4 years ago

Substantial differences in bias between single-digest and double-digest RAD-seq libraries: a case study

Sarah P. Flanagan, Adam G. Jones
The tradeoffs of using single-digest versus double-digest restriction site associated DNA sequencing (RAD-seq) protocols have been widely discussed. However, no direct empirical comparisons of the two methods have been conducted. Here, we sampled a single population of Gulf pipefish (Syngnathus scovelli) and genotyped 444 individuals using RAD-seq. Sixty individuals were subjected to single-digest RAD-seq (sdRAD-seq), and the remaining 384 individuals were genotyped using a double-digest RAD-seq (ddRAD-seq) protocol. We analyzed the resulting Illumina sequencing data and compared the two genotyping methods when reads were analyzed either together or separately. Coverage statistics, observed heterozygosity, and allele frequencies differed significantly between the two protocols, as did the results of selection components analysis. We also performed an in silico digestion of the Gulf pipefish genome and modeled five major sources of bias: PCR duplicates, polymorphic restriction sites, shearing bias, asymmetric sampling (i.e., genotyping fewer individuals with sdRAD-seq than with ddRAD-seq), and higher major allele frequencies. This combination of approaches allowed us to determine that polymorphic restriction sites, an asymmetric sampling scheme, mean allele frequencies, and to some extent PCR duplicates all contribute to different estimates of allele frequencies between samples genotyped using sdRAD-seq versus ddRAD-seq. Our finding that sdRAD-seq and ddRAD-seq can result in different allele frequencies has implications for comparisons across studies and techniques that endeavor to identify genome-wide signatures of evolutionary processes in natural populations. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Publisher URL: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/resolve/doi

DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.12734

You might also like
Discover & Discuss Important Research

Keeping up-to-date with research can feel impossible, with papers being published faster than you'll ever be able to read them. That's where Researcher comes in: we're simplifying discovery and making important discussions happen. With over 19,000 sources, including peer-reviewed journals, preprints, blogs, universities, podcasts and Live events across 10 research areas, you'll never miss what's important to you. It's like social media, but better. Oh, and we should mention - it's free.

  • Download from Google Play
  • Download from App Store
  • Download from AppInChina

Researcher displays publicly available abstracts and doesn’t host any full article content. If the content is open access, we will direct clicks from the abstracts to the publisher website and display the PDF copy on our platform. Clicks to view the full text will be directed to the publisher website, where only users with subscriptions or access through their institution are able to view the full article.