The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Whole‐genome sequencing approaches for conservation biology: Advantages, limitations and practical recommendations
Open accessAbstract
Whole‐genome resequencing (WGR) is a powerful method for addressing fundamental evolutionary biology questions that have not been fully resolved using traditional methods. WGR includes four approaches: the sequencing of individuals to a high depth of coverage with either unresolved or resolved haplotypes, the sequencing of population genomes to a high depth by mixing equimolar amounts of unlabelled‐individual DNA (Pool‐seq) and the sequencing of multiple individuals from a population to a low depth (lc WGR). These techniques require the availability of a reference genome. This, along with the still high cost of shotgun sequencing and the large demand for computing resources and storage, has limited their implementation in nonmodel species with scarce genomic resources and in fields such as conservation biology. Our goal here is to describe the various WGR methods, their pros and cons and potential applications in conservation biology. WGR offers an unprecedented marker density and surveys a wide diversity of genetic variations not limited to single nucleotide polymorphisms (e.g., structural variants and mutations in regulatory elements), increasing their power for the detection of signatures of selection and local adaptation as well as for the identification of the genetic basis of phenotypic traits and diseases. Currently, though, no single WGR approach fulfils all requirements of conservation genetics, and each method has its own limitations and sources of potential bias. We discuss proposed ways to minimize such biases. We envision a not distant future where the analysis of whole genomes becomes a routine task in many nonmodel species and fields including conservation biology.
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
Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data
Bolger, A. M., Lohse, M., & Usadel, B. (2014) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btu170 · Cited by 65,548
The Sequence Alignment/Map format and SAMtools
Li, H., Handsaker, B., Wysoker, A., Fennell, T., Ruan, J., Homer, N., Marth, G., Abecasis, G., Durbin, R., & 1000 Genome Project Data Processing Subgroup (2009) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btp352 · Cited by 62,041
Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads
Martin, M. (2011) · EMBnet.journal · doi:10.14806/ej.17.1.200 · Cited by 33,889
A global reference for human genetic variation
The 1000 Genomes Project Consortium, authors, C., Auton, A., Abecasis, G. R., Steering committee, Altshuler, D. M., Durbin, R. M., Abecasis, G. R., Bentley, D. R., Chakravarti, A., et al. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature15393 · Cited by 18,247
QUAST: quality assessment tool for genome assemblies
Gurevich, A., Saveliev, V., Vyahhi, N., & Tesler, G. (2013) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btt086 · Cited by 11,172
Integrative Genomics Viewer (IGV): high-performance genomics data visualization and exploration
Thorvaldsdottir, H., Robinson, J. T., & Mesirov, J. P. (2013) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bbs017 · Cited by 9,049
A map of human genome variation from population-scale sequencing.
The 1000 Genomes Project Consortium (2010) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature09534 · Cited by 7,877
Van der Auwera, G. A., Carneiro, M. O., Hartl, C., Poplin, R., del Angel, G., Levy‐Moonshine, A., Jordan, T., Shakir, K., Roazen, D., Thibault, J., et al. (2013) · Current Protocols in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/0471250953.bi1110s43 · Cited by 6,687
Coming of age: ten years of next-generation sequencing technologies
Goodwin, S., McPherson, J. D., & McCombie, W. R. (2016) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg.2016.49 · Cited by 4,352
ANGSD: Analysis of Next Generation Sequencing Data
Korneliussen, T. S., Albrechtsen, A., & Nielsen, R. (2014) · BMC Bioinformatics · doi:10.1186/s12859-014-0356-4 · Cited by 2,982
Cited by
Population genomics for wildlife conservation and management
Hohenlohe, P. A., Funk, W. C., & Rajora, O. P. (2021) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/mec.15720 · Cited by 702
How genomics can help biodiversity conservation
Theissinger, K., Fernandes, C., Formenti, G., Bista, I., Berg, P. R., Bleidorn, C., Bombarely, A., Crottini, A., Gallo, G. R., Godoy, J. A., et al. (2023) · Trends in Genetics · doi:10.1016/j.tig.2023.01.005 · Cited by 401
A beginner's guide to low‐coverage whole genome sequencing for population genomics
Lou, R. N., Jacobs, A., Wilder, A. P., & Therkildsen, N. O. (2021) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/mec.16077 · Cited by 334
The Value of Reference Genomes in the Conservation of Threatened Species
Brandies, P., Peel, E., Hogg, C. J., & Belov, K. (2019) · Genes · doi:10.3390/genes10110846 · Cited by 158
Navigating the temporal continuum of effective population size
Nadachowska‐Brzyska, K., Konczal, M., & Babik, W. (2022) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.13740 · Cited by 116
Metadata
- Authors
- Fuentes‐Pardo, A. P., & Ruzzante, D. E.
- Venue
- Molecular Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2017-09-05
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 20
- Pages
- 5369-5406
- ISSN
- 0962-1083 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-294X
- OpenAlex
- W2736436381
- Cited by
- 394
- References
- 39
- FWCI
- 13.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Whole‐genome sequencing approaches for conservation biology: Advantages, limitations and practical recommendations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/mec.14264
- The paper
- Fuentes‐Pardo, A. P., & Ruzzante, D. E. (2017). Whole‐genome sequencing approaches for conservation biology: Advantages, limitations and practical recommendations. Molecular Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.14264
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.
