ArticleMolecular ecology resources2025
Evaluating restriction enzyme selection for reduced representation sequencing in conservation genomics.
Article in Molecular ecology resources, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating restriction enzyme selection for reduced representation sequencing in conservation genomics.Molecular ecology resources · 2025Article
- Chromosome-level genome assembly and annotation of the sharpsnout seabream (Diplodus puntazzo).Scientific data · 2025Article
- Chromosome-level genome assembly and annotation of the black sea urchin Arbacia lixula (Linnaeus, 1758).DNA research : an international journal for rapid publication of reports on genes and genomes · 2024Article
- RNA-clique: a method for computing genetic distances from RNA-seq data.BMC bioinformatics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Conservation genomic studies in non-model organisms generally rely on reduced representation sequencing techniques based on restriction enzymes to identify population structure as well as candidate loci for local adaptation. While the expectation is that the reduced representation of the genome is randomly distributed, the proportion of the genome sampled might depend on the GC content of the recognition site of the restriction enzyme used. Here, we evaluated the distribution and functional composition of loci obtained after a reduced representation approach using Genotyping-by-Sequencing (GBS). To do so, we compared experimental data from two endemic fish species (Symphodus ocellatus and Symphodus tinca, EcoT22I enzyme) and two ecosystem engineer sea urchins (Paracentrotus lividus and Arbacia lixula, ApeKI enzyme). In brief, we mapped the sequenced loci to the phylogenetically closest reference genome available (Labrus bergylta in the fish and Strongylocentrotus purpuratus in the sea urchin datasets), classified them as exonic, intronic and intergenic, and studied their function by using Gene Ontology (GO) terms. We also simulated the effect of using both enzymes in the two reference genomes. In both simulated and experimental data, we detected an enrichment towards exonic or intergenic regions depending on the restriction enzyme used and failed to detect differences between total loci and candidate loci for adaptation in the empirical dataset. Most of the functions assigned to the mapped loci were shared between the four species and involved a myriad of general functions. Our results highlight the importance of restriction enzyme selection and the need for high-quality annotated genomes in conservation genomic studies.
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.