↓ Skip to main content

How and how much does RAD-seq bias genetic diversity estimates?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ecology and Evolution, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
22 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
218 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
How and how much does RAD-seq bias genetic diversity estimates?
Published in
BMC Ecology and Evolution, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12862-016-0791-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marie Cariou, Laurent Duret, Sylvain Charlat

Abstract

RAD-seq is a powerful tool, increasingly used in population genomics. However, earlier studies have raised red flags regarding possible biases associated with this technique. In particular, polymorphism on restriction sites results in preferential sampling of closely related haplotypes, so that RAD data tends to underestimate genetic diversity. Here we (1) clarify the theoretical basis of this bias, highlighting the potential confounding effects of population structure and selection, (2) confront predictions to real data from in silico digestion of full genomes and (3) provide a proof of concept toward an ABC-based correction of the RAD-seq bias. Under a neutral and panmictic model, we confirm the previously established relationship between the true polymorphism and its RAD-based estimation, showing a more pronounced bias when polymorphism is high. Using more elaborate models, we show that selection, resulting in heterogeneous levels of polymorphism along the genome, exacerbates the bias and leads to a more pronounced underestimation. On the contrary, spatial genetic structure tends to reduce the bias. We confront the neutral and panmictic model to "ideal" empirical data (in silico RAD-sequencing) using full genomes from natural populations of the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster and the fungus Shizophyllum commune, harbouring respectively moderate and high genetic diversity. In D. melanogaster, predictions fit the model, but the small difference between the true and RAD polymorphism makes this comparison insensitive to deviations from the model. In the highly polymorphic fungus, the model captures a large part of the bias but makes inaccurate predictions. Accordingly, ABC corrections based on this model improve the estimations, albeit with some imprecisions. The RAD-seq underestimation of genetic diversity associated with polymorphism in restriction sites becomes more pronounced when polymorphism is high. In practice, this means that in many systems where polymorphism does not exceed 2 %, the bias is of minor importance in the face of other sources of uncertainty, such as heterogeneous bases composition or technical artefacts. The neutral panmictic model provides a practical mean to correct the bias through ABC, albeit with some imprecisions. More elaborate ABC methods might integrate additional parameters, such as population structure and selection, but their opposite effects could hinder accurate corrections.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 218 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 214 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 55 25%
Student > Master 41 19%
Researcher 34 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 7%
Student > Bachelor 12 6%
Other 28 13%
Unknown 33 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 112 51%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 44 20%
Environmental Science 15 7%
Arts and Humanities 1 <1%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 <1%
Other 3 1%
Unknown 42 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 August 2017.
All research outputs
#3,066,669
of 25,405,598 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#807
of 3,713 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,665
of 319,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#23
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,405,598 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,713 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 319,132 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.