Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36911313›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2023

2b or not 2b? 2bRAD is an effective alternative to ddRAD for phylogenomics.

E Anne Chambers, Rebecca D Tarvin, Juan C Santos, Santiago R Ron, Mileidy Betancourth-Cundar, David M Hillis, Mikhail V Matz, David C Cannatella

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Distinguishing species boundaries from geographic variation.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

E Anne ChambersDepartment of Integrative Biology and Biodiversity Center University of Texas at Austin Austin Texas USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7369-0108
Rebecca D TarvinDepartment of Integrative Biology and Biodiversity Center University of Texas at Austin Austin Texas USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5387-7250
Juan C SantosDepartment of Biological Sciences St John's University New York New York USA.
Santiago R RonMuseo de Zoología, Escuela de Ciencias Biológicas Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador Quito Ecuador.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6300-9350
Mileidy Betancourth-CundarDepartamento de Ciencias Biológicas Universidad de los Andes Bogotá Colombia.
David M HillisDepartment of Integrative Biology and Biodiversity Center University of Texas at Austin Austin Texas USA.
Mikhail V MatzDepartment of Integrative Biology and Biodiversity Center University of Texas at Austin Austin Texas USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5453-9819
David C CannatellaDepartment of Integrative Biology and Biodiversity Center University of Texas at Austin Austin Texas USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

Dendrobatidaemissing dataphylogenetic signalRanidaerestriction‐site‐associated DNA sequencing

Identifiers

PMID36911313
PMCPMC9994478

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.