Cited by 44Genetic diversity and population structureGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The impact of endogenous content, replicates and pooling on genome capture from faecal samples

Open access
Hernandez‐Rodriguez, Jessica, Arandjelovic, Mimi, Lester, Jack, de Filippo, Cesare, Weihmann, Antje, Meyer, Matthias, Angedakin, Samuel, Casals, Ferran, Navarro, Arcadi, Vigilant, Linda, Kühl, Hjalmar S., Langergraber, Kevin, Boesch, Christophe, Hughes, David, Marques‐Bonet, Tomas·2018·Molecular Ecology Resources

Abstract

Target‐capture approach has improved over the past years, proving to be very efficient tool for selectively sequencing genetic regions of interest. These methods have also allowed the use of noninvasive samples such as faeces (characterized by their low quantity and quality of endogenous DNA) to be used in conservation genomic, evolution and population genetic studies. Here we aim to test different protocols and strategies for exome capture using the Roche SeqCap EZ Developer kit (57.5 Mb). First, we captured a complex pool of DNA libraries. Second, we assessed the influence of using more than one faecal sample, extract and/or library from the same individual, to evaluate its effect on the molecular complexity of the experiment. We validated our experiments with 18 chimpanzee faecal samples collected from two field sites as a part of the Pan African Programme: The Cultured Chimpanzee. Those two field sites are in Kibale National Park, Uganda (N = 9) and Loango National Park, Gabon (N = 9). We demonstrate that at least 16 libraries can be pooled, target enriched through hybridization, and sequenced allowing for the genotyping of 951,949 exome markers for population genetic analyses. Further, we observe that molecule richness, and thus, data acquisition, increase when using multiple libraries from the same extract or multiple extracts from the same sample. Finally, repeated captures significantly decrease the proportion of off‐target reads from 34.15% after one capture round to 7.83% after two capture rounds, supporting our conclusion that two rounds of target enrichment are advisable when using complex faecal samples.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1755-0998.12728

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In case of target-enrichment, two successive rounds of capture generally augment on-target recovery rates.

    “In case of target-enrichment, two successive rounds of capture generally augment on-target recovery rates 166 .”

    From Ancient DNA analysis (2021) · cites this paper as [166]

    Results (Experiment 2) report that two capture rounds increased enrichment factor and capture specificity compared with one, supporting improved on-target recovery in the samples studied. The Discussion limits this finding to noninvasive samples, while the claim presents it as generally true of target enrichment; the Results also note a cost to library complexity. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Performing two successive rounds of enrichment generally increases on-target coverage rates, while use of short adapters can favor on-target library-to-probe annealing and enhance enrichment efficacy.

    “Performing two successive rounds of enrichment generally increases on-target coverage rates 166 , while the use of short adapters can favor on-target library-to-probe annealing and enhance enrichment efficacy 126 .”

    From Ancient DNA analysis (2021) · cites this paper as [166]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 56

  1. 10.1111/j.1755-0998.2008.02387.x · DOI
  2. 10.1371/journal.pone.0014761 · DOI
  3. 10.1038/nmeth.1985 · DOI
  4. 10.1038/nmeth.2375 · DOI
  5. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr330 · DOI
  6. 10.1126/science.aag2602 · DOI
  7. 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.02845.x · DOI
  8. 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02304.x · DOI
  9. 10.1371/journal.pone.0021605 · DOI
  10. 10.1093/molbev/msh083 · DOI
  11. 10.1111/j.1469-1809.1936.tb02137.x · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1002/ajp.22274 · DOI
  13. 10.1002/ajpa.22638 · DOI
  14. 10.1214/009053604000001048 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.1073/pnas.1015422108 · DOI
  16. 10.1371/journal.pgen.1001073 · DOI
  17. 10.1002/ajp.22458 · DOI
  18. 10.1002/ajpa.10186 · DOI
  19. 10.1002/ajpa.22312 · DOI
  20. 10.1111/mec.13304 · DOI
  21. 10.1007/s10329-006-0191-y · DOI
  22. Kühl H. S., 2016, Chimpanzee accumulative stone throwing, Nature Publishing Group
  23. 10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.12.005 · DOI
  24. Li H., 2015, fermikit: Assembly‐based variant calling for Illumina resequencing data, Bioinformatics, 31, 3694, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv440 · DOI
  25. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp324 · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp352 · DOI · Paper page
  27. 10.1093/gbe/evw124 · DOI
  28. 10.14806/ej.17.1.200 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.1101/pdb.prot5448 · DOI
  30. 10.1186/s12862-014-0276-y · DOI
  31. 10.1007/BF02382630 · DOI
  32. 10.1093/jhered/ess065 · DOI
  33. 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02207.x · DOI
  34. 10.1016/j.tig.2010.01.001 · DOI
  35. 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2010.04888.x · DOI
  36. 10.1038/nature12228 · DOI
  37. 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04444.x · DOI
  38. 10.1086/519795 · DOI · Paper page
  39. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq033 · DOI · Paper page
  40. 10.1038/nrg3707 · DOI
  41. 10.1016/j.tree.2014.11.009 · DOI
  42. 10.1534/genetics.116.187492 · DOI
  43. 10.1146/annurev-animal-031412-103636 · DOI
  44. 10.1111/j.1365-2907.2010.00179.x · DOI
  45. 10.1016/S0169-5347(99)01637-7 · DOI
  46. 10.1093/molbev/msl160 · DOI
  47. 10.1046/j.1365-294X.2003.02070.x · DOI
  48. 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02382.x · DOI
  49. 10.1038/476266a · DOI
  50. 10.1111/mec.13684 · DOI
  51. 10.1002/ajp.22157 · DOI
  52. 10.1007/s10764-015-9851-3 · DOI
  53. 10.1002/wsb.540 · DOI
  54. 10.1111/1755-0998.12266 · DOI
  55. 10.1101/gr.204255.116 · DOI
  56. 10.1534/genetics.166.3.1375 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Hernandez‐Rodriguez, J., Arandjelovic, M., Lester, J., de Filippo, C., Weihmann, A., Meyer, M., Angedakin, S., Casals, F., Navarro, A., Vigilant, L., Kühl, H. S., Langergraber, K., Boesch, C., Hughes, D., & Marques‐Bonet, T.
Affiliations
  • Departament de Ciencies Experimentals i de la Salut Institut de Biologia Evolutiva (Universitat Pompeu Fabra/CSIC) Barcelona Spain
  • Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (DE)
  • Genomics Core Facility Departament de Ciencies Experimentals i de la Salut Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Parc de Recerca Biomèdica de Barcelona Barcelona Spain
  • Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ES)
  • German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (DE)
  • Arizona State University (US)
  • Universitat Pompeu Fabra (ES)
Venue
Molecular Ecology Resources
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-12-04
Volume
18
Issue
2
Pages
319-333
ISSN
  • 1755-098X (ISSN-L)
  • 1755-0998
OpenAlex
W2765103557
Cited by
44
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4
FWCI
2.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Molecular Ecology Resources (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repositori digital de la UPF (Universitat Pompeu Fabra) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RECERCAT (Consorci de Serveis Universitaris de Catalunya) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
  • NIH Clinical Center (MH106874)
  • Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (BFU2015‐68649‐P, BFU2014‐55090‐P)
  • Federación Española de Enfermedades Raras (SAF2012‐35025, SAF2015‐68472‐C2‐2‐R)
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  • Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic diversity and population structure
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Environmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
Keywords
fecal DNA, exome capture, target enrichment, chimpanzees, non-invasive genetic sampling, population genomics, conservation genomics
MeSH terms
Animals, Pan troglodytes, DNA, Feces, Gabon, Genetics, Population, Sampling Studies, Uganda, Metagenomics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review