomic analyses. This review underscores the essential role of germplasm biobanks in preserving the genetic legacy of Neotropical deer and supporting long-term biodiversity conservation strategies.
MyersN, MittermeierRA, MittermeierCG, et al.Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 2000; 403(6772):853–858; doi: 10.1038/35002501
2.
RolaLD, BuzanskasME, MeloLM, et al.Assisted reproductive technology in neotropical deer: A model approach to preserving genetic diversity. Animals (Basel), 2021; 11(7):1961; doi: 10.3390/ani11071961
3.
RedfordKH, EisenbergJF. Mammals of the Neotropics. The Southern Cone: Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA; 1992.
4.
WeberM, GonzalezS. Latin American deer diversity and conservation: A review of status and distribution. Écoscience, 2003; 10(4):443–454; doi: 10.1080/11956860.2003.11682792
5.
SchipperJ, ChansonJS, ChiozzaF, et al.The status of the world’s land and marine mammals: Diversity, threat, and knowledge. Science, 2008; 322(5899):225–230; doi: 10.1126/science.1165115
6.
IUCN. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN; 2025.
7.
SchallerGB, VasconcelosJMC. A Marsh deer census in Brazil. Oryx, 1978; 14(4):345–351; doi: 10.1017/S0030605300015921
8.
BeccaceciMD. A census of marsh deer in Iberá natural reserve, its argentine stronghold. Oryx, 1994; 28(2):131–134.
9.
DuarteJMB, GonzálezS, MaldonadoJE. The surprising evolutionary history of South American deer. Mol Phylogenet Evol, 2008; 49(1):17–22; doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2008.07.009
10.
Silva-RodríguezEA, VerdugoC, AleuyOA, et al.Evaluating mortality sources for the Vulnerable pudu Pudu puda in Chile: Implications for the conservation of a threatened deer. Oryx, 2010; 44(1):97–103; doi: 10.1017/S0030605309990445
11.
PinderL. Marsh deer Blastocerus dichotomus population estimate in the Paraná River, Brazil. Biol Conserv, 1996; 75(1):87–91.
12.
DuarteJM. Coleta, conservação e multiplicação de recursos genéticos em animais silvestres: O exemplo dos cervídeos. Agrociencia, 2005; 9(1–2):541–544.
13.
ComizzoliP, HoltWV. Breakthroughs and new horizons in reproductive biology of rare and endangered animal species. Biol Reprod, 2019; 101(3):514–525; doi: 10.1093/biolre/ioz031
14.
LacyRC. Importance of genetic variation to the viability of mammalian populations. J Mammal, 1997; 78(2):320–335; doi: 10.2307/1382885
15.
HoltWV, PickardAR. Role of reproductive technologies and genetic resource banks in animal conservation. Rev Reprod, 1999; 4(3):143–150; doi: 10.1530/ror.0.0040143
16.
DuarteJMB, GarciaJM. Reprodução assistida em Cervidae brasileiros. Revista Brasileira de Reprodução Animal, 1995; 19:111–121.
17.
DuarteJM, GonzalezS. Neotropical Cervidology: Biology and Medicine of Latin American Deer. 2010.
18.
JabbourHN, HayssenV, BrufordMW. Conservation of deer: Contributions from molecular biology, evolutionary ecology, and reproductive physiology. J Zool, 1997; 243(3):461–484; doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1997.tb02795.x
19.
WildtDE, WemmerC. Sex and wildlife: The role of reproductive science in conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation, 1999; 8(7):965–976; doi: 10.1023/A:1008813532763
20.
MastromonacoGF, KingWA. Cloning in companion animal, non-domestic and endangered species: Can the technology become a practical reality? Reprod Fertil Dev, 2007; 19(6):748–761; doi: 10.1071/rd07034
21.
VenegasF, GuillomotM, VignonX, et al.Obtaiment of Pudu (Pudu pudu) deer embryos by the somatic nuclear transfer technique. Int J Morphol, 2006; 24(2):285–292.
22.
RojasM, CastroR, VenegasF, et al.Impacto de la biotecnología reproductiva en la conservación de los animales en riesgo de extinción. Tecnovet, 2016; 12(3):9–15.
DobignyG, Britton-DavidianJ, RobinsonTJ. Chromosomal polymorphism in mammals: An evolutionary perspective. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc, 2017; 92(1):1–21; doi: 10.1111/brv.12213
25.
AbrilVV, CarnelossiEAG, GonzálezS, et al.Elucidating the Evolution of the Red Brocket Deer Mazama americana Complex (Artiodactyla; Cervidae). Cytogenet Genome Res, 2010; 128(1–3):177–187; doi: 10.1159/000298819
26.
CursinoMS, SalvianoMB, AbrilVV, et al.The role of chromosome variation in the speciation of the red brocket deer complex: The study of reproductive isolation in females. BMC Evol Biol, 2014; 14(1):40; doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-14-40
27.
SalvianoMB, CursinoMS, ZanettiEDS, et al.Intraspecific chromosome polymorphisms can lead to reproductive isolation and speciation: An example in red brocket deer (Mazama americana). Biol Reprod, 2017; 96(6):1279–1287; doi: 10.1093/biolre/iox041
28.
MastromonacoGF, SongsasenN. Chapter 7 - Reproductive Technologies for the Conservation of Wildlife and Endangered Species. In: Reproductive Technologies in Animals. (PresicceGA., ed) Academic Press; 2020; pp. 99–117; doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-817107-3.00007-2
29.
LynchM. The genetic interpretation of inbreeding depression and outbreeding depression. Evolution, 1991; 45(3):622–629; doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1991.tb04333.x
30.
Fuentes-HurtadoM, MarínJC, González-AcuñaD, et al.Molecular divergence between insular and continental Pudu deer (Pudu puda) populations in the Chilean Patagonia. Stud Neotrop Fauna Environ, 2011; 46(1):23–33; doi: 10.1080/01650521.2010.537906
31.
GonzálezS, MaldonadoJE, LeonardJA, et al.Conservation genetics of the endangered Pampas deer (Ozotoceros bezoarticus). Mol Ecol, 1998; 7(1):47–56; doi: 10.1046/j.1365-294x.1998.00303.x
32.
GonzálezS, Álvarez-ValinF, MaldonadoJE. Morphometric differentiation of endangered pampas deer (Ozotoceros Bezoarticus), with description of new subspecies from Uruguay. J Mammal, 2002; 83(4):1127–1140; doi: 10.1644/1545-1542(2002)083<1127:MDOEPD>2.0.CO;2
33.
SandovalEDP, DuarteJMB. Transport media for live skin tissue from gray-brocket deer (Subulo gouazoubira). Biopreserv Biobank, 2025:10.1089/bio.2024.0139; doi: 10.1089/bio.2024.0139
34.
OliveiraCCC, Queiroz VacariG, Maurício Barbanti DuarteJ. A method to freeze skin samples for cryobanks: A test of some cryoprotectants for an endangered deer. Biopreserv Biobank, 2024; 22(3):211–216; doi: 10.1089/bio.2023.0030
35.
DuarteJMB, RamalhoM, de LimaVFH, et al.A leukocyte cryopreservation technique for cytogenetic studies. Genet Mol Biol, 1999; 22(3):399–400.
36.
Jiménez-RabadánP, RamónM, García-ÁlvarezO, et al.Effect of semen collection method (artificial vagina vs. electroejaculation), extender and centrifugation on post-thaw sperm quality of Blanca-Celtibérica buck ejaculates. Anim Reprod Sci, 2012; 132(1–2):88–95; doi: 10.1016/j.anireprosci.2012.04.005
37.
Peris-FrauP, Benito-BlancoJ, Martínez-NevadoE, et al.DNA integrity and viability of testicular cells from diverse wild species after slow freezing or vitrification. Front Vet Sci, 2022; 9:1114695; doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.1114695
38.
WuJJ, HuTJ, GuoB, et al.Cryopreservation of adult bovine testicular tissue for spermatogonia enrichment. Cryo Letters, 2011; 32(5):402–409.
39.
ThuwanutP, SrisuwatanasagulS, WongbandueG, et al.Sperm quality and the morphology of cryopreserved testicular tissues recovered post-mortem from diverse wild species. Cryobiology, 2013; 67(2):244–247; doi: 10.1016/j.cryobiol.2013.07.002
40.
AbreuCO. Efeito Da Vitamina E Na Criopreservação de Sêmen de Veado-Bororó-Do-Sul (Mazama Nana). Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinárias FCAV. Universidade Estadual Paulista, Júlio de Mesquita Filho: Jaboticabal, Brasil; 2006.
41.
DuarteJMB, GarcíaJM. Colheita e criopreservação do sêmen de veado-catingueiro (Mazama gouazoubira). Ciência Veterinaria, 1997; 3:8–9.
42.
FavorettoSM, ZanettiES, DuarteJMB. Cryopreservation of red brocket deer semen (Mazama americana): Comparison between three extenders. J Zoo Wildl Med, 2012; 43(4):820–827; doi: 10.1638/2011-0195R1.1
43.
AlvarezMCL, RolaLD, DuarteJMB. Comparison between three cryoprotectants in the freezing of Mazama Americana semen collected by Artificial Vagina. Biopreserv Biobank, 2020; 18(5):351–357; doi: 10.1089/bio.2020.0012
44.
MantellattoAMB, GonzálezS, DuarteJMB. Cytochrome b sequence of the Mazama americana jucunda Thomas, 1913 holotype reveals Mazama bororo Duarte, 1996 as its junior synonym. Genet Mol Biol, 2021; 45(1):e20210093; doi: 10.1590/1678-4685-gmb-2021-0093
45.
GalindoDJ, MartinsGS, VozdovaM, et al.Chromosomal polymorphism and speciation: The case of the genus Mazama (Cetartiodactyla; Cervidae). Genes (Basel), 2021; 12(2):165; doi: 10.3390/genes12020165
46.
GalindoDJ, PeresPHdF, ZanettiEdS, et al.Embryo reintroduction to enhance genetic diversity in a Marsh deer population: First attempt, outcomes, challenges, and future perspectives. Front Conserv Sci, 2025; 6.
47.
AristimuñoM. Population structure and genetic variability of the gray-brocket deer (Mazama gouazoubira; Mammalia: Cervidae) in Uruguayan populations. Deer Specialist Group Newsletter, 2015; 27:58–66.
48.
CaparrozR, MantellattoAMB, BertioliDJ, et al.Characterization of the complete mitochondrial genome and a set of polymorphic microsatellite markers through next-generation sequencing for the brown brocket deer Mazama gouazoubira. Genet Mol Biol, 2015; 38(3):338–345; doi: 10.1590/S1415-475738320140344
49.
MantellattoAMB, CaparrozR, ChristofolettiMD, et al.Genetic diversity of the pampas deer (Ozotoceros bezoarticus) population in the Brazilian Pantanal assessed by combining fresh fecal DNA analysis and a set of heterologous microsatellite loci. Genet Mol Biol, 2017; 40(4):774–780.
50.
PerlesL, de FigueiredoMG, DuarteJMB. Transferabilidade de iniciadores de regiões microssatélites produzidos em veado catingueiro (Mazama gouazoubira) para uso em estudos genéticos com cervos-do-pantanal (Blastocerus dichotomus). Braz J Anim Environ Res, 2018; 1(2):320–328.
51.
VacariGQ, PeresPHdF, DuarteJMB. Cross-amplified microsatellite loci for the red brocket deer complex (Mazama americana Erxleben, 1777)/Prospecção de lócus microssatélites para o complexo de espécies de veado-mateiro (Mazama americana Erxleben, 1777). Braz J Anim Environ Res, 2022; 5(1):256–265; doi: 10.34188/bjaerv5n1-023
52.
Cifuentes-RincónA, Morales-DonosoJA, SandovalEDP, et al.Designation of a neotype for Mazama americana (Artiodactyla, Cervidae) reveals a cryptic new complex of brocket deer species. Zookeys, 2020; 958:143–164; doi: 10.3897/zookeys.958.50300
53.
PeresPHF, LuduvérioDJ, BernegossiAM, et al.Revalidation of Mazama rufa (Illiger 1815) (Artiodactyla: Cervidae) as a Distinct Species out of the Complex Mazama americana (Erxleben 1777). Front Genet, 2021; 12:742870; doi: 10.3389/fgene.2021.742870
54.
BernegossiAM, CartesJL, CernohorskaH, et al.Resurrection of the genus Subulo Smith, 1827 for the gray brocket deer, with designation of a neotype. Journal of Mammalogy, 2023; 104(3):619–633.
55.
SandovalEDP, BernegossiAM, GallinaS, et al.Molecular cytogenetics markers reveal the existence of a cryptic complex of Mazama temama species. Therya, 2024; 15(2):192–200; doi: 10.12933/therya-24-4913ISSN7-3364
56.
Morales-DonosoJA, VacariGQ, BernegossiAM, et al.Revalidation of Passalites Gloger, 1841 for the Amazon brown brocket deer P. nemorivagus (Cuvier, 1817) (Mammalia, Artiodactyla, Cervidae). Zookeys, 2023; 1167:241–264; doi: 10.3897/zookeys.1167.100577
57.
SandovalEDP, RolaLD, Morales-DonosoJA, et al.Integrative analysis of Mazama temama (Artiodactyla: Cervidae) and designation of a neotype for the species. Journal of Mammalogy, 2022; 103(2):447–458; doi: 10.1093/jmammal/gyab169
58.
SandovalEDP, BernegossiAM, GallinaS, et al.Cytogenetic, molecular, and morphological characterization of Odocoileus pandora (Merriam, 1901) (Artiodactyla, Cervidae). Can J Zool, 2023; 101(11):967–979; doi: 10.1139/cjz-2022-0037
59.
SandovalEDP, JędrzejewskiW, MolinariJ, et al.Description of Bisbalus, a new genus for the gray brocket, Mazama cita Osgood, 1912 (Mammalia, Cervidae), as a step to solve the neotropical deer puzzle. Taxonomy, 2024; 4(1):10–26; doi: 10.3390/taxonomy4010002
60.
PeroniEFC. Inseminação Artificial Intrauterina Por Videolaparoscopia Em Veado Catingueiro (Mazama Gouazoubira) Com Sêmen Congelado. Ph.D. Thesis. Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinárias FCAV. Universidade Estadual Paulista, Júlio de Mesquita Filho: Jaboticabal, Brasil; 2013.
61.
DuarteGS, GalindoDJ, BaldiniMHM, et al.Transcervical artificial insemination in the brown brocket deer (Subulo gouazoubira): A promising method for assisted reproduction in deer. Sci Rep, 2023; 13(1):17369; doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-43392-4
62.
ZanettiES, DuarteJM, PolegatoBF, et al.Assisted Reproductive Technology. In: Neotropical Cervidology: Biology and Medicine of Latin American Deer Duarte. FUNEP/IUCN; 2010.
63.
ZanettiES, PolegatoBF, DuarteJMB. Primeiro Relato de Inseminação Artificial Com Tempo Fixo Em Veado-Mateiro (Mazama Americana). In: Palestras Apresentadas no XVIII Congresso Brasileiro de Reprodução Animal. 2009; 14.
64.
RolaLD, ZanettiES, DuarteJMB. Avaliação de dois métodos para condicionamento e coleta de sêmen em quatro espécies do gênero Mazama. Pesq Vet Bras, 2012; 32(7):658–662.
65.
OliveiraMEF, ZanettiEDS, CursinoMS, et al.First live offspring of Amazonian brown brocket deer (Mazama nemorivaga) born by artificial insemination. Eur J Wildl Res, 2016; 62(6):767–770; doi: 10.1007/s10344-016-1040-y
66.
DuarteJM, VarelaD, PiovezanU, et al.Blastocerus dichotomus. In: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN; 2016; doi: 10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T2828A22160916.en
67.
MMA. Lista Nacional de Espécies Da Fauna Brasileira Ameaçada de Extinção. Ministerio do Meio Ambiente: Brasilia; 2003.
68.
RolaLD, Zanetti E dosS, DuarteJMB. Evaluation of semen characteristics of the species Mazama americana in captivity. Anim Prod Sci, 2013; 53(5):472–477.
69.
CursinoMS, DuarteJMB. Using sperm morphometry and multivariate analysis to differentiate species of gray Mazama. R Soc Open Sci, 2016; 3(11):160345; doi: 10.1098/rsos.160345
70.
CunhaD, SouzaM, BritoB, et al.Characterization of seminal parameters, sperm morphometry, micromorphology, and ultrastructure in gray brocket deer (Mazama gouazoubira, Fischer, 1814). Microsc Res Tech, 2021; 84(2):313–325; doi: 10.1002/jemt.23590
71.
DuarteJMB. O Cervo Do-Pantanal (Blastocerus Dichotomus) de Porto Primavera. Resultado de Dois Anos de Pesquisa. Funep: Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinárias FCAV. Universidade Estadual Paulista, Júlio de Mesquita Filho; 2001.
72.
NunesALV, PinhoMP, CruzML, et al.Contenção Química Do Cervodo-Pantanal (Blastocerus Dichotomus) Em Vida Livre: Comparação Entre Diversas Associações Das Drogas. In: O Cervodo-Pantanal de Porto Primavera: Resultado de Dois Anos de Pesquisa Funep: Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinárias FCAV. Universidade Estadual Paulista, Júlio de Mesquita Filho; 2001.
73.
de AraujoGR, de PaulaTAR, de Deco-SouzaT, et al.Comparison of semen samples collected from wild and captive jaguars (Panthera onca) by urethral catheterization after pharmacological induction. Anim Reprod Sci, 2018; 195:1–7; doi: 10.1016/j.anireprosci.2017.12.019
74.
SilvaM, AraujoG, KersulM, et al.Pharmacological semen collection and cryopreservation of the giant anteater (myrmecophaga tridactyla) in the wild. In: Congresso Brasileiro de Reprodução Animal, 23, 2019. Belo Horizonte: CBRA: Gramado, RS; 2019.
PictonHM. Preservation of female fertility in humans and animal species. Anim Reprod, 2018; 15(3):301–309; doi: 10.21451/1984-3143-AR2018-0089
77.
MaheshY, RaoBS, SumanK, et al.In vitro maturation and fertilization in the Nilgai (Boselaphus tragocamelus) using oocytes and spermatozoa recovered post-mortem from animals that had died because of foot and mouth disease outbreak. Reprod Domest Anim, 2011; 46(5):832–839; doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0531.2011.01751.x
78.
HermesR, GöritzF, PortasTJ, et al.Ovarian superstimulation, transrectal ultrasound-guided oocyte recovery, and IVF in rhinoceros. Theriogenology, 2009; 72(7):959–968; doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2009.06.014
79.
GoldmanRH, RacowskyC, FarlandLV, et al.Predicting the likelihood of live birth for elective oocyte cryopreservation: A counseling tool for physicians and patients. Hum Reprod, 2017; 32(4):853–859; doi: 10.1093/humrep/dex008
80.
EngdaworkA, BelayhunT, AsegedT. The role of reproductive technologies and cryopreservation of genetic materials in the conservation of animal genetic resources. Ecol Genet Genom, 2024; 31:100250; doi: 10.1016/j.egg.2024.100250
81.
SaragustyJ, AravA. Current progress in oocyte and embryo cryopreservation by slow freezing and vitrification. Reproduction, 2011; 141(1):1–19; doi: 10.1530/REP-10-0236
82.
BeaumontSE, BergMC, StrongmanK, et al.188 Direct-thaw trans-cervical transfer of red deer frozen in vitro blastocysts can result in pregnancies. Reprod Fertil Dev, 2005; 17(2):244–244.
83.
AmbrosiniG, AndrisaniA, PorcuE, et al.Oocytes cryopreservation: State of art. Reprod Toxicol, 2006; 22(2):250–262; doi: 10.1016/j.reprotox.2006.04.024
LagutinaI, FulkaH, LazzariG, et al.Interspecies somatic cell nuclear transfer: advancements and problems. Cell Reprogram, 2013; 15(5):374–384; doi: 10.1089/cell.2013.0036
86.
MagalhãesLC, CortezJV, BhatMH, et al.In Vitro Development and Mitochondrial Gene Expression in Brown Brocket Deer (Mazama gouazoubira) Embryos Obtained by Interspecific Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer. Cell Reprogram, 2020; 22(4):208–216; doi: 10.1089/cell.2019.0069
87.
RolaLD. Produção e Caracterização de Células Multipotentes e Pluripotentes Induzidas Em Blastocerus Dichotomus. Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinárias FCAV. Universidade Estadual Paulista, Júlio de Mesquita Filho: Jaboticabal, Brasil; 2017.
88.
HayashiK. In vitro reconstitution of germ cell development†. Biol Reprod, 2019; 101(3):567–578; doi: 10.1093/biolre/ioz111
89.
SchwartzALW, ShillingFM, PerkinsSE. The value of monitoring wildlife roadkill. Eur J Wildl Res, 2020; 66(1):18; doi: 10.1007/s10344-019-1357-4
ComizzoliP. Biobanking and fertility preservation in rare and endangered species. Anim Reprod, 2017; 14(1):30–33; doi: 10.21451/1984-3143-AR889
92.
HohenlohePA, FunkWC, RajoraOP. Population genomics for wildlife conservation and management. Mol Ecol, 2021; 30(1):62–82; doi: 10.1111/mec.15720
93.
OuborgNJ, PertoldiC, LoeschckeV, et al.Conservation genetics in transition to conservation genomics. Trends Genet, 2010; 26(4):177–187; doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2010.01.001
94.
AllendorfFW, HohenlohePA, LuikartG. Genomics and the future of conservation genetics. Nat Rev Genet, 2010; 11(10):697–709; doi: 10.1038/nrg2844
95.
EkblomR, GalindoJ. Applications of next generation sequencing in molecular ecology of non-model organisms. Heredity (Edinb), 2011; 107(1):1–15; doi: 10.1038/hdy.2010.152
96.
TheissingerK, FernandesC, FormentiG, et al.; European Reference Genome Atlas Consortium. How genomics can help biodiversity conservation. Trends Genet, 2023; 39(7):545–559; doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2023.01.005
97.
MadisonJ. Chapter 2 Biobanks as Knowledge Institutions. Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK; 2019; doi: 10.4337/9781788116190.00008
