The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
RAD seq underestimates diversity and introduces genealogical biases due to nonrandom haplotype sampling
Open accessAbstract
Reduced representation genome‐sequencing approaches based on restriction digestion are enabling large‐scale marker generation and facilitating genomic studies in a wide range of model and nonmodel systems. However, sampling chromosomes based on restriction digestion may introduce a bias in allele frequency estimation due to polymorphisms in restriction sites. To explore the effects of this nonrandom sampling and its sensitivity to different evolutionary parameters, we developed a coalescent‐simulation framework to mimic the biased recovery of chromosomes in restriction‐based short‐read sequencing experiments (RAD seq). We analysed simulated DNA sequence datasets and compared known values from simulations with those that would be estimated using a RAD seq approach from the same samples. We compare these ‘true’ and ‘estimated’ values of commonly used summary statistics, π, θ w, Tajima's D and FST. We show that loci with missing haplotypes have estimated summary statistic values that can deviate dramatically from true values and are also enriched for particular genealogical histories. These biases are sensitive to nonequilibrium demography, such as bottlenecks and population expansion. In silico digests with 102 completely sequenced D rosophila melanogaster genomes yielded results similar to our findings from coalescent simulations. Though the potential of RAD seq for marker discovery and trait mapping in nonmodel systems remains undisputed, our results urge caution when applying this technique to make population genetic inferences.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
The hitch-hiking effect of a favourable gene
Smith, J. M., & Haigh, J. (1974) · Genetical Research · doi:10.1017/s0016672300014634 · Cited by 3,415
Cited by
Genomic analyses overturn two long-standing homoploid hybrid speciation hypotheses
Goulet‐Scott, B. E., Garner, A. G., & Hopkins, R. (2021) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/evo.14279 · Cited by 14
Metadata
- Authors
- Arnold, B., Corbett‐Detig, R. B., Hartl, D., & Bomblies, K.
- Venue
- Molecular Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-04-03
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 3179-3190
- ISSN
- 0962-1083 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-294X
- OpenAlex
- W1987502745
- Cited by
- 376
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 25.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: RAD seq underestimates diversity and introduces genealogical biases due to nonrandom haplotype sampling. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/mec.12276
- The paper
- Arnold, B., Corbett‐Detig, R. B., Hartl, D., & Bomblies, K. (2013). RAD seq underestimates diversity and introduces genealogical biases due to nonrandom haplotype sampling. Molecular Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.12276
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.