Skip to main content
bioRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search
New Results

To design or not to design? Comparison of beetle ultraconserved element probe set utility based on phylogenetic distance, breadth, and method of probe design

View ORCID ProfileGrey T. Gustafson, View ORCID ProfileRachel D. Glynn, View ORCID ProfileAndrew E. Z. Short, View ORCID ProfileSergei Tarasov, View ORCID ProfileNicole L. Gunter
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.01.06.522983
Grey T. Gustafson
1Department of Biological Sciences, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, U.S.A.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Grey T. Gustafson
  • For correspondence: grey.gustafson@nau.edu
Rachel D. Glynn
1Department of Biological Sciences, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, U.S.A.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Rachel D. Glynn
Andrew E. Z. Short
2Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and Division of Entomology, Biodiversity Institute, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Andrew E. Z. Short
Sergei Tarasov
3Finnish Museum of Natural History, Pohjoinen Rautatiekatu 13, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Sergei Tarasov
Nicole L. Gunter
4The Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Nicole L. Gunter
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Tailoring ultraconserved element (UCE) probe set design to focal taxa has been demonstrated to improve locus recovery and phylogenomic inference. However, beyond conducting expensive in vitro testing, it remains unclear how best to determine whether an existing UCE probe set is likely to suffice for phylogenomic inference, or if tailored probe design will be desirable. Here we investigate the utility of eight different UCE probe sets for the in silico phylogenomic inference of scarabaeoid beetles. Probe sets tested differed in terms of (1) how phylogenetically distant from Scarabaeoidea taxa those used during probe design are, (2) breadth of phylogenetic inference probe set was designed for, and (3) method of probe design. As part of this study, two new UCE probe sets are produced for the beetle family Scarabaeidae and superfamily Hydrophiloidea. We find that, predictably, probe set utility decreases with increasing phylogenetic distance of design taxa from focal taxa, as well as with narrower breadth of phylogenetic inference probes were designed for. We also confirm previous findings regarding ways to optimize UCE probe design. Finally, we make suggestions regarding assessment of need for de novo probe design and reinforce previous proposed methods for maximizing UCE probe design to improve phylogenomic inference.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Footnotes

  • https://zenodo.org/record/7509385#.Y7f1d-xBwnc

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted January 06, 2023.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
To design or not to design? Comparison of beetle ultraconserved element probe set utility based on phylogenetic distance, breadth, and method of probe design
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from bioRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the bioRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
To design or not to design? Comparison of beetle ultraconserved element probe set utility based on phylogenetic distance, breadth, and method of probe design
Grey T. Gustafson, Rachel D. Glynn, Andrew E. Z. Short, Sergei Tarasov, Nicole L. Gunter
bioRxiv 2023.01.06.522983; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.01.06.522983
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
To design or not to design? Comparison of beetle ultraconserved element probe set utility based on phylogenetic distance, breadth, and method of probe design
Grey T. Gustafson, Rachel D. Glynn, Andrew E. Z. Short, Sergei Tarasov, Nicole L. Gunter
bioRxiv 2023.01.06.522983; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.01.06.522983

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Evolutionary Biology
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Animal Behavior and Cognition (4234)
  • Biochemistry (9128)
  • Bioengineering (6774)
  • Bioinformatics (23989)
  • Biophysics (12117)
  • Cancer Biology (9523)
  • Cell Biology (13773)
  • Clinical Trials (138)
  • Developmental Biology (7627)
  • Ecology (11686)
  • Epidemiology (2066)
  • Evolutionary Biology (15506)
  • Genetics (10638)
  • Genomics (14322)
  • Immunology (9479)
  • Microbiology (22832)
  • Molecular Biology (9089)
  • Neuroscience (48984)
  • Paleontology (355)
  • Pathology (1480)
  • Pharmacology and Toxicology (2568)
  • Physiology (3844)
  • Plant Biology (8327)
  • Scientific Communication and Education (1471)
  • Synthetic Biology (2296)
  • Systems Biology (6187)
  • Zoology (1300)