The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Amplification Biases and Consistent Recovery of Loci in a Double-Digest RAD-seq Protocol
Open accessAbstract
A growing variety of "genotype-by-sequencing" (GBS) methods use restriction enzymes and high throughput DNA sequencing to generate data for a subset of genomic loci, allowing the simultaneous discovery and genotyping of thousands of polymorphisms in a set of multiplexed samples. We evaluated a "double-digest" restriction-site associated DNA sequencing (ddRAD-seq) protocol by 1) comparing results for a zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata) sample with in silico predictions from the zebra finch reference genome; 2) assessing data quality for a population sample of indigobirds (Vidua spp.); and 3) testing for consistent recovery of loci across multiple samples and sequencing runs. Comparison with in silico predictions revealed that 1) over 90% of predicted, single-copy loci in our targeted size range (178-328 bp) were recovered; 2) short restriction fragments (38-178 bp) were carried through the size selection step and sequenced at appreciable depth, generating unexpected but nonetheless useful data; 3) amplification bias favored shorter, GC-rich fragments, contributing to among locus variation in sequencing depth that was strongly correlated across samples; 4) our use of restriction enzymes with a GC-rich recognition sequence resulted in an up to four-fold overrepresentation of GC-rich portions of the genome; and 5) star activity (i.e., non-specific cutting) resulted in thousands of "extra" loci sequenced at low depth. Results for three species of indigobirds show that a common set of thousands of loci can be consistently recovered across both individual samples and sequencing runs. In a run with 46 samples, we genotyped 5,996 loci in all individuals and 9,833 loci in 42 or more individuals, resulting in <1% missing data for the larger data set. We compare our approach to similar methods and discuss the range of factors (fragment library preparation, natural genetic variation, bioinformatics) influencing the recovery of a consistent set of loci among 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.
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
Characterizing bias in population genetic inferences from low-coverage sequencing data
Han, E., Sinsheimer, J. S., & Novembre, J. (2014) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/molbev/mst229 · Cited by 94
Cited by
O'Leary, S. J., Puritz, J. B., Willis, S. C., Hollenbeck, C. M., & Portnoy, D. S. (2018) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/mec.14792 · Cited by 434
The Muskox Lost a Substantial Part of Its Genetic Diversity on Its Long Road to Greenland
Hansen, C. C. R., Hvilsom, C., Schmidt, N. M., Aastrup, P., Van Coeverden de Groot, P. J., Siegismund, H. R., & Heller, R. (2018) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2018.10.054 · Cited by 42
Bangs, M. R., Douglas, M. R., Mussmann, S. M., & Douglas, M. E. (2018) · BMC Evolutionary Biology · doi:10.1186/s12862-018-1197-y · Cited by 32
Samake, J. N., Lavretsky, P., Gunarathna, I., Follis, M., Brown, J. I., Ali, S., Yared, S., & Carter, T. E. (2023) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/mec.17136 · Cited by 22
Metadata
- Authors
- DaCosta, J. M., & Sorenson, M. D.
- Venue
- PLoS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2014-09-04
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- e106713
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2085222782
- Cited by
- 187
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 9.31
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Amplification Biases and Consistent Recovery of Loci in a Double-Digest RAD-seq Protocol. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0106713
- The paper
- DaCosta, J. M., & Sorenson, M. D. (2014). Amplification Biases and Consistent Recovery of Loci in a Double-Digest RAD-seq Protocol. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106713
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.