ArticleMolecular ecology2021
A bioinformatic platform to integrate target capture and whole genome sequences of various read depths for phylogenomics.
Article in Molecular ecology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reliable Inference of Phylogenomic Relationship via Assembly-Based Strategy Accommodating Raw Reads and Proteins.Molecular ecology resources · 2026Article
- Pervasive horizontal transmission of Wolbachia in natural populations of closely related and widespread tropical skipper butterflies.BMC microbiology · 2025Article
- Genomic Diversity, Antimicrobial Resistance, Plasmidome, and Virulence Profiles ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- UPrimer: A Clade-Specific Primer Design Program Based on Nested-PCR Strategy and Its Applications in Amplicon Capture Phylogenomics.Molecular biology and evolution · 2023Article
- A bioinformatic platform to integrate target capture and whole genome sequences of various read depths for phylogenomics.Molecular ecology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The increasing availability of short-read whole genome sequencing (WGS) provides unprecedented opportunities to study ecological and evolutionary processes. Although loci of interest can be extracted from WGS data and combined with target sequence data, this requires suitable bioinformatic workflows. Here, we test different assembly and locus extraction strategies and implement them into secapr, a pipeline that processes short-read data into multilocus alignments for phylogenetics and molecular ecology analyses. We integrate the processing of data from low-coverage WGS (<30×) and target sequence capture into a flexible framework, while optimizing de novo contig assembly and loci extraction. Specifically, we test different assembly strategies by contrasting their ability to recover loci from targeted butterfly protein-coding genes, using four data sets: a WGS data set across different average coverages (10×, 5× and 2×) and a data set for which these loci were enriched prior to sequencing via target sequence capture. Using the resulting de novo contigs, we account for potential errors within contigs and infer phylogenetic trees to evaluate the ability of each assembly strategy to recover species relationships. We demonstrate that choosing multiple sizes of kmer simultaneously for assembly results in the highest yield of extracted loci from de novo assembled contigs, while data sets derived from sequencing read depths as low as 5× recovers the expected species relationships in phylogenetic trees. By making the tested assembly approaches available in the secapr pipeline, we hope to inspire future studies to incorporate complementary data and make an informed choice on the optimal assembly strategy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.