Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 334

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 128 of the 128 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A beginner's guide to low‐coverage whole genome sequencing for population genomics

Open access
Lou, Runyang Nicolas, Jacobs, Arne, Wilder, Aryn P., Therkildsen, Nina Overgaard·2021·Molecular Ecology
DOI 10.1111/mec.16077
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Low‐coverage whole genome sequencing (lcWGS) has emerged as a powerful and cost‐effective approach for population genomic studies in both model and nonmodel species. However, with read depths too low to confidently call individual genotypes, lcWGS requires specialized analysis tools that explicitly account for genotype uncertainty. A growing number of such tools have become available, but it can be difficult to get an overview of what types of analyses can be performed reliably with lcWGS data, and how the distribution of sequencing effort between the number of samples analysed and per‐sample sequencing depths affects inference accuracy. In this introductory guide to lcWGS, we first illustrate how the per‐sample cost for lcWGS is now comparable to RAD‐seq and Pool‐seq in many systems. We then provide an overview of software packages that explicitly account for genotype uncertainty in different types of population genomic inference. Next, we use both simulated and empirical data to assess the accuracy of allele frequency, genetic diversity, and linkage disequilibrium estimation, detection of population structure, and selection scans under different sequencing strategies. Our results show that spreading a given amount of sequencing effort across more samples with lower depth per sample consistently improves the accuracy of most types of inference, with a few notable exceptions. Finally, we assess the potential for using imputation to bolster inference from lcWGS data in nonmodel species, and discuss current limitations and future perspectives for lcWGS‐based population genomics research. With this overview, we hope to make lcWGS more approachable and stimulate its broader adoption.

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/mec.16077

Cites

128 of 128 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

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

Cited by

See all 334

Metadata

Authors
Lou, R. N., Jacobs, A., Wilder, A. P., & Therkildsen, N. O.
Venue
Molecular Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-08-31
Volume
30
Issue
23
Pages
5966-5993
ISSN
  • 0962-1083 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-294X
DOI
10.1111/mec.16077
OpenAlex
W3119770574
Cited by
334
References
128
FWCI
23.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

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.