Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33597550›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Performance comparison of two reduced-representation based genome-wide marker-discovery strategies in a multi-taxon phylogeographic framework.

Philipp Kirschner, Wolfgang Arthofer, Stefanie Pfeifenberger, Eliška Záveská, Peter Schönswetter, STEPPE Consortium, Florian M Steiner, Birgit C Schlick-Steiner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Glacial history ofPhytoKeys · 2024
    Article
  2. 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

8 authors.

Philipp KirschnerDepartment of Ecology, University of Innsbruck, Technikerstraße 25, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria. philipp.kirschner@gmail.com.
Wolfgang ArthoferDepartment of Ecology, University of Innsbruck, Technikerstraße 25, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria.
Stefanie PfeifenbergerDepartment of Ecology, University of Innsbruck, Technikerstraße 25, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria.
Eliška ZáveskáDepartment of Botany, University of Innsbruck, Sternwartestraße 15, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria.
Peter SchönswetterDepartment of Botany, University of Innsbruck, Sternwartestraße 15, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria.
STEPPE Consortium
Florian M SteinerDepartment of Ecology, University of Innsbruck, Technikerstraße 25, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria.
Birgit C Schlick-SteinerDepartment of Ecology, University of Innsbruck, Technikerstraße 25, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria.

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF P 25955
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multi-locus genetic data are pivotal in phylogenetics. Today, high-throughput sequencing (HTS) allows scientists to generate an unprecedented amount of such data from any organism. However, HTS is resource intense and may not be accessible to wide parts of the scientific community. In phylogeography, the use of HTS has concentrated on a few taxonomic groups, and the amount of data used to resolve a phylogeographic pattern often seems arbitrary. We explore the performance of two genetic marker sampling strategies and the effect of marker quantity in a comparative phylogeographic framework focusing on six species (arthropods and plants). The same analyses were applied to data inferred from amplified fragment length polymorphism fingerprinting (AFLP), a cheap, non-HTS based technique that is able to straightforwardly produce several hundred markers, and from restriction site associated DNA sequencing (RADseq), a more expensive, HTS-based technique that produces thousands of single nucleotide polymorphisms. We show that in four of six study species, AFLP leads to results comparable with those of RADseq. While we do not aim to contest the advantages of HTS techniques, we also show that AFLP is a robust technique to delimit evolutionary entities in both plants and animals. The demonstrated similarity of results from the two techniques also strengthens biological conclusions that were based on AFLP data in the past, an important finding given the wide utilization of AFLP over the last decades. We emphasize that whenever the delimitation of evolutionary entities is the central goal, as it is in many fields of biodiversity research, AFLP is still an adequate technique.

Indexed as

Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism AnalysisBase SequenceBiological EvolutionDNA FingerprintingGenetic MarkersGenomeHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansPhylogeographyPolymorphism, GeneticPolymorphism, Restriction Fragment LengthSequence Analysis, DNAGenetic Markers

Identifiers

PMID33597550
PMCPMC7889850

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.