4.7 Article

Impacts of degraded DNA on restriction enzyme associated DNA sequencing (RADSeq)

期刊

MOLECULAR ECOLOGY RESOURCES
卷 15, 期 6, 页码 1304-1315

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.12404

关键词

Coregonus clupeaformis; ddRADSeq; reduced representation libraries; SNP

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  2. Bruce Power
  3. Canada Research Chairs Program
  4. Canada Foundation for Innovation
  5. McMaster University
  6. University of Regina
  7. U. S. Department of Energy [DE-FC09-07SR22506]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Degraded DNA from suboptimal field sampling is common in molecular ecology. However, its impact on techniques that use restriction site associated next-generation DNA sequencing (RADSeq, GBS) is unknown. We experimentally examined the effects of in situDNA degradation on data generation for a modified double-digest RADSeq approach (3RAD). We generated libraries using genomic DNA serially extracted from the muscle tissue of 8 individual lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) following 0-, 12-, 48- and 96-h incubation at room temperature posteuthanasia. This treatment of the tissue resulted in input DNA that ranged in quality from nearly intact to highly sheared. All samples were sequenced as a multiplexed pool on an Illumina MiSeq. Libraries created from low to moderately degraded DNA (12-48h) performed well. In contrast, the number of RADtags per individual, number of variable sites, and percentage of identical RADtags retained were all dramatically reduced when libraries were made using highly degraded DNA (96-h group). This reduction in performance was largely due to a significant and unexpected loss of raw reads as a result of poor quality scores. Our findings remained consistent after changes in restriction enzymes, modified fold coverage values (2- to 16-fold), and additional read-length trimming. We conclude that starting DNA quality is an important consideration for RADSeq; however, the approach remains robust until genomic DNA is extensively degraded.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据