使用牙形石标本评估跨时间和博物馆的靶向富集位点捕获

IF 3.2 1区 农林科学 Q1 ENTOMOLOGY Insect Systematics and Diversity Pub Date : 2023-05-01 DOI:10.1093/isd/ixad011
Aaron M. Goodman, Ethan Tolman, R. Uche-Dike, J. Abbott, Jesse W. Breinholt, S. Bybee, P. Frandsen, J. Gosnell, R. Guralnick, V. Kalkman, M. Kohli, Judicael Fomekong Lontchi, Pungki Lupiyaningdyah, Lacie G Newton, J. Ware
{"title":"使用牙形石标本评估跨时间和博物馆的靶向富集位点捕获","authors":"Aaron M. Goodman, Ethan Tolman, R. Uche-Dike, J. Abbott, Jesse W. Breinholt, S. Bybee, P. Frandsen, J. Gosnell, R. Guralnick, V. Kalkman, M. Kohli, Judicael Fomekong Lontchi, Pungki Lupiyaningdyah, Lacie G Newton, J. Ware","doi":"10.1093/isd/ixad011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The use of gDNAs isolated from museum specimens for high throughput sequencing, especially targeted sequencing in the context of phylogenetics, is a common practice. Yet, little understanding has been focused on comparing the quality of DNA and results of sequencing museum DNAs. Dragonflies and damselflies are ubiquitous in freshwater ecosystems and are commonly collected and preserved insects in museum collections hence their use in this study. However, the history of odonate preservation across time and museums has resulted in wide variability in the success of viable DNA extraction, necessitating an assessment of their usefulness in genetic studies. Using Anchored Hybrid Enrichment probes, we sequenced DNA from samples at 2 museums, 48 from the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in NYC, USA and 46 from the Naturalis Biodiversity Center (RMNH) in Leiden, Netherlands ranging from global collection localities and across a 120-year time span. We recovered at least 4 loci out of an >1,000 locus probe set for all samples, with the average capture being ~385 loci (539 loci on average when a clade of ambiguous taxa omitted). Neither specimen age nor size was a good predictor of locus capture, but recapture rates differed significantly between museums. Samples from the AMNH had lower overall locus capture than the RMNH, perhaps due to differences in specimen storage over time.","PeriodicalId":48498,"journal":{"name":"Insect Systematics and Diversity","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of targeted enrichment locus capture across time and museums using odonate specimens\",\"authors\":\"Aaron M. Goodman, Ethan Tolman, R. Uche-Dike, J. Abbott, Jesse W. Breinholt, S. Bybee, P. Frandsen, J. Gosnell, R. Guralnick, V. Kalkman, M. Kohli, Judicael Fomekong Lontchi, Pungki Lupiyaningdyah, Lacie G Newton, J. Ware\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/isd/ixad011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The use of gDNAs isolated from museum specimens for high throughput sequencing, especially targeted sequencing in the context of phylogenetics, is a common practice. Yet, little understanding has been focused on comparing the quality of DNA and results of sequencing museum DNAs. Dragonflies and damselflies are ubiquitous in freshwater ecosystems and are commonly collected and preserved insects in museum collections hence their use in this study. However, the history of odonate preservation across time and museums has resulted in wide variability in the success of viable DNA extraction, necessitating an assessment of their usefulness in genetic studies. Using Anchored Hybrid Enrichment probes, we sequenced DNA from samples at 2 museums, 48 from the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in NYC, USA and 46 from the Naturalis Biodiversity Center (RMNH) in Leiden, Netherlands ranging from global collection localities and across a 120-year time span. We recovered at least 4 loci out of an >1,000 locus probe set for all samples, with the average capture being ~385 loci (539 loci on average when a clade of ambiguous taxa omitted). Neither specimen age nor size was a good predictor of locus capture, but recapture rates differed significantly between museums. Samples from the AMNH had lower overall locus capture than the RMNH, perhaps due to differences in specimen storage over time.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48498,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Insect Systematics and Diversity\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Insect Systematics and Diversity\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/isd/ixad011\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENTOMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Insect Systematics and Diversity","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isd/ixad011","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENTOMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

使用从博物馆标本中分离的dna进行高通量测序,特别是在系统发育背景下的靶向测序,是一种常见的做法。然而,很少有人关注DNA质量和测序博物馆DNA结果的比较。蜻蜓和豆娘在淡水生态系统中普遍存在,是博物馆收藏和保存的常见昆虫,因此本研究使用了它们。然而,随着时间和博物馆的推移,卵子保存的历史导致了可行DNA提取成功的广泛差异,有必要评估它们在遗传研究中的有用性。使用锚定杂交富集探针,我们对来自2个博物馆的样本进行了DNA测序,其中48个来自美国纽约的美国自然历史博物馆(AMNH), 46个来自荷兰莱顿的自然生物多样性中心(RMNH),这些样本来自全球收集地点,跨越120年的时间跨度。我们从所有样本的1000个基因座探针中至少恢复了4个基因座,平均捕获约385个基因座(当遗漏一个模糊分类群的进化枝时平均捕获539个基因座)。标本年龄和大小都不能很好地预测位点捕获,但博物馆之间的再捕获率差异显著。来自AMNH的样本比RMNH的总体基因座捕获率低,可能是由于标本储存随时间的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Assessment of targeted enrichment locus capture across time and museums using odonate specimens
The use of gDNAs isolated from museum specimens for high throughput sequencing, especially targeted sequencing in the context of phylogenetics, is a common practice. Yet, little understanding has been focused on comparing the quality of DNA and results of sequencing museum DNAs. Dragonflies and damselflies are ubiquitous in freshwater ecosystems and are commonly collected and preserved insects in museum collections hence their use in this study. However, the history of odonate preservation across time and museums has resulted in wide variability in the success of viable DNA extraction, necessitating an assessment of their usefulness in genetic studies. Using Anchored Hybrid Enrichment probes, we sequenced DNA from samples at 2 museums, 48 from the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in NYC, USA and 46 from the Naturalis Biodiversity Center (RMNH) in Leiden, Netherlands ranging from global collection localities and across a 120-year time span. We recovered at least 4 loci out of an >1,000 locus probe set for all samples, with the average capture being ~385 loci (539 loci on average when a clade of ambiguous taxa omitted). Neither specimen age nor size was a good predictor of locus capture, but recapture rates differed significantly between museums. Samples from the AMNH had lower overall locus capture than the RMNH, perhaps due to differences in specimen storage over time.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
8.80%
发文量
34
期刊最新文献
Correction to: Webs of intrigue: museum genomics elucidate relationships of the marronoid spider clade (Araneae) Exploring the mitogenomes of Batracomorphus (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae: Iassinae): new insights from structural diversity and phylogenomic analyses Skimming the skaters: genome skimming improves phylogenetic resolution of Halobatinae (Hemiptera: Gerridae) Twelve more bulky genomes in the Polyneoptera: characterizing the Order Embioptera The parasitic louse genus Myrsidea (Amblycera: Menoponidae): a comprehensive review and world checklist
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1