Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
2b or not 2b? 2bRAD is an effective alternative to ddRAD for phylogenomics.
Chambers, E Anne; Tarvin, Rebecca D; Santos, Juan C; Ron, Santiago R; Betancourth-Cundar, Mileidy; Hillis, David M; Matz, Mikhail V; Cannatella, David C.
Affiliation
  • Chambers EA; Department of Integrative Biology and Biodiversity Center University of Texas at Austin Austin Texas USA.
  • Tarvin RD; Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management and Museum of Vertebrate Zoology University of California Berkeley Berkeley California USA.
  • Santos JC; Department of Integrative Biology and Biodiversity Center University of Texas at Austin Austin Texas USA.
  • Ron SR; Department of Integrative Biology and Museum of Vertebrate Zoology University of California Berkeley Berkeley California USA.
  • Betancourth-Cundar M; Department of Biological Sciences St John's University New York New York USA.
  • Hillis DM; Museo de Zoología, Escuela de Ciencias Biológicas Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador Quito Ecuador.
  • Matz MV; Departamento de Ciencias Biológicas Universidad de los Andes Bogotá Colombia.
  • Cannatella DC; Department of Integrative Biology and Biodiversity Center University of Texas at Austin Austin Texas USA.
Ecol Evol ; 13(3): e9842, 2023 Mar.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36911313
ABSTRACT
Restriction-site-associated DNA sequencing (RADseq) has become an accessible way to obtain genome-wide data in the form of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for phylogenetic inference. Nonetheless, how differences in RADseq methods influence phylogenetic estimation is poorly understood because most comparisons have largely relied on conceptual predictions rather than empirical tests. We examine how differences in ddRAD and 2bRAD data influence phylogenetic estimation in two non-model frog groups. We compare the impact of method choice on phylogenetic information, missing data, and allelic dropout, considering different sequencing depths. Given that researchers must balance input (funding, time) with output (amount and quality of data), we also provide comparisons of laboratory effort, computational time, monetary costs, and the repeatability of library preparation and sequencing. Both 2bRAD and ddRAD methods estimated well-supported trees, even at low sequencing depths, and had comparable amounts of missing data, patterns of allelic dropout, and phylogenetic signal. Compared to ddRAD, 2bRAD produced more repeatable datasets, had simpler laboratory protocols, and had an overall faster bioinformatics assembly. However, many fewer parsimony-informative sites per SNP were obtained from 2bRAD data when using native pipelines, highlighting a need for further investigation into the effects of each pipeline on resulting datasets. Our study underscores the importance of comparing RADseq methods, such as expected results and theoretical performance using empirical datasets, before undertaking costly experiments.
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Prognostic_studies Language: En Journal: Ecol Evol Year: 2023 Type: Article

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Prognostic_studies Language: En Journal: Ecol Evol Year: 2023 Type: Article