Abstract

Abstract Epigenetics is increasingly recognized as an important molecular mechanism underlying phenotypic variation. To study DNA methylation in ecological and evolutionary contexts, epiRADseq is a cost‐effective next‐generation sequencing (NGS) technique based on reduced representation sequencing of genomic regions surrounding non‐/methylated sites. EpiRADseq for genome‐wide methylation abundance and ddRADseq for genome‐wide single‐nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotyping follow very similar library and sequencing protocols, but to date these two types of dataset have been handled separately. Here we test the performance of using epiRADseq data to generate SNPs for population genomic analyses. We tested the robustness of using epiRADseq data for population genomics with two independent datasets: a newly generated single‐end dataset for the European whitefish Coregonus lavaretus, and a re‐analysis of publicly available, previously published paired‐end data on corals. Using standard bioinformatic pipelines with a reference genome and without (i.e. de novo catalogue loci), we compared the number of SNPs retained, population genetic summary statistics and population genetic structure between data drawn from ddRADseq and epiRADseq library preparations. We found that SNPs drawn from epiRADseq are similar in number to those drawn from ddRADseq, with 55%–83% of SNPs being identified by both methods. Genotyping error rate was <5% in both approaches. EpiRADseq‐specific allele dropout was low (~1%). For summary statistics, such as heterozygosity and nucleotide diversity, there is a strong correlation between methods (Spearman's rho > 0.88). Furthermore, identical patterns of population genetic structure were recovered using SNPs from epiRADseq and ddRADseq approaches. We show that SNPs obtained from epiRADseq are highly similar to those from ddRADseq and are equivalent for estimating genetic diversity and population structure. This finding is particularly relevant to researchers interested in genetics and epigenetics on the same individuals because using a single epigenomic approach to generate two datasets greatly reduces the time and financial costs compared to using these techniques separately. It also efficiently enables correction of epigenetic estimates with population genetic data. Many studies will benefit from a combinatorial approach with genetic and epigenetic markers and this demonstrates a single, efficient method to do so.

Highlights

  • The study of epigenetic processes, which cause changes in gene expression without nucleotide mutation of the underlying genome sequence, in an ecological and evolutionary framework has seen an increased interest in recent years and is providing a new complexity in the genotype–phenotype map (Bossdorf, Richards, & Pigliucci, 2007; Feil & Fraga, 2012; Hu & Barrett, 2017)

  • Using standard bioinformatic pipelines with a reference genome and without, we compared the number of single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) retained, population genetic summary statistics and population genetic structure between data drawn from ddRADseq and epiRADseq library preparations

  • We found that SNPs drawn from epiRADseq are similar in number to those drawn from ddRADseq, with 55%–83% of SNPs being identified by both methods

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The study of epigenetic processes, which cause changes in gene expression without nucleotide mutation of the underlying genome sequence, in an ecological and evolutionary framework has seen an increased interest in recent years and is providing a new complexity in the genotype–phenotype map (Bossdorf, Richards, & Pigliucci, 2007; Feil & Fraga, 2012; Hu & Barrett, 2017). One example is bisulfite sequencing, which comes in a number of variations (whole-genome, reduced representation and target sequencing of specific gene regions) and provides high resolution information about the methylation landscape (Metzger & Schulte, 2016) Despite the benefits, this technique is expensive, can result in excessive DNA degradation and usually requires a related reference genome for the species of interest, something that is still lacking for most non-model organisms (Leontiou et al, 2015; Metzger & Schulte, 2016), some protocols work without reference genome (Klughammer et al, 2015)

Methods
Findings
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.