Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29189774›Full record

ArticleNature protocols2017

Deriving genotypes from RAD-seq short-read data using Stacks.

Nicolas C Rochette, Julian M Catchen

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Nature protocols, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 195 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
195citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

195 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Conservation implications of low contemporary connectivity along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge in hydrothermal vent gastropods.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

135 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Nicolas C RochetteDepartment of Animal Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1899-1765
Julian M CatchenDepartment of Animal Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4798-660X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Restriction site-associated DNA sequencing (RAD-seq) allows for the genome-wide discovery and genotyping of single-nucleotide polymorphisms in hundreds of individuals at a time in model and nonmodel species alike. However, converting short-read sequencing data into reliable genotype data remains a nontrivial task, especially as RAD-seq is used in systems that have very diverse genomic properties. Here, we present a protocol to analyze RAD-seq data using the Stacks pipeline. This protocol will be of use in areas such as ecology and population genetics. It covers the assessment and demultiplexing of the sequencing data, read mapping, inference of RAD loci, genotype calling, and filtering of the output data, as well as providing two simple examples of downstream biological analyses. We place special emphasis on checking the soundness of the procedure and choosing the main parameters, given the properties of the data. The procedure can be completed in 1 week, but determining definitive methodological choices will typically take up to 1 month.

Indexed as

AnimalsChromosome MappingGenetics, PopulationGenomeGenotypeGenotyping TechniquesHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansPolymorphism, Single NucleotideSequence Analysis, DNASoftware

Identifiers

PMID29189774

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.