4.7 Article

RADseq underestimates diversity and introduces genealogical biases due to nonrandom haplotype sampling

Journal

MOLECULAR ECOLOGY
Volume 22, Issue 11, Pages 3179-3190

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/mec.12276

Keywords

ascertainment bias; coalescent theory; population genomics; restriction-associated DNA sequencing

Funding

  1. NSF DDIG
  2. Harvard Prize Fellowship

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Reduced representation genome-sequencing approaches based on restriction digestion are enabling large-scale marker generation and facilitating genomic studies in a wide range of model and nonmodel systems. However, sampling chromosomes based on restriction digestion may introduce a bias in allele frequency estimation due to polymorphisms in restriction sites. To explore the effects of this nonrandom sampling and its sensitivity to different evolutionary parameters, we developed a coalescent-simulation framework to mimic the biased recovery of chromosomes in restriction-based short-read sequencing experiments (RADseq). We analysed simulated DNA sequence datasets and compared known values from simulations with those that would be estimated using a RADseq approach from the same samples. We compare these true' and estimated' values of commonly used summary statistics, , w, Tajima's D and FST. We show that loci with missing haplotypes have estimated summary statistic values that can deviate dramatically from true values and are also enriched for particular genealogical histories. These biases are sensitive to nonequilibrium demography, such as bottlenecks and population expansion. In silico digests with 102 completely sequenced Drosophila melanogaster genomes yielded results similar to our findings from coalescent simulations. Though the potential of RADseq for marker discovery and trait mapping in nonmodel systems remains undisputed, our results urge caution when applying this technique to make population genetic inferences.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available