Time is of the essence: using archived samples in the development of a GT-seq panel to preserve continuity of ongoing genetic monitoring


Abstract

Genotyping-in-Thousands by sequencing (GT-seq) is a promising tool for genetic monitoring. For the past 25 years, genetic monitoring of Rio Grande silvery minnow (Hybognathus amarus) has been conducted annually by surveying variation at microsatellite loci. This is the first study describing the development of a GT-seq panel using archived samples that maintains the analytical and inferential continuity of long-term genetic monitoring . A total of 2,983 microhaplotypes in 373 individuals were identified using nextRAD-seq from samples spanning 20 years and a conspecific reference genome. Using this data, estimates of genetic diversity and temporal genetic structure across the time-series were used as a baseline to test subsets of loci that effectively tracked those changes. A panel including 250 loci with higher FST across temporal samples and 250 loci selected randomly offered the highest power and was used for GT-seq optimization. A sex-linked marker validated previously was also included for sex assignment. The optimized GT-seq panel included 284 loci. Comparisons of genotypes from those loci obtained for the same samples with nextRAD-seq and GT-seq revealed high genotype accuracy (98.3%). Estimates of genetic diversity and patterns of temporal genetic structure were similar between datasets and accuracy of sex assignment was 100%. The utility of using a conspecific genome for both loci identification and primer design in the face of reduced genetic diversity, and the importance of temporal metrics representative of ongoing genetic monitoring is explored. The strategy used here, effectively preserved the long-term genetic monitoring of the endangered Rio Grande silvery minnow while transitioning to a more efficient and cost-effective marker system.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].