Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31159724›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2019

From reference genomes to population genomics: comparing three reference-aligned reduced-representation sequencing pipelines in two wildlife species.

Belinda Wright, Katherine A Farquharson, Elspeth A McLennan, Katherine Belov, Carolyn J Hogg, Catherine E Grueber

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 88 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Pangenome analysis ofApplied and environmental microbiology · 2024
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Belinda WrightFaculty of Science, The University of Sydney, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Sydney, Australia.
Katherine A FarquharsonFaculty of Science, The University of Sydney, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Sydney, Australia.
Elspeth A McLennanFaculty of Science, The University of Sydney, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Sydney, Australia.
Katherine BelovFaculty of Science, The University of Sydney, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Sydney, Australia.
Carolyn J HoggFaculty of Science, The University of Sydney, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Sydney, Australia.
Catherine E GrueberFaculty of Science, The University of Sydney, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Sydney, Australia. catherine.grueber@sydney.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8179-1822
The University of Sydney · AU

Funding

Australian Research Council DP170101253Australian Research Council LP140100508
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecent advances in genomics have greatly increased research opportunities for non-model species. For wildlife, a growing availability of reference genomes means that population genetics is no longer restricted to a small set of anonymous loci. When used in conjunction with a reference genome, reduced-representation sequencing (RRS) provides a cost-effective method for obtaining reliable diversity information for population genetics. Many software tools have been developed to process RRS data, though few studies of non-model species incorporate genome alignment in calling loci. A commonly-used RRS analysis pipeline, Stacks, has this capacity and so it is timely to compare its utility with existing software originally designed for alignment and analysis of whole genome sequencing data. Here we examine population genetic inferences from two species for which reference-aligned reduced-representation data have been collected. Our two study species are a threatened Australian marsupial (Tasmanian devil Sarcophilus harrisii; declining population) and an Arctic-circle migrant bird (pink-footed goose Anser brachyrhynchus; expanding population). Analyses of these data are compared using Stacks versus two widely-used genomics packages, SAMtools and GATK. We also introduce a custom R script to improve the reliability of single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) calls in all pipelines and conduct population genetic inferences for non-model species with reference genomes.

resultsAlthough we identified orders of magnitude fewer SNPs in our devil dataset than for goose, we found remarkable symmetry between the two species in our assessment of software performance. For both datasets, all three methods were able to delineate population structure, even with varying numbers of loci. For both species, population structure inferences were influenced by the percent of missing data.

conclusionsFor studies of non-model species with a reference genome, we recommend combining Stacks output with further filtering (as included in our R pipeline) for population genetic studies, paying particular attention to potential impact of missing data thresholds. We recognise SAMtools as a viable alternative for researchers more familiar with this software. We caution against the use of GATK in studies with limited computational resources or time.

Indexed as

GenomePolymorphism, Single NucleotideAnimalsComputational BiologyGeeseHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingMarsupialiaMetagenomicsReference StandardsSoftwareDArTseqGATKPink-footed goosePopulation differentiationPopulation genomicsReference genomeSAMtoolsStacksTasmanian devil

Identifiers

PMID31159724
PMCPMC6547446
OpenAlexW2948092292

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.