4.7 Editorial Material

Trade-offs and utility of alternative RADseq methods: Reply to Puritz et al. 2014

Journal

MOLECULAR ECOLOGY
Volume 23, Issue 24, Pages 5943-5946

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/mec.12964

Keywords

allele dropout; genotyping error; next generation sequencing; PCR duplicates; pooling; population genomics

Funding

  1. Direct For Biological Sciences
  2. Division Of Environmental Biology [1258203] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  3. Division Of Environmental Biology
  4. Direct For Biological Sciences [1067613] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  5. NIGMS NIH HHS [P30GM103324] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Puritz etal. provide a review of several RADseq methodological approaches in response to our Population Genomic Data Analysis' workshop (Sept 2013) review (Andrews & Luikart 2014). We agree with Puritz etal. on the importance for researchers to thoroughly understand RADseq library preparation and data analysis when choosing an approach for answering their research questions. Some of us are currently using multiple RADseq protocols, and we agree that the different methods may offer advantages in different cases. Our workshop review did not intend to provide a thorough review of RADseq because the workshop covered a broad range of topics within the field of population genomics. Similarly, neither the response of Puritz etal. nor our comments here provide sufficient space to thoroughly review RADseq. Nonetheless, here we address some key points that we find unclear or potentially misleading in their evaluation of techniques.

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