4.7 Article

Comparative performance of double-digest RAD sequencing across divergent arachnid lineages

Journal

MOLECULAR ECOLOGY RESOURCES
Volume 17, Issue 3, Pages 418-430

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.12575

Keywords

Araneomorphae; ddRADseq; genomics; Mygalomorphae; non-model organism; Opiliones

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [DBI 1401110, DBE 1321850, DEB 1354558]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Next-generation sequencing technologies now allow researchers of non-model systems to perform genome-based studies without the requirement of a (often unavailable) closely related genomic reference. We evaluated the role of restriction endonuclease (RE) selection in double-digest restriction-site-associated DNA sequencing (ddRADseq) by generating reduced representation genome-wide data using four different RE combinations. Our expectation was that RE selections targeting longer, more complex restriction sites would recover fewer loci than RE with shorter, less complex sites. We sequenced a diverse sample of non-model arachnids, including five congeneric pairs of harvestmen (Opiliones) and four pairs of spiders (Araneae). Sample pairs consisted of either conspecifics or closely related congeneric taxa, and in total 26 sample pair analyses were tested. Sequence demultiplexing, read clustering and variant calling were performed in the pyRAD program. The 6-base pair cutter EcoRI combined with methylated site-specific 4-base pair cutter MspI produced, on average, the greatest numbers of intra-individual loci and shared loci per sample pair. As expected, the number of shared loci recovered for a sample pair covaried with the degree of genetic divergence, estimated with cytochrome oxidase I sequences, although this relationship was non-linear. Our comparative results will prove useful in guiding protocol selection for ddRADseq experiments on many arachnid taxa where reference genomes, even from closely related species, are unavailable.

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